SJ Longthorne

To give an even more concrete example... I fell out with a friend last year. My immediate impulse was to roll over, to invite criticism, to do whatever it took to repair the relationship, even if it meant questioning my own reality and perception of events. I gaslit myself.

As time passed, I used the reassurance from better friends to rely more on my less prominent Fi side. I developed the bravery, confidence and self-respect to confront that friend and stand up for myself. To give ground where it was earned, to be humble where I had messed up...

But to stand by the times when I was right, or just, or where I had been unjustly maligned. Fi was not my default, but I'm capable of it, and I am healthier for strengthening it. Likewise, sometimes Fe doms grow by learning when to give way to others and take one for the team.

Now, as to extroversion, introversion and ambiversion as they're more commonly used. I do still think they have a place in Jung's method, but it's just less stark than http://16personalities.com  would have people believe.

Myers-Briggs evaluated each letter in the initialism separately, in a way reminiscent of the Big Five test. But I'm personally far more partial to Jung's method of introverted or extroverting certain functions, which feels more interconnected, involved and nuanced.

More, everything on a scale, differing on where based on situation and context, rather than more fixed & delineated?

A mixture. They separated personality into four measures, but treated each of those measures as a spectrum. I agree with the spectrum aspect, but I'm not hugely keen on the idea of four separate traits. I think it's more convoluted.

The idea of a spectrum though? That allows for much more natural human flexibility if we combine it with Jung's approach. E/I determines how you project traits, and a spectrum allows me to say "Mostly I am like this, but sometimes I can be like this", and feel more understood.