There is no clear description of what an extrovert (extroversion) and an introvert (introversion) are from Carl Jung. Carl Jung wrote about this more like a poet — with images and metaphors that are not reducible to clear formulations and criteria, and therefore in the works of different authors there are different interpretations of what Carl Gustav Jung had in mind.
According to one of the interpretations, Jung puts the direction of libido movement as the main criterion distinguishing between extroverts and introverts. According to K. Jung, extraversion is manifested in the direction of the libido (vital energy) of a person to the outside world, in that the extravert prefers the social and practical aspects of life, operations with real external objects, and the introvert prefers immersion in the world of imagination and reflection. An extrovert is aimed at wasting their own energy, moving it towards surrounding objects, an introvert is aimed at accumulating, moving energy into the inner world.
According to Jung, an extrovert is a type of personality (or behavior) that is oriented in its manifestations outside, to others. Extroverts are characterized by behavior in which a person seeks to communicate with people, attention from others, participation in public speaking, participation in crowded events and parties.
Extroverts are «charged» with energy from the outside world — from actions, people, places and things. They are energy wasters. Long periods of inactivity, inner contemplation, or loneliness, or communication with only one person deprives them of the sense of the meaning of life. However, extroverts need to supplement the time they spend in action with intervals of just being, otherwise they will get lost in the whirlwind of hectic activity. Extroverts have a lot to offer our society: they express themselves easily, focus on results, love crowds and action.
Extroverts are like solar panels. For them, being alone or being inside is like being under heavy, dense clouds. Solar panels need the sun to recharge — extroverts need to be in public for this. An extrovert can be an excellent toastmaster, an organizer (often on a voluntary basis), an official who manages people, an artist or an entertainer.
Over time, Jung significantly revised his views on extraversion-introversion. First, he singled out a number of independent factors (psychological functions) that he previously included in the composition of extraversion-introversion: thinking, feeling (experience), sensation, intuition. Secondly, starting with his programmatic work Psychological Types (1920), he spoke not of extroverts and introverts, but of the extraversion or introversion of the dominant function. That is, he wrote that one of the functions can dominate in the psyche of an individual person — extraverted or introverted thinking, feeling, sensation, intuition, while in the psyche there was a place for other functions that played an auxiliary role or were forced out into the unconscious.
Further — reliable references from some works of Carl Jung.
«Psychological Theory of Types»
“My profession has long forced me to take into account the peculiarities of individuals, and the special circumstance that for many years — I do not know how many — I had to treat spouses and make a man and a woman mutually acceptable, emphasizes still more the need to establish certain average truths. How many times have I had to say: “You see, your wife is a very active person and you really can’t expect her whole existence to be only in the household.” This is already typing, and this expresses a kind of statistical truth. There are active and passive natures. However, this common truth did not satisfy me. My next attempt was to suppose that there is a kind of thinking and unthinking natures, for I saw that many natures, which at first glance seem passive, are in fact not so much passive as prudent. They first think about the situation — then they act, and since for them this is a usual course of action, they miss cases where direct action without reflection is necessary, and thus an opinion is formed about their passivity. The unthinking have always seemed to me those who, without thinking, jump with both feet into a situation, only to realize later that they seem to have landed in a swamp. Thus, they could perhaps be characterized as unthinking, which was appropriately shown in activity; the foresight of others in a number of cases is, in the final analysis, a very important activity and a very responsible action in comparison with a thoughtless fleeting outburst of mere efficiency. However, I soon discovered that indecision is by no means always due to foresight, but rather, action is not always thoughtless. The indecisiveness of the former is just as often based on his inherent timidity, or at least on something like a simple retreat before a too difficult task, and the direct activity of the second is often due to a greater trust in the object than in himself. This observation prompts me to formulate typing as follows: there is a whole class of people who, at the moment of reaction to a given situation, sort of step back, quietly saying “no”, and only after that they react, and there are people belonging to another class who, in such situations react directly, apparently in full confidence that their action is undoubtedly the right one. That is, the first class is characterized by a certain negative attitude towards the object, the latter is rather positive. As you know, the first class corresponds to the introverted, and the last to the extraverted attitude.
«Psychological typology»
Extraversion is characterized by an interest in an external object, responsiveness and readiness to perceive external events, a desire to influence and be influenced by events, a need to interact with the outside world, the ability to endure turmoil and noise of any kind, and actually find pleasure in it, the ability to maintain constant attention to the outside world, to make many friends and acquaintances without much, however, analysis and, ultimately, the presence of a feeling of great importance to be close to someone chosen, and therefore, a strong tendency to demonstrate oneself. Accordingly, the life philosophy of an extrovert and his ethics carry, as a rule, a highly collectivist nature (beginning) with a strong tendency to altruism. His conscience largely depends on public opinion. Moral concerns arise mainly when «other people know». The religious beliefs of such a person are determined, so to speak, by a majority of votes.
The real subject, the extravert as a subjective being, is — as far as possible — immersed in darkness. He hides his subjective principle from himself under the cover of the unconscious. The reluctance to subject one’s own motives and impulses to critical reflection is very clear. He has no secrets, he cannot keep them for long, because he shares everything with others. If something that cannot be mentioned touches him, such a person will prefer to forget it. Everything that can dim the parade of optimism and positivism is avoided. Whatever he thinks, does, or intends to do, is delivered convincingly and warmly.
The mental life of a given personality type is played out, so to speak, outside of itself, in the environment. He lives in and through others — any reflection on himself makes him shudder. The dangers lurking there are best overcome by noise. If he has a «complex», he takes refuge in social whirl, turmoil and allows several times a day to be assured that everything is in order. In the event that he does not interfere too much in other people’s affairs, is not too assertive and not too superficial, he can be a pronounced useful member of any community.
In this short article, I must content myself with a cursory sketch. I simply intend to give the reader some idea of what extraversion is, something that he can bring into line with his own knowledge of human nature. I deliberately began with a description of extraversion, since this attitude is familiar to everyone — an extrovert not only lives in this attitude, but also demonstrates it in every possible way in front of his comrades out of principle. In addition, such an attitude is consistent with certain generally recognized ideals and moral principles.
Introversion, on the other hand, which is directed not at the object, but at the subject and not oriented at the object, is not so easy to observe. The introvert is not so accessible, he is, as it were, in constant retreat in front of the object, giving in to him. He keeps aloof from external events, without entering into relationship with them, and shows a distinct negative attitude towards society, as soon as he is among a fair number of people. In large companies, he feels lonely and lost. The thicker the crowd, the stronger its resistance grows. At least he is not «with her» and does not feel love for gatherings of enthusiasts. He can not be classified as a sociable person. What he does, he does in his own way, shielding himself from outside influences. Such a person tends to look awkward, clumsy, often deliberately restrained, and it just so happens that either because of a certain arrogance of manner, or because of his gloomy inaccessibility, or something done inappropriately, he unwittingly offends people. He reserves his best qualities for himself and generally does his best to keep silent about them. He easily becomes distrustful, self-willed, often suffers from the inferiority of his feelings and for this reason is also envious. His ability to comprehend the object is carried out not due to fear, but because the object seems to him negative, demanding attention, irresistible or even threatening. Therefore, he suspects everyone of “all mortal sins”, he is always afraid of being fooled, so he usually turns out to be very touchy and irritable. He surrounds himself with a barbed wire of embarrassment so tightly and impenetrably that in the end he himself prefers to do something rather than sit inside. He confronts the world with a carefully designed defensive system, composed of scrupulousness, pedantry, moderation and thrift, foresight, «high-lipped» correctness and honesty, painful conscientiousness, politeness and open distrust. There are few pink colors in his picture of the world, since he is supercritical and will find hair in any soup. Under normal circumstances, he is pessimistic and anxious because the world and human beings are not one iota kind and seek to crush him, so that he never feels accepted and favored by them. But he himself also does not accept this world, at least not completely, not completely, since at first everything must be comprehended and discussed by him according to his own critical standards. Ultimately, only those things are accepted from which, for various subjective reasons, he can derive his own benefit.
For him, any thoughts and thoughts about himself are a real pleasure. His own world is a safe harbor, a carefully guarded and fenced garden, closed to the public and hidden from prying eyes. The best is your own company. He feels at home in his world, and only he himself makes any changes in it. His best work is done with his own resources, on his own initiative and in his own way. If he succeeds after a long and exhausting struggle to master something alien to him, he is able to achieve excellent results. The crowd, the majority of views and opinions, public rumor, general enthusiasm will never convince him of anything, but rather make him hide even deeper in his shell.
His relationships with other people become warmer only in conditions of guaranteed security, when he can put aside his protective distrust. Since this happens to him infrequently, then, accordingly, the number of his friends and acquaintances is very limited. So the psychic life of this type is entirely played out within. And if difficulties and conflicts arise there, then all doors and windows are tightly closed. The introvert withdraws into himself along with his complexes, until he ends up in complete isolation.
Despite all these features, being an introvert is by no means a social loss. His retreat into himself does not represent a final renunciation of the world, but is a search for a solace in which solitude enables him to make his contribution to the life of the community. This personality type is the victim of numerous misunderstandings — not because of injustice, but because he himself causes them. Nor can he be free from accusations of taking secret pleasure in mystification, because such a misunderstanding brings him a certain satisfaction, since it confirms his pessimistic point of view. From all this it is not difficult to understand why he is accused of coldness, pride, stubbornness, selfishness, self-satisfaction and vanity, capriciousness, and why he is constantly exhorted that devotion to the public interest, sociability, imperturbable refinement and selfless trust in powerful authority are true virtues and testify to a healthy and energetic life.
The introvert quite understands and recognizes the existence of the above-mentioned virtues and admits that somewhere, perhaps — just not in the circle of his acquaintances — there are beautiful spiritual people who enjoy the undiluted possession of these ideal qualities. But self-criticism and awareness of his own motives quite quickly lead him out of the delusion regarding his ability to such virtues, and the incredulous sharp look, sharpened by anxiety, allows him to constantly discover donkey ears sticking out from under the lion’s mane in his associates and fellow citizens. Both the world and people are for him troublemakers and a source of danger, without providing him with an appropriate standard by which he could eventually navigate. The only thing that is undeniably true for him is his subjective world, which — as sometimes, in moments of social hallucinations it seems to him — is objective. It would be very easy to accuse such people of the worst kind of subjectivism and of unhealthy individualism, if we were beyond any doubt about the existence of only one objective world. But such a truth, if it exists, is not an axiom — it is only half the truth, its other half is that the world also exists in the form in which it is seen by people, and ultimately by the individual. No world simply does not exist and does not exist at all without a penetrating subject who learns about it. The latter, no matter how small and imperceptible it may seem, is always another pillar supporting the entire bridge of the phenomenal world. The attraction to the subject therefore has the same validity as the attraction to the so-called objective world, insofar as this world is based on psychic reality itself. But at the same time it is also a reality with its own specific laws, which by their nature do not belong to derivatives, secondary ones.
The two attitudes, extraversion and introversion, are opposite forms that have made themselves felt no less in the history of human thought. The issues raised by them were largely foreseen by Friedrich Schiller and form the basis of his Letters on Aesthetic Education. But since the concept of the unconscious was still unknown to him, Schiller could not reach a satisfactory solution. But, in addition, philosophers, who are much better equipped to go deeper on this subject, did not want to subject their thinking function to a thorough psychological criticism and therefore remained aloof from such discussions. It should be clear, however, that the inner polarity of such an attitude has a very strong influence on the philosopher’s own point of view.
For the extravert, the object is a priori interesting and attractive, just as the subject or psychic reality is for the introvert. Therefore, we could use the expression «nominal accent» for this fact, by which I mean that for the extravert the quality of positive meaning, importance and value is assigned primarily to the object, so that the object plays a dominant, determining and decisive role in all mental processes. from the very beginning, just as the subject does for the introvert.
Read more See →
«Psychological types»
In my practical medical practice with nervous patients, I noticed long ago that in addition to many individual differences in the human psyche, there is also a typical development, and above all two sharply different types, which I called the type of introversion and the type of extraversion.
Each person has both mechanisms, extraversion and introversion, and only the relative predominance of one or the other determines the type. Despite the difference in formulations, there is always something in common in the basic understanding, namely, the movement of interest towards the object in one case and the movement of interest from the object to the subject and to his own mental processes in the other case. In the first case, the object acts like a magnet on the tendencies of the subject, it attracts them and largely conditions the subject; it even alienates the subject from itself to such an extent, so changes its qualities in the sense of equating it with the object, that one might think that the object has a greater and ultimately decisive significance for the subject, that the complete subordination of the subject to the object is to a certain extent an absolute predestination and a special meaning. life of destiny. In the second case, on the contrary, the subject is and remains the center of all interests. It can be said that one gets the impression that all vital energy is directed towards the subject and therefore always prevents the object from acquiring any influence on the subject. It seems as if the energy is escaping from the object, as if the subject is a magnet that wants to attract the object to itself.
The most generally introverted point of view could be defined as one that under all circumstances tries to put the personality and the subjective psychological phenomenon above the object and the objective phenomenon, or at least affirm them in relation to the object. This attitude, therefore, gives more value to the subject than to the object. Accordingly, the object is always at a lower level of value, it has a secondary significance, it is sometimes only an external objective sign of the subjective content, as if the embodiment of an idea, and, however, it is the idea that is essential; or he is the object of an emotion, and, however, the most important thing is an emotional experience, and not an object in its real individuality. The extraverted point of view, on the other hand, places the subject below the object, with the object having the predominant value. The subject always enjoys a secondary meaning, the subjective phenomenon sometimes seems to be only a disturbing and unnecessary appendage to what is objectively happening. It is clear that psychology, starting from these opposite points of view, must break up into two completely different orientations. One considers everything from the point of view of its understanding, and the other — from the point of view of what is objectively happening.
These opposite attitudes are first of all only opposite mechanisms: diastolic movement towards the object and perception of the object, systolic concentration and separation of energy from the perceived object. Each person possesses both mechanisms as an expression of his natural life rhythm, which Goethe, of course, did not accidentally designate with physiological concepts that characterize the activity of the heart. The rhythmic change of both forms of mental activity should have corresponded to the normal course of life. The complex external conditions under which we live, and perhaps even more complex conditions of our individual mental disposition, rarely, however, allow a completely undisturbed course of mental activity. External circumstances and internal dispositions very often favor one mechanism and limit and hinder another. From this naturally occurs the preponderance of one mechanism. If this state somehow becomes chronic, then as a result of this a type arises, that is, a habitual attitude in which one mechanism constantly dominates, without, of course, being able to completely suppress the other, since it necessarily belongs to mental activity. life. Therefore, a pure type can never exist in the sense that it completely owns one mechanism while the other is completely atrophied. A typical setup always means only the relative predominance of one mechanism.