Gregg,
I'm glad you find this interesting. And yes, I agree it is important to make the distinction between "The Big Five" conceptualization of extraversion, and Jung's conceptualization of the extraversion / introversion dichotomy. I actually find Jung's conceptualization to be more "crisp" in comparison to the Big Five's conceptualization, (which is ironic,considering that Jung's writing is often so opaque!) Jung's conceptualization of those terms also seem to align more closely with the etymology of those terms, (i.e. outward turning vs inward turning), while the Big Five's conceptualization of extraversion has long struck me as having something of a "folk psychology" flavor to it, (perhaps because the Big Five is based on the lexical hypothesis?).
Also, I think Jung's view of extraversion and introversion were a little more general than exteroception and interoception, which seem specifically more along the lines of what he called "extraverted sensing" and "introverted sensing", respectively, (as opposed to what he referred to as extraverted and introverted intuition, which refer to more abstract perceptions).
Nevertheless, it might be an interesting thought experiment to think analogously of exteroception in relation to bodies, and interoception in relation to fields.
~ Jason On Sunday, February 2, 2020, 09:03:13 AM EST, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
#yiv2771678753 #yiv2771678753 -- _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {}#yiv2771678753 #yiv2771678753 p.yiv2771678753MsoNormal, #yiv2771678753 li.yiv2771678753MsoNormal, #yiv2771678753 div.yiv2771678753MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv2771678753 a:link, #yiv2771678753 span.yiv2771678753MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2771678753 a:visited, #yiv2771678753 span.yiv2771678753MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2771678753 p.yiv2771678753msonormal0, #yiv2771678753 li.yiv2771678753msonormal0, #yiv2771678753 div.yiv2771678753msonormal0 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv2771678753 span.yiv2771678753ydp828f4cf8 {}#yiv2771678753 span.yiv2771678753ydp828f4cf8ff2 {}#yiv2771678753 span.yiv2771678753ydp828f4cf8ls0 {}#yiv2771678753 span.yiv2771678753ydp828f4cf8ls2 {}#yiv2771678753 span.yiv2771678753ydp828f4cf8ls3 {}#yiv2771678753 span.yiv2771678753ydp20c145b6 {}#yiv2771678753 span.yiv2771678753ydp20c145b6ff3 {}#yiv2771678753 span.yiv2771678753EmailStyle26 {font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv2771678753 .yiv2771678753MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered {}#yiv2771678753 div.yiv2771678753WordSection1 {}#yiv2771678753 _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {}#yiv2771678753 ol {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv2771678753 ul {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv2771678753
This is fascinating, Jason.
I think you are drawing on some interesting insights, AND it is the case to be sure to understand them, we need to be sure we are not mixing up different conceptual threads based on association.
First, for anyone following, let’s be clear that extraversion-introversion in Jungian theory is different than extraversion in Big Five trait theory. The latter is surgency, positive affect and general activity levels (especially social/gregarious activities). The Jung conception is focused much more on the character and direction of conscious/phenomenological attention.
To understand the Jungian extraversion-introversion distinction, it is helpful to consider the classes of sensation we have access to. There are “exteroceptive” senses that are the traditional five+ senses that bring in information from the outside. There are also “interoceptive senses” which refer to attention to the senses coming from the organs, like one’s gut. One can also consider one’s intuition here, potentially. Finally, there is proprioception, which refers to how one is aware of one’s position in the world, and pertains to things like balance and coordination.
Extraverted folks have conscious attention dominated by exteroceptive sensation, whereas introverted folks focus more on the interoceptive senses. John Vervaeke’s emphasis that the mind is all about the “agent arena” relationship is helpful here. You can pay attention to the objects in the arena (extraversion) or the mental contents in the mind of the agent (introversion).
With that said, I think interesting reflections can be made regarding what you note about object and field, but much of that is associative and, as I suggested above, is in danger of confounding across meanings.
The argument that I am making about behavior is perhaps best understood by placing it in Ken Wilber’s analysis of the different epistemological quadrants (see here for a brief overview). The argument both Wilber and I would make is that modern science shifted the meaning of “empirical” from observation through the senses into observation grounded in external measurement. This is crucial because it shifts the frame of reference from a first person phenomenological view to a general third person view. I make the additional argument (very consistent with Wilber) that we can characterize the basic conceptual frame of scientific epistemology as behaviors (i.e., observed/measured changes in object-field relations) in systemic contexts. Attached is my view of Wilber’s quadrants seen through the lens of the Unified Framework.
I think I will pause here and then see where we might want to go.
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>On Behalf Of nysa71
Sent: Saturday, February 1, 2020 10:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Extraversion vs. Introversion, Mental Behavior, & the Object-Field
Hello ToK Society,
Just some thoughts on the concepts of extraversion (i.e., "outward-turning") and introversion, (i.e., "inward-turning"), and how they might relate to the ToK conceptualization of "behavior" as "a change in the object-field relationship"...
Specifically, I'll be referring to the analogy made by Lithuanian sociologist, Aushra Augusta, between extraversion & introversion on the one hand, and bodies & fields (or objects & fields), on the other. And this could be particularly relevant to the ToK insofar that behavior itself is a change in the object-field relation:
- "...introverts think not in terms ofobjects and what happens to them, [as extraverts do] but in terms of relationships between objects, especially the relationship between the subject and the external world. To refer to relationships, [Augusta] utilized the concept of a field, taken from theoretical physics. This association should be considered metaphorical and can be easily explained. Celestial bodies interact mostly from afar due to fields. The field is a sum of relationships of one body with other bodies. It becomes clear if we imagine a particle. We cannot say if it hasan electric charge (and thereforean electric field aroundit) unless we put another charged particle nearby and see how it reacts.It may movecloser, drift away or stay in place. Only then can we say something about the relationship between the charges of these particles. Other physical fields work in the same way. Therefore, the concept of a field is somehow akin to the concept ofa relationship." [Source]
Furthermore, (and bearing in mind from the last sentence in the citation above that "the concept of afield 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 stimuliand 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, andnot 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
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link:http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] click the following link:http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1