Update 1.25 — Extraversion and Introversion — what exactly are they?

In this update, I decided to describe my thoughts on the concepts of introversion and extraversion.

We use the concept of introversion and extraversion more and more. Personally, however, more and more often, I had the impression that I actually do not know what these terms mean? It means I had the impression that our common understanding of introversion and extraversion, more and more, differs from the meaning that Carl Gustav Jung had in mind. Jung was the creator of these concepts.

Why do I have such an impression?

To present this, I use the definitions from the Polish and English dictionaries.

In the above definitions, it is written that Introversion and Extraversion are personality traits. Determining Introversion and Extraversion as—personality traits—it is the first divergence I wanted to draw attention to. It is because Jung did not use the words “personality traits” to describe Introversion and Extraversion. How he defined them, I cite later in this update.

Next, if we look closer at the definition of Extraversion, we can reed that it is:
“a personality trait expressed in directing attention and interests to the outside world, in ease of making contact with people, and a great need for action, the opposite of introversion”.

Regarding this sentence, I have two more doubts here.

The first relates to the first part of the sentence—“a personality trait expressed in directing attention and interests to the outside world”. Here it seems to me that the word “interests” does not quite match. It means Extraversion indeed is expressing itself in directing “attention” to the outside world. But when it comes to directing “interests” to the outside world, then we can say it also about Introversion. Therefore, the word “interests” is problematic here. It is because Introverts are also interested in having a great influence on the outside world.

Further, in the next part of the definition, we can read that Extraversion is expressing itself “in ease of making contact with people, and a great need for action”.

From this, we can conclude that if Introverts are the opposite of Extraverts, then Introverts have difficulties in making contact with people, and they are not too interested in action. Personally, I know a lot of introverts who have absolutely no problem with making contact with people. I also know many who have a great need for action. Of course, it is possible to argue with me that I should not judge how all Introverts behave based just only on my experience and observations. However, saying that all or most introverts do not have a need for action and that they have difficulties in making contacts is, in my opinion, an over-statement. Indeed, Introverts often feel good in their own company or in a small circle of friends and colleagues. However, this does not mean that they must have difficulties in making contact with people. Many introverts, in fact, are constantly looking for some new contacts because they hope that they will be able to establish close relationships. Introverts often like to develop closer relationships with others. And if they prefer close relationships, then naturally the circle of friends will be smaller for the simple reason. It is difficult to have close contacts with a large number of people.

Another sentence that raises my doubts says that the Extravert is—“A person interested in the surrounding reality, easily expressing his thoughts and feelings, easily establishing contacts with other people”. And here, we can again conclude that in this case, the Introvert will not be interested in the surrounding reality, and has difficulties in expressing thoughts and feelings. Here, we can partly agree that Extraverts are interested in the surrounding reality, but that does not mean that Introverts are not interested in it. In my opinion, both Extraverts and Introverts are very interested in the surrounding reality. Each of them, however, is doing it in its own way. The Extravert is often more interested in catching some opportunities or chances in the surrounding reality. In turn, the Introverts are often interested in how to influence or impact the surrounding reality.

It is also difficult for me to agree that introverts have difficulty in expressing thoughts and feelings. Personally, I often get the opposite impression. In my opinion, just Introverts have greater ease in expressing thoughts and feelings (especially feelings). Introverts, alter all, are more focused on their inside. So, they better than Extraverts know their thoughts and feelings. Of course, we can say that thinking is closer to Extraversion and that Extraverts indeed have greater tendency to guide themselves by using thinking. In turn, Introverts are more likely to be guided by feelings. However, being guided by thinking or feeling it is not the same as expressing thoughts and feelings. In that case, I think the closer to reality are the following statements:

• Both Extraverts and Introverts can express their thoughts and feelings without major problems.
• Extraverts are more likely to guide themselves by thinking.
• Introverts are more likely to guide themselves by feeling.

On the other hand, if we look at the definition of Introversion, then I have similar doubts as with the definition of Extraversion.

The first part of the definition tells us that Introversion is expressed in “focusing on one’s own experiences”. It follows that Extraverts do not do this. I think it would be difficult to show in real life that Extraverts do not focus on their own experiences. And that focusing on own experiences is a specialty of Introverts. There is a contradiction here. It is because, if Extraverts “direct their attention to the outside world”, it rather means that they are ready to experience various experiences. Experiences that are associated with exploring and discovering the outside world. In fact, for many Extraverts, experiences that are associated with exploring the outside world are one of the main motivations. Experiencing something new makes something new attractive. And in general, actually, it is a difficult task not to focus on this, what we are experiencing. Therefore, Extraverts focus on their experiences.

So what is the difference between Extraverts and Introverts when it comes to focusing on their own experiences?

I think we can simply say that Extraverts and Introverts treat their experiences differently. For example, they differently relate to them. It means Extraverts try to interpret their experiences more through Thinking and Intuition. On the other hand, Introverts more often use Feeling and Sensation. Besides, there are other differences that will be more obvious when later in this update, I present what Jung said about Introversion and Extraversion.

Returning to the above definitions, we can still learn from them that Introversion expresses itself in “closing in oneself, restraint in expressing feelings”. Here I have the following doubts. If Introvert directs their interests to the inner world, then, in my opinion, it does not mean that they must “closing in themselves and restrain their feelings”. I think Introverts often openly express their feelings. Many introverts can use their feelings to make a great impact on people. And if a given Introvert has a strong personality, he is able to communicate and express his feelings so effectively that he often strongly influences others. He can even manipulate others and take control of them.

“Closing in oneself, restraint in expressing feelings” suggests that we are dealing with a withdrawn person. Withdrawal, however, can apply to any type of character. Each type is withdrawn from time to time, is closed in himself, and unwilling to express his feelings. So, in this understanding of the word introversion, everyone can sometimes be Introverted. If so, it follows that Introversion is something that happens to everyone from time to time. And if it can happen to anyone, then we cannot say that it is a clear indication which shows that we are dealing with an Introvert. Then, we can simply deal with someone who is withdrawn at a given time. And someone can be withdrawn for various reasons. For example, someone can be shy, unsure, insecure, uncertain, ashamed, etc.

From this, what I wrote above, it would appear that actually, it is not clear what is going on with the terms Extraversion and Introversion?

Out of curiosity, I also checked English definitions to see whether it is a similar situation to Polish definitions of Introversion and Extraversion?

In the English dictionaries, we can find explanations similar to the above. I think, if we try to draw some essence out of these definitions, we can be a little closer to Jung’s ideas. It means, closer to this, what Jung wrote about Introversion and Extraversion. However, in general, almost no one will try to draw some essence from a broader context. Rather, most of us have such a tendency that among the sentences that describe something, we try to find a phrase that will be the most acceptable for us. That is the phrase that will speak to us most clearly. I think that such sentences are the ones that I quote below.

Extravert
1. A sociable person who is lively and outgoing.
2. (psychology) a person concerned more with practical realities than with inner thoughts and feelings.

Introvert
1. (psychology) a person who tends to shrink from social contacts and to become preoccupied with their own thoughts.

If we focus on the definitions I quoted above, they are similar to Polish definitions. We can make similar analyses to those that I presented earlier in the case of definitions of Extraversion and Introversion in the Polish version.

Besides, I have the impression that in the English-speaking world more (more than in Poland), Extroverts are simply sociable and open, and Introverts are withdrawn and locked up in themselves. This common concept actually has very little to do with what Jung wrote about Introversion and Extraversion.

Besides, the common understanding of Extraversion and Introversion definitely favors Extroverts and is biased for Introverts.

Recently, we can also see that many people are working on changing this common, not fair understanding of Introversion. We can find a lot of publications, books, and articles on the internet that raise Introverts spirits. For example, we can find:

• describing of what Introversion is;
• guides on how to deal with Introversion;
• guides on how to deal with Introverts to make the most of their potential;
• guides on how to manage Introverts;
• articles on how to understand introverts;
• guides on how to raise introverted children;
• etc.

When we browse English-language pages, we may get the impression that writing and talking about Introversion became a kind of business. An example of this could be, for instance, Susan Cain, which publishes guides on Introversion. We can see her, for example, in this video.
https://www.ted.com/talks/susan_cain_the_power_of_introverts Source:
TED – Ideas worth spreading

This whole movement that adds value to introverts is, of course, precious. For example, because Introverts were previously harmed by the fact that they were part of a population that was far less valuable and desirable than Extraverts.

Personally, when I come back to how described Introversion Jung, it seems to me that this was not the point at the time when he created concepts of Introversion and Extraversion.

In that case, what could Jung think when he created these concepts?

To answer this question, I will first quote what Jung wrote about Introversion and Extraversion.

As we can see from sources of above quotes, these Jung’s words we can find in his book “Psychological Types”. This book first time was published in 1921.

I think reading Jung’s books is not easy for most readers. To be honest, Jung’s writing often is unclear and complicated.

Besides, the above quotes about Introversion and Extraversion are spread in many places in the book “Psychological Types”. Because of this, in general, it is hard to understand Jung’s considerations. So, it takes a long time to figure out Jung’s ideas somehow. However, anyway, it is still worth digging through Jung’s writing because he is an outstanding and unique man.

This way of Jung’s writing probably also contributed to the fact that later was such a misunderstanding of his concepts of Introversion and Extraversion. Anyway, as a result, Jung’s ideas are often interpreted selectively or differently than he meant. And it happened to this extent that misinterpretations of Jung’s ideas got into the dictionaries. From it probably follows the conclusion that if we create new concepts, it is worth doing it in a way as simple and clear as possible.

So, let us try to embrace what, according to Jung, is Introversion and Extraversion?

I think that from the above quotes about Introversion and Extraversion, we can distinguish these phrases.

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:
   • Extraversion gives interest to the outer world, to the object.
   • Introversion gives interest to the inner world, to the subject.

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

I think now we can see better the difference between this:
— what Jung wrote about Introversion and Extraversion,
— and how Introversion and Extraversion are described in many dictionaries.

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?

This question comes to my mind because, on the one hand, thanks to the above considerations, I already know what Introversion and Extraversion are. But on the other hand, actually, I do not have the feeling that I really got it.

Although above I just extracted from Jung’s work, the quintessence (or essence) of Introversion and Extraversion, however, I still do not have the feeling that I understand it. Maybe unnecessary, I make a problem here because I could actually stick to the above summary. Nonetheless, I have the desire to find yet another perspective on this topic.

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

Besides, it came to my mind that it would be worthwhile to invent some condensed definitions of Introversion and Extraversion. Definitions short enough that could be put on the Mandala of Characters. Such definitions would indeed be very useful. Useful to avoid associating them with the common (or dictionary) understanding of these concepts. And to bring us closer to what Introversion and Extraversion actually are.

So, what can result from my thoughts? And what would these condensed definitions look like?

Initially, I tried to find one or two words that will describe Introversion or Extraversion. But it was difficult to condense these concepts that much. One or two words were not enough. So, I decided to use some more words.

Then, my definitions of Introversion and Extraversion are look follows:

(object, case—risk and opportunity—
—EXTRAVERSION)

(subject, relation—protection and promotion—
—INTROVERSION)

Why is it so?

I explain one by one.

The “object” because, according to Jung, Extravert gives interest to the object.

To the “object”, I also added the word “case”.

The word “object” has many meanings. They are like this:

The “object” ambiguity can be very useful in analyzing Extraversion. The word “object” is, therefore, a good candidate to put in the Mandala of Characters. It is because, on the Mandala, there are many ambiguous and symbolic words and phrases.

The ambiguity of the word “object” extends more various phrases, idioms, and expressions such as:

• treat someone as on object,
• to be an object of someone’s sighs (or amorous sighs, adoration object),
• the malice of dead objects (Polish phrase—when we are struggling to do something with some object long time),
• bring a shiny object,
• money (expense, something, etc.) is not object,
• the object lesson,
• the object of the exercise,
• the object of interest,
• etc.

In turn, the word “case” has such meanings:

Above I put definitions and phrases which are based on the Polish dictionary. I think, it can be interesting for English readers. For me, as a Polish person who is learning English, the place between two languages is interesting and annoying sometimes when I do not understand something. But, in general, it is fascinating. I see more and more that languages are a huge source of psychological knowledge.

Below I quote also some English definitions regarding the word “case” (or “matter”).

Above I quoted definitions of “case” and “matter”. From these two, I picked the word “case” to place in the condensed definition of Extraversion.

I choose “case” because it has more meanings and idioms. So, it is more ambiguous.

The word “matter” is actually closer to the word “object”. Then, I think these two words are too similar. Besides, the word “matter” in English has more meanings than in Polish. In Polish, the word “matter” is actually connected with material things. So, Polish word “” is closer to the English “case”.

In the English word “case” also has interesting meanings regarding covering something, containing inside, or protecting against damage. I like this meaning. I think it makes it additionally complementary to the word “object”. Together, then, we have “object” and “case”. “Case” as a matter” and the “case” as a “case” for “object”. In think in life, it is many situations when the “object” needs a “case”. “Object” needs a “case”, because it can work better in many life situations. And, in general the “object” works better in many “cases” (physical, symbolical, or metaphorical).

So, the word “case”, I think” it is a good company for the word “object”. It is because, at first glance, “case” seems closer to life that “object”. If I put on the Mandala of Characters only the word “object”, it seems to me that the “object” alone would be more difficult to associate it with something. The words “object” and “case” placed side by side can speak without looking at the dictionary or on the internet, what it can be about? That is, for example, about everyday cases, matters, causes, etc. And we can find it in many idioms and phrases in English, Polish or other languages, such as:

• something is worth a better cause,
• doing something with stubbornness worth a better cause,
• matter of honor,
• take matters into own hands,
• revolves around ours (someone's) cases (matters, affairs),
• set the course of the case,
• some matter has been dragging on like in stink in pants,
• an urgent case, (matter),
• put the case on the blade of the knife,
• a matter of life and death,
• aware of case
• etc.

And I already mentioned more examples in the quotes above regarding words: object, case, and matter.

So, as I said before, I think that the words “object” and “case” will be a good guide to the concept of Extraversion. The word “object” is more philosophical, symbolical, and metaphorical. And the word “case” is closer to a typical life.

I added the word “subject” because, according to Jung, the Introvert gives his interests towards the “subject”.

The word “subject” has the following meanings.

The subject probably many of us associate with grammar. Specifically, with grammatical analysis of sentences, which is called, for example, logical and grammatical analysis of single (or complex) sentences. For me, personally, it was a difficult period while learning Polish during school time. And I think that many of us are either trying to forget about this trauma or have already forgotten about it. Or have pushed it somewhere in difficult to access areas of unconscious.

Grammar for me, actually is still, as they say—black magic. Probably as many Poles (or maybe most of them) I use grammar with the help of intuition and, so to speak, with the help of a familiarizing, acclimatization, accustoming, and so on.

However, for many Poles, it is actually black magic. The word “magic” suits me now. It is because this word is already on the Mandala of Characters. This word is placed in the set of concepts and phrases in the bottom right corner.

Speaking about the grammar, I do not want to suggest that people who have characters, which are in this part of the Mandala are good at grammar. Although in fact, many of them have such abilities and they are really good at it. However, now, I think about the more symbolic meaning of grammar. People from this part of the Mandala, namely types Cool Water and Cool Earth, are often able to do well, so to speak, life grammar. And what is interesting, they often can position themselves in life in this way, that they play the role of the subject. As the subject in the sentence, they can be the subject in interpersonal relationships and in general in life. Similarly to the subject in the sentence, which plays a main role, types from this part of the Mandala, they are able to play the main role in life. And if they cannot play such role, then they often feel uncomfortable.

From a philosophical point of view, the subject is—“the cognitive mind in contrast with the object which is getting to know”. The “subject” as the “cognitive mind”, in total, matches what I just said. It means the subject is the “cognitive mind” that analyzes the sentence (or more symbolically interpersonal contacts, life ...) into basic: parts, elements, prime factors, etc.

I added the word “relation” to emphasize the meaning of the word “subject”.

The definitions of the word “relation” are as follows:

The word “relation” is a supplement to the “subject”. It is because, the “subject”is someone who pays attention to all sorts of relationships. Among other things, such relations, as I quoted in the above definitions of the word “relation”.

I wrote that the subject is someone. At this point, we can note that the “subject” can also be something. Something, that is, “object”. It happens, for example, when we give the “object” the characteristics of the “subject”. And we will treat the “object” like the “subject”. In other words, we treat the object as a symbolic subject. Then we can research what relations the object (as the symbolic subject) has with other objects. In the mandala of characters, the subject is obviously treated mainly as someone. That is, as a person or human. And the object, which is the symbolic subject, is used as metaphors, comparisons, associations, etc.

So, in general, I think that we can acknowledge that the “subject” is mainly interested in relations or relationships. Or in other words, when we deal with the subject, various relations also automatically appear. The subject establishes these relations with the environment, with other people, or with itself.

So, I think we can now pay attention to the types of characters that we can find in this part of the Mandala of Characters. That is, in the place where is the pole of Introversion. These are the types: Cool Water and Cool Earth.

These types want to be treated more subjectively then others. So, if they pay attention to whether they are treated subjectively enough by others, then they must regularly check it.

How do Cool Water and Cool Earth types check this?

First of all, by observing and analyzing the relations, which they have with other people. Of course, other types also observe and analyze their relations with others. However, Cool Water and Cool Earth can devote much more time to this. And we can have the impression that analyzing, checking, researching … relations with others do not tire them at all.

Besides, Cool Water and Cool Earth can also observe and analyze relations between all people who are interested in at a given time. For example, people have known the media, such as actors, celebrities, politicians, artists, etc.

Further, Cool Water and Cool Earth are also tireless in analyzing the relationships, which they have with themselves. For example, they can analyze different thoughts, impressions, feelings, dreams, sensations (both physical and spiritual), accidental events, which could be not accidental, etc.

Therefore, representatives of this place of the Mandala of Characters are often more interested in relations than representatives of other areas of the Mandala.

However, besides this, what I wrote above, there is another reason to put the word “relation” in the Mandala. That is, to it in the condensed definition of Introversion. To do this, I was persuaded by 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 psychological theory created by Polish psychiatrist Antoni Kępiński.

I write about socionics in the chapter — “The Mandala of Characters—comparison with other systems”.
http://www.mandalacharakterow.pl/article/index/?id=6&page=8

At the moment, I would like to refer to one of the divisions that occur in socionics. This is the division that interests us in this chapter. That is the division into Introversion and Extraversion.

In socionics, this division is defined as the division into object-oriented and relation-oriented elements. To explain this division, I will use the quote:

At the end of the above quote, there are therms “introtic” and “extratic”. These terms probably are not used in the English translations of socionics. Instead of “introtic”, usually is used the word “introverted, and instead of “extratic”—“extraverted”.

I think, that at his point it is also worth recalling the diagram of the above divisions. These division I adopted to the Mandala of Characters.

In the diagram above, we can see where we can find object-oriented and relation-orient elements. Besides, I also distinguish:

• pole of object-oriented elements (extratic, namely—extraverted), and
• pole of relation-oriented elements (introtic, namely—introverted).

Poles show places where there are the most object-oriented (extratic) elements and where there are the most relation-oriented (introtic) elements. It means, there are two relation-oriented elements at the pole of relation elements, and there are two object-oriented elements at the pole of object elements.

As I mentioned above, the words “extratic” and “introtic” are equivalent to Jung’s terms “extraverted” and “introverted”.

So, in the above diagram, I distinguished two poles. That is the poles of relation-oriented and object-oriented elements. We are now interested in the pole of relation-oriented elements. This pole is in the place, where on the Mandala of Characters is Introversion. Namely, the pole of Introversion. Thus, the Introversion pole from the Mandala covers the pole of relation-oriented elements from socionics.

I think then, we can say that phrase “relation-oriented” from socionics can be treated as the equivalent of Introversion in the Mandala.

In that case, I think it is worth to use the phrase “relation-oriented” from socionics to the Mandala of Character. For simplicity, I will not use “relation-oriented” but “relation”. “Relation-oriented” is linked to the “relation”. Whereas, I am going to put the “relation” in the short definition of Introversion.

I think it is worth also look at the other pole, which we have in the diagram above. This pole is the socionics pole of object-oriented elements. This pole is compatible with the pole of Extraversion.

I would like to draw attention to the phrase “object-oriented”.

I have just established that the word “relational” taken from socionics refers to the word “relation”.

In that case, I think that we can also consider that the phrase “object-oriented” from socionics, we can refer to the word “object”. The word “object” I discussed earlier in this update in connection with Jung’s description of Extraversion. Because I added the word “object’ to the condensed definition of Extraversion, which next to Introversion I am creating in this update.

So, socionics is very useful to us here. It confirms the sense of including:
— in the definition of Extraversion the word “object”,
— and in the definition of Introversion the word “relation”.

The idea of the phrases “risk and opportunity” and “protection and promotion” gave me a film that I recently watched. This film is called “The mountain between us”. American film, 2017, directed by Hany Abu-Assad. This film is based on the novel “The mountain between us” 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?

This movie came to my mind while I was thinking about Introversion and Extraversion. In my opinion, the main characters of this film had to solve the dilemma that I mentioned above. It means whether to choose to survive an Extravert or Introvert attitude (or mechanism). Because, these main characters had in total of two options to choose from:

1. Try to survive in a cold and difficult environment. For example, settle somehow in the part fuselage of aircraft which left after the crash, and wait for help. (That is, Introverted mechanism, mode 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, mode or attitude).

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

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

Actually, there are many similar stories to this one. Probably many of us this story remind similar 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 (mode 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:

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

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 difficult environment. For example, settle somehow in the part fuselage of aircraft which left after the crash, and wait for help. (That is, Introverted mechanism, mode 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, mode or attitude).

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 important 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 clear how looks like the dilemma between Extraversion and Introversion. That is, in short, the dilemma between “risk and opportunity” and “protection and promotion”.

Although we could still ask here for something concrete about everyday life. It means something specific that will show the dilemma between “risk and opportunity” and “protection and promotion”.

In that case, let us start with Introversion, that is, “protection and promotion”. We have many associations and phrases which contain words protection, promotion, or both of them.

So, “protection and promotion” appears in phrases such as:
— protection and promotion of health,
— protection and promotion of human rights,
— Health Protection and Promotion Act,
— protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions,
— protection and promotion of ecological system and optimal use of resources,
— etc.

When it comes to the word “protection”, we can find in it in the following phrases:
— protection and care,
— self-protection,
— protection and security, protection and control,
— protection and support,
— protection and shaping of the environment (or human environment),
— protection of the law,
— protection of cultural goods (or assets),
— protection from the cold (or weather conditions in general),
— data protection,
— etc.

In turn, when it comes to the word “promotion”, I think, it is interesting. That is, it is especially interesting if we look at the synonyms of the word, which can be divided into several groups. It means:

So, the word “promotion” has many meanings. I think that in general, these meanings come down to — letting know about ourselves in various ways. And when it comes to letting know, we can ask — how we are letting know about ourselves? Here we can use one of the words that Jung used to describe Introversion, namely, “subject”. Then, the “subject” or Introversion is letting to know about itself.

I think the word “promotion” also complements other words that I put in this part of the Mandala of Characters, where there is Introversion. These are words such as impact, magic, skepticism, alchemy, influence. Therefore, it is about some impact, influence, or effect that the subject can make (or is capable of). And in making influence or impact, do not always work methods which are logical, well-known and well-tested. When we are making influence often we have to improvise, surprise with something unusual that will attract someone’s attention. In fact, we never know before what will be the best solution? We often have to use something “magical” or “alchemical” to achieve success.

As for the word “promotion”, I have quite interesting doubts here. It is because we can say that the promotion can also apply to Extraversion. That is, to the “object”. After all, we can promote objects or items. However, at this point, we can ask — who promotes the object? And here we are going back to the subject. It is because the object can be promoted by someone. Namely, by the subject. So, in the phrase “promote the object”, there is a kind of feedback loop between Introversion (“promote”) and Extraversion (“object”).

All in all, the doubt that arises from the phrase “promote the object”, anyway, brings us to the Introverted attitude (mechanism, mode). Then, Introversion and Extraversion are closely linked here, but Introversion is subjective. In that case, Extraversion is objective.

Personally, I like this that the word “promotion” leads us to the feedback loop between Introversion and Extraversion. In life, there are many situations where Introversion and Extraversion come into a very close relationship. And these two mechanisms can change with each other. Sometimes they are swapping it quite often. Or they are swapping in such a way that it is difficult to recognize which one dominates at a given time.

Therefore, in conclusion:

• sometimes Extraversion occurs alone,
• sometimes Introversion occurs alone,
• and sometimes Extraversion and Introversion occur together (to varying or similar degrees).

And it is how it looks like my explanation of short definitions of Introversion and Extraversion. They are short because I want to put them on the Mandala of Characters.

In that case, let us put these definitions on the Mandala.

In the diagram above, we can see the word EXTRAVERSION is in the top left corner. Above it, there is the condensed definition of Extraversion.

(object, case—risk and opportunity—
—EXTRAVERSION)

In turn, it the bottom right corner; there is the word INTROVERSION. Above it, there is the condensed definition of Introversion.

(subject, relation—protection and promotion—
—INTROVERSION)

I think that now, having the above definitions of Introversion and Extraversion, it will be easier to guide us 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 — gives interest to the outer world, to the object.
   • Introversion — gives interest to the inner world, to the subject.

Speaking about Introversion and Extraversion, I have already used the terms: adaptive-defensive mechanisms, general attitudes, modes of psychic reactions. However, before I did not pay 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 it is seldom said that:
— Extraversion — directs us towards the object, and
— Introversion — directs us toward the subject.

So, I think it is worth paying more attention to the concepts of “subject” and “object” and use it more in the Mandala of Characters. In this update, I did it by including them in the short definitions of Introversion and Extraversion, which I created earlier in this update.

References: