Lena M.
Faitz
In 1921, psychiatrist and theorist Carl Gustav Jung introduced two terms
which he believed to be salient tenets of personality - introvert and extravert.
He stated that "every individual possesses both the mechanism of introversion
and that of extraversion...external circumstances and inner dispositions
frequently favour one mechanism and impede or restrict the other" (Eysenck,
1970, pg. 11). This proposition was radical at the time, as most of the
professional community was processing the work of Dr. Sigmund Freud, another
famous psychoanalyst, who focused on childhood development and psychosis, as
opposed to the variations between people. Jung's theory served as a foundation
for the rapid growth of personality study, which was picked up by numerous and
well-known psychologists and laypeople; among them are Myers and Briggs, Keirsey,
and Eysenck. Myers and Briggs set out to operationalize the preference between
extraversion and introversion, thus yielding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
(MBTI), as did Keirsey (Myers & Myers, 1995; Keirsey, 1998).
With their introduction, the words "introvert" and "extravert" have
become a part of daily vocabulary used to describe people and their
temperaments. More often than not, people place emphasis on the extravert and
praise him for possessing a desirable personality characteristic. He may readily
make friends, receive a raise at work without much effort, and be the center of
attention in groups. In American popular culture, an outgoing person is
perceived to be successful and happy, which has created a desire within others
to emulate these qualities. With all of this interest in "sociable" people, it
is easy to see why introverts have been forgotten and neglected. In fact, being
an introvert in today's society is considered to be "bad" and "undesirable";
however, the popular conceptions of the term are not accurate in their
descriptions and are therefore, in need of some demystifying. The original
concept of the word was not negative, but one psychologist played a pivotal role
in changing its meaning.
German-born and an English psychologist, Eysenck is well-known for his
controversial work regarding intelligence, personality, mental illness, and
temperament. He primarily based his theories upon biology and physiology and
famously drew inspiration from Ancient Greek medicine when attempting to develop
his own hypotheses (Boeree, 2006). Inborn dispositions, or temperament, were
once thought to be associated with fluids within the body. As a result, the
concept of the following types were born: sanguine (cheerful and optimistic),
choleric (aggressive and hot-tempered), phlegmatic (laziness), and melancholic
(depressed and pessimistic) (Boeree, 2006). However, it was not his dabbling
with biology in order to explain personality traits that changed the meaning of
"introvert." Eysenck's research has caused numerous problems with the modern
conception of introversion because the term has been assigned negative
qualities, neglected, and unfairly
compared with neuroticism and psychoticism; thus, his actions have created an
unnecessary negative social stigma (Eysenck, 1970). As many continue to cite his
research within the field of psychology, there has been a formation of a habit
which results in "cherry-picking" terminology without understanding the original
context, which has created more problems than originally anticipated.
At this point in time, it is necessary to explain the claim that
Eysenck's work is the main source of the negative social stigma against
introverts. Moreover, the widespread misinterpretation of his studies is one the
largest reasons the definition of introversion has become inaccurate. One of the
explanations for why people misunderstand his research is the vocabulary
differences between the early twentieth century and modern times; some words
simply do not mean the same thing anymore. Often, as it will be demonstrated,
the definitions have become more expanded and meaningful than their original
meanings. However, it is necessary first to describe his work with introversion
and extraversion so that this point may become more clear.
Within Eysenck's work, he has a tendency to focus more on the extravert
and assign significantly more negative traits to introverts. However, as many
people may ask, why does he matter? While most early theorists have been phased
out easily with the advancements in personality psychology and they are regarded
as "stepping stones," so to speak. Unfortunately, such is not the case with
Eysenck; he is the number three most-cited psychological writer in the twentieth
century, thus making it quite difficult to ignore his influence (Haggbloom,
Warnick, Warnick, Jones, Yarbrough, Russell, Borecky, McGahhey, Powell III,
Beavers, & Monte, 2002, p. 142). As a result, he is incredibly significant,
particularly when attempting to study introversion-extraversion and personality
theory; the downside comes when laypeople and even some psychologists refer to
him in their projects and fail to note the vocabulary differences. The following
paragraph will list some of the most salient terms from Eysenck's 1970 book,
The Structure of Human Personality,
and will provide an explanation as to how individuals today have the wrong
impression about introverts.
Eysenck draws inspiration from psychologists before him who attempted to
map out the locations of traits within four quadrants; unfortunately, it does
not seem as though these theorists reinforced their ideas with actual, observed
data or case studies. For instance, one of the most prominent references is a
diagram depicting Vernon's (1953) relations between main personality dimensions,
which appears early in the book (p. 19). On the extraverted/dependable (assumed
as positive) side of the scale, the following traits are listed: "stable,
mature, integrated, good character, unemotional, and dominant." The traits
"persistent, cautious, schizothyme, dysthymic, melancholic, and desurgent" all
appear on the introverted/ dependable side of the continuum. Eysenck supports
these theorists' viewpoints by asserting that it is possible to determine
whether an individual is introvert or extraverted based upon a list of
characteristics. When assessing these two inventories of traits, it seems clear
that introverts received more negative descriptions than extraverts, and such an
observation is true. To make matters worse, the negative, introverted side of
the continuum contains words such as: "submissive, emotional, poor character,
neurotic, and unstable" (Eysenck, 1970, p. 19).
Looking at the previously-mentioned terms used to describe introverts, it
is no wonder many people get the wrong idea about nearly half of the population:
They were described using nothing but cynical words. Perhaps the least offensive
terms may be "persistent" or "cautious," but they do not begin to compare to the
extravert's list: "stable, mature, integrated, good character..." (Eysenck,
1970, p. 19). Eysenck seems to be the most responsible for weaving a tapestry of
falsehoods regarding the introvert. Again, people may say, "So what if he used
more negative terms? How does that affect how an introvert is viewed?" The
explanation to such questions is easily demonstrated by simply providing a list
of comparative definitions. According to Dictionary.com, "schizothyme" is
related to being schizoid (introverted) and is encompassed within elements of
schizophrenia (a severe mental disorder) but not to the same depth of
disturbance. "Dysthymic" is defined as "depression; despondency or a tendency to
be despondent... including anxiety... and compulsive behavior." The word "desurgent"
appears to be related to "introspection [sic], restrained, brooding, and solemn"
(Gholson, Shadish, Jr., Neimeyer, & Houts, 1989, p. 186).
Fifty years ago, there would have been
no need for a paper that defined such language, but it is now essential because
the meanings have drastically changed, but the literature has not.
Perhaps some may remain unconvinced that Eysenck played a major role in
creating the social stigma that lies upon the shoulders of every introvert.
There are two more terms, "neuroticism" and "psychoticism," frequently cited
from his research that are often used to make arguments such as, "extraverts are
happier and more desirable" or "introverts tend to be depressed." The modern
definition of both these words are different from Eysenck's conceptualizations,
thus making them very dangerous to assign to introverts without understanding
what they are actually saying. He defines "neuroticism" as the likelihood that
an individual will break down under stress, in addition to the possession of
wide emotional variability; it is a measure of stability (Funder, 1997).
However, when one looks up the word in 2012, the meaning is much different: " a
functional disorder in which feelings of anxiety, obsessional thoughts,
compulsion acts, and physical complaints without objective evidence of
disease...typified by excessive anxiety or indecision and a degree of social or
interpersonal maladjustment" (Dictionary.com). If one simply compares the two
meanings, it is easy to see the amount of damage that could be dealt by picking
up Eysenck's book and not understanding the original concept of the words.
One may consider another example: psychoticism. Surely that word has not
changed in the past fifty years, right? Wrong. Eysenck finds that psychotics
have a certain sense of "recklessness, [and] a disregard for common sense or
conventions, and a degree of inappropriate emotional expression" (Boeree, 2006).
He also asserts that an individual may exhibit these kinds of characteristics,
which may lead him to be more susceptible to becoming psychotic if subjected to
certain stressors or environments (Boeree, 2006). These descriptions help to
flesh out Eysenck's concept of what it means to be clinically psychotic, yet it
is not quite how he used it; in fact, such a definition is more akin to the
modern sense of the word. To him, it means that a person is "aggressive, cold,
egocentric, impersonal, impulsive, antisocial, and creative" (Funder, 1997, p.
161). Compared to the 2012 definition, these meanings could not be any more
dissimilar. Psychosis is defined as "a mental disorder characterized by
symptoms, such as delusions or hallucinations, that indicate impaired contact
with reality... any severe form of mental disorder, as schizophrenia or
paranoia" (Dictionary.com).
By now, the problems with using modern definitions in correspondence with
slightly-dated literature should be more than apparent. To the casual reader,
hurried researcher, or beginning psychology student, the seriousness of this
error may not occur. Most people tend to not think about the evolution of
language in context with their research; they simply take for granted that
nearly all information is at their fingertips and may not stop to consider
original definitions. Of course, when one reads Eysenck's work, it is difficult
to ignore the negative undertones of his works, nor is it easy to find a single
positive word about the introvert. If the language confusion has not created
enough problems for understanding what introversion is, his complete lack of
attempts to dispel these stereotypes only made the situation worse. As the rule
in statistics goes, if there is a failure to reject a hypothesis, what is to say
that it is not true? The same logic applies to introverts: If nobody has proven
Eysenck's lists of characteristics wrong, then surely they must be correct. Such
an assumption is not only wildly unfair, but it is also inaccurate; there are
many extraverts who may be considered to be anxious, aggressive, depressive,
melancholic, or any other number of terms usually associated with introverts.
People tend to forget that all of these characteristics are not to be thought of
as "black and white," but rather in shades of gray and varying between each
individual. Now that some of the most commonly-held beliefs about the introvert
have been scrutinized and properly defined, it is time to return to basics; it
is time to truly analyze what it means to be an introvert.
Developing a clear definition of the word "introvert" is the first step
to understanding the complexity of this personality type and realizing just how
inaccurate their representation is in modern culture. According to the
Oxford English Dictionary,
introversion is defined as "a shy, reticent person; psych: a person
predominantly concerned with their own thoughts and feelings rather than with
external things." This explanation is similar to Jung's original proposal and is
a good foundation for beginning to understand the mind of an introvert.
According to Jung, an introvert is mainly concerned with an inner world, as well
as concepts and ideas, as opposed to extraverts, who are more involved with the
stimuli of the outer world and environment (Cain, 2012). While this working
definition is at the core of his concepts, Jung offers many additional thoughts
about the "quiet" individual. Often, he compares the characteristics of each
side of the spectrum that a person can flow between; because he uses
polarization to illustrate his points, it is impossible to talk about
introversion and not mention extraversion.
Another important step in understanding introversion is to determine what
it is not; this can easily be done by looking at the characteristics of an
extravert. Jung describes the extravert as an individual who typically "values
the outer world, both in its material and immaterial aspects...seeks for social
approval and tends to conform to the [customs] of [his or her] society" (Eysenck,
1970, pg. 24). They tend to be sociable and trusting and, therefore, may easily
make friends. Also, extraverts can be open to new experiences and changes within
their lives, due to their activities being mostly external and physical. They
tend not to worry about inhibitions and can be carefree at times, which may
result in insensitivity, unpleasantness, and emotional volatility, in addition
to superficial, materialistic, and hard-headed tendencies. In addition, most
extraverted thinkers tend to agree with the following statements: "I always keep
my feet solidly on the ground"; "When I think a problem through, I keep very
close to the facts that I have seen and observed"; "I can deal much better with
actual situations than with ideas" and "I only work for tangible and clearly
defined results" (Smith, 1961, pg. 159). While this definition is a minimal list
of characteristics, Jung's theory suggests that extraverts may be more
predisposed to problems such as sleep deprivation, emotional sensitivity and
fluctuation, and melodrama when under excess amounts of stress (formerly known
as hysteria, which is no longer a single diagnosis; Eysenck, 1970; Oxford
Dictionaries, n.d.) This conceptualization of an extravert serves as a good
point of comparison to the description of an introvert; often, they can be polar
opposites of their more open, gregarious counterparts.
As previously mentioned, Jung offered many concepts and thoughts about
what it means to be an introvert, in addition to his broad definition of where
someone may stand on the spectrum. His proposal that the introverted tend to
live in an inner world is more easily explained by illustrating how they think:
They are much more drawn to introspection and feelings about events observed and
experienced. Another key indication of a "quiet" person is how he or she may
feel after social interaction; often, a person who is considered as highly
introverted feels drained by excessive socializing and feels the need to
re-energize themselves by being alone for a bit (Cain, 2012). If an individual
becomes over-stressed, he or she may slip into a state of high sensitivity,
exhaustion, and tiredness. It is a common misconception, which Jung adamantly
opposes, that introversion is synonymous with neuroticism (instability and
unhealthy fixation). He states that "it is a mistake to believe that
introversion is more or less the same as neurosis...the two have not the
slightest connection with each other" (Eysenck, 1970). However, that does not
mean that they are incapable of having meaningful relationships with others.
When one thinks about the sliding scale of introversion-extraversion, it is
crucial to keep in mind that most people can and do constantly fluctuate between
being "quiet" and "open," depending largely on the present situation. Jung's
position best describes how most psychologists feel about the scale of
personality: "...A rhythmic alternation of these two psychic functions
characterizes the normal course of life..." (Eysenck, 1970).
Since the early 1900s when Jung first introduced the concept of
introversion and extraversion, many people have been captivated by his thoughts
regarding personality. One family, Myers-Briggs, was especially enthralled and
the mother-daughter team studied Jungian theory and expanded upon his original
ideas (Myers & Myers, 1995). As a result of their work, they have created a
modern conceptualization of introverts; although their data is not as
professionally accepted as the MMPI-2, some of their observations may bear some
meaning. According to Myers and Myers (1995), many introverted types are as
follows:
...Forethinkers. [They] cannot live
life until they understand it. [Their] attitude [is] reserved and questioning.
They expect the waters to prove deep, and pause to take soundings in the new and
untried. [Their] minds [are] inwardly directed, frequently unaware of the
objective environment...being engrossed by inner events. Their real world... is
the inner world of ideas and understanding...[They are] the people of ideas and
abstract invention. [Their] conduct...is always governed by subjective
values...[They are] subtle and impenetrable, often taciturn and shy...intense
and passionate, [and] they bottle up their
emotions and guard them carefully. [Their] typical weakness lies in a tendency
toward impracticality...(p. 56)
Again, as any good
researcher may realize, one source of data is not enough to determine a set of
characteristics for an entire group of people. However, it must be emphasized
that Myers-Briggs were some of the first to attempt to operationalize and
standardize how Jung thought about personality.
Perhaps now it is easier to understand what it means to be an introvert
and, more importantly, that it is not a trait that needs to be resented. In
fact, it should be embraced and approached in a positive manner; after all, many
influential figures have been introverts. It may seem comforting for an
introvert to know that she is among the company of Jung, Einstein, Lincoln, and
hundreds of others (Myers, 1997, p. 56). As reluctant as they may be, they must
accept that it is time for them be defended, which may require a bit of extra
attention. More important than allowing themselves to be scrutinized is hearing
the news that introverts are not truly at a disadvantage. Often, negative
stigmas not only reach others, but it also delves deeply into the souls of those
discussed; how could an introvert not
hear what is being said (perhaps not-so-quietly) behind his back? Humans are
fluid in their behavior, depending on the situation at hand. As a result, it is
entirely possible and not impractical for an introvert to be a leader, just as
it would be silly to assume that extraverts do not enjoy the occasional walk
alone (Cain, 2012). No matter where an individual may fall on the continuum,
s/he must always remember that there is someone in the world who does not
believe everything at face value and that there is someone who is calling for a
re-defining of two of society's main categories: introvert and extravert.
References
Boeree, C.G. (2006) Hans Eysenck.
Retrieved from http://webspace.ship/edu/cgboer/eysenck.html
Cain, S. (2012).
Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World
That Can't Stop Talking. New York: Crown Publishers.
Eysenck, H.J. (1970).
The Structure of Human Personality.
(Third ed.) Great Britain: John Dickens
and Co Ltd.
Funder, D.C. (1997).
The Personality Puzzle. New York:
W.W. Norton & Company.
Gholson, B, Shadish, Jr., W., Neimeyer, R., and
Houts, A. (1989). Psychology of science:
Contributions to metascience. Canada: Cambridge University Press.
Haggbloom, S.J., Warnick, R., Warnick, J, Jones, V., Yarbrough, G., Russell, T., Borecky, C., McGahhey, R., Powell III, J., Beavers, J., and Monte, E. (2002). The 100 Most Eminent Psychologists of the 20th Century. Review of General Psychology, 6(2), 139-152.
Hogan, R., Johnson, J., & Briggs, S. (1997).
Handbook of Personality Psychology.
San Diego: Academic Press.
Introversion. (n.d). In
Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved from
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/introvert?region=us&q=introvert
Keirsey, D. (1998).
Please Understand Me II: Temperament,
Character, Intelligence. United States: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company.
Myers, I.B. & Myers, P.B. (1995).
Gifts Differing: Understanding
Personality Type. Palo Alto: Davies-Black
Publishing.
Neurotic. (n.d). In
Dictionary.com. Retrieved from
http://dictionary.com/
Psychosis. (n.d). In
Dictionary.com. Retrieved from
http://dictionary.com/
Smith, C. (1961).
Personality Adjustment. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.