Extraversion in Typology

One thing that you find a lot in typology circles is that people seem to automatically assume that those who lead with an extraverted function (Ne, Se, Te, Fe) will automatically be a social butterfly. They expect that the term ‘extraversion’, as it is traditionally is used, translates directly over to the extraverted functions. This, however, is false.

Carl Jung’s View On Extraversion

Someone asked me once if Jung ever said anything about this. I am uncertain if Jung ever specifically stated this or not. So, unfortunately, I can’t point you to an exact quote from him as definitive proof. However, we can see his intent for separation through how he describes cognitive functions, and how the words ‘introversion’ and ‘extraversion’ are being used in relation to the cognitive functions.

Additionally, we know from a quote of his that I do have that Jung was not a fan of the idea of traditional introversion and extraversion. See quote here: “There is no such thing as a pure extravert or a pure introvert. Such a man would be in the lunatic asylum. Those are only terms to designate a certain penchant, a certain tendency.” -Carl Jung

So, from this we can gather that he did not like the way that these terms are being used in the traditional sense today, but rather viewed it as a tendency and that any extreme in either direction is a sign of an unhealthy person. We all should be able to be both traditionally introverted and extraverted, and shouldn’t be stuck in either mode. Just by this alone we know that all of the 16 types should be ‘ambiverts’, so by extension leading with an introverted or extraverted function must mean something else.

The idea that traditional extraversion and leading with an extraverted function mean essentially the same thing is a false equivalency that people assume. They see the word ‘extravert’ within the context of personality and automatically assume it always means what they have grown accustomed to ‘extravert’ meaning. However, the words ‘introversion’ and ‘extroversion’ when they apply to a function simply indicate whether that function is dealing primarily with the external world or the internal one.

Something like Te simply indicates that the user extraverts thinking, and not that the person themself is an extravert. By extension, having Te as a lead function just means that the person’s default natural response when presented with a situation is to call on extraverted thinking. This means they will default to extraverting their logic into the world through manipulating their environment to what they think makes sense, or they will draw upon what they know of the external world to inform their logic. As you can see, no part of that process makes a person a traditional extravert.

Now, we contrast that to what is considered traditional extraversion (which also could be called social extraversion) which really means that the person likes to extravert their whole personality or person into the world, generally speaking. The distinction here is that a Te user just extraverts their thinking to manipulate their environment, versus a traditional extravert who confidently interacts with anyone they come across. What matters is more what you apply the word extraverted to rather than the word extravert itself.

I hope that makes sense.

Jung, when he was speaking about extraverted cognitive functions, was talking about the pieces of cognition in a person that interact with or use the external world. The implications of this are that he was not focused on whether the person was completely extraverted, but rather what pieces of their cognition were, and how often those pieces of cognition ended up being used.

Let’s take the EXTJ as an example

When, say, a Te dominant doesn’t line up with the stereotypical description of the assertive and domineering CEO, it doesn’t matter as far as determining whether that person is indeed a Te dominant. A Te dominant can either need constant validation or completely avoid bringing attention to themselves. Either way, it more speaks to an imbalance in their judging functions, which is more common of those who have those functions polarized as dominant and inferior. To me, it speaks to low Fi development or Fi suppression.

This stereotype of the super confident CEO is an unfortunate one that has been propagated by the 16 personalities website. There are a certain subset of Te doms that will relate to the description, but honestly, there is a certain subset of every personality type that will relate to that description. The question is why?

The answer is because the 16 personalities site and test does not actually measure cognitive function use, but rather uses the big five model and tries to shoe horn those traits into the four letter types. They apparently have tied the trait of Extraversion (sociability, assertiveness) to Te use which is not true. The big five indicators are measuring a different area of personality that has some minor overlap with cognitive functions, but certainly cannot be tied directly to any one cognitive function. As we already went over the distinction between extraversion and an extraverted function, I will not rehash that here.

Thinking about this though, it is pretty amusing there are some people that assume every CEO in every company is or has to be some form of Te dominant. What we know of reality is that this is definitely not the case. The stereotype gets a further push by how Te looks when it is being wielded by a driven person. The stereotype of a powerful CEO tends to be based off of a power hungry narcissistic Te dom, but that doesn’t mean all Te doms will be that way.

Another thing of note though is that inferior Fi users need their worth/identity validated by the external world. A Te dominant will be confident when this need is being fulfilled. The descriptions don’t tend to explain this because it’s not something the EXTJs reveal to others. Inferior Fi does not want to display weakness since it puts them at risk of being identified as weak. The descriptions typically describe the way people see the stereotypical EXTJ rather than how they see themselves.

In conclusion…

Hopefully this helped shed some light on an unfortunate assumption that people make and helps people understand how someone who leads with an extraverted function can be an ‘introvert’.