{"id":5156,"date":"2014-07-16T16:58:12","date_gmt":"2014-07-16T16:58:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/?p=5156"},"modified":"2020-06-20T22:38:52","modified_gmt":"2020-06-20T22:38:52","slug":"how-jung-saw-ei","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/2014\/07\/how-jung-saw-ei\/","title":{"rendered":"How Jung Saw E\/I, Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"

Michael Pierce is a contributing guest writer for CelebrityTypes. In this article, Pierce reaches back to Jung to explain the Jungian conception of extroversion and introversion. As with other guest writers on the site (such as Jesse Gerroir) we do not necessarily agree with Pierce on every point, but the general tenor of Pierce\u2019s exposition of the correct Jungian understanding of E and I is still far closer to our own conception of the matter than most other writers we know of.<\/em><\/p>\n

By Michael Pierce<\/strong><\/p>\n

In Psychological Types<\/em>, Jung explained that while the extrovert \u201csubmits to a given state of affairs because his experience argues nothing else to be possible,\u201d the introvert \u201cis convinced that, although it has repeated itself a thousand times in the same way, the thousand and first will be different.”[1]<\/p>\n

To better see Jung’s point, imagine that we have no prior knowledge of coin flips and a flipped coin turns up heads 20 times in a row. The extrovert, affected by the external phenomena, predicts that the next toss will also turn up heads, because prior experience plainly shows that this is what will happen. Meanwhile the introvert, watching the same 20 coin flips, is not primarily affected by the external phenomena, but by an internal idea about these phenomena<\/a> that he experiences with more vividness than the raw phenomena.<\/p>\n

Say, for instance, that the introvert holds the internal idea<\/em> that an even ratio of head-tail results must eventually be reflected in the totality of data. In that case, the introvert would maintain that if the coin was to be flipped another 20 times, then all of the remaining flips would come up tails, thus leaving us with a perfect 50\/50 split in the results. In this way, extroversion may be said to be inclusive<\/em>, seeking to apprehend as much external of the external phenomena\u00a0as possible, while introversion is exclusive<\/em>, seeking to protect its own position from phenomena that may threaten the internal idea.<\/p>\n

As further illustration, Jung stated that the extrovert \u201cis orientated by the objective data\u201d where the introvert \u201creserves a view, which is \u2026 interposed between himself and the objective fact.\u201d[2]<\/p>\n

At first this would seem to put the introvert at a disadvantage, viewing the world through subjective filters and shying away from the outer facts of reality. However, this disposition is only a disadvantage when assuming that the introvert\u2019s internal ideas<\/em> about reality are incorrect. If the internal ideas<\/em> are correct, then the introvert is at an advantage since he has only to mind his internal idea and does not need to exert himself minding the external phenomena. But if the introvert\u2019s idea is not <\/em>correct, then the extrovert will have the advantage.<\/p>\n

Plato and Aristotle as Examples of I and E<\/strong><\/p>\n

Another illustration is found in the opposition between Plato and Aristotle where Plato, the introvert, interposes his internal idea<\/em> of ideal forms<\/a> between himself and outer phenomena \u2013 the actual instances of the objects to which the ideal forms refer. Plato even considers actual things to be cheap copies of the ideal forms. In doing so, he provides a supercharged example of the introvert\u2019s tendency to trust the inner idea over the outer occurrence.<\/p>\n

Opposite of Plato, we find Aristotle, the extrovert, who analyzes the external data<\/a> to figure out what its properties are and what trajectories that are likely for it (e.g. an acorn becomes a tree and the tree eventually dies). The external observations are not mere imitations of internal ideas as they were with Plato. Instead, Aristotle treats the internal ideas as subservient to the external observations.<\/p>\n

It should be noted, however, that introversion does<\/em> adapt, but that the internal ideas are not directly adapted to external phenomena, but rather gradually developed by the accumulation of subjective impressions on the psyche. This accumulative nature makes it difficult for introversion’s ideas to change quickly or dramatically. They must develop over time, which is why introverts are less likely to experience dramatic changes in their worldview over a lifetime.<\/p>\n

How E and I Tie Into the Functions<\/strong><\/p>\n

Now that we have seen how Jung saw extroversion and introversion, I will take a look at how this understanding brings to bear on the functions:<\/p>\n