Furthermore, (and bearing in mind from the last sentence in the citation above that "the concept of a field is somehow akin to the concept of a relationship"):
"It seems necessary to answer why [Augusta] decided to rename Jungian extraversion/introversion dichotomy to objects/relationships. According to Jung, the dichotomy was made to distinguish between subjective and objective attitude towards reality (Jung, 1921). Even though all experience is subjective, Jung found that some people prefer one attitude, while others prefer the other. The distinction is based on the degree to which perception or judgement of objects is influenced by subjective and idiosyncratic contents of one’s inner life. Objective (extraverted) attitude is characterized by the submission of the subject’s perception to the experienced objects. Introversion, on the other hand, is characterized by greater distance between the object and the subject. Talanov proposed a model according to which the conscious metabolism of information in extraverts is inhibited by low intensity stimuli and excited by strong stimuli (Talanov, 2006). This model suggests that extraverts need strong external stimuli in order to orient themselves in the world. The internal stimuli (interoception, daydreaming) are presumably not enough to excite them. Information metabolism of introverts, on the other hand, is inhibited by strong stimuli and stimulated by the more subtle ones. Therefore, introverts are more likely to concentrate on the internal stimuli which are produced in response to external excitations, and not on the external excitations themselves. Let us notice that such internal stimuli express the relationship between the introvert and the external world, which explains how introversion is linked with the perception of information about relationships [i.e., fields]." [Source p. 10]
So, in short, it is suggested that extraversion refers to a focus on objects, and introversion as a focus on fields, in object-field relations.
Gregg has written before that we can think of humanistic and scientific perspectives as first-person and third-person perspectives, respectively --- which to me, could just as easily be called introverted and extraverted perspectives, respectively.
So perhaps --- in object-field relations --- we could say (particularly in regards to psychology) that a scientific perspective focuses primarily on the object, and a humanistic perspective focuses primarily on the field.
Thoughts?
~ Jason Bessey