Extraverts are not necessarily social butterflies & Jung's frustration

Thoughts? Truthfully, "god, why do they center their text like that, it's annoying". Agree: Hackneyed ideas about introversion and extroversion are hackneyed.

 

Like all people Jung had his prejudices, though I'd say that Sensors are treated far worse than Extroverts.

Most of what you've said is true, the divide between extroverts and introverts is more complicated than what is put forward by the MBTI.

 

I agree that the extrovert's need for external stimuli is misunderstood as a need to be attention getting or social or outgoing. I've often accepted this stereotype without question until recently when I learned about how energy is sourced in introverts. Introverts derive their energy internally while extroverts get their energy from the world. It's just a difference in energy motivation.

 

I think of introverts as having high base-levels of mental activity. Stimuli are used to give content to that mental activity. However, moderately high levels of stimuli produce excessive mental activity, causing fatigue.

Extoverts, on the other hand, seem to have lower base (or resting) levels of activity, leading to mental restlessness, and the seeking of external stimuli. If the stimuli is not especially stimulating, restlessness will urge the extrovert to seek more, or different stimuli.

If my hypothesis, regarding resting levels of mental activity in introverts and extroverts be accurate, it would explain the stereotype: introverts like stimuli which will keep their thoughts ticking over in a controllable way; extroverts are looking for stimuli to bring their mental activity up to full-steam.

I am presuming that the ideal level of mental activity for individuals has a very narrow threshold of deficit and excess: so that introverts often need to avoid over-stimulation; and extroverts often have to chase stimulation.

 

It sounds like you are simply describing Hans Eysenck's model. It is based on the The Yerkes-Dodson Law, by which the brain operates better at a moderate level of cortical arousal (or stress) than when either under- or over-stimulated. These are things taught in introductory psychology classes. If I recall correctly, there is actually considerable empirical evidence for it based on tools like MRIs. The same cannot be said for other models that depend on vague ideas of "drawing psychic energy" from being around other people or being alone.

The Yerkes-Dodson law, however, it not quite as cut and dry as it was explained in my college psychology class. Excess stress only leads to a reduction in performance in situations that require conscious thought. For tasks that are so simple and well practiced that they can be done without thinking about them, performance stops improving but never worsens no matter how much the level of cortical arousal increases. In most areas where extroverts naturally excel, an introvert could, after considerable practice, train himself to do well too. The distinction between introverts and extroverts is not clear cut, as having different degrees of familiarity with different sorts of situations could push a person towards either side of the spectrum.

Human interaction is a significant source of stress. Interacting with total strangers (especially if the strangers are in a close nit group and you are alone) causes more cortical arousal than almost anything else. (This may be a relic of the fact that when primitive humans had such interactions, they typically led to a violent death. Man has long been the greatest predictor of man, so it makes sense for our instincts to treat human strangers like lions.) Interacting with close friends causes far less stress. As far as cortical arousal goes, being completely alone is almost indistinguishable from being alone with someone with you you have a particularly intimate relationship. It doesn't matter much how long you have known another person, but rather how well you know each other. Superficial acquaintances are not much better than complete strangers. It is probably healthier for introverts to manage our stress levels by maintaining a few very close friendships rather than withdrawing completely.

 

[MENTION=2648]magister343[/MENTION]
Thank you.


I have often lamented that I never took any psychology. It saves so much 'stumbling around in the dark' to have access to examined models.

 

<<<ENTP - Loves books, and writing fiction.

 

Supposed

 

You're just jealous of my type.

 

Surrrrrreeee

 

I'm glad to hear such a positive response. Now that you've admitted the problem, the healing can begin.

 

I've gotten to know an extravert who doesn't need lots of social stimuli. I would say that he's rather unsocial, since he didn't find many people to be "social" with in school.

 

@Astrid, I am going to try and contribute to your type me thread here. For me to tell you what your type is I would have to empathize with you and put myself in your shoes and I am just not comfortable doing that. So I will explain to you what it's like to be an extroverted thinker with introverted feeling, and maybe you can extrapolate from there. Hopefully this will answer your questions about extraverts not necessarily being social butterflies.


The extravert's dominant cognitive process (call it mental energy) is occupied with the object, with what is outside of him/herself. The interovert, while they too naturally interact with the object, their dominant cognitive process is occupied with the subject (themselves) with relation to the object.


For example, while I and a Ti dominant seem to both have intellectual pursuits, my intellectual observations and opinions of the object are impersonal and detached. I am outside of myself when I am dealing with the object. I am not part of the equation at all. This is why it is easier for me to remain calm in times of intellectual disputes and disagreements than most.

I can't draw the same analogy between Fe and Fi. I don't feel like I understand Fe very well, because I can't empathize with it. "Feelings" generally are your value judgments. Right, wrong, wanted, desired, wishes, hopes, dreams, things that would fall in this category. This is why you find that they are associated with actual emotions, because those things in life are tied with emotions, or tend to trigger emotions. I derive that from within. The group does not determine that, I do not walk my path in life, looking at what others are doing, or what others want, what is acceptable by society or the group or the culture, etc. I live my life the way I want it. I have my own system of values and principles that is of my own creation and the object (what is outside of me) have no influence over. Which is why it is easier for me than most to shun what I don't like. I also don't concern myself with what the value system of others is like. I don't believe it has to be a certain why, or for them to behave a certain way, if it does not interact with mine.

What does that have to do with being a social butterfly? First, I don't consider myself one. I meet most people with aloofness and disinterest, for the reasons above. I don't concern myself with what their value system is. I have compassion for fellow human beings on a large scale, but I do not concern myself with the individual. It is not my life's desire to connect with individuals. I don't feel the need to get out there and get to know people on a personal level. Then how do I meet people and make contact with humanity? Two ways: I meet people who share my intellectual/life pursuits, or those who share my values in life. My best and closest friends are those who share both. With the exception being my family and that is because I am an animal and I care for my own blood.

I do none of that party or bar hopping that some people do for the sake of meeting others. I don't really get friendly with people off the bat, I don't experience that itch to truly connect with someone to feel happy. What makes me happy is a feeling of wholeness and harmony from the inside. To be at peace with myself, and to know that I am what I decided for myself to be. In other words, if I can live with myself then I am happy. Which is why I can easily be mistaken for an introvert.

I can spend hours at my place engaged in learning about interesting topics with very little human contact, and I would be fine. That being said, because I am an extravert and people are part of the world outside, I actually happen to have a big pool of people I interact with. I am quite popular amongst the people I know, and I am often one of the key and influential players in most group dynamics I find myself part of. In fact, I am excellent at navigating the social scene, and ironically this is a result of Te, not Fe. But like I said, I don't feel the need to always be with them and engaged in human contact to feel fulfilled.


Finally, how does Te and Fi work in tandem for me? Let's take airplanes as an example. Humanity one day decided that it wanted to fly, but it cannot do so as a species, and so it figured out a way to make it happen by building a vessel that does; the airplane. It considered the laws of gravity and the forces of lift and thrust to actually make that desire come true. It didn't just say: "Well, fuck you evolution and universe. I want to fly so I am just gonna go ahead and jump off a cliff." The ENTJ will work within the boundaries and the laws of the object to materialize its desires and wishes. I always say, if you want to change the system (Fi), study the system (Te). Play by the rules (Te), win and then change the rules (Fi). I've done lots of volunteering and lobbying, because there are things I care about in the world, but if I am to get emotional about it and yell and scream and sob, I won't accomplish much. As an ENTJ, I will use the proper channels to accomplish it. I will communicate and debate my point properly, I would understand that I need to learn what are the causes behind the current situation is, and what needs to happen. As a child I spent a lot of time just acquiring skill. It began with a curiosity, but it was motivated by the desire to master what I was learning.


Being a dominant in extroverted thinking is also why I am good at things like efficiency, priority, organizing, and planning. They are not my life's purpose, like some would attribute to the ENTJ, but I have a natural affinity towards them and so they come easily to me. A big chunk of my mental energy is devoted the object. I understand it best, because I think about it most. In the most detached and impersonal way possible. But I interact with it in a personal way. I pave my personal path the way I want it, by means of what the object requires.


Hopefully this post answered the two questions you asked me. If you have any more don't hesitate to shoot'em my way. Perhaps in understanding some functions, you would be able to eliminate what is and what isn't yours.


Cheers!

 

Yea, I was gonna come back to this and talk about the nature of extroverts and introverts had, according to Jung, to do with "orientation to the object". [MENTION=1579]Odyne[/MENTION] explained it well. While I consider myself an extrovert, it doesn't mean that I am a social butterfly, but it does mean that I engage with the Other on a regular basis, I find more meaning in the world around me.

 

Depends on whether you consider extroverted to be a synonym for gregarious and so forth.

Edit:
And now that I look at it, there's at least three distinctly different conceptions of extrovert. This is part of the problem right there. Maybe if one means gregarious, they should just say gregarious instead.

 

[MENTION=1579]Odyne[/MENTION]

I'd also say that Fi and Fe are closely linked unless you're somehow managing to use somebody else's brain. I posit that one uses Fe if their Fi says they need to, because unless you're borrowing somebody else's brain, the feeling ends up directed inward.

Good example - I'm typically Fe oriented, mainly because if I'm not considerate of others then my Fi feels guilty about it. I use both, and some times even use Fi more than Fe if there's a reason for it, but the shadow is there.

Edit:
I also posit that this interaction is what results in conflict aversion. If one only had one function without a counterpart, they would just do it, wouldn't they? Since it isn't consulting anything else it should work by default. I mean these are your traits. If one were strictly Fe they'd never have any Fi moments and vice versa, there'd be no internal orientation if there's only one way to go. Like a coordinate system that has only one vector - you wouldn't go any other way, nor would you care about other directions because from your perspective, there are none.

 

Mental activity...That's a very good phrase for it. Introverts appreciate mental activity, extroverts appreciate more...what type of activity? This explains how introverts can become very social around people sharing the same interests. That's because the social activity with the other individual(s) leads to strong mental activity.