Personality Cafe banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,638 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Quite generally, one could describe the introverted standpoint as one that under all circumstances sets the self and the subjective psychological process above the object and the objective process, or at any rate holds its ground against the object.

- Jung


When reading Jung, we must distinguish the object of his study from his understanding of the object. The main object being introversion/extraversion. It is absolutely preponderant to understand when finishes the description and starts the analyzis, in order to seize the object as it is and eventually correct prior conclusions. Jung's understanding of the phenomenon was that of a man of his time, influenced by the thoughts of Goethe among others, scientific trends, how society worked, how people reacted to it and of course, his personal flaws and delusions.

What Jung merely observed is a well studied mechanism. The human mind doesn't have any natural intuition of what is reality, what is fantasy, hence any natural drive to subordinate its prognoses to reality.

The essential aspect of reality is its consistency, and yet, we don't have for function to be consistent ourselves. That's why we don't last long and all sort of intellectual disorders creep in. However, we have one that comes close and can eventually be tuned to gain in consistency : the need to avoid cognitive dissonance, either through modifications of the prognosis, or the situation.

The former is extraversion and the latter, introversion. The former strategy is to withdraw our prognoses, the way we habitually react to perceived events, and the latter is to protect those habits until eventually the situation rules in their favour again.

Those two ways of solving cognitive dissonance, although antagonistic, are necessary in order to adapt our thoughts to reality all while protecting them from disinformation. However, an improper calibration of this trust/defiance system will allow disinformation to corrupt one's thoughts, from the outside if overly extraverted, or the inside, if overly introverted.

This echoes the matter of distinguishing the reality of this intro/extraversion mechanism from any misinformation that could come from Jung or any of his self-proclaimed scholars, or even me, when our own attitude can distort the fine line, or epistemological function, between the perception of its characteristics from the perception of what one thinks it is, because introversion makes us vulnerable to our own confirmation bias, whereas extraversion makes us vulnerable to that of others.

I will give you my .02€ about that fine line at the end.

So to summarize, an attitude is a whole perception/judgment process, as it is all about protecting or adapting one's habits of reacting to certain informations. In the case of introversion, the individual will reinforce a decision by cherry picking the informations that confirm it. What this implies is that when introversion dominates, to keep with this example, the whole perception/judging process is introverted. The individual seeks knowledge and patterns that confirm its thoughts and favor them in its judgments.

The dominant attitude of consciousness, so as Jung named it, is not reversed from perception to judgment. What has been reversed, however, is the definition of what introverted and extraverted judgements are. An introvert is an introvert. To be more specific, an introverted perceiver is an introverted judger.

There has been quite a lot of cherry picking going in order to protect a certain fallacy of Jung regarding introversion and extraversion. So let's talk about what it is and why it doesn't work.

Jung viewed this E/I attitude as a mere extension of a more universal phenomenon, and he was right, it is just the way things evolve in this universe, trends either change or reinforce themselves. If you think about it, life is fundamentally introverted. At the origin, it's a mechanism that turns its environment into itself and that's why it is so effective, unless, unless... it ends up being its own hostile environment. I'm almost disgressing... but the point is, introversion is by nature invasive, even though the invasive mind might sometimes appear to be on the defensive, never leaving one's territory, to the point of paranoia, that's only up to how much of one's environment the introvert needs to control in order confirm one's prognoses.

But for Jung, the introvert couldn't be invasive, outgoing, because he was under the influence of the belief that outgoingness is being open to change, and so was sexuality. In a certain sense, sexual reproduction is a form of perpetuation (of habits) that changes the genetic content of the individual hence the habits. But that's only up to how one is driven to breed with genetically different mates. And we know that it isn't exactly the trend there, rather, a fortuitous outcome resulting from the inconsistency of one's drives. This sexual drive, the "libido", that drives people to connect and socialize, is not an act of extraversion.

But don't forget, Jung was a man of his time, he couldn't interact with as many people as we do now. He was dealing with more deceiving patterns that were more likely to lead him to assume a one sided cause-effect relation between gregariousness, outgoingness, sexuality and extraversion.

This fallacy has been the socle on which Jung scholars built systems that reverse the definition of extraverted and introverted judgments, as well as extraversion and introversion per se, reducing it to a vague libidinous sense of social ease and conformism. Of course if could almost make sense : if perception is introverted, then judgements adapt to it. PI=JE. However, how to explain under this assumption that a dominantly extraverted judger would be dominated by one's introverted drive to cherry pick at the perceiving stage? From this assumption, extraversion would always be dominated by introversion. That's the limit of how such inconsistency can pantomime reality.

Now back to this fine line. Protecting oneself is not ultimately wrong, however it does depend on what we are. It only makes sense to protect our ability to gain in consistency for example, as only said ability can understand and solve existential problems. Yet for this to happen, everything else must comply and adapt to the reinforcement of this outcome. And since we aren't born consistent, but inconsistent and misinformed by default, letting introversion dominate over extraversion by default will lead anybody to distort the fine line and build irrealistic systems of thoughts, or if you mean, reactions to one's own issues. However we aren't the only ones to be inconsistent and we'll have to deal with a lot of misinformation so extraversion cannot be allowed either to dominate our creativity by default. Otherwise, the need for knowleldge will creep in and some overlearning will parasite one's ability to redefine one's problems beyond others' abilities. When extraversion dominates the need to understand, one cannot protect oneself from the misunderstanding of another. So the fine line is not a fallacy of the middle ground. Specializing oneself in sapience is an evolutive bottleneck of human personalities.

That's all I had to say. Before you feel like extending this thread, make sure to understand that I won't reply to answers that do not pinpoint inconsistencies in my arguments. This topic is mainly dedicated to all the people who made me repeat the same thing over and over and over for years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,638 Posts
Discussion Starter #3 (Edited)
@tanstaafl28 There are many analogies and every once in a while there's someone who comes up with a new terminology to try and seize what it is all while having some legacy of some sort. Introversion, assimilation, extrapunition, confirmation bias, you can see how people are beating around a same bush here. However, I think that Piaget's classification is not properly seizing the bush either.

And if I personally had to use that balloon analogy, assimilation would be the process of filling new empty balloons when there's a change of substance, rather than changing the rules for what the old balloons can be filled with. Hence accomodation would be the process of changing the rules so that the former balloons can handle the new substance. Extraversion would be the urge not to keep the old balloon being filled with the same substance and to find some clues, in a contradiction bias, that there's better to do. Introversion would be the urge to create new balloons every time a new substance that challenges one's organization, is being acknowledged. The dog meows? "Now way! It's something else". Says the introverted. "Oh, alright, it can meow as well!" Says the extraverted. And if you take it this way, it kind of reverses which one seems to assimilate. Because, the analogy itself is wrong, to assimilate is not to absorb informations, but to make sure that the informations fit one's prognoses. If they don't, they're ostracized, disconnected to the expectations and everything tied to it.

So anyways, the point is, beware of the people who talk in newspeak and bring new words they made themselves, instead of articulating full sentences. It tells a lot about how themselves process informations, as making new words instead of questioning the way we use the formers is typically that: an act of cherry picking, introversion. Beware of cherry pickers.
 

·
Administrator
INTP
Joined
·
11,819 Posts
However, how to explain under this assumption that a dominantly extraverted judger would be dominated by one's introverted drive to cherry pick at the perceiving stage? From this assumption, extraversion would always be dominated by introversion. That's the limit of how such inconsistency can pantomime reality.
It seems like you're discussing J & P functions as being responsible for judging and perceiving.
Perception and Judgement aren't stages, they're psychological directions. P functions don't perceive information and then pass it over to the J functions. P functions don't actually do the perceiving, they're called perceiving functions because they aim to be directed by perception.

I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page here, before I continue trying to decipher the rest of the topic.
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
9,124 Posts
It seems like you're discussing J & P functions as being responsible for judging and perceiving.
Perception and Judgement aren't stages, they're psychological directions. P functions don't perceive information and then pass it over to the J functions. P functions don't actually do the perceiving, they're called perceiving functions because they aim to be directed by perception.

I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page here, before I continue trying to decipher the rest of the topic.
how do you think is possible for someone to be adaptive in one way at the level of perception and not in judgment and vice versa?
 

·
Administrator
INTP
Joined
·
11,819 Posts
how do you think is possible for someone to be adaptive in one way at the level of perception and not in judgment and vice versa?
The same way that (even on a conscious level of awareness) we can be adaptive in one frame of mind, but not in another.

However, functions would be shifting at a level outside of our awareness. This is even less noticeable when occurring with another non-antagonistic function, probably not even noticeable most of the time.
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
9,124 Posts
The same way that (even on a conscious level of awareness) we can be adaptive in one frame of mind, but not in another.

However, functions would be shifting at a level outside of our awareness. This is even less noticeable when occurring with another non-antagonistic function, probably not even noticeable most of the time.
But Jung believed one attitude dominates the conscious, therefore the two preferred functions. It doesn't make much sense to me, that it can be otherwise, especially by habit/default. What we perceive is used by both p and j function, otherwise it would make no sense to talk about types having any other function than their primary. If the two are not guided by the preferred attitude I imagine it would cause tremendous, unsustainable internal conflicts, since one function would push for self-change and the other for self-reinforcement, both in a conscious, strong manner. In a way, J and P functions *are* responsible for judging and perceiving, but it doesn't mean that the stimuli are the functions per se, more like they are processed through that preferred framework.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
This is a bit daunting and I will admit I skimmed it, but introversion/extroversion can be looked at from multiple perspectives, as can everything. The most likely indicator of I/E in my opinion is the way that we process information.
 

·
Administrator
INTP
Joined
·
11,819 Posts
But Jung believed one attitude dominates the conscious, therefore the two preferred functions. It doesn't make much sense to me, that it can be otherwise, especially by habit/default. What we perceive is used by both p and j function, otherwise it would make no sense to talk about types having any other function than their primary. If the two are not guided by the preferred attitude I imagine it would cause tremendous, unsustainable internal conflicts, since one function would push for self-change and the other for self-reinforcement, both in a conscious, strong manner. In a way, J and P functions *are* responsible for judging and perceiving, but it doesn't mean that the stimuli are the functions per se, more like they are processed through that preferred framework.
What Jung thought about the aux attitude is debatable. Personally I believe he simply had little interest in investigating it enough to clearly define it.

Consciousness is directed by one function and attitude. That's an overall aim and direction though. It wouldn't mean that there's no flexibility regarding daily fluctations of psychological direction. Consciousness could theoretically hold both judging and perceiving attitudes together, since judgement and perception don't directly conflict and therefore don't necessarily need to agree. Therefore consciousness could also theoretically hold two non-antagonistic functions with opposing attitudes because they're not going to conflict on a traumatic or unsustainable level.

Don't forget, Jungs patients were depending solely on their dom function and attitude for long periods of time, before their inferior function manifested as mental illnesses. That shows that people can theoretically manage on one function only, for long periods. Therefore judgement and perception are occurring within the framework of one function and attitude.
In addition, if relying solely on the dominant function would eventually cause an inferior function to manifest, it makes more sense that relying solely on the dominant attitude would also cause the inferior attitude to manifest. Surely an ee or ii function stack would be extremely one-sided, charged for unconscious eruptions and therefore an unhealthy example.
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
9,124 Posts
What Jung thought about the aux attitude is debatable. Personally I believe he simply had little interest in investigating it enough to clearly define it.

Consciousness is directed by one function and attitude. That's an overall aim and direction though. It wouldn't mean that there's no flexibility regarding daily fluctations of psychological direction. Consciousness could theoretically hold both judging and perceiving attitudes together, since judgement and perception don't directly conflict and therefore don't necessarily need to agree. Therefore consciousness could also theoretically hold two non-antagonistic functions with opposing attitudes because they're not going to conflict on a traumatic or unsustainable level.

Don't forget, Jungs patients were depending solely on their dom function and attitude for long periods of time, before their inferior function manifested as mental illnesses. That shows that people can theoretically manage on one function only, for long periods. Therefore judgement and perception are occurring within the framework of one function and attitude.
In addition, if relying solely on the dominant function would eventually cause an inferior function to manifest, it makes more sense that relying solely on the dominant attitude would also cause the inferior attitude to manifest. Surely an ee or ii function stack would be extremely one-sided, charged for unconscious eruptions and therefore an unhealthy example.
From what I recall, Jung thought the 1 function thing was rare and would lead to problems. And ime, people's temperaments are indeed characterized by usually 2 functions and the preferred attitude. Which is why it's generally easy to see differences between ST,SF,NT,NF types. Since relying on 1 function would lead to problems, that sort of tells me that 1 function alone can't really handle both j/p well, because J and P really do relate to judging and perceiving as a set of skills themselves. So it's not exactly correct to say that J/P are not responsible for judging and perceiving, they're the processes that give us those skills but they're just not the stimuli receivers themselves, which is something people may confuse. So the people who rely more on 1 process have specific problems relating to their situation, because they lack skill in the other, and not because their 1 function can actually handle both j/p.

I think those eruptions you talk about would in fact happen if the function stack was EIEI, because the antagonistic attitudes for adaptation would constantly conflict one another. Having one preference means the other one is less developed which is what makes sense at the level of the whole organism, someone who is a Feeler is not a Thinker etc, because they have different psychological habits-needs and may even be in direct conflict to their opposite. So the same is true for the attitude of adaptation, since adaptation is a whole-organism preference, think of a child for example who has the drive to explore the world with no fear while another is more restrained and careful, both can't happen at the same time, one attitude must lose so the other can develop more. It's not something that is attached to the function but a separate trait that creates the whole.
 

·
Administrator
INTP
Joined
·
11,819 Posts
From what I recall, Jung thought the 1 function thing was rare and would lead to problems. And ime, people's temperaments are indeed characterized by usually 2 functions and the preferred attitude. Which is why it's generally easy to see differences between ST,SF,NT,NF types. Since relying on 1 function would lead to problems, that sort of tells me that 1 function alone can't really handle both j/p well, because J and P really do relate to judging and perceiving as a set of skills themselves. So it's not exactly correct to say that J/P are not responsible for judging and perceiving, they're the processes that give us those skills but they're just not the stimuli receivers themselves, which is something people may confuse. So the people who rely more on 1 process have specific problems relating to their situation, because they lack skill in the other, and not because their 1 function can actually handle both j/p.

I realise that relying on one function would lead to problems. I mentioned it explain why J & P functions aren't necessary for judging and perceiving activity. They don't work together. They're both doing what they're doing, going their own way. They just happen to compliment each other as they manifest together as a personality.
Judging and perceiving can definitely occur within one function perspective. However, to be led by perception must occur within a perceiving function attitude and to be led by judgement must occur within a judging function attitude. We can definitely perceive without being led the perception.

So to clarify, I'm saying that it's possible (although not healthy or ideal) to manage for long periods of time with one function, because people did. They weren't considered crazy until the unconscious manifested and made them crazy. They must have been appearing sane and normal for a period of time on one function. How could people realistically live a normal life, being led by only a judging function for months or years, without perceiving anything?

If the conscious functions work together in stages, they play a judging and perceiving role (rather than an aim) then normal functioning wouldn't be possible without both functions, for any significant length of time.

I think those eruptions you talk about would in fact happen if the function stack was EIEI, because the antagonistic attitudes for adaptation would constantly conflict one another. Having one preference means the other one is less developed which is what makes sense at the level of the whole organism, someone who is a Feeler is not a Thinker etc, because they have different psychological habits-needs and may even be in direct conflict to their opposite. So the same is true for the attitude of adaptation, since adaptation is a whole-organism preference, think of a child for example who has the drive to explore the world with no fear while another is more restrained and careful, both can't happen at the same time, one attitude must lose so the other can develop more. It's not something that is attached to the function but a separate trait that creates the whole.
I'm not entirely sold on introversion being an adaptation and extraversion not being an adaptation. I assume you're on those lines since you're referring to i/e as attitudes of adaptation?

So we're not going to able to discuss it in such terms without discussing the relevance of the term first. As far as I understand, some psychological adaptations are very similar to archetypes. If so, everyone is influenced by archetypes, regardless of their personality type. That would make everyone an introvert.
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
9,124 Posts
I realise that relying on one function would lead to problems. I mentioned it explain why J & P functions aren't necessary for judging and perceiving activity. They don't work together. They're both doing what they're doing, going their own way. They just happen to compliment each other as they manifest together as a personality.
Judging and perceiving can definitely occur within one function perspective. However, to be led by perception must occur within a perceiving function attitude and to be led by judgement must occur within a judging function attitude. We can definitely perceive without being led the perception.

So to clarify, I'm saying that it's possible (although not healthy or ideal) to manage for long periods of time with one function, because people did. They weren't considered crazy until the unconscious manifested and made them crazy. They must have been appearing sane and normal for a period of time on one function. How could people realistically live a normal life, being led by only a judging function for months or years, without perceiving anything?

If the conscious functions work together in stages, they play a judging and perceiving role (rather than an aim) then normal functioning wouldn't be possible without both functions, for any significant length of time.
Yea I know that's what you're saying, but I think it's not exactly accurate: someone who prefers perceiving has less of a need to form judgments and therefore it necessarily means their j function is less developed. Psychologically, the strong T/F dom has the need to jump to analysis and is not as comfortable not having conclusions, they can get stuck in analysis paralysis instead of waiting or trying to find more information to help them. Their preference for finding new information is lower than judging what they have, hence necessarily it hinders their skill of finding new information compared to the p-dom.


I'm not entirely sold on introversion being an adaptation and extraversion not being an adaptation. I assume you're on those lines since you're referring to i/e as attitudes of adaptation?

So we're not going to able to discuss it in such terms without discussing the relevance of the term first. As far as I understand, some psychological adaptations are very similar to archetypes. If so, everyone is influenced by archetypes, regardless of their personality type. That would make everyone an introvert.
They're both adaptations, but different ways to adapt, why do you say that extraversion is not adaptation?
 

·
Administrator
INTP
Joined
·
11,819 Posts
Yea I know that's what you're saying, but I think it's not exactly accurate: someone who prefers perceiving has less of a need to form judgments and therefore it necessarily means their j function is less developed. Psychologically, the strong T/F dom has the need to jump to analysis and is not as comfortable not having conclusions, they can get stuck in analysis paralysis instead of waiting or trying to find more information to help them. Their preference for finding new information is lower than judging what they have, hence necessarily it hinders their skill of finding new information compared to the p-dom.




They're both adaptations, but different ways to adapt, why do you say that extraversion is not adaptation?

You gave me the impression that you view one attitude as adaptive and the other as not adaptive, with this post:

how do you think is possible for someone to be adaptive in one way at the level of perception and not in judgment and vice versa?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red Panda

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
9,124 Posts
You gave me the impression that you view one attitude as adaptive and the other as not adaptive, with this post:
Nah I meant adaptive in one way (i.e. self-protective - introverted) at the level of perception and in the other way at the level of judgment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,638 Posts
Discussion Starter #15 (Edited)
Why is this thread so long now?

It seems like you're discussing J & P functions as being responsible for judging and perceiving.
Perception and Judgement aren't stages, they're psychological directions. P functions don't perceive information and then pass it over to the J functions. P functions don't actually do the perceiving, they're called perceiving functions because they aim to be directed by perception.

I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page here, before I continue trying to decipher the rest of the topic.
Perception/irrational is the process of building a network of reactions, and judgement/rational the process of striping it down to one. One faces an unexpected situation, the neural system attempts to connect it to its routine, Jung would say accidentally, but ultimately one reaction must be favored to become effective, and the illusion of direction kicks in - . Because the task of this system is to organize reactions so that a lifeform whose survival is based on mobility can coordinate its motions. See definition 36, irrational.

It just occurs that Jung was beating around the bush in an irrealistic and convoluted fashion that was ok 1 century ago. Chapter XI is quite hilarious in this regard. I won't repeat this every time I answer this thread : We should not confuse what Jung observes, and what he thinks about it. As for what he observed, it is a neural network.

Cherry picking involves the whole system, from picking the informations that suit one's routine best, focusing on hypotheses that justify it and orders of magnitude that rationalize this choice of hypothesis. We can also pick the beetroot : informations that destroy your routine, favor the conclusions which you expected the least. Introversion, extraversion. Protect your prognoses or challenge them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
371 Posts
What Jung thought about the aux attitude is debatable. Personally I believe he simply had little interest in investigating it enough to clearly define it.

Consciousness is directed by one function and attitude. That's an overall aim and direction though. It wouldn't mean that there's no flexibility regarding daily fluctations of psychological direction. Consciousness could theoretically hold both judging and perceiving attitudes together, since judgement and perception don't directly conflict and therefore don't necessarily need to agree. Therefore consciousness could also theoretically hold two non-antagonistic functions with opposing attitudes because they're not going to conflict on a traumatic or unsustainable level.

Don't forget, Jungs patients were depending solely on their dom function and attitude for long periods of time, before their inferior function manifested as mental illnesses. That shows that people can theoretically manage on one function only, for long periods. Therefore judgement and perception are occurring within the framework of one function and attitude.
In addition, if relying solely on the dominant function would eventually cause an inferior function to manifest, it makes more sense that relying solely on the dominant attitude would also cause the inferior attitude to manifest. Surely an ee or ii function stack would be extremely one-sided, charged for unconscious eruptions and therefore an unhealthy example.
I believe iam my first two functions - Fi Ne not Fi alone!
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top