19. Introversion and Extraversion.

In the previous chapter, I wrote that I had many dilemmas related to adaptive-defensive mechanisms. It means I had the feeling that I still do not really know what does these mechanisms are about?

These mechanisms are:

• Introversion,
• Extraversion,
• Perceiving (Abstraction), and
• Judging (Empathy).

Let us start with the first two mechanisms, which are Introversion and Extraversion.

Currently commonly:
— an Extravert tends to be open and ready to cooperate,
— an Introvert tends to be closed and withdrawn.

Unfortunately, this understanding of these concepts is far from the original.

And why is it far from the original?

In Jung’s book “Psychological Types”, I found a few phrases about Introversion and Extraversion. (I wrote more about it in Update 1.25). These phrases are as follows:

1. Mechanisms of adaptation and defense.
2. Psychic mechanisms.
3. General attitudes
4. Modes of psychic reaction.
5. Opposite movements of libido (that is, psychic energy). It means:
   • during Extraversion we direct our energy towards the object or to the outside world, that is:
     — we give priority to this, what is happening in our external world,
     — and we postpone this, what is happening inside us.
   • in turn, during Introversion we direct our energy towards the subject, or towards ourselves, that is, to our inner world, thus:
     — we give priority to this, what is happening in our inner world,
     — and we postpone this, what is happening in our surroundings.

And to the above phrases and descriptions, I think it is worth highlighting the following Jung's sentence:

So above all, Introversion and Extraversion are not traits of character (or personality traits). Introversion and Extraversion are mechanisms (attitudes, modes of psychic reaction, libido movements), which we can freely switch on and off.

Okay, but what does it actually mean?

I spent some time looking for a different view on Introversion and Extraversion.

At first, I tried to find one word or two, but it is difficult to condense Introversion and Extraversion. So I decided to use a few more words.

The first two concepts resulted directly from Jung’s thoughts, who, describing Introversion and Extraversion, many times refers them to two terms. I have already mentioned these terms, and these are “object” and “subject”. Specifically, Jung often:
— Introversion connects with the subject,
— and Extraversion connects with the object.

If so, then I think, the words “subject” and “object” we can treat as the first terms that we include in the definitions of Introversion and Extraversion.

Therefore, below, I present the table, where I put “subject” and “object” as the first parts of the definition of Introversion and Extraversion.

Now we can ask, what is actually the “subject” and the “object”?

The easiest way to answer this question is to look at the dictionary.

According to Jung, therefore:

• during Introversion we direct our energy towards the subject,
• and during Extraversion, we direct our energy towards the object.

In the previous chapter, I also said that Introversion and Extraversion are:

• energy sources—according to the Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers typology,
• active qualities—according to Aristotle’s theory.

In some sense, we can say that the subject and object can motivate us to action (or they trigger our energy source).

And here we may ask, what exactly can the subject and the object motivate us to do?

To answer this, I decided to associate the subject and the object with the next two concepts. It means:

• “subject” with the concept—“relation”,
• and “object” with the concept—“case”.

According to the dictionary “case” is:

In this chapter, I use definitions and phrases which are based on the Polish dictionary. I think it can be interesting for English readers.

The above definitions show that the case (or matter) naturally relates to the “subject”.

In turn, the “relation” according to the dictionary has such meanings.

I think that “relation” is well connected with the “subject”. It is because, if we are dealing with a “subject”, we often also have to deal with a “relation”. For example, the relation between people, animals, plants, objects, ideas, places, events, etc.

In these examples, the “subject” can be treated in both a literal and figurative sense. Some “object” can also be some “subject” if we give this “object” the characteristics of a given “subject”. Therefore, there may be various relations between object and subjects. And relations may impact us in some way. For example, the watch we received as a gift may have sentimental value for us and may evoke various emotions in us. Then, we can say that there is a relation (or relationship) between this watch and us.

In conclusion, various relations and cases (or matters) take place between subjects and objects.

In that case, let us add “case” and “relation” to the definition of Introversion and Extraversion.

When it comes to the terms “relation” and “object”, I also got inspiration from Socionics.

Let me remind you that Socionics is a personality typology created by Lithuanian, Aušra Augustinavičiute. Her typology is based primarily on the Jung’s typology, and the information metabolism. The information metabolism is a psychological theory created by Polish psychiatrist Antoni Kępiński.

So, in Socionics there is also a division into Introversion and Extraversion. In Socionics, however, the approach to these concepts is different than in Jung’s typology.

Socionics is, among others, focused on information processing (that is, information metabolism). And one way to process information is to group them:
— to objects (that is, single information or many information of the same kind),
— and to relations between objects (that is, some relation and dependencies between individual information or groups of similar information).

For example:
— the object (information) can be an apple or many apples of the same kind of apples.
— the relation, for example, shows the statement—all apples are red, and they belong to the same kind of apples.

This is obviously a simple example, but in a similar way, we can also organize not only material objects, but also intangible objects, such us, concepts, ideas, problems, matters, cases, tasks, goals, interests, and so on.

So, if the information is, for example, the concept of “problem” then:

• we can treat it as an object of our actions, that is, for example, we can consider:
  — which category of problems does the problem belong to,
  — what other problems are similar to it,
  — what attitude to it we have to have,
  — how much we have to get involved,
  — does it require our greater or lesser attention,
  — can we solve this problem ourselves or do we need the help of others,
  — can we rely on ours (or others) abilities to solve this problem,
  — whether the problem is a difficult or easy case (or matter) to deal with,
  — etc.
• we can also treat the “problem” as a relation, that is, for example, we can consider:
  — how this problem affects us, or what impact it has on us,
  — what effects this problem can have,
  — what we can gain or lose when we are dealing with this problem,
  — should we this problem take seriously or easily, or whether may we ignored it completely,
  — whether to solve this problem can we use any of our experiences in solving any similar problems,
  — etc.

Looking at the above considerations, we can say that Socionics is right that we are actually dealing with the processing (or metabolism) of information.

Anyway, if we look at our thinking as processing (or metabolism) of information, it gives us a completely different view on the process of our thinking. I think at this point that it creates some distance. It means, just realizing that our thinking is processing or digesting information allows us to look at our thinking from a distance. Usually, we are very involved in our thinking, and then it is not coming to our mind that we can look at our thinking from a distance.

And during looking from a distance at our thinking, we can also analyze this thinking. I think we can agree here that the idea of information metabolism is simple, revealing, and deep. It actually gives a whole new point of view (or new perspective) for our thinking.

The creator of Socionics Aušra Augustinavičiute, to analyze our information metabolism, has distinguished so-called:
— elements of information metabolism (in short, information elements)

There are eight of these elements (I am using here original Socionical names):

1. Extratic Intuition
2. Introtic Intuition
3. Extratic Sensorics
4. Introtic Sensorics
5. Extratic Logic
6. Introtic Logic
7. Extratic Ethics
8. Introtic Ethics

Probably for the readers who have not heard about Socionics, the above names of information elements look very mysterious. At first, these elements may even confuse us a bit, and we may feel overwhelmed by their very scientific names.

However, the above eight elements in Socionics are very useful for analyzing our information metabolism. Metaphorically speaking, these eight information elements, like eight notes in music, are used to compose considerations about digesting information.

Also, please note that the above elements are similar to the psychological types that Jung distinguished in his theory. It means the comparison of information elements in Socionics with Jung’s Psychological Types is as follows:

Above I used original naming from Socionics. So, probably we will not find it in English translations. In English are used therms analogical to Jung’s terms. For example, Extratic Sensorics in English is known as Extraverted Sensing. However, I used original naming because this not the same. It means, for example:
— Extratic Sensorics—in Socionics it is one of the information metabolism elements,
— and Extraverted Sensing—in Jung’s theory, it is the extraverted mechanism, which supports the psychological function—Sensation.

So, specific naming in Socionics was created especially for information elements.

So, in the above table, we can see the relationship between the above two typologies. And we can see that the terms used in Socionics were created on the basis of the terms from Jung’s typology.

It means, specifically, Jung’s psychological types were used to create information elements in socionics. In a sense, Jung’s psychological types are the information elements in Socionics.

I think the idea of using Jung’s psychological types to create information elements is also interesting and revealing. In principle, each type of character digests (processes) information in a different way. So, each type of character in Jung’s theory is a different information element.

Here, of course, the question arises, why in Socionics information elements are made from Jung’s types? Or in other words, why Jung’s types in Socionics play the only role of information elements?

This is because Socionics (like Enneagram) discovers that types of characters are not as static as in Jung’s theory. All types of characters are, in fact, very dynamic.

It means, the point is that our character type is not in one place. It is because, when our psychological state change, our behavior also changes. In the Mandala of Characters this is presented in such way that when our psychological state changes, we move to the different place on the Mandala. (This idea about the movement of the character type during changes psychological states I took from Enneagram).

In socionics, it is presented in such a way that when our psychological states change, also change the ways of processing information. That is, when our psychological state changes, we also change the information element, which we are processing. In other words, what psychological state we are in depending on what information element we digest.

I think I should mention here that the phrase—the psychological state is not used in Socionics. Instead, Socionics refers to different ways of processing information elements. And with these different ways of processing information, individual information elements can perform different functions.

For our needs, let us agree that in Socionics, depending on our psychological states, we digest different information elements.

In socionics, information elements are divided into different categories and groups. And one of these divisions is, in my opinion, very useful for the considerations I have in this chapter. This is the division into:
— object-oriented elements, and
— relation-oriented elements.

What are the differences between these two kinds of elements:

I will not use descriptions of these elements used in Socionics, because they are quite complicated. Instead, I will say briefly that in my opinion.:

• Object-related element is an object.
  It means, object-related element, we can refer to the concept of “object” used by Jung.
  When we think in an object-related way, we focus on objects. So, then we have objects of interest.
• Relation-oriented element is a relation between two elements (or between many elements).
  It means, relation-oriented elements, we can refer to the concept of “subject” used by Jung.
  When we think in a relation-oriented way, we focus on relations. So, then we are involved in some kind of relations.

In socionics also:
— object-oriented element is described as extratic,
— relation-oriented element is described as introtic.

All in all, I think that object-oriented and relation-oriented elements from Socionics we can compare with analogical concepts from Jung’s theory, as in the table below.

In summary, we can see that Socionics gives us confirmation that:
— “object”—we can associate with Extraversion, and
—“relation”—we can associate with Introversion.

And as I said above:
— “object” is connected with “case” (or matter), and
—“relation” is connected with “subject”.

Now, I will summarize the above considerations in the diagram to show it on the Mandala of Characters.

And let me remind the table with definitions of Introversion and Extraversion.

All in all, the above table already says a lot about Introversion and Extraversion. Initially, I thought that I could even stop there because the concepts in the table above are rooted in both Jung’s typology and Socionics. Over time, however, I came across a new inspiration that came to me at the cinema.

“Risk and opportunity” and “protection and promotion”.

The phrases “risk and opportunity” and “protection and promotion” came to my mind thanks to the movie “The Mountain Between Us” (2017) directed by Hana Abu-Assad. This movie is based on the novel “The Mountain Between Us” written by Charles Martin.

I will not tell the story of this movie here. I want to draw attention to the dilemma, which we can find in this story. This dilemma occurs in many life situations. Also, many authentic events contain this dilemma, which was described in the literature and were presented in art, film, theater, etc.

This dilemma arises between:
— risk and opportunity, and
— protection and promotion.

The film mentioned above tells the story of a man and a woman who survived a plane crash. They found themselves high in the mountains. They had no idea where they were and how to get out of this situation?

In my opinion, the main characters of this film had a choice of two attitudes (or mechanisms of action):
— Introverted attitude (or Introverted adaptive-defensive mechanism),
— Extraverted attitude (or Extraverted adaptive-defensive mechanism).

These two attitudes resulted from two options that gave a chance to survive.

1. Try to survive in a cold and challenging environment. For example, settle somehow in the part fuselage of aircraft which left after the crash, and wait for help. (That is Introverted mechanism or attitude).
2. Move on, take a dangerous and risky journey. For example, try to find a way out or help. (That is, extraverted mechanism or attitude).

The dilemma between Extraverted and Introverted attitude is so interesting in this story because the main characters change their attitudes several times, depending on the circumstances. It means, sometimes they needed to use the Extraverted attitude, and other times the Introverted attitude. Besides, the main characters, that is, women and men, had their own tendencies to use Extraverted or Introverted attitude.

In total, in my opinion, this story shows the confrontation between Extraverted and Introverted attitudes on various levels.

Actually, there are many similar stories to this one. Probably many of us this story remind related stories. Personally, it reminds me of such books and films:

• “Robinson Crusoe”—a novel by Daniel Dafoe.
• “Cast away”—American survival drama, 2000. A film directed by Robert Zemeckis.
• Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571—a story of the flight Fuerza Aérea Uruguaya 571 that crashed on a glacier in the remote Andes in 13 of October 1972.
• “The way back”—a film, 2010. Directed by Peter Weir. A story about Siberian gulag escapees who walked 4000 miles to freedom to India.
• “So weit die Füße tragen” (English: As Far as My Feet Will Carry Me)—German film, 2001. Directed by Hardy Martins. The film is based on the book on the same title, written by Josef Martin. The story is about a German soldier who was captured and poisoned in Siberian Gulag during World War II. He escaped from there back to Germany.
• “Lion”—film, 2016. Directed by Garth Davis. Adaptation of autobiographical book “A Long Way Home” by Saroo Brierley.
• etc.

Stories in movies and books are obviously dramatic. This dramatic character helps capture the dilemma I am thinking about right now. It means, the dilemma between Extraverted or Introverted attitude (or mechanism).

This dilemma arises from time to time in everyone’s life. From time to time, we have to decide which attitude to choose, or which one to use, play, perform, etc. We may need to choose one or another attitude, because we need:

• solve a problem,
• achieve some intention,
• to accomplish a task, plan,
• get out of some difficult situation,
• reach the destination,
• etc.

I think that this dilemma between Extraverted and Introverted mechanism in most life situations we can describe as the mention-above dilemma between:

• protection and promotion—Introverted mechanism or attitude, and
• risk and opportunity—Extraverted mechanism or attitude.

How does it look like in life?

For example, in the story mentioned above from the film “The mountain between us”, I have told about two options that we have there:

1. Try to survive in a cold and challenging environment. For example, settle somehow in the part fuselage of aircraft which left after the crash, and wait for help. (That is Introverted mechanism or attitude, which in my opinion is associated with “protection and promotion”.
2. Move on, take a dangerous and risky journey. For example, try to find a way out or help. (That is, extraverted mechanism or attitude, which in my opinion is associated with “risk and opportunity”).

In this situation, according to the first Introverted mechanism, it is worthwhile:

• Stay where we are and arrange ourselves somehow in the plane wreck. It means we have to think about this, what is really important. That is, about survival in an environment we found ourselves in. So, we need to find a way to protect ourselves against the cold, predators, and other dangers.
• It is also worth letting somebody know where we are? Because we need to catch someone’s attention. For example, someone who will fly there and hopefully will see us. Then, it is important to show ourselves and let someone see us. Therefore, promotion is essential here. At first glance, the word “promotion” in the context of the air accident may look awkward. It is because we would rather say that we are not promoting ourselves at this time. But we are trying to call for help in some way, signal somehow where we are, make contact in some way, etc. However, despite this that it sounds awkward, actually we are trying to promote ourselves in some desperate way to get help. It is, therefore, such an extreme form of promotion. In turn, when it comes to most situations in typical life, the word “promotion” sounds familiar, and we often use it.

The word “promotion”, in my opinion, complements well the word “protection”.

All in all, therefore, we can perceive the word “promotion” in both symbolic and literal context, which is very useful in the Mandala of Characters.

On the other hand, according to the second Extraverted mechanism, it is worthwhile to move on and look for rescue ourselves:

• Despite the fact that there are risks associated with such challenges and threats as:
  — wildlife,
  — wild animals,
  — difficult weather conditions,
  — problems with fatigue,
  — lack of proper rest and sleep,
  — etc.
• And it is worthwhile to do it, because it gives, for example, a chance to find:
  — way out of a difficult situation,
  — shelter,
  — help,
  — something that can help solve various problems,
  — directions that can lead to something that we need,
  — etc.

I think that it is now more or less clear what the dilemma between Introversion and Extraversion looks like. That is the dilemma between “protection and promotion” and “risk and opportunity”.

In that case, I will add the phrases to the diagram of four auxiliary reference points of our psyche, and to the table with definitions of Introversion and Extraversion.

I think that now, having the above definitions of Introversion and Extraversion, it will be easier to guide ourselves to the meanings of those concepts. The meanings that had in mind their creator—Carl Gustav Jung.

It means, first of all, the point is that Introversion and Extraversion:

1. They are not personality traits (or character traits).
2. They are:
   • mechanisms of adaptation and defense,
   • psychic mechanisms,
   • general attitudes,
   • modes of psychic reaction.
3. They are opposite movements of libido (that is, psychic energy). It means:
   • Extraversion—psychic energy directed towards the object.
   • Introversion—psychic energy directed towards the subject.

I think that in the above considerations about Introversion and Extraversion, it is worth paying attention to the fact that these are adaptive-defensive mechanisms, general attitudes, or modes of psychic reactions. And in my opinion, especially it is worth paying attention to, so to speak:
— the objectivity of Extraversion, and
— the subjectivity of Introversion.

In relation to Introversion and Extraversion, it is often said that:
— Extraversion directs us to the outer world, and
— Introversion to the inner world.

But it is rarely said that Extraversion and Introversion are adaptive-defensive mechanisms (or general attitudes, modes of psychic reaction). And even more rarely it is said that:
— Extraversion—directs us towards the object, and
— Introversion—directs us toward the subject.

At the end, I will try to briefly summarize the above considerations about Introversion and Extraversion:

Extraversion—gives priority to what is happening in the outer world. That is, give priority to our objects and cases (or matters), for example:

• our cases (matters) to deal with, to resolve, to review, etc.
• and objects of our activities, interests, needs, efforts, aspirations, etc.

To get things done and get the objects that we need:

• we are ready to take the risk associated with them,
• to gain opportunities that they may give.

Introversion—gives priority to what is happening in our inner world. That is, gives priority to ourselves and our relations, for example:

• our personal: interests; talents, skills; experience; what we do; the positions we are in; etc.,
• and our relations: with ourselves; with other people; with our surroundings;
  (relations here may also be ways of approaching tasks and challenges; methods of doing something; recipes for preparing something; etc.

To protect and promote ourselves and our relations, we are ready:

• protect and promote ourselves (for example, our needs, position, talents, experience, knowledge, rights, etc.),
• to gain good relations and be noticed and appreciated.

References: