When introverts are talkative and gregarious, and extraverts are quiet and reserved

Returning to Jung’s root definitions, and rediscovering their implications for our personal, professional, and leadership value.

Jung’s Definition

There are a great many interpretations on what introversion and extraversion mean; no less from the pioneer, Carl Jung himself, through his years of ongoing study. They range from “Schopenhauer’s will,” to “the causal factor behind the conflict in the neurotic,” to “a concept of intensity of value,” to, more recently, “traits” (introvert = “quiet and reserved,” and extravert = “friendly and gregarious”). (Geyer, 2012) In his later years, Jung (re-) affirmed introversion as “an attitude-type characterized by orientation in life through subjective psychic contents,” and, extraversion as “an attitude-type characterized by concentration of interest on the external object.” (Jung, 1963) According to his root definitions, then, introversion and extraversion are (1) attitudes; and (2) our mind’s inner foci, rather than externalized traits. Of course, we do not need to go along with Jung, as we seek to describe (human) phenomena rather than to defend his idea. But a phenomenological analysis on the human act, whereby the human act is examined for all the necessary components that make an act, is consistent with Jung’s root definitions.

A Phenomenology of Act

It is impossible for us to create anything without what Aristotle called a “material cause.” Materials, here, are not necessarily physical (like the marble out of which a statue is created); they can also be phenomenal (like the algorithms out of which a computer software is created). We can turn to any one of three basic domains of reality for our creative “materials”: the external world of things and events; our inner world of ideas, emotions, and imageries; or the relational world between oneself and the external world of things, events, and people. (It may be worthy to note that the relational world is not a combination of the inner and the external worlds, but rather, it is an independent domain characterized by an independent “space” between the two—akin to Martin Buber’s I-Thou dimension of reality. [Buber, 1937]) In any act, we are each required, first, to turn-toward—(a) our internal world by introverting, (b) the external world by extraverting, or (c) our relational world by interverting—to engage our creative materials; without which we cannot proceed to act, at all. These three acts—introversion, extraversion, and interversion—are each a First Act in any given act.

We are, somehow, predisposed toward one and not another domain of materials; somehow preferring and valuing one over other domains of reality. This may explain why some of us are “helplessly” task-oriented (objective and extraverted), idea-seeking (subjective and introverted), or people-oriented (intersubjective and interverted); even as we are each required in our everyday to relate with others (interversion), to plan (introversion), and to set and attain goals (extraversion).

Implications

There is a distinction between an extraverted/introverted focus and an extraverted/introverted trait. Extraverts (that is, one who is focused on the external world) may tend to display extraverted traits; but not always. An extravert whose focus is 100% turned outward to detect forces of influence and intrusions is more likely to be “domineering” and “hostile,” rather than “friendly and gregarious.” An extravert whose focus is 100% turned outward to figure out a business competitor (or prospect, for the matter) is more likely to be “quiet and reserved,” traits that are commonly labeled as “introvert.” An “introvert” who is sitting in silence and solitude (“quiet and reserved”) can in fact be 100% extraverted toward the external world—the sky, the evening sun, the river, the trees—making her a 100% extravert, in that moment.

Understanding the distinction between foci and traits, and that they do not always agree with each other, can improve the way we approach and relate with others. For example, one who is “quiet and reserved” is not always “unapproachable,” but can get extremely excited and talkative over a dialogue about ideas; and, likewise, one who is extraverted is not always “friendly and gregarious,” but may require us to approach and relate with care and caution.

Given that we are very likely each a hodgepodge of extraverting, introverting, and interverting in any given day (even as, in principle, we should each be predominantly predisposed to being task-oriented, idea-seeking, or people-oriented), a complete profile of our personality should provide some indicator as to how much we are in each of these departments. How much can I drive success, enforcement, or motivation? (Extraversion.) How much can I develop plans, ideas, and visions? (Introversion.) How well can I serve people and establish ties? (Interversion.) In doing so, we no longer need to be assigned to one type at the expense of the others; and we can each complement our core type with other lesser, but no less integral and important, assets. For example, an individual may have the core type of the introverted Thinker, but he/she is also caring and personal (the interverted Helper), and bold and competitive (the extraverted Competitor). The integration of his/her secondary types to his/her core type (the Thinker + Helper and Competitor) results in a more complete personality profile that is “The Kingmaker”; who may be a thing of medieval past now, but who continues to live and act amongst us in our everyday—such as Bill Gates’ Microsoft, whose mission it is to “to empower every person and every organization on the planet [through the invention of solutions].”

The Kingmaker is ONE personality composed of three basic types. Discover your types and personality here.

Going with Jung’s root definitions can also help us to understand—and value—others and ourselves on a deeper, psychological level (rather than just our externalized traits and appearances). We can better understand that humans are naturally predisposed to being objective and task-oriented in order for us to attain our goals, or subjective and idea-seeking in order to create ideas, or intersubjective and people-oriented in order to establish ties. For these are attitudes and personal capabilities that, together, created our world. And things, people, and ideas are the three “materials”—each distinct and integral—that make the world.

It is a lot more meaningful, it appears, to stick with Jung’s root definitions.

_____

Geyer, Peter. 2012. Extraversion–Introversion: What C. G. Jung Meant and How Contemporaries Responded. AusAPT Biennial Conference.

Jung, Carl. 1995 (1963). Memories, Dreams, Reflections. London: Fontana Press. 414–415.

Buber, Martin. 2010 (1937). I and Thou. Connecticut: Martino.

_____