Introversion v Extroversion v Jung

[GOD]

Here is some more heresy. I don't believe that introversion and extroversions roots are in whether someone feels drained or energised. I believe it starts from the basic propensity to mitigate or not mitigate risk which starts in early childhood.

Normal font Jung. Blue font my writings...

The extraverted attitude, characterized by an outward flowing of libido, an interest in events, in people and things, a relationship with them, and a dependence on them; when this attitude is habitual to anyone, Jung describes him or her as an extraverted type. This type is motivated by outside factors and greatly influenced by the environment. The extraverted type is sociable and confident in unfamiliar surroundings. He or she is generally on good terms with the world, and even when disagreeing with it can still be described as related to it, for instead of withdrawing (as the opposite type tends to do) they prefer to argue and quarrel, or try to reshape it according to their own pattern.
The introverted attitude, in contrast, is one of withdrawal the libido flows inward and is concentrated upon subjective factors, and the predominating influence is 'inner necessity'. When this attitude is habitual Jung speaks of an 'introverted type'. This type lacks confidence in relation to people and things, tends to be unsociable, and prefers reflection to activity. Each type undervalues the other, seeing the negative rather than the positive qualities of the opposite attitude, a fact which has led to endless misunderstanding and, even in the course of time, to the formulation of antagonistic philosophies, conflicting psychologies, and different values and ways of life.

This would appear to assume that introverts by their very nature are lacking in social skills, and by necessity choose consciously introverted environments. This could be seen as correct if you look at everyday examples such as bright kids at school often being less attractive and less able at sports (As an average) in effect they create and also follow societal expectations.

However, it could just as easily be said that those that enjoy learning prefer introversion as wasteful idle chat is energy draining relative to discussion with more suitable subjects even if it is simply someone’s statements in a book.

Quite possibly extroversion as a function of sociability may be more a manifestation of lower or average intellect as the person tries to utilise, or simply enhance their most favourable attributes (which are not intellectually based).

I believe the most innate difference between introversion and extroversion is one of risk avoidance. Whether to seek the unfamiliar or recoil from it. To expose to risk or to mitigate it. To have a greater propensity to feel emotional pain. The avoidance of risk by its very nature requires conscious thought and the assessment of many variables, which can lead to intelligence. Whereas extroversion can be akin to sensing where the subject deals with actual events rather than potential contingent variables. The permutations of scenario outcomes is far greater than the actual incidences requiring action, hence the mind is put through more rigours use.

As even Jung himself says “ The earliest mark of extroversion in a child is his quick adaptation to the environment, and the extraordinary attention he gives to objects, especially to his effect upon them. Shyness in regard to objects is very slight; the child moves and lives among them with trust. He makes quick perceptions, but in a haphazard way. Apparently he develops more quickly than an introverted child, since he is less cautious, and as a rule, has no fear.” Further evidence “The introverted child is shy and hesitant. He dislikes all new situations, and even approaches new objects with caution, and sometimes with fear. He prefers to play alone, and has one, rather than many friends.

[Louie]

God:

those that enjoy learning prefer introversion as wasteful idle chat is energy draining relative to discussion with more suitable subjects even if it is simply someone’s statements in a book.

Yes, yes, yes.

This is absolutely fascinating, the whole thread. Do you know I breed working dogs (mostly Australian Kelpies), it is my opinion there are extrovert and introvert dogs. Especially the breed I have and have developed. They are brilliant working dogs, a kind of introverted type personality who seem to know stuff before it happens and can sense things far beyond the "ordinary" working dog.

Their intelligence is far superior to that of the (what I term), extrovert dog, that is not to disregard the extrovert dogs, they do fine, but the I. Dogs are something special...have not fully explained but it is as you have picked up here: "To have a greater propensity to feel emotional pain"

Absolutely, they know.

I had never thought of all this intertwining...being applicable to human terms until I just read this and it hit me like a bolt, I know it!

I just read what I wrote and it sounds loopy, dogs don't actually talk of course.., but the introvert type dogs I seem to have selected down through breeding ......rarely get hurt, they achieve their work and just know so much stuff, while the extrovert types seem to bowl along regardless, I nickname them the "boofas"....goodhearted friendly creatures, who jump in without thinking...carry much more injury and make the same old same old "mistakes"/judgements...

There are actually dog intelligence tests I run my dogs through, the introverted type dogs always score very highly, always much more than the boofas.

[GOD]

Well,

I believe the following...

That animals show a great insight into our more subconscious brain patterns. The most basic of human instincts.

The higher the evolved animal the more consciously it thinks (And consequentially the more masked is the subconsciousness).

Consciousness can change the subconsciousness as a steer to future actions, And generally the consciousness is in control. People it would appear, are a mix of conscious and subconscious influences to a greater or less degree depending on the relative strengths. Subconsciousness appears to be closely related to Intuition.

I believe the conscious & subconscious use is the most basic of building blocks in all psychology types.

I've written a mini article on this..... http://www.psychologytribe.com/intjt...ious-mind.html

As blog posts don't index that well......

[Louie]

That is a great article, you have described my line of breed, (dogs), they are, by the way highly sought after too.

Training them can be a varied path to the boofas...I do enjoy interreacting with them and teaching them, but I nuture them along a little more....there is a tipping point and once we get beyond that, "they get it".....and understand their role without compromising their wellbeing, with the boofas it's all in .....mainly repitition and reinforcement, positive feedback, but they stay at a certain capability level..(which is fine!).

The introverted dogs are always seeking to improve and develop, they never refuse to do anything as such, they just make sure they do it the smartest way.

It's a lot of fun working with them....(and the boofas, I love them dearly, but the introverts and I are learn off each other).

[GOD]

With reference to Introverts, In terms of risk avoidance (rather than simply being less aware of risk). Its more one of self presevation. In effect the realisation of self awareness.

As before, the more of an individual and as such self directional, the more thought and use of senses is required. Whereas an individual in a large pack can rely on various elements within that pack to cover off contingencies. In essense the introvert must develop a full range skills.

This then sort of points to the big & small type scenario. If the group size is big, then there is specialisation and the need to conform, if the group size is small there is a need to have a wider skill base and the requirement for less conformity. There are positives and negatives in both type of structures.

Introverts and Intuitives would definitely seem to conform to the small group type, the existence and survival of other trait types might be a reflection of growing group size and its environmental fit.

With reference to your dogs, it would appear that the introverted dogs are far more intelligent, they are more self aware and more reliant on their self. The less intelligent dogs are part of the collective pack, they feel more extroverted and rely and conform to the pack, their "knowing" subconscious is the packs mentality.

In essense we have the two types, the individualist and the collectivist.

(I could draw an analogy here to economic systems such as Capitalism and Collectivism, which if correlated to the individualist and collectivist mentality, could suggest various populations have a natural propensity to follow a certain grouping type).