@Animekitty it's been a long time, buddy.
i would have to side largely with some of the things inquisitor said in the post reckful linked.
we had an mbti chat a while back and many of the same ideas hold for understanding this, i think. coming from an Fi angle, it's difficult to use any precise definitions, that will fit Tx dom specifications, concerning subjects of this nature but hopefully the overall concept make senses.
i'll work with the following definitions
Proliferation: rapid increase in the number or amount of something.
Abstract: extract or remove (something).
Abstract (Art): relating to or denoting art that does not attempt to represent external reality, but rather seeks to achieve its effect using shapes, colours, and textures.
here i will also be using the word "reality" most synonymous with the external world.
based on the way Jung thought about introverted and extroverted functions and the likely context in which he viewed them, his definitions are not necessarily wrong.
what i think Jung means is that extroverts tend to have a specific, outlined/defined and relatively simplistic frameworks about the "reality" of something. rather than mold and twist the framework like the introvert, the extrovert will seek to match as many things as possible to a framework in order to understand a greater system with a separate definition pieced together from an array, sequence, pattern...etc of smaller yet specifically defined and established parts. rather than twist the "definition" of something's reality, the extrovert is more comfortable twisting and abstracting the relationships between definitions within a larger system. a viable reason (which i don't strictly believe) is that what governs these relationships is determined by the next most important function within a given type's stack (the auxiliary). therefore extroverts are more proliferating in this context.
defining terms for the sake of simplicity
for any given type lets
corresponding judging functions (i.e. Ti Fe)= judging pair
perceiving functions (i.e. Ni Se) = perceiving pair
dominant and inferior function = dominant loop
auxiliary and tertiary function = auxiliary loop
for reasons stemming from principles above, this is why for types with a dominant or auxiliary loop, where the extroverted function has the most prominence (closer to the top of the stack), the highest abstractions or axioms are paradoxical in reality since they cannot be reconciled as holding to any distinct definition since these types use them as a pillar to form all other definitions, by virtue of how they proliferate and create relationships. consequently and contrary to the the rest of reality that they are capable of understanding, the axiom or higher concept holds no distinct form. this effect is typically worse in dominant loops than auxiliary loops since more information. the higher abstractions have greater ruling by the next most important, introverted function and the struggle to create a clear understanding of these aspects of reality reflect an individual's fight to create resolution between their introverted and extroverted functions--as without so within. this is the workings of the ego.
Michael pierce seems/seemed to have a different perspective since he sees feeling as construction and thinking as deconstruction. again, it's not strictly right or wrong.
/watch?v=unetLukpiV0 useful slide @4:19
as a result, Ni doms e.g. INTJs have a tendency to make personal sense of higher, perception-based abstractions via logical, Te based paradoxes whereas INTPs have a tendency towards perception-based paradoxes. for the case of an Ne dom using "cross contextual thinking (as dario nardi likes to call it), a perception based paradox would be to form or envelope elements within a context that cannot possible exist, as governed by an Ni user, even if there is logical coherency. the implications being that theory has no validity without observation, regardless of the logical consistency. this is also related to why the auxiliary is the creative function since creation and paradigm shifts emerge through trying to resolve paradoxes but that is a different topic.
in summary:
for extroverts, the "definitions" are simple and discrete whereas the "relationships" are diverse and continuous.
introverted functions are more transparent in nature, whereby no "real element", concerning the function under scrutiny, has any strict definition. rather that everything is within a continuously evolving "construct"--for lack of a better word. all "real elements" within such a "construct" are recursive and reflective of or the same as the whole, by virtue that no "real element" can be defined individually or otherwise (hence all the speech marks). they are abstracting because they do not use any specific definitions to form a foundation for reality like an extrovert/extroverted functions; every step along a given pathway changes according to the individual's position along it. thus, as a given pathway changes so do all meanings and interpretations that trail behind it. there is no growth, only change and adaptation. definitions have no stability and constantly change and fluctuate in accordance with the type's personal experience through life. this is what leads introverts to come across as more careful and even vague when they try their best to express the current reality concerning their introverted functions because of the vast, complex and turbulent nature of things that encapsulate it. rather than find things that correlate with a specific and simplistically defined archetype, and clustering data points with similar attributes, the archetype changes itself so that there can be no individuation and everything becomes an expression of the archetype itself. therefore no data points can exist.
unlike extroverts, the nature of the process relating information is however discrete (recursive etc) and can be simply understood.
in the case of an ENFP, no process for forming relationship can be interpreted; there is no methodology and they correlate things without structure or systems which is probably why their EEG map is so dynamic and looks like a Christmas tree.
for introverts, any temporary reflections of these "elements" are expressed in relation to their current pathways. consequently, conveyance of the continuous introverted data, constructed based on all aspects of a type's personal experience relies heavily on the comprehension of the discrete and impersonal pathways provided via the next most important, extroverted function.
an extreme example which encapsulates this would be how an ESFP and and ISFJ describe food and interpret food. an ESFP would individually taste rice, tomato sauce, lemon juice, garlic and olive oil separate and say: "this tastes like rice, tomato...". if the ESFP were to taste a risotto made of the same ingredients, they would break it down based on the same flavour archetypes and any seemingly new flavours are reconciled as a product of complex relationships between these archetypes. thus in an extreme case, the ESFP would still say it tastes like "rice, tomato...". on the other hand, although an ISFJ may describe the separate ingredients the same way, since no flavour archetypes and distinctions exist, the risotto would be interpreted completely differently. the lemon juice no longer has the characteristic it has in its raw form and has taken on a new characteristic specific to the path of a risotto in an extreme case they can only describe the flavours based on the whole. in the case of an ISFJ the pathway would be conveyed through feeling (Fe). consequently, the ISFJ in an extreme case would say: "this tastes like risotto".
in summary:
for Introverts, the "relationships" are simple and discrete whereas the "definitions" are diverse and continuous.
by extension of the logic used you could say that where the introverted functions are the most important in a loop, it results in a paradox concerning their own inner worlds, separate from the external world or reality. problem is in the proof.
