RoR: Forum

In MBTI terms, (which, from Jung through to Myers and Briggs, is where the concepts started) this article, along with many of the comments preceding it in other threads, is mistaken in its basic understanding of what Introversion and Extroversion are.
They aren't a matter of "being shy" or being "confident", of "prefering your own company' or being a person who "needs" other people. It is described in both sets of original works as being an "energy orientation". It is simply how one obtains / maintains mental / emotional "energy".
If you are a person who finds dealing with other people in numbers tiring, if you work as a salesperson for example, and on getting home need to spend an hour alone in the bath, or the garden shed, or with a book, in order to feel re-invigorated, you are at base an introvert.
If you need to go to a party, or ring a few friends for a chat to feel invigorated again, you are at base an extrovert. Jung and MBTI warn against any sort of belief in "continuum" which is the place for modern academic psychological "traits" such as intelligence and so forth.
The four "orientations" are described as a polar either - or, much like right and left handedness. As such, we are all capable of either one of each orientation, but have, and develop over years, preferences for one or the other, like being right or left handed (up to about 18 months age, infants rarely demonstrate a preference). Moreover, these can vary with circumstance. So, if I am heavily introverted, I will prefer the introverted option in most circs. most of the time, but there will be circs/times when I will prefer the extrovert option. It is not a matter of sliding along a scale at all. There are those whose choices for one or the other are so even that they "stand" pretty centrally and are comparable to ambidextrous people.. Some have just one preference almost all the time, and "stand" at one or other end and are comparable to persons whose use of one hand is so total that the other is of supportive use only.
The entire comparison with Roarks' lack of concern for the interests and views of others with Introversion / Extroversion is therefor mistaken. One would deduce Roark was an introvert because he would spend hours after he had been working, on his own immersed in his own thoughts. This would indicate he obtained reinvigoration of mental energies this way, which is what would make him an introvert. This is not surprising. Two of my MBTI text books surmise Ayn Rand as having been a "classical INTJ", ie, she cast many of her characters with characterstics she herself shared and understood.
Cass

Post 1

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 2:03am

Cass,

I agree with you. As per the Myers-Briggs, Roark would actually break down to being an introvert, and as I see him, an INTJ.

Good eye.

Post 2

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 2:46am

Wouldn't a better description of "energy orientation" be "focus orientation"? as energy orientation doesn't really have any substantive meaning. Focus orientation would then refer to where an individual places their focus, an internal focus or an external focus.

The whole flaw in the introvert-extrovert conception, and consequently the Myers-Briggs profiling system, is the assumption that everyone's psychology is subject to these passive predispositions, which is a load of crap. As far as I can see from the classifications, the Introvert-Extraver‚” distinction is supposed to represent the predisposition of focus orientation and the Sensing-Intuitive distinctions refer to predispositions of mental method. All of these concepts represent false dichotomies.

I would have thought that Objectivists go out of their to introspect on their mental processing methods, along with the conscious formulation of goals and values, and actively go out of their way to form healthy Objective mental habits to ensure that knowledge conforms to reality and that facts not being evaded. The whole passive predisposition idea may work for the intellectually lazy, but I suspect any rational person would have a hard time firstly trying to answer the questions outside of any basic context and secondly identifying with their "Type". If you ever have to take one of these tests for a job then I suggest you lie, the whole thing is just arbitrary nonsense.

Post 3

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 5:01am

Bevan I personally agree that you could call it "Focus Orientation" it is difficult to understand what exactly is meant by "Energy Orientation" or "Psychic Energy".

I also do not see the Introvert-extrovert is a necessarily a passive predisposition but more of a part of the way that you formulate concepts [I could use some help on this would Rand call this Psycho-Epistemology???]

By knowing how you learn as an individual can have great benefits in your understanding, looking at things objectively, dealings with others and in building ones "healthy Objective mental habits"

If you will allow me to post a rather large section from Jungs psychological types I think it may help. The below is just one of his psychological types [Intellectual Introvert to be exact] This is one of the passages that I greatly Identify with and by understanding this I have been able to break down barriers that stopped me from learning and understanding.

Therefore, as Bevan beautifully stated it, "to form healthy Objective mental habits to ensure that knowledge conforms to reality and that facts not being evaded"

I think that even the new chart only gives you an idea of where a persons surface personality trait lie and not where their true nature is. The real goal of knowing ones tendencies is so that you can continueing growing and learning. The way to do this is by looking at the data Objectively—forming ones concepts—then acting upon them. If any part of this process is not conscious then you risk a stoppage in a productive and happy life.

Anyway here is the passage:
" He will follow his ideas like the extravert , but in the reverse direction: inwards and not outwards. Intensity is his aim, not extensity. He is lacking the intense relation to objects. If the object is a person, this person has a distinct feeling that matters only in a negative way. This negative relation to the object, ranging from indifference to aversion, characterizes every introvert and makes a description of the type excedingly difficult. Everything about him seems to dissapear and get concealed. His judgement apppears cold, inflexible, arbitrary, and ruthless, because it relates far less to the object than to the subject.[like our Roark] he may be polite, amiable, and kind, but one is constantly aware of a certain uneasiness betraying an ulterior motive-the disarming of an opponent, who must at all costs be pacified and placated lest he prove himself a nuisance. The object has to submit to neglect and in patholofical cases it is even surrounded with quite unnecessary precautionary measures. Thus this type tends to vanish behind a cloud of misunderstanding. He will shrink from no danger in building up his world or ideas, and never shrinks from thinking a thought because it might prove to be dangerous, subversive, heretical, or wounding to other people's feelings, he is none the less beset by the greatest anxiety if ever he has to make it an objective reality. When he does put his ideas into the world, he never introduces them like a mother solicitous for her children, but simply dumps them there and gets extreely annoyed if they fail to thrive on their own account. if in his eyes his product appears correct and true, then it must be so in practice, and other have got to bow to its truth. Hardly ever will he go out of his way to win anyone's appreciation of it, especially anyone of influence. And if ever he brings himself to do so, he generally sets about it so clumsily that it has just the opposite of the effect intended. In the pursuit of his ideas he is generally stubborn, headstrong, and quite unamenable to influence. his suggestibility to personal influences is in strange contrast to this. He can easily be convinced that a person is harmless and he will lay himself open to the most undesirable elements. They seize hold of him from the unconscious. He lets himself be brutalized and exploited in the most ignominous way if only he can be left in peace to pursue his ideas. He simply does not see when he is being plundered behind his back and wronged in practice. for to him the relation to people and things is secondary and the objective evaluation of his product he remains unconscious of. Because he thinks out his problems to the limit, he complicates them and constantly gets entangled in his own scruples and misgivings. However clear to him the inner structureof his thoughts may be, he is not in the least clear where or how they link up with the world of reality. His style is cluttered with all sorts of adjuncts, accessories, qualifications, retractions, saving clauses, doubts, etc. which all come from his scupulosity. Casual acquaintances think him inconsiderate and domineering. but the better one knows him, the more favourable one's judgement becomes, and his closest friends value his intimacy very highly. to outsiders he seems prickly and unapproachable, and arrogant. he is untalkitive or else throws himself on people who cannot understand him, and for him this is one more proof of the abysmal stupidity of man. "if for once he is understood, he easily succumbs to credulous overestimation of his prowess" He does not make a good teacher his thoughts are usually more on the material itself than its presentation."

Thanks,
JML

Post 4

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 6:32am

Good article Joe. As I read, I was thinking of my own experience. There was a time when I was shy, and an introvert. Now, I would say I am no longer shy, but I still tend towards introversion, not as an escape *from* the outside world but just because thats where I get energy from. I've also known people who suffer from panic disorder, and social anxiety disorder, who nontheless consider themselves extroverts. And all along the continuum, context and other variables come into play.

Excellent job in this article of dissecting the sometimes false distinction. Good model.

John

Post 5

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 8:50am

Bevan writes: "Wouldn't a better description of "energy orientation" be "focus orientation"? as energy orientation doesn't really have any substantive meaning. Focus orientation would then refer to where an individual places their focus, an internal focus or an external focus."

That may be part of the story, but energy orientation is still important, because their is a strong physical component involved in biological introversion/extroversion. I would say they are more symbiotic of each other than separate.

Post 6

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 9:28am

Joe R., very interesting approach.
In regards to Joe R.'s idea, I am glad for the exploration of the dichotomy of "pure" introversion versus extroversion (as monolithic traits as opposed to varying parts of one's being), but I do take issue with his "test subject." Howard Roark, (obviously) is fictional, and is more a projection of his author. Also, Roark, in Joe R.'s description, exhibits what seems to be chosen introversion, rather than biological introversion. (I find this problematic, though, since Roark, unlike, say, Galt or even Toohey, is not fully aware of his reasons or motivations, as Rand writes in her notes. This brings up the question, which came first? The tendency to be introverted, oriented inward, which brings about chosen introversion based on philosophy? Have a ball with that one...)

I have no problem, personally, using Roark to speculate on the personality of Ayn Rand; I would, however, object to any attempt to invoke Rand's claim that Roark DID exist, namely in Frank O'Conner, since that comparison is again a projection of Rand's rationalizations of O'Conner as a Randian "hero."

There is also the problem of Roark as portrayed in THE EARLY AYN RAND. It is one thing to argue that Roark simply wouldn't choose to interact with someone because it isn't worth his time, but how would one explain the description of Roark as indifferent to someone falling out a window? This rightfully cut passage indicates less about introversion/extroversion and more the air of cruel aristocracy found in much of Rand's early work.

And as the INTROVERT ADVANTAGE and Jung both argue, introversion and extroversion are not mutually exclusive, either-or personality traits. Most of us are capable of both, just in various degrees. (Side note: Many introverts are said, [mistakenly, I believe] when analyzed, to share the same traits as people with autism. I believe that is a flaw of the medical/mental health profession, who, like the general population for years, believed that there was something wrong with introversion, equating it with antisocial behavior, shyness, etc.. The traits can co-exist, but they are NOT the same.)
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 10/30, 11:08am)

Post 7

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 9:41am

When I was a child, I used to be an introvert. Now, I'm just an asshole. :)

Adam

Post 8

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 9:45am

When I was a child, my belly button was innie. Now, it's an outie.

Post 9

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 10:42am

My aorta carries blood to all my limbs and major organs, except my lungs.
(Edited by Jeremy on 10/29, 10:44am)

Post 10

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 6:53am

Bevan Webb said:

The whole flaw in the introvert-extrovert conception, and consequently the Myers-Briggs profiling system, is the assumption that everyone's psychology is subject to these passive predispositions, ..

When I read Cass post I got the impression that your orientation is not a predisposition but a preference you need to make in your psychological development. So its not determined and you could probably change it later in your life if you really put down the effort to do so.

So in other words. I don't think your psychology is subject to your orientation, but instead your orientation is a part of your psychology.

Post 11

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 7:16am

I don't know what Joseph Rowlands studies to build his intellect or does for his keep, but this article is a prime example of one of my pet peeves - rejecting a theory while forgetting the existence of empirical data confirming it, or refusing to look at what experts have said so that one can properly understand what he is refuting. This leads to a rejection without trying to explain or reinterpret the empirical data in a way that is scientifically consistent (or a real attempt to show that the data is really inconsistent). It also leads to attacks of straw men. It is the kind of thing I see when I hear full-blown dualists with respect to the nature of consciousness refuse to deal with the brain-damage experiments that have located specific mental functions as being very reliant on specific brain structures/systems.

The MBTI introvert-extrovert distinction might not be rigorous enough for a person not grounded in statistical or social science methods, but there are a few things I would not advise anyone who wants to challenge it to do:

1) Do not refute it with a fictional character (as opposed to exemplifying it with a fictional character). Fictional characters are abstractions and can be made to look above the problems we face everyday without the author providing enough context for scientists and researchers to look at natural causes (it is fiction, isn't it?)

2) Do not claim to have conclusively refuted it by creating speculative data that you did not collect. Of course we probably all know guys who are brave around men (which I presume requires extroversion) and shy around women (being shy is not the opposite of being brave). But is this often the case, rarely the case, or something that has clear correlative bias?

3) Do not avoid citing knowledgeable sources on the subject (or at least referencing them when making your points). If a person wants to discuss the MBTI or use the Keirsey Temperament E/I distinction, I would have thought that some reference to either Myers-Briggs or Keirsey's work would be made. If you have read the work of Keirsey at least, you will note that he de-emphasizes the role of extroversion/introversion in most of his recent work and thinks that while it is useful, it is the least useful for understanding personality dimensions. But when Keirsey discusses E-I, he does it in a way that understands it limitations and makes distinctions for empirical understanding.

I quote Keirsey from "Please Understand ME, II", pages 331-332:

"Of course, everyone is expressive in some degree but not in the same degree. Those who are more expressive appear more comfortable around groups of people than when they are alone... On the other hand, those who are more reserved seem to be more comfortable when alone than when in a crowd. ... Remember however that these distinctions are not clear cut: each individual surely varies from time to time in his or her desire to be expressive and in company or to be reserved and in seclusion."

"Imagine that a person's energy is powered by batteries. Given this, then expressive persons appear to be energized, charged up by contact with people. Owing to the surge that they get when in contact with company, they approach others, even strangers, and talk to them, finding this an easy and pleasant thing to do, and something that they don't want to do without. "

"On the other hand, Reserved persons can be said to draw energy from a different source. They prefer to pursue solitary activities, working quietly alone with their favored project or hobby... If required by their job, family or social responsibilities to be outgoing or expressive - to make great intrapersonal effort - they are soon exhausted and need time in quiet places to rest and restore their energy."

Recent research has correlated introversion and extroversion with amygdala activity in the brain with people with less active amygdalas being more extroverted. I can't remember the source for this or I would directly cited it.

Anyways, I'm done. I just get worked up when people reject scientifically motivated theories, especially about human nature, without citing the data or looking a primary sources.

None of this is to say that Rowlands might not be right and a huge hole will be found in the E-I indicator some day (it is the weakest of the indicators). But I think Rowlands would have done way better if he had actually read a few primary sources (and the best of them) instead of attacking straw men.

Post 12

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 1:17pm

[Your orientation is]...not determined and you could probably change it later in your life if you really put down the effort to do so...I don't think your psychology is subject to your orientation, but instead your orientation is a part of your psychology.

Very well said, and right on the money, in my opinion. We choose our behavior and how we interact (or not) with the rest of the world.

Post 13

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 2:44pm

A very interesting article.

While the polemical style of Mr. Rowlands's expostion may turn off some, there is considerable merit in the approach he has taken. Many of the psychological models of personality do (inadvertently?) portray humans as helpless against their inherited nature. In the cases where it is stated that the profile categories (like E-I) are flexible within a person's lifetime, too little weight is given to the individual's own volition, and to the power of reason, to effect a self-change.

However, pursuing this viewpoint too far carries its own pitfalls. It would ascribe too much power to volition, in effect stating that even core elements of one's psyche can be changed at will at little or no cost to one's psychological integrity.

Perhaps the real dichotomy here is "inherited nature vs. volition". Where does the former end and the latter begin? Is intelligence (g) a determiner of whether one can "change it later in your life if you really put down the effort to do so"? (from Post 10) This alone would have tremendous societal implications. Or maybe "inherited nature vs. volition" is a false dichotomy after all, at which point we're back to "Where shall we start?".

These questions impinge on the nature of consciousness itself. We are hardly any nearer to settling the debates now as it was in Aristotle's time. Current ideas from evolutionary psychology are unappetizingly not on the side of free will .

************
On the MBTI meme that has been floating around...

I do not know if this has been posted on SOLO before. Psychometrics of personality have advanced beyond MBTI. Current consensus revolve around the "Big Five". A personality test that is comprehensive, empirically-based, and free (unlike many MBTI tests) can be taken from

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/5/j5j/IPIP/

while a more detailed elucidation of the "International Personality Item Pool" (on which research the test is based) can be found at

http://ipip.ori.org/

Would be interesting to see the speculations on how the Rand characters fit the IPIP profile (yet another persistent meme in objectivist forums!).

Post 14

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 4:06pm

Joe's article is great. Whether Roark should be a standard for conduct is another matter entirely. Being completely oblivious to others is sociopathic, but it is a standard to which some Objectivists aspire, which is PRECISELY the reason why normal, well-adjusted people run from your classical Objectivists like they have ants in their pants. Roark never would have made it on my radar as potential friend material.

Companionship is a value. I have determined that great friendships can be had even if my friends aren't very Objectivist. I value sex. I have determined that waiting for Objectivist perfection in a woman is a stupid waste of my life. I ~like~ going to parties and being noticed. I ~LIKE~ to be complimented, just like every other human being does, whether they admit it or not. I like to give compliments, and enjoy seeing others appreciate my compliments. And enjoying companionship and compliments and attention are not signs of weakness, immorality, or falling somewhere 'bad' on a introvert-extrovert scale (whether 1, 2 or 3 dimensional). We are social animals. We act against our nature when we forget this.

Even Ayn Rand said that her characters were fictionalized ideals, not absolute guides for action.

Post 15

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 5:30pm

Joe, this is insightful. I think you've given a much better account of different kinds of personalities than the "introvert/extrovert" dichotomy could hope to.

I think it's a shame people tend to think of the so-called "introvert" pejoratively and the so-called "extrovert" more positively. Extroversion is just as often a manifestation of low self-esteem (Branden's concept of "pseudo self-esteem" comes to mind) as severe introversion is. Quite honestly, I think extroversion is over-rated. Such people too often are loud and obnoxious, lacking in sensitivity and the capacity to enjoy life's peaceful, quiet and solitary moments.

Post 16

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 8:17pm

Cameron Pritchard:

I think it's a shame people tend to think of the so-called "introvert" pejoratively and the so-called "extrovert" more positively.

From Keirsey in "Please Understand Me II":

"There is some social bias towards expressiveness in American social life. but Reserved persons have no reason to feel that there is anything wrong with them, and should be sure to provide adequately for their legitimate desire for quiet time to themselves." (Page 332)

Aren't we all better off if at least ONE competent source of the E-I dichotomy is critiqued so we can see if it is as arbitrary as Rowlands claims? I find it incredible that many people are lauding Rowlands's attack of a straw man.

Post 17

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 9:47pm

Next Level, it is only a suspicion, but I think you will find reluctance from most Objectivists (not all) to read or discuss such a book, or the topic, due to its Jungian influence. There are many criticisms of Freud, especially by Nathaniel Branden, but Jung has been largely ignored (blank out.)(There are some exceptions, notably the work of Roger Bissel, and Nathaniel Branden has referenced Jung favorably on occasion, though I would love to hear more). Which is a shame, because I have found much overlapping of ideas between Rand and Jung, (as well as differences,) and think that Jung rounds out some of the blind spots in Objectivism.
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 10/29, 9:48pm)

Post 18

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 10:04pm

I think of the introvert as having the tendency to focus on the self and the extrovert as having the tendency to focus on external things. I don't see the need to complicate it further. Roark is an introvert.

Joe, the only familiarity I have with Jung is from a discussion I had with some guy named Walter at a Starbucks near Emory University. He was explaining Jung's archetypes and I was fascinated by what he was saying. Then I went to the nearby bookstore and browsed but didn't see a Jung book that appealed to me.

I'm philosophically-minded and am distrustful of psychology most of the time. What Jung would you recommend and why?

Post 19

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 10:34pm