Three phases of differentiation with regards to one's personality

[Rudolph Mondal]

After mulling over it for a few days I think there does seem to be a general distinction between introversion and extraversion among individuals.

However, I do not think that everyone gets differentiated into types as what the mbti system seems to posit. (most people remain undifferentiated their whole lives, pandering to the whims of society) I think differentiation takes place in two stages. Firstly, one gets differentiated into introversion or extraversion. This would determine the orientation of the individual. The second phase of differentiation takes place with regards to whether the individual chooses thinking or feeling, intuition or sensing.

If one eventually gets differentiated in the thinking or feeling direction, I'm not entire sure if one would later differentiate in the sensing/intuition direction or vice versa if one gets differentiated in the sensing intuition direction in the second phase. So there could be a third phase of differentiation. (Actually, writing this down I realize that it's very likely that there is a third phase of differentiation)

These differentiated types are not to be looked upon as restricting in the sense of limiting but rather as a structure that the individual imposes upon the entirity of reality to attain certain types of information which can meet certain types of goals which are constrained by this structure so as to enable a more directed journey for the individual.

If one looks at mathematicians or theoretical physicists or maybe anyone who is more or less continually immersed in a particular subject or field or type of work, these people although they might seem like they are introverted, are actually extraverted in nature due to their focus on this pursuit which lies outside of themselves which means that while engaging in that pursuit, their attention gets wholly orientated towards the object of study and they "lose themselves within it". Of course, the very best mathematicians and theoretical physicists later differentiate once more into introverted intuition which is why they can arrive at insights that astound people.

However, for the introverted person, the attention repeated goes back to within the individual. An introverted person may be interested in a particular field of study that the extraverted person is also interested in but unlike the extraverted person he does not immerse himself in the field for its own sake but for the insights that can be gotten about one's own structure by in a way, observing how one interacts with this external field of study. So introverted individuals can't really immerse themselves within an external pursuit for their attention repeated focuses itself on how the inner structure of the individual interacts with this external field of study.

I think that's about what I have to say for now. Two things:

1) I'm not looking to impose my thoughts on anyone or argue with anyone. I'd love to understand your own take on this matter of individual types/structures/personalities. I think it'd be good for me to try and appreciate other points of view as well.

2) Please, as far as possible, refrain from judging what I wrote based on what I have written elsewhere on the forum. I know that's not entirely possible but please do try anyway. Try if you can, to disassociate what I've written with your impression of me as an individual.

Thank you. I look forward to reading constructive replies.

 

[Inquisitor]

FWIW, your interpretation is very much at odds with what major type experts have posited. So is it wrong? I have no idea.

There are stages in the development of the personality. Part of analytical psychology focuses on helping the patient deal with their inferior function in a healthy way. Takes time. There's a bias towards introversion for mathematicians and physicists. I/E is likely genetic, but the other preferences are not necessarily so. The dominant function is the one that develops first and early. It remains the most conscious aspect of personality for the remainder of the individual's life. Then the others develop. Your assessment regarding directionality of thought in extroversion/introversion agrees with the theory.

 

[reckful]

If one looks at mathematicians or theoretical physicists or maybe anyone who is more or less continually immersed in a particular subject or field or type of work, these people although they might seem like they are introverted, are actually extraverted in nature due to their focus on this pursuit which lies outside of themselves which means that while engaging in that pursuit, their attention gets wholly orientated towards the object of study and they "lose themselves within it". ...

An introverted person may be interested in a particular field of study that the extraverted person is also interested in but unlike the extraverted person he does not immerse himself in the field for its own sake but for the insights that can be gotten about one's own structure by in a way, observing how one interacts with this external field of study.

I'd say this framing of introversion is pretty much off — and in any event, it's substantially inconsistent with both Jung's and Myers' descriptions.

A typical INT's passion for math or physics isn't "extraverted" because math and physics are "outside of themselves" and their primary interest is in the subject itself, rather than how the subject somehow relates to themselves.

Self-exploration and navel-gazing is more of an NF thing than an introvert thing, although I'd say INFs are somewhat more prone to it than ENFs.

 

[Rudolph Mondal]

I'd say this framing of introversion is pretty much off — and in any event, it's substantially inconsistent with both Jung's and Myers' descriptions.

That's okay. Certainly I was first introduced to the concepts of introversion and extraversion through the mbti but I don't see any reason to stay faithful to their definition of what the concepts mean. What I've written in my first post large arose out of mulling over this whole idea of what entails a personality and what that means and if we can have a coherent theory of personality that does not suffocate individuals. Also, conversations with a youtuber by the name of Michael Pierce were very helpful as well as his videos on typology. But by no means are my ideas wholly similar to his. I was influenced by his thoughts of course but I deviated from them in many ways as well.

A typical INT's passion for math or physics isn't "extraverted" because math and physics are "outside of themselves" and their primary interest is in the subject itself, rather than how the subject somehow relates to themselves.

Self-exploration and navel-gazing is more of an NF thing than an introvert thing, although I'd say INFs are somewhat more prone to it than ENFs.

I greatly appreciate what you've written but I do not agree. (of course, that doesn't mean I hate you or think you're stupid and so neither should you...just in case)

Self exploration does not necessarily have to be only about one's feelings where by feelings I mean the rational process of passing a judgement as to whether something is harmonious with another thing. Self exploration can also be about one's thoughts. For example, I'd imagine introverted thinking to be a process by whose means one's thoughts and ideas can be ordered and related to each other in a manner that preserves coherence between the ideas and thoughts. Similarly, introverted feeling would be a process by whose means all of one's likes and dislikes can be structured so as to preserve harmony. So thinking tries to preserve coherency while feeling tries to preserve harmony. This thinking and feeling now can be applied or focused upon the external or the internal world. This is why we have Te, Ti, Fe, and Fi.

I now think that after one's orientation has been differentiated, one's rational function gets differentiated followed by one's irrational function. This is of course, if the individual gets differentiated at all because most do not and mistake their personas for their real self or get stuck in limbo where they do not have a persona or a self. Now, I think that for those whose irrational functions do get differentiated, the irrational function takes dominance for irrational functions allow one to, putting it in simple words, "learn more" than they can with their rational functions.

I'd like to ask you why you think that the passion for math or physics isn't an extraverted one, if you don't mind elaborating.

What I've presented is by no means set in stone but fairly representative of the result of thoughts which have been brewing over the past year or so. I hope you do not condemn me for disagreeing with you or with the established authority. I think you can only learn about something if you have your own ideas on that thing.

 

[Rudolph Mondal]

FWIW, your interpretation is very much at odds with what major type experts have posited. So is it wrong? I have no idea.

There are stages in the development of the personality. Part of analytical psychology focuses on helping the patient deal with their inferior function in a healthy way. Takes time. There's a bias towards introversion for mathematicians and physicists. I/E is likely genetic, but the other preferences are not necessarily so. The dominant function is the one that develops first and early. It remains the most conscious aspect of personality for the remainder of the individual's life. Then the others develop. Your assessment regarding directionality of thought in extroversion/introversion agrees with the theory.

There isn't really anything for me to reply to here. Thanks for your interest though.

 

[reckful]

Also, conversations with a youtuber by the name of Michael Pierce were very helpful as well as his videos on typology. But by no means are my ideas wholly similar to his. I was influenced by his thoughts of course but I deviated from them in many ways as well.

I certainly don't consider Michael Pierce a good MBTI source.

For starters, he's just another in a dishearteningly long line of subscribers to the Harold Grant function stack — that goofy twist on the MBTI (inconsistent with both Jung and Myers) that says that INTJs and ESFPs have quite a lot of typology-related things in common because they're both "Ni/Se types" and "Fi/Te types." (For more on the bogosity of the "tandems," see this post.)

But the more well-known function-centric theorists (like Berens and Nardi) tend to be wise enough to not let their goofier theoretical streaks lead them to create type descriptions that depart too far from the descriptions you'll find in Myers and the more respectable (dichotomy-centric) districts of the MBTI.

Not so Mr. Pierce.

As one striking example, his main illustrative example of extraversion vs. introversion in one of his recent videos — Extroversion and Introversion — involves two jungle explorers, where one explorer is to be tasked with writing down their "personal, subjective interpretations" (emotional, philosophical, theoretical, etc.) of the things they encounter, without being concerned with anything like an accurate representation of the things' objective, physical qualities, while the other explorer is to be tasked with meticulously recording only the objective, physical qualities of the things they enounter.

And Pierce's less-than-piercing perspective is that, if one of the explorers is an extravert (let's say an ENFP) and one is an introvert (let's say an ISTJ), you should choose the ENFP to be the meticulous, just-the-facts recorder and choose the ISTJ to be the one who, as Pierce describes it, ignores the objective facts and records stuff like "how she thinks the creature appeared rather horrid, and how that seems to reflect an interesting idea about possible morality and justice in the animal kingdom, and the philosophical implications of such a thing, and how this compares with her personal values and ideas."

And the way for a guy to arrive at that kind of blinkered perspective on ENFPs and ISTJs to is to spend too much time poring over Jung's works (like some medieval Biblical scholar), while both ignoring the many changes Myers (rightly) made to Jung's original type concepts and, maybe more importantly, failing to get out much and actually interact with any significant number of real-world ENFPs and ISTJs.

I believe Isabel Myers would have said that, in choosing which explorer was best suited to which of those two tasks, the S/N (first) and T/F (secondarily) preferences were the most significant ones, and that an ST was best suited for exclusively focusing on "just the facts" and the NF was best suited to be the recorder of subjective emotional/aesthetic/philosophical impressions — and that that two-explorers example was a very poor one to choose as an illustration of "extraversion" vs. "introversion."

And if that's what Myers would have said, she would have been correct.

 

[Black Rose]

The difference between Introversion and Extraversion as I conceive it is to look at where a persons frame of reference is. Is it inside them or outside them. Introverts sit still and consider what what references are in their head or bodies. That is that the object of contemplation is really coming from inside not outside. I spend all my time online gathering information and using it as a reference for contemplation. It may seem that I have such ideas that come from the inside but really I need look externally not sit on my bed and just "think" but this also lends to the difference between Perception and Judgment. Perception is about (data / information) collection / generation. Ideas can be triggered by external stimulus or internal stillness as pertaining to Intuition. Where sensing can just be experienced (Se) or trigger memories / stimulus of past experiences which in turn trigger more memories (Si). Judgments are more action oriented. Introverted Judgments are about internal actions that is to say feeling contemplates personal actions rather than taking them as Fe would and Introverted Thinking contemplates structural frameworks rather than building them personally as Te would. Combining Perception and Judgment would rather be the differentiations that must first take place.

Differentiation of Perception and Judgments as first or second then the differentiation between whether the dominant is Extraverted or Introverted making the Auxiliary the opposite.

 

[Rudolph Mondal]

@reckful

I think I've arrived at what I believe to be at the core of our disagreements.

The framework that you're presenting assumes everyone has a differentiated personality and that the data collected by these personality tests sanctioned by big-name psychologists actually indicate the personality of that individual.

From my perspective, I think that very few people actually end up getting differentiated and that most of the data collected by these official tests, if not all, constitute the personas that these individuals believe to be their selves but not their differentiated actual Selves.

This is why you believe that traits such as introversion-extraversion or sensing-intuition lie along a continuum because of course they'd have to if one included all individuals including all the undifferentiated people.

(Btw, I know you didn't write all this in your post but you did do so in the post you linked)

I think most individuals one would consider to be an ISTJ today are undifferentiated types so from my perspective it makes little sense trying to ask them about their experience.

Similarly, I think most ENFPs and INFPs today are those stuck in limbo who do not have a persona nor a self.

I think that settles it. Our frameworks are very much different and so cannot be compared with each other. Thanks for your interest though!

 

[Rudolph Mondal]

The difference between Introversion and Extraversion as I conceive it is to look at where a persons frame of reference is. Is it inside them or outside them. Introverts sit still and consider what what references are in their head or bodies. That is that the object of contemplation is really coming from inside not outside. I spend all my time online gathering information and using it as a reference for contemplation. It may seem that I have such ideas that come from the inside but really I need look externally not sit on my bed and just "think" but this also leads to the difference between Perception and judgment. Perception is about (data / information) collection / generation. Ideas can be triggered by external stimulus or internal stillness as pertaining to Intuition. Where sensing can just be experienced (Se) or trigger memories / stimulus of past experiences which in turn trigger more memories (Si). Judgments are more action oriented. Introverted Judgments are about internal actions that is to say feeling contemplates personal actions rather than taking them as Fe would and Introverted Thinking contemplates structural frameworks rather than building them personally as Te would. Combining Perception and Judgment would rather be the differentiations that must first take place.

Differentiation of Perception and Judgments as first or second then the differentiation between whether the dominant is Extraverted or Introverted making the Auxiliary the opposite.

It seems like our ideas are largely similar except right at the end. I need to reflect more on your last statement though...Would you mind elaborating on these sentences as indicated below? Thanks.

Combining Perception and Judgment would rather be the differentiations that must first take place.

Differentiation of Perception and Judgments as first or second then the differentiation between whether the dominant is Extraverted or Introverted making the Auxiliary the opposite.

 

[Black Rose]

It seems like our ideas are largely similar except right at the end. I need to reflect more on your last statement though...Would you mind elaborating on these sentences as indicated below? Thanks.

Really it would mean that some people would spend more time on Perception or Judgment or visa versa. I think I spend most of my time on Judgment but it could be evenly split between Judgment and Perception. Extroversion and Introversion cannot be divorced from Judgment and Perception. It's like a car and the direction its drives. Without the car itself the direction it drives is meaningless. So you begin with Perception or Judgment which has a neurological basis of front and back brain. I and E are just the direction of J and P like a car has direction.

 

[Rudolph Mondal]

Really it would mean that some people would spend more time on Perception or Judgment or visa versa. I think I spend most of my time on Judgment but it could be evenly split between Judgment and Perception. Extroversion and Introversion cannot be divorced from Judgment and Perception. It's like a car and the direction its drives. Without the car itself the direction it drives is meaningless. So you begin with Perception or Judgment which has a neurological basis of front and back brain. I and E are just the direction of J and P like a car has direction.

I agree with what you wrote.

 

[Russ]

I like that you are thinking outside of what a few dusty old psychologists have lain down as law. The fact that we cannot quantify each persons human experience leave open the possibility that everything we "know" is wrong.

I don’t view introversion or extroversion on the specific activity being performed but the way we choose to perform it. When given a task, hobby or assignment do you group with others and engage with them or are you more comfortable working on it alone. Is attending an event where you have to interact with a large number of people exhilarating or exhausting? If you are introverted to any significant degree even an event that you found enjoyable would drain you. Not so for extroverts.

I think of it this way because a lot of information on a test or quiz could be invalid, either a lie or a reflection of what the subject was feeling at the time. But the actions carried out in actual situations speak for themselves.

I have often questioned if intro or extro actually fit into the system at all or are just piggybacking on it. I view the other three as how we process the world around us. I or E i feel are the determining factors of if and how we express it to others.

 

[Russ]

I think most individuals one would consider to be an ISTJ today are undifferentiated types so from my perspective it makes little sense trying to ask them about their experience.

Similarly, I think most ENFPs and INFPs today are those stuck in limbo who do not have a persona nor a self.

This I do not think is correct in any way nor is it within your capability to make such a determination.

This assumes that you are the peak point of human existence and the rest of us are supposed to be moving towards your position. (mind you the INTJs in my life are convinced of the same thing)

What is your position on the blank slate theory?

 

[Black Rose]

If you notice, there is a notes feature on this forum. Here is an update from my notes as I continue to find more accurate descriptions of typological functions.

I going inward
E going outward

P observations
J decisions

---------------------------------

Ni - Combining ideas arising out of the stillness of the mind.
Ne - Connected series of ideas popping in, in response to the environmental triggers.

Si - Cascades of triggered sensations remembered.
Se - Immediate experience of sensations.

Fi - Contemplating how one would feel or others would feel if certain actions are taken.
Fe - Acting upon a situation based on immediate feelings.

Ti - Contemplating the structure or the rules of a composed system.
Te - Constructing a plan of action to achieve a goal step by step.

---------------------------------

INTP

Ti - Contemplating the structure or the rules of a composed system.
Ne - Connected series of ideas popping in, in response to the environmental triggers.
Si - Cascades of triggered sensations remembered.
Fe - Acting upon a situation based on immediate feelings.

INTJ

Ni - Combining ideas arising out of the stillness of the mind.
Te - Constructing a plan of action to achieve a goal step by step.
Fi - Contemplating how one would feel or others would feel if certain actions are taken.
Se - Immediate experience of sensations.

ISTJ

Si - Cascades of triggered sensations remembered.
Te - Constructing a plan of action to achieve a goal step by step.
Fi - Contemplating how one would feel or others would feel if certain actions are taken.
Ne - Connected series of ideas popping in, in response to the environmental triggers.


ISTP

Ti - Contemplating the structure or the rules of a composed system.
Se - Immediate experience of sensations.
Ni - Combining ideas arising out of the stillness of the mind.
Fe - Acting upon a situation based on immediate feelings.

---------------------------------

Introversion is absorbing and extroversion is expending

EJ takes control of the external then observes the internal
IP takes control of the internal then observes the external
EP observes the external then takes control of the internal
IJ observes the internal then takes control of the external

---------------------------------

 

[Rudolph Mondal]

I like that you are thinking outside of what a few dusty old psychologists have lain down as law. The fact that we cannot quantify each persons human experience leave open the possibility that everything we "know" is wrong.

I don’t view introversion or extroversion on the specific activity being performed but the way we choose to perform it. When given a task, hobby or assignment do you group with others and engage with them or are you more comfortable working on it alone. Is attending an event where you have to interact with a large number of people exhilarating or exhausting? If you are introverted to any significant degree even an event that you found enjoyable would drain you. Not so for extroverts.

I think of it this way because a lot of information on a test or quiz could be invalid, either a lie or a reflection of what the subject was feeling at the time. But the actions carried out in actual situations speak for themselves.

I have often questioned if intro or extro actually fit into the system at all or are just piggybacking on it. I view the other three as how we process the world around us. I or E i feel are the determining factors of if and how we express it to others.

This I do not think is correct in any way nor is it within your capability to make such a determination.

This assumes that you are the peak point of human existence and the rest of us are supposed to be moving towards your position. (mind you the INTJs in my life are convinced of the same thing)

What is your position on the blank slate theory?

Actually I realize that my previous description of extraversion may be a reflection of what that appears to be in undifferentiated types. Anyone who spends all of his/her time on a single pursuit, for his/her whole life is likely to be undifferentiated. This is my point of view right now, no harm disagreeing with it.

So I'm curious as to what shape an extraverted dominant personality takes after differentiation. What I'm also asking is if the undifferentiated persona has any links with the actual self beneath.

Btw, these are obviously all metaphoric terms. If you tell me that the self is an illusion, I probably agree with you but...that's beyond the scope of most of our experience. That's interesting, that what Science tells us gets more accurate day by day but also further and further removed from our conventional experience here and now. But I won't go into that now because well, that's another subject for another day.

Also, this process of differentiation or individuation that I speak of basically deals with the breaking of the persona which allows for the confrontation with the shadow. The shadow is likely to be the opposite of how you see yourself, that which you hate in others, unless you're differentiated already.

Now, as for the blank slate theory, I can't quite tell you explicitly what my position is because I generally don't like to have positions if they have little to do with the working out of my ideas. (hello there, shadow, I can see you clear as day) Would it make sense to you if I said I both agree with it and don't agree with it?

Oh, and I agree I can't determine anything with certainty but that doesn't stop me from hypothesizing.

 

[Rudolph Mondal]

If you notice, there is a notes feature on this forum. Here is an update from my notes as I continue to find more accurate descriptions of typological functions.

I think my idea of what Si, Fi, and Fe are different from yours. I see Si as the constellation of the experience within the mind of the observer such that the event or memory takes on a rather ethereal quality that is not present in the objective experience.

I associate Si with "scents" because I associate every group of experiences which constitute a phase for me with a "scent" for lack of a better word. This scent is the idealization, you could say, of actual senses.

This would be a good description of Si: "You let some things you come across sink in deep. The impressions of things are deep and detailed, and experience things more deeply and strongly than they seem on the surface. They cannot be described to others unless in artistic expression. The beauty and intensity of things come from inside not from the outside. "

Took it from here: https://sites.google.com/site/jungpsychologicaltypes/home/introverted/perceiving

 

[Black Rose]

I think my idea of what Si, Fi, and Fe are different from yours. I see Si as the constellation of the experience within the mind of the observer such that the event or memory takes on a rather ethereal quality that is not present in the objective experience.

I associate Si with "scents" because I associate every group of experiences which constitute a phase for me with a "scent" for lack of a better word. This scent is the idealization, you could say, of actual senses.

This would be a good description of Si: "You let some things you come across sink in deep. The impressions of things are deep and detailed, and experience things more deeply and strongly than they seem on the surface. They cannot be described to others unless in artistic expression. The beauty and intensity of things come from inside not from the outside. "

Took it from here: https://sites.google.com/site/jungpsychologicaltypes/home/introverted/perceiving

I took the quiz
Seems I am ESTJ

This is the most concise and explanatory site on typology I have encountered. Although most type descriptions are missing / not filled in. For my perceptions Si being sinking inward reminds me of how I listen to music. In my description as you say I explain Si incorrectly. Could be my confusion between sinking in and vividness (Se) ?

Extroverted Thinking with Sensation
Description: work in progress...

Extraverted thinking with sensation (ESTJ in the original concept of MBTI) is first and foremost a thinker.

When thinking is the superior function, "I", the conscious you, is thought. Thoughts are not seen as something that happens to you, but what is there at the start.

Your feelings, the sensations you experience, and the hunches you get, all seem to come from the outside of your inner self.

Being thinking, you are most offended when someone questions your logic and your concepts. Even when you are not being fully clear in your conclusions or don't have good evidence for what you think, to question your thought seems unjust and shallow.

edit to add:

Spoiler

I going inward
E going outward

P observations
J decisions

---------------------------------

Ni - Combining ideas arising out of the stillness of the mind.
Ne - Connected series of ideas popping in, in response to the environmental triggers.

Si - Absorption of sensations sinking inward into the self.
Se - Immediate experience of vivid sensations externally.

Fi - Personal preference of what a person likes and dislikes.
Fe - Taking the preferences of others likes and dislikes as one's own.

Ti - Contemplating the structure or the rules of a composed system.
Te - Constructing a plan of action to achieve a goal step by step.

---------------------------------

 

[Rudolph Mondal]

I took the quiz
Seems I am ESTJ

This is the most concise and explanatory site on typology I have encountered. Although most type descriptions are missing / not filled in. For my perceptions Si being sinking inward reminds me of how I listen to music. In my description as you say I explain Si incorrectly. Could be my confusion between sinking in and vividness (Se) ?

Yes, I'd think that Se refers to the vivid awareness of the present environment. It's very raw, the sort which can be perfected by Buddhist monks meditating and starting at walls or whatever else for eons.

In any case, I've been thinking about something I read towards the end of "The Genius and the Goddess" by Aldous Huxley where the protagonist refers to Jung and Freud's work as psychological fiction(actually, he refers to everything as fiction). Jung's work, later modified by several people is just a model. But we know that the map is not the territory.

Why do we (or I) have such a strong desire to explain our thoughts and actions and feelings as being part of a larger framework? Why do we have this strong urge to reduce everything to models and have ourselves fit into that model? By means to putting a filter or framework onto reality, by means of some model, one inevitably neglects some other aspect. Jung's work may have been a breakthrough, yes, but it was a model best suited to answer the questions he specifically had in mind. One does not arbitrarily develop a theory or a model. One has a specific goal in mind one wishes to achieve with that model and this goal constrains the landscape and out comes a theory best suited to address that goal. However, another person might utilize that model for some other purpose and find it lacking in the respects that he/she's interested in.

I'm not saying models and theories are not useful but that the whole reason they exist is exactly that-to be of some use towards addressing a particular goal but that model isn't the entire picture of the landscape.

The funny thing is that one may argue that this itself is a model or theory that is trying to address some particular concern or goal. True enough, I say.

It's fun to think about stuff, certainly. I get a great kick out of it myself but ultimately it's just that. The true nature of whatever all this is, if you can even put it in those terms can perhaps never be understood.

And that's fine. Maybe that's what growing up is all about.