Here are some of the difficulties that we've had in our attempts to understand Lenore Thomson's ideas.
| • | What do the introverted and extraverted forms of the same function have to do with each other? For example, Extraverted Intuition seems to be guessing the whole from seeing a few parts. Introverted Intuition seems to be thinking up alternative interpretations and denying that anything true can be said. Why do those both have the name "intuition"? |
speculative answer 1: In the Extraverted intuition and Introverted intuition chapter, both are referred to in ways that define both types of intuition as "speculative", or being consumed with the process of generating possibilities beyond the immediate. From an Introverted standpoint, this relates to speculating via generating alternate possibilities for concepts, which will appear to be better defined as "interpretations". However, from an extroverted standpoint, generating possible implications, while still speculative, seems to be better defined as "hypotheses", seeing as though that label borrows from scientific methods related to understanding natural, external principles.
| • | What do the introverted forms of the functions all have in common? |
| • | What do the extraverted forms of the functions all have in common? |
speculative answer 1: They all seem to relate to an immediately present, external standard or stimuli. extraverted feeling deals with imposed standards of emotion; extraverted sensing deals with immediate, concrete stimulus; extraverted intuition deals with possibilities as they are hinted by immediate, concrete, external situations. The only tricky one is extraverted thinking. Extraverted thinking seems to actually be more "introverted" while Introverted thinking seems to be more "extraverted" in the sense that introverted thinking puts an emphasis on immediate, perceptual information that deals with the entire, visual nature of a situation. Extraverted thinking on the otherhand is "conceptual" and "linear" and deals with abstractions before the fact. The way to pin down introverted thinking as being in fact "introverted" is to consider that dealing with the immediate, perceptual essence of something requires one to abandon a sense of "objectivity" and instead pay more attention to one's particular point of view, and the visual clues that are specific to that perspective.Extraverted thinking on the otherhand, while dealing with "conceptual" standpoints, which may seem introverted, are generally objective rules derived from receiving information that can be looked at as existing in "reality" as opposed to the subjective, minds eye. Objectivity, afterall, is indeed the element which ties all of the extraverted attitudes together. Even extraverted intuition starts from an objective situation, deriving the subjective only as long as an objective root is present. Objectivity can also be looked at as more extraverted than introverted in the sense that objectivity is something which we generally look at as being true and immutable, thus impervious to being changed by ones, internal, subjective, or "introverted" analysis.
| • | What do different forms of the same function-attitude, but in different positions, have to do with each other? For example, Introverted Sensation as a dominant function seems to be a concern with holding certain priorities intact. But for INTPs, Introverted Sensation takes the form of psychosomatic disorders or paranoia about whether one's food is poisonous. What do these have in common? |
speculative answer: I believe the degree to which a function-attitude strays from the primary strength is the degree to which it becomes unhealthy. In the example within the book that referred to a psychologist who thought mixing tomatoes and dairy was deadly, we can see how this can be looked at as an example of taking the "subjective", filtered approach to identifying and giving value to concrete things in ones environment. This can be related to more healthy ( when in primary or secondary) versions of introverted sensing which, like the above example, uses a subjective approach to valuing external, concrete things, but with a much more refined and developed style that lends more to organization than irrational beliefs.
speculative answer 1: Maybe because humans tend to see their inferior functions as "evil". Some ISTPs, for example, tend to see Extraverted Feeling as unhealthy conformism. One can actually use one's dominant function and inferior function at appropriate times, but unfortunately it is the nature of the human brain to view the inferior as evil and stick to the dominant attitude. This is related to the Jungian theory that the inferior is pushed to the shadow.
speculative answer 2: Maybe because the inferior function is too weak to have a "feel" of its realm. To illustrate, ETJs (with inferior Introverted Feeling) can hardly sense the "soul in all things" that IFPs easily pick up. ITPs don't have a good feel for social roles, which are the domain of their inferior Extraverted Feeling. Consequently, even if the ITP wants to use his Extraverted Feeling for socializing, he gets into difficulties because he wasn't very aware of social roles all along. This is why it's easier to use the Secondary Function to fulfill the inferior's aims indirectly: the secondary function has a stronger feel. E.g. ISTPs might not sense roles well, but their secondary Extraverted Sensing knows what will make people like them on a visceral level, and they use that knowledge for socializing. -- Rapture of the Blade (ISTP)
| • | What do extraverts have to gain by developing an introverted attitude? It seems obvious what introverts gain by developing an extraverted attitude: money, power, a social position, etc. Why can't extraverts just focus on their extraverted concerns with no function-related problems? |
| • | At the end of the day, what does each type want their story to say? |
| • | Do ESFPs even care? Or Extraverts for that matter? |
Some word choices and metaphors
See also: Main Propositions, Tea Leaves And Tarot Cards
