The collective unconscious and the unconscious that Jung uses are two separate things. The collective unconscious was something metaphysical that has no real place in the scientific nor psychological community.) ooo didn't want to disturb you and the weekend chick.
I do agree about your internal and external focus being different for introverts and extroverts, for extroverts the persona is what you see is what you get, the ego but as I have posted previously though introvert's ego is -influenced by- the collective unconscious, which is a separate and totally different matter than what could be explained by functions but partially archetypes. Jung's model have the functions on on the -ego- part of the whole self. Thus, I believe making an attempt to explain -unconscious- via Jung's ego functions is problematic. It is not an opposing force either, it -influences- the ego.
The id, as described in socionics, is the individuals strong unconscious base. "unconscious" does not, in any field of psychology, refer to the person "not being conscious." The unconscious is constantly present. If you are actively doing/thinking something, this is your conscious. If it is something that is automated or being done/processed without your effort, it is your unconscious. For extroverts, their unconscious takes care of their subjective processes in the world. For the introvert, the unconscious takes care of their objective processes in the world. Your id is constantly on, and it is what people can objectively, verifiably see about you. For instance, my inner Fi/Ne that I constantly think about, other people cannot verify this, only take my word for it. My unconscious Ni/Fe, people can verify that I move rhythmically and wistfully and that I do not have much emotional expression. Likewise, for you, they can not verify your usage of Ni/Fe in your conscious, as they do not know how you really feel or dream. However, they can verifiably see you connecting with people closely and abstaining from Ne.