Everyone knows this one. The extraversion-introversion polarity is the most famous, most scientifically accepted and possibly the most misunderstood of the MBTI dichotomies. While a distinction is apparent to most, we’re often perfectly happy boiling it down to shyness or whether or not we like to be around other people. Unfortunately, or fortunately perhaps, it's not that simple.
People and Energy
A better explanation of the difference between the two preferences might be that which bases itself off of our energy levels. What drains our batteries? What recharges them? Do we feel worn out or refreshed after having attended a party? What gives us more energy, speaking to someone we've never met before or binge-reading in a closet?
But even then, we're still stuck on people and, on top of that, most of us would probably make the objection that we're not always one or the other, but both. Perhaps we even describe ourselves as ambiverts(!).
Function not Person
Looking under the four letter hood of the MBTI model one quickly comes to realise that people are never just one or the other. The orientations (extraversion/introversion) apply to the cognitive functions, not the person herself.
Everyone, thus, is everything. Just to different degrees. Everyone has four cognitive functions in their stack, two extraverted and two introverted, which (depending on which ones we favour) determine where on the spectrum we end up.
But there wouldn't be much of a spectrum without the Objective Personality concept of jumpers (which is what got this blog started in the first place). Without it there would be no healthy way (see looping) for a person to even get close to being fully introverted or fully extraverted. Everyone would be hugging the mean of the bell curve, counting one extraverted and one introverted cognitive function to their saviours and therefore be exhibiting a fairly balanced behaviour with regards to orientation.
Accepting the concept of jumpers allows for a co-pilot of the same orientation as the driver, which in turn allows for the more introverted and more extraverted personalities of the "double introverts" (having two introverted functions as their saviours) and "double extraverts" (having two extraverted functions as their saviours).
This is getting a bit technical, I know, but bear with me...
The Inner and Outer Worlds
It's getting clear that trying split humanity in two - pure extraverts in one camp and pure introverts in another - isn't going to cut it. The orientations apply to the functions (which makes us all ambiverts of sorts) and not all of them care about what we expect them to care about... people, I mean...
No, we need a broader perspective and luckily for us one has already been suggested: worlds. The inner, subjective world of a persons mind and the outer, objective world of our physical reality. Supposedly, how we behave and how others perceive that behaviour is all about which one of these worlds we perceive as real and how we distribute our presence between them.
But how to define these worlds? How to define presence?
Let’s enter into the mindset of the extravert here and discuss both worlds from the perspective of the “real” one. The one we share.
Reality is four points. Three in space and one in time. Being present in reality is honouring these coordinates by not letting the mind wander too far from the concrete circumstances of what is. Kind of like living in the moment.
But living in the moment is sometimes easier said than done, and depending on which cognitive functions you have in your stack... well, let’s just say results may vary.
****
We're going to take a closer look at the different ways in which to be present in the outer world in just a moment, but before we can move on we need to throw one last ingredient into the mix.
People.
Again with the people, you say! It's kind of the odd one out, I know, but all will be explained in time... I hope...
Alright. Time, space and people. Here we go.
Time
As gatherers (Se, Ne), extraverts are built to act (albeit in different domains). While the extraverted sensors of our yesteryears would've been out and about, physically breaking new ground away from camp, their intuitive counterparts, in a similar fashion, would've been breaking whatever abstract ground made available to them through the details of their immediate, concrete surroundings.
Sensors needed to be able to respond quickly and effectively to whatever danger or unforeseen circumstance mother nature might throw at them and intuitives, in turn, were relied upon to keep their abstract idea generation machinery on par with whatever was going "behind the curtain".
As "tribe-pingers" (Te, Fe), extraverts wanted and want to align their reasons/values (thinking/feeling) with those of the tribe. The decision-making process of Extraverted Thinking and Extraverted Feeling lives in the ebb and flow of human interaction. In the moment.
What I'm saying here is that being extraverted is being "real-time". Our extraverted cognitive functions are all, in some way or other, anchored in aspects of the outer world, and the part common to all of them, the extraverted orientation, is anchored in time. Extraverted functions prefer to think out loud, feel out loud, sense out loud and imagine out loud, all the while daftly manoeuvring the ever changing landscape of the moment as it unfolds in real-time.
Introverted functions, in contrast, are not at the top of their game when winging it. They need time to process incoming information, to align it with the rich and complex systems of their inner worlds. They need time to reflect and do not feel obligated to produce any immediate response be it in the form of words or actions.
Overall, introverted functions are not as depended on or interested in the present as the extraverted functions tend to be. Introverted Intuition (Ni), for example, is bent towards the future and Introverted Sensing (Si) has an undeniable crush on the past. Introverted Thinking (Ti) and introverted Feeling (Fi) are not dependent on the tribe, but self-focused, and as such free to crunch their reason-/value-numbers in whatever pace might suit them.
Space
Just as the orientation part of the extraverted cognitive functions can be said to be anchored in time, so too the sensory side of the perceiving coin can be said to be anchored in space. Sensing (S), as you probably know by now, concerns itself with the concrete. It is hooked up to its immediate, physical surroundings through the five senses of hearing, taste, touch, sight and smell. Sensors are (going back to the energy theory here) not energised by people per se, but by interacting with all concrete objects in their natural environment.
Intuition (N), in contrast, is always off chasing the abstract theories or ideas or whatever can be inferred to be going on "behind the curtain", beyond the borders of physical reality.
People
So... what has Extraverted Thinking (Te) and Extraverted Feeling (Fe) to do with being present in the outer world? Well, Te and Fe are tribe-dependent. And as previously stated, the decision-making processes of Te and Fe live in the moment and seeing as people are physical objects in our shared reality we actually now have connections in both space and time (even though the spatial connection might be best described as selective or indirect). This doesn't mean, of course, that the abstract realm, in any way, is off limits to the thoughts and feeling of Te and Fe.
Orientational Flavours
OK, that's all good, but what does it mean? Well, essentially what it means is that placing a person on the introverted/extraverted spectrum is hard.
The fact that orientation attaches itself to cognitive functions rather than people means that it comes in different "flavours" and they might not always correspond to how we expect these orientations to manifest themselves.
The extraversion of Extraverted Sensing (Se), for example, will present itself quite differently than the extraversion of Extraverted Intuition (Ne) or Extraverted Feeling (Fe). Even though the Se-dominant and the Fe-dominant, for instance, could be considered equally extraverted, their extraversion would take on radically different forms. For the Se-dominant, going on a hike by themselves would be quite enough to satisfy the Se criteria for extraversion (namely interacting with the physical world around them).
The Fe-dominant, on the other hand, would not be able to check that box without the more conventionally extraverted ingredient of people/social interaction.
The Ne-dominant might come off as very socially extraverted when discussing the ideas and possibilities they're currently exploring and therefore be placed in the right, extraverted, category, but for the wrong reason. People are only catalysts in the abstract association game of Extraverted Intuition, a tool that easily could be replaced as long as the outer world temporal presence could be maintained.
Seen from the introvert perspective, the situation is similar. The orientational flavours of the introverted cognitive functions determine the way our introversion manifests itself. What's really going on behind all of the "resting bitch faces" out there depends, in every respect, on what cognitive functions they're hiding. Somewhere in the depths of their still waters Ti is truth-seeking, Fi is value-seeking, Ni is future pacing and Si is reminiscing. Only problem is, we can't see it.
Worlds and Energy
When joining the theories of cognitive functions, energy and worlds the conceptual fog surrounding the introversion/extraversion-dichotomy starts to clear up. We can see the reasons for the misconceptions and finally explain the distinctions between the orientations in detail. Our dominant function will determine which world (inner/outer) we see as real, but we can still be energised by the other one. If you're not a jumper your saviours will be of opposite orientation and spending time in the world more foreign to you might still give you energy provided you do it on the terms of your second function. If you are a jumper the world that feels real to you will feel all the more real and the world that feels foreign will feel all the more foreign and perhaps fail to give you any energy at all.
Conclusion
The real difference between extraversion and introversion all comes down to the cards we’re dealt (cognitive functions) and how we prefer to play them (standard/jumper saviours). Our cognitive functions and the order in which we use them determine where on the I/E-spectrum we end up. Our dominant function decides which world we see as most real and our saviour functions decide when our presence in each world will leave us drained or energised.
Although we might favour one world over the other, we'll always have one foot (or toe at least) in each and should eventually, hopefully, be able to find our place in both.
Thanks for listening.
Comments
Post a Comment