# Socionics IM Elements; Introverted/Extraverted Dichotomy



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

This is perhaps the single most useful and easily understandable piece of information I have read about Socionics yet, anywhere.

*Extroverted vs. introverted*

*Extroverted* information is information about things as they are, independent of relations to other things: 

 : something has potential or does not
 : one is happy or sad
 : one is powerful or not
 : something is useful or not *

Introverted* information is information about how things relate to one another, independent of their innate properties: 

 : Person X is comfortable with Condition Y or is not
 : Statement X follows logically from Statement Y or does not
 : Course of events X will lead to Consequence Y or not
 : Person X relates well to Person Y or does not 


I'm not even posting this for a discussion. I'm posting this because this is the single most important thing you will ever read about Socionics.

You're welcome.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

It's a bit simplistic, particularly where the extroverted IM elements are concerned. Where is it from?


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Source?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Wikisocion.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

That explains it.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Good job! I'm impressed.

You actually managed not to make the most unintelligent possible response.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Good job! I'm impressed.
> 
> You actually managed not to make the most unintelligent possible response.


Wow, calm down. It was a joke.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Wow, calm down. It was a joke.


OH. Sorry!

In that case, let me laugh even harder.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

The reason why my OP really reaches to the fundamental root of introversion and extroversion is because it manages to seize upon Jung's description of introversion as being oriented via the _"abstract"_ and extraversion via the _"concrete."_ We can clearly see this in the nature of the descriptions given if we just think about it for a second. Overly simplistic? Absolutely. Is that a problem? Not at all, if you have a little imagination and understanding of the subject.

But to be fair, some people want to make things more complicated, so let's entertain those people with a bit of an exposition as to why I judge these descriptions to be rather spot on and perfectly concise in their delivery of what is absolutely essential to the I/E dichotomy.

Introversion, as an attitude, is one oriented via abstraction. This means that an introvert focuses upon the _*similarities*_ between one kind of information and another. E.g., an introverted feeler notices the _similarity_ between one feeling and another, and makes a decision based on this information; an introverted intuitive notices the _similarity_ between one pattern and another, and makes a decision based on this information.

Extraversion, as an attitude, is one (by contrast) oriented via that which is concrete. This means that an extravert focuses upon _*what is not similar*_ between one kind of information and another. E.g., an extraverted feeler notices the _specific_ qualities of the feeling that one person is having, and makes a decision based on that information; an extraverted intuitive notices the _specific_ qualities of a particular pattern they recognize, and makes a decision on that information.

Another way of putting it is to say that introverts _exclude_ or _omit_ the specific details that pertain to a particular instance of something in order to generate an abstract understanding of that thing which places it within a more general context that relates it to something else. Extraverts do the opposite of this, trying to _include_ and _not omit_ any specific details that pertain the the particular instance of something, in order to generate a concrete and _specific_ understanding of that thing _as it really is_ without placing it into a general context, _so that_ it relates to _nothing else other than itself._

So the OP I posted is _remarkably_ insightful into _precisely_ what defines these two attitudes. And on top of that, it is _efficiently_ concise and presents the information in a "bare bones" way that is perfectly well-suited for explaining it _succinctly and accurately_ to someone who isn't interested in philosophy, or the deeper meaning of these things, and just wants the crash course, willing to accept that this means they are shooting from the hip and sacrificing some degree of clarity, but that's okay because they don't _need it._ It is not _essential_ to their understanding, the way the information in my OP is more-or-less _essential_ to _any_ understanding of introversion and extraversion.

Again, I am not saying that there is _nothing more to add._ On the contrary, this is an _extremely simplistic way of looking at this dimension of personality._ But it has merit _precisely for that reason._ It is _very difficult_ to constrain something as all-encompassing and complicated a concept to such a short and narrow definition, and I admire whoever did just that, for they did it astoundingly well.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

I would change extroverted ethics to "one is the appropriate mood or not."

Fe bases might feel uncomfortable if everybody is happy and goofing around while they are supposed to be completely focused on doing something, and will probably try to change the collective mood to that of focus. Or maybe even at something like a funeral, an Fe base might feel uncomfortable if those around him/her are happy, and would prefer if everybody were sad or content, and might express this. 

I would also change Te to "something is efficient or not."


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> I would change extroverted ethics to "one is the appropriate mood or not."
> 
> Fe bases might feel uncomfortable if everybody is happy and goofing around while they are supposed to be completely focused on doing something, and will probably try to change the collective mood to that of focus. Or maybe even at something like a funeral, an Fe base might feel uncomfortable if those around him/her are happy, and would prefer if everybody were sad or content, and might express this.
> 
> I would also change Te to "something is efficient or not."


Actually, I agree with your version of Fe. That would be even better.

You could also change Te to like "something works or does not."

But useful, efficient, and works are all kinda circling around the same thing in my head, which is "practical." Then again, I'm just looking at it in an abstract sort've philosophical way. I think you and I are on the same page actually.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> But useful, efficient, and works are all kinda circling around the same thing in my head, which is "practical." Then again, I'm just looking at it in an abstract sort've philosophical way. I think you and I are on the same page actually.


Hmm, I'm not sure how to explain it. I can't think of the right adjective. Objective? Something is objective or not. Something conforms to logic and the laws of the universe under a defined premise or goal(s) or not. Eh. Not sure how to make it concise and still make sense to everybody.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Hmm, I'm not sure how to explain it. I can't think of the right adjective. Objective? Something is objective or not. Something conforms to logic and the laws of the universe under a defined premise or goal(s) or not. Eh. Not sure how to make it concise and still make sense to everybody.


Practical.

I think using the word "objective" just makes it sound pretentious and philosophical.

Personally, whenever I hear anyone use that word in a sentence in my presence my knee-jerk reaction is to assume that whatever they just said is full of shit.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Practical.
> 
> I think using the word "objective" just makes it sound pretentious and philosophical.
> 
> Personally, whenever I hear anyone use that word in a sentence in my presence my knee-jerk reaction is to assume that whatever they just said is full of shit.


That concerns your personal prejudice, not a logical definition for the concept. 

I don't think practical fits. Under the premise and goal of trying to put a man on mars, the plan of sending the man in a spaceship the size of Easter Island is practical (i.e, it is possible), but certainly not maximizing efficiency.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> That concerns your personal prejudice, not a logical definition for the concept.
> 
> I don't think practical fits. Under the premise and goal of trying to put a man on mars, the plan of sending the man in a spaceship the size of Easter Island is practical (i.e, it is possible), but certainly not maximizing efficiency.




Implying what? My personal prejudice doesn't matter? Lol. I don't give a fuck about inventing the most logically accurate definition. I care about what works and what doesn't.

There's nothing practical about sending a man in a spaceship the size of Easter Island either. You're using the word to mean "possible" but that's not even what practical means.

It seems like you just want to argue because I bruised your ego. I gave you the benefit of the doubt a couple posts ago because you made one good response after making an ass of yourself at first and then trying to play the "jokes on you I was just pretending" bullshit justification, but this isn't going anywhere now so we're done.

Whatever reader pool is left can determine their own opinion based on what's already been said by the two of us, unless you have another pointless response to make to this post. I've made it clear what my opinion and my objective behind it is. You want to be technical and I hate people who just want to engage in a bunch of stupid semantics.

TL;DR, this thread is now about Te versus Ti.

I'm out.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Could've just said "I don't find perfectly defining the concept to be useful," and/or "I feel like you're insulting me somehow."

I really don't understand the anger. Well, I get it from personal experience and from a psychological stand-point, but it's a bit unnecessary and irrational, don't you think?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

I'd take the word "appropriate" out since there is a number of Fe-valuers who thrive on emotionally provoking others in all the ways inappropriate.

It's one of the most common misdefinitions of Fe in socionics: to link it to social propriety and decorum, whilst ignoring all the Fe "shock jocks".


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> I'd take the word "appropriate" out since there is a number of Fe-valuers who thrive on emotionally provoking others in all the ways inappropriate.


One is whatever mood the user sees fit or not?

Or just 'one is mood X or not.'


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> One is whatever mood the user sees fit or not?
> 
> Or just 'one is mood X or not.'


It's the Ti that counterbalances Fe. If you're going to go into quantifying it with words like "appropriate" you'd have to go into description of Ti and explain how they balance each other out. Better to leave it out.

Some Fe descriptions I've seen already err on that side i.e. they start describing Ti instead of Fe.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> It's the Ti that counterbalances Fe. If you're going to go into quantifying it with words like "appropriate" you'd have to go into description of Ti and explain how they balance each other out. Better to leave it out.
> 
> Some Fe descriptions I've seen already err on that side i.e. they start describing Ti instead of Fe.


I think 'one is mood X or not' avoids that.


----------

