# Extroverted Functions Vs Introverted Functions



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

I always hear 'Extroverted functions are objective' and 'subjective' for the introverted ones.
I'm not sure what this means. How can a function i.e. Fe be objective? It's about feelings. Te is about logic etc etc. All of these are subjective (good/evil, black/white etc). I don't see how there can be an objective function, so I thought I'd ask!


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Feelings aren't "subjective" if they are extraverted because they are meant to be applicable to a broad range of criteria established in the outer world (if they were subjective, they would only be reliable as directed toward the "subject" - the individual, in other words). Any subjective function is introverted, so they can't be APPLIED externally as a definitive criteria system, but their influence can be made evident none-the-less. Objective doesn't mean "truth" - it's about external applicability. Forget the popular misunderstandings of these words if you want to understand Jung. Logic isn't even the truth about anything in particular - it's a tool of reasoning, just like feeling.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

Logic is subjective? Woah, I lean more heavily to Te than I thought...


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Yea in psychology the object (or objective) refers to that which outside of the self. I think there are some mixups because the casual usage of subjective and objective don't always match the psychological definitions.

In fact we could more accurately refer to the functions as subjective functions and objective functions rather than extraverted or introverted if that helps clear things up. With Extraverted functions we are simply working at surface level, not projecting any influence from within. The cognitive energy flows from the subject to the object and vice versa with introversion.



> Jung first differentiated two attitudinal types: the extravert and the introvert. In the extravert, the libido flows habitually toward the object, but there is also a secret unconscious counteraction back toward the subject. For the extravert the hidden move back toward the subject is usually an unconscious factor. In the case of the introvert, the opposite occurs, for he feels that the object would constantly overwhelm him, so that he has to continually retire from it, for everything is falling upon him, he is constantly overwhelmed by impressions, but he is unaware that he is secretly borrowing, or lending, psychic energy to the object through his own unconscious extraversion.
> 
> Psychotherapy, page 20


Also note that psychic doesn't mean fortune-teller or any of the ways we use the term but rather adjectivally describes the energy of the psyche. It's psyche-ic.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

In Jungian Analytical Psychology "Objective" and "Subjective" retain their old, early 20th Century meanings:

Objective: from a "transpersonal" perspective in the outside world avalible to everyone.
Subjective: from a inner, personal perspective that doesn't necessarily jive with the outside world.

So Extraverts are more likely to change their minds if the outer conditions change, Introverts tend to twist the outer world to fit their mind. An unbalanced extravert is superficial, an unbalanced introvert is out of touch with reality.



The association between subjectivity and F comes from that Western culture has a bias to Te.


----------



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

tine said:


> I always hear 'Extroverted functions are objective' and 'subjective' for the introverted ones.
> I'm not sure what this means. How can a function i.e. Fe be objective? It's about feelings. Te is about logic etc etc. All of these are subjective (good/evil, black/white etc). I don't see how there can be an objective function, so I thought I'd ask!


Explanation of E/I attitudes:
http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my...escription-extraverted-introverted-types.html

The attitudes can also be applied to each of the 4 functions.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

Owfin said:


> Logic is subjective? Woah, I lean more heavily to Te than I thought...


A good example of the subjective nature of Ti is Einstein being asked what he would think if Relativity was proven false. Einstein answered "then I pity the good Lord, because the theory is correct". Ti tends to twist data to fit internal conceptualizations and models.


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

I've seen somewhere that extroverted functions aim to make the inner ideal fit with the outer world, while introverted functions tend to make the outer world fit with the inner ideal. That seems to fit the subjective/objective idea somewhat.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

TaylorS said:


> A good example of the subjective nature of Ti is Einstein being asked what he would think if Relativity was proven false. Einstein answered "then I pity the good Lord, because the theory is correct". Ti tends to twist data to fit internal conceptualizations and models.


I'm convinced that Fi does the same thing. Maybe Ni-Si too. I see a pattern as though all the introverted functions relate something back to their internal compass in some sort of way that does twist data in order to fit into their inner model.

Is it twisting thou ? Or is it_ not_ conforming to _outside stimuli_ because it isn't meshing with what_ our inner model is saying._? like saying, _it isn't true for me_.( subjective judgement ) Honestly if you told me you didn't think this was possible, i would still believe it is


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> I'm convinced that Fi does the same thing. Maybe Ni-Si too. I see a pattern as though all the introverted functions relate something back to their internal compass in some sort of way that does twist data in order to fit into their inner model.
> 
> Is it twisting thou ? Or is it_ not_ conforming to _outside stimuli_ because it isn't meshing with what_ our inner model is saying._? like saying, _it isn't true for me_.( subjective judgement ) Honestly if you told me you didn't think this was possible, i would still believe it is


No, you are correct. My Si leads me to relate a sense experience to an internal emotion or thought.

So:

Se says: "I see a tree with small white flowers and smooth bark"
Si says "I see a tree and it makes me feel happy"


----------



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> I'm convinced that Fi does the same thing. Maybe Ni-Si too. I see a pattern as though all the introverted functions relate something back to their internal compass in some sort of way that does twist data in order to fit into their inner model.
> 
> Is it twisting thou ? Or is it_ not_ conforming to _outside stimuli_ because it isn't meshing with what_ our inner model is saying._? like saying, _it isn't true for me_.( subjective judgement ) Honestly if you told me you didn't think this was possible, i would still believe it is


Yes, ma'am.
(Did I just feed your ego?)


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

Thanks very much for the replies!
I was wondering because of looking at Ti and Te and how they're used differently. It seemed strange as T seems like it would be more external than F, but I see what you mean with Jung's explanations (I was using the dictionary terms, so I guess that made it not make as much sense).
So with Te it looks at the facts presented and makes an argument and Ti takes in the facts and twists them to make their argument?


----------



## Narrator (Oct 11, 2009)

tine said:


> Thanks very much for the replies!
> I was wondering because of looking at Ti and Te and how they're used differently. It seemed strange as T seems like it would be more external than F, but I see what you mean with Jung's explanations (I was using the dictionary terms, so I guess that made it not make as much sense).
> So with Te it looks at the facts presented and makes an argument and Ti takes in the facts and twists them to make their argument?


Maybe Ti has an idea and works to fit facts to it? Building blocks, knitting, go where the ideas take you.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

@tine - Potentially think of it this way?

Te uses the facts in a way that is relevant to an outward mode or model.
Ti uses the facts in a way that is relevant to an inward mode or model. 

Ti or Te could easily twist facts inappropriately. We have to remember that they don't exist in a vacuum, and how the facts are "ingested" (with the perceiving functions) will often affect how a person categorizes and uses them ("digests" them) in terms of either Te or Ti.


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> @_tine_ - Potentially think of it this way?
> 
> Te uses the facts in a way that is relevant to an outward mode or model.
> Ti uses the facts in a way that is relevant to an inward mode or model.
> ...


 Thanks. I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but is it something along the lines of taking from the external and using in the internal for Ti and using the external for external issues with Te?
Example?
There's an argument so Ti takes the information, internally processes it and then weighs up a decision.
Te takes the external info and fits it into an argument for the side they weigh to be right from the externally presented facts, not comparing it to themselves? Or would that be wrong as if Si and Te worked together you'd compare to what you knew?
Also, does Te tend to state more facts or ask more questions to learn compared to Ti?


----------



## AbioticPrime (Sep 1, 2011)

tine said:


> Thanks. I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but is it something along the lines of taking from the external and using in the internal for Ti and using the external for external issues with Te?
> Example?
> There's an argument so Ti takes the information, internally processes it and then weighs up a decision.
> Te takes the external info and fits it into an argument for the side they weigh to be right from the externally presented facts, not comparing it to themselves? Or would that be wrong as if Si and Te worked together you'd compare to what you knew?
> Also, does Te tend to state more facts or ask more questions to learn compared to Ti?


You are overcomplicating it. 

Let me try to give an analogy. A Te user and a Ti user are put in front of a table with blocks on it and are told to build a structure. The Te user will manipulate the blocks on the table to create something. The Ti user will grab the blocks from the table, take it into their hands, and then create something. 

The blocks represent logic. The table represents the external world.

The Te user will get the job done more efficiently, and more according to protocol -- people will understand it better because it's done right before their eyes and it follows the same rules present to everyone. 

The Ti user will get the job done their own way -- usually takes longer but it's possible for it to be quicker. People will be a little baffled with what they came up with because it was all done in the privacy of their own hands -- and the product may come out strange or even improper because standard rules of the table were not taken into consideration.

Understanding better?


----------



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

AbioticPrime said:


> You are overcomplicating it.
> 
> Let me try to give an analogy. A Te user and a Ti user are put in front of a table with blocks on it and are told to build a structure. The Te user will manipulate the blocks on the table to create something. The Ti user will grab the blocks from the table, take it into their hands, and then create something.
> 
> ...


I like the analogy.


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

AbioticPrime said:


> You are overcomplicating it.
> 
> Let me try to give an analogy. A Te user and a Ti user are put in front of a table with blocks on it and are told to build a structure. The Te user will manipulate the blocks on the table to create something. The Ti user will grab the blocks from the table, take it into their hands, and then create something.
> 
> ...


 Yeah that makes alot more sense now, thank you! (I find it easier to understand with examples haha).


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

AbioticPrime said:


> You are overcomplicating it.
> 
> Let me try to give an analogy. A Te user and a Ti user are put in front of a table with blocks on it and are told to build a structure. The Te user will manipulate the blocks on the table to create something. The Ti user will grab the blocks from the table, take it into their hands, and then create something.
> 
> ...


 I've had a hard time distinguishing Ti and Te too.

With this analogy, I became confused because, literally-speaking, if anyone was asked to build something with blocks, they'd pick them up and move them around themselves. I don't quite get what you mean by 'manipulate'. I'm frustrating myself by not getting this. Any clarification would be great, thanks


----------



## AbioticPrime (Sep 1, 2011)

laurie17 said:


> I've had a hard time distinguishing Ti and Te too.
> 
> With this analogy, I became confused because, literally-speaking, if anyone was asked to build something with blocks, they'd pick them up and move them around themselves. I don't quite get what you mean by 'manipulate'. I'm frustrating myself by not getting this. Any clarification would be great, thanks


Lol, you are over-thinking it. Don't worry. 

It's kind of hard to explain really unless you've experienced both of them first-hand. I know personally, I'm clueless to the distinction between Fi & Fe because those are my 2 least used functions. 

In my example both Te and Ti are 'manipulating' the 'blocks' or logic, as in mulling over them, trying them out in different ways, and finally coming to a concluded creation. 

Yes, they are both picking up the blocks and moving them around themselves to find a way they see fit. 

I am saying that the Te user will move the blocks around on the table, without removing the blocks from table or from plain sight. The Te user will shift them right then and there -- and will follow all the conventional rules -- it becomes more standardized (because he's adhering to the structure of the table when working with the blocks). 

The Ti user on the other hand will take the blocks FROM the table, and work with the blocks in their own hands or perhaps in their lap. This way, their 'manipulation' of the blocks becomes more personal, less standardized, but also more creative. But, since it's away from plain sight (the table) it's also harder to explain or see how they came to that creation, unlike the Te who works in plain sight.

Make better sense?


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

AbioticPrime said:


> Lol, you are over-thinking it. Don't worry.
> 
> It's kind of hard to explain really unless you've experienced both of them first-hand. I know personally, I'm clueless to the distinction between Fi & Fe because those are my 2 least used functions.
> 
> ...


Yes, thanks  I've also seen it put Te is for practical use, whereas Ti is organising information for the sake of it. Would that describe it?


----------



## AbioticPrime (Sep 1, 2011)

laurie17 said:


> Yes, thanks  I've also seen it put Te is for practical use, whereas Ti is organising information for the sake of it. Would that describe it?


Well... Te wants information for something. 

Ti wants information for itself.

Te is more scientist.

Ti is more philosopher.
-----------------------------------------

I'm trying to think about the way I use Te. It's not always to achieve something tangible or something measurable. 

In my experience, Te has a lot to do with organizing / structuring the world around you for optimum results / success. Te has a lot to do with breaking down a situation into it's simple grounding elements to better understand it as a whole -- so that that knowledge can be reliably utilized in the future. Te doesn't like to start from scratch, it likes to synthesize what's already been discovered. Te is great at breaking tasks down into bits and figuring out the best way to tackle them.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

AbioticPrime said:


> Well... Te wants information for something.
> 
> Ti wants information for itself.
> 
> ...


 Thanks! That's really cleared it up


----------



## intpseeker (Mar 5, 2012)

There are operational definitions of the extraverted and introverted functions that help to understand the differences. Te looks to the outer world (object) for direction in deciding what is logical. Rules, regulations, laws, directions from society, the organization, etc., determine the framework for what Te thinks is logical. Ti, on the other hand looks inward (subject) to it's own set of rules, regs, mores, etc., to decide what is logical. While there can be an intersection of the Ti's guidelines with the object's guidelines, Ti's have been noted to not play well in organizations when their rules and regs differ from those of the organizations.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

It appears that everyone is on the right page as far as Ti being subjective (or focusing on the subject) and Te being objective (or focusing on object). But there is a redundancy of still attempting to place the cart before the horse. The function is not the importance, it’s the attitude, as explained by Jung here:


> Although I do not propose to present the nature of introverted thinking at this point, reserving it for a later section, it is, however, essential that I should make a few statements about it before going further. For if one considers strictly what I have just said concerning [p. 430] extraverted thinking, one might easily conclude that such a statement includes everything that is generally understood as thinking. It might indeed be argued that a thinking whose aim is concerned neither with objective facts nor with general ideas scarcely merits the name 'thinking'. I am fully aware of the fact that the thought of our age, in common with its most eminent representatives, knows and acknowledges only the extraverted type of thinking. This is partly due to the fact that all thinking which attains visible form upon the world's surface, whether as science, philosophy, or even art, either proceeds direct from objects or flows into general ideas. On either ground, although not always completely evident it at least appears essentially intelligible, and therefore relatively valid. In this sense it might be said that the extraverted intellect, i.e. the mind that is orientated by objective data, is actually the only one recognized.
> 
> There is also, however -- and now I come to the question of the introverted intellect -- an entirely different kind of thinking, to which the term I "thinking" can hardly be denied: it is a kind that is neither orientated by the immediate objective experience nor is it concerned with general and objectively derived ideas. I reach this other kind of thinking in the following way. When my thoughts are engaged with a concrete object or general idea in such a way that the course of my thinking eventually leads me back again to my object, this intellectual process is not the only psychic proceeding taking place in me at the moment. I will disregard all those possible sensations and feelings which become noticeable as a more or less disturbing accompaniment to my train of thought, merely emphasizing the fact that this very thinking process which proceeds from objective data and strives again towards the object stands also in a constant relation to the subject. This relation is a condition sine qua non, without which no think- [p. 431] ing process whatsoever could take place. Even though my thinking process is directed, as far as possible, towards objective data, nevertheless it is my subjective process, and it can neither escape the subjective admixture nor yet dispense with it. Although I try my utmost to give a completely objective direction to my train of thought, even then I cannot exclude the parallel subjective process with its all-embracing participation, without extinguishing the very spark of life from my thought. This parallel subjective process has a natural tendency, only relatively avoidable, to subjectify objective facts, i.e. to assimilate them to the subject.
> 
> Whenever the chief value is given to the subjective process, that other kind of thinking arises which stands opposed to extraverted thinking, namely, that purely subjective orientation of thought which I have termed introverted. A thinking arises from this other orientation that is neither determined by objective facts nor directed towards objective data -- a thinking, therefore, that proceeds from subjective data and is directed towards subjective ideas or facts of a subjective character. I do not wish to enter more fully into this kind of thinking here; I have merely established its existence for the purpose of giving a necessary complement to the extraverted thinking process, whose nature is thus brought to a clearer focus.


-And-


> When describing extraverted thinking, I gave a brief characterization of introverted thinking, to which at this stage I must make further reference. Introverted thinking is primarily orientated by the subjective factor. At the least, this subjective factor is represented by a subjective feeling of direction, which, in the last resort, determines judgment. Occasionally, it is a more or less finished image, which to some extent, serves as a standard. This thinking may be conceived either with concrete or with abstract factors, but always at the decisive points it is orientated by subjective data. Hence, it does not lead from concrete experience back again into objective things, but always to the subjective content, External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking, although the introvert would often like to make it so appear. It begins in the subject, and returns to the subject, although it may [p. 481] undertake the widest flights into the territory of the real and the actual….
> 
> This thinking easily loses itself in the immense truth of the subjective factor. It creates theories for the sake of theories, apparently with a view to real or at least possible facts, yet always with a distinct tendency to go over from the world of ideas into mere imagery. Accordingly many intuitions of possibilities appear on the scene, none of which however achieve any reality, until finally images are produced which no longer express anything externally real, being 'merely' symbols of the simply unknowable. It is now merely a mystical thinking and quite as unfruitful as that empirical thinking whose sole operation is within the framework of objective facts. [p. 483]


Hence both uses logical processes, but logic does not equate to being objective. Te like Se, is in the moment and prefers concrete data. Contrary to mis-perceptions, this includes Fe and Ne (at least the latter being in the moment). Ti is universal and abstract like Ni and all other introverting functions. So the confusion comes from a continued focus on the function, not the attitude.


----------



## Trajan117 (Mar 31, 2013)

Ok as an Idealist I'm not as familiar with how thinking works but I'll take a shot at explaing it. Please feel free to correct me. My understanding is like this: And extroverted thinker and an introverted thinker are both tasked with creating some sort of device that is needed to solve a very pressing problem. The extroverted thinker will look at all the available simple machines and building blocks that exist and try to make the device work using those resources. The introverted thinker however, rather than forcing the machine to conform to the way other machines are designed will instead allow the potential machine to speak to him and tell him what is needed and this results in the designing a totally new resource or using a previously unused material to make create the machine. Just like if we were talking about ancient Egypt and pyramid building, an extroverted thinker would think of easier ways to make the sand sleds slide smother to move the blocks where as the introveted thinker would end up designing the wheel and throw out the use of sleds in general.


----------



## Mysteryman (Apr 21, 2012)

Introverted functions focus on the interpretations that you, yourself make. For example, with Ti, you make logical interpretations that apply to only you, which can be changed and isn't as "Set in Stone" as its extraverted counterpart. Te makes logical interpretations that are applied to the external world, and therefore, affect others. Same with Fi, deciding what is right or wrong within yourself. Fe is what is right or wrong for a group or a community. An Fi statement would be "I can't hit him, it isn't right, but he pissed me off so I believe he deserves it." Fe is more along the lines of, "I can't hit him because it's universally believed that it isn't right."

Se is making observation without adding any connection from within. For example, Se: "That's a swing set." Si is observation but brings a connection of your past into it. So it'd be like, "That's a swing set, just like the one I had as a kid." Ne is seeing possibilities for the future without an absolute certainty within yourself at first. So, it'd be like, "I predict the world's population will decrease, but there are so many different factors to consider, *States factors*. Ni is more of a conviction within when predicting the future. Like, "It's going to decrease, I just know from this feeling inside, even if I don't know how it'll happen, it will."


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

To put it as plainly and bluntly as possible:

objective == pertaining to things outside one's mind.
subjective == pertaining to things within one's mind.

Furthermore, extraverted functions maintain a positive relation to the object and introverted functions maintain a positive relation to the subject (Self).

For example, Fe determines what is agreeable based on what others think is acceptable and can change based on the group dynamic; Fi determines what is agreeable to the Self and doesn't change regardless of what the group thinks**. With Thinking, let's say a Te person is a prosecutor. They will follow the letter of the law, regardless of his/her own opinions of it, and will only change if the law changes. Ti doesn't care about the law and follows his/her own rules**; sometimes they coincide, sometimes they don't.

**Ti/Fi might change their opinion because of outside factors. This is not because they are basing it on outside factors, but because the outside triggered Ti/Fi to re-assess their internal opinion.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

tine said:


> I always hear 'Extroverted functions are objective' and 'subjective' for the introverted ones.
> I'm not sure what this means. How can a function i.e. Fe be objective? It's about feelings. Te is about logic etc etc. All of these are subjective (good/evil, black/white etc). I don't see how there can be an objective function, so I thought I'd ask!


Yeah, Fe would be "objective" in so far as Fe is focused on generally accepted moral valuations whereas Fi is more personalized and individualistic. Likewise, Te is focused on "thinking out loud" and collective reasoning. Science is an excellent example of collective reasoning. Something like cartesian rationalism, conversely, is quite idiosyncratic and individual-dependent - hence Ti. Descartes was probably an INTP.


----------

