Extraversion and Introversion

General Attitude Types

Carl Gustav Jung introduces the distinction between extraversion and introversion as a distinction between general attitude types. What is at stake here is a fundamental orientation of the psyche in relation to the object.

Jung writes:

The general attitude types, which I have designated as “introverted” and “extraverted” ,differ in their characteristic attitude toward the object.
The general attitude types differ in the direction of their interest, in the movement of their libido.

From the outset, Jung thus points to two key aspects:

the relation to the object;
the direction of interest, that is, the direction of the movement of libido.

Libido and interest

By libido Jung understands psychic energy in general, not any particular form of instinct or drive. He gives the following definition:

By libido I understand psychic energy.
Psychic energy is the intensity of a psychic process, its psychological significance.

Jung emphasizes that this significance is not an attributed moral, aesthetic, or intellectual value, but is determined solely by its determining force, which manifests itself in specific psychological effects.

When Jung speaks of the “direction of interest”, he does not introduce a separate psychological concept. Interest, for Jung, is the direction of the movement of libido, that is, the way psychic energy manifests itself in the orientation of the subject. The distinction between attitudes can therefore be described equally correctly as a difference in the direction of interest or as a difference in the movement of libido.

The introvert’s relation to the object

Jung describes the introverted attitude as follows:

The introverted type relates to the object in an abstracting manner; fundamentally, they are always concerned with withdrawing libido from the object, as if they had to guard against an excessive power of the object over themselves.

This does not mean withdrawal from the object or its negation, but rather the removal of determining force from the object. The introverted attitude is characterized by the fact that psychic energy is not transferred to the object as a source of significance. The object must not acquire excessive power over the individual.

The extravert’s relation to the object

Jung describes the extraverted attitude in the opposite way:

The extraverted type, by contrast, relates positively to the object.
They affirm its significance to such an extent that they constantly orient themselves by the object and relate themselves to it.
Fundamentally, the object never has sufficient value for the extravert, and therefore its significance must continually be increased.

The extraverted attitude is characterized by the fact that psychic energy is directed toward the object, and the object becomes the point of orientation. The object thus acquires determining force.

Compensation and One-Sidedness of the Attitude

Jung attached great importance to the fact that the conscious attitude never exists in isolation. According to Jung, an introverted or extraverted conscious attitude is compensated by an opposing unconscious attitude.

Extreme forms of introversion or extraversion, manifesting either as withdrawal from the object and even its negation or, conversely, as fusion with the object and dissolution in it, were regarded by Jung as the result of an imbalance — an excessive predominance of the conscious attitude over the unconscious.

The origin of the attitude type

Jung emphasizes that the attitude type is not formed through conscious choice and cannot be explained directly by upbringing. Its source is unconscious and instinctual. Extraversion and introversion are therefore not acquired psychological strategies, but deep-seated attitudes with a natural origin.

Attitude as adaptation

Jung states that the attitude toward the object serves adaptation. In biology, the term adaptation refers to the process by which organisms become better adapted to their environment through natural selection. In Darwinian theory, adaptation is not a matter of “comfort” or “understanding”, but an evolutionary outcome that ensures survival and reproduction.

In his theory of natural selection, Charles Darwin described adaptation as follows: changes in heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction become more widespread in a population over successive generations. This process is called natural selection, and it is precisely this process that leads species to become better adapted to their environmental conditions.

Jung draws a direct analogy between the two psychological attitudes and two fundamental directions of adaptation in biology. He writes:

Nature knows two fundamentally different ways of adaptation and thus of ensuring the continued existence of living organisms: the one consists in a high rate of fertility with relatively weak powers of defense and a shorter lifespan of the individual; the other consists in equipping the individual with numerous means of self-preservation combined with a relatively low rate of fertility.

Jung sees in this biological antagonism a common foundation both for biological adaptation to the environment and for adaptation through the psyche’s attitude toward the object. He emphasizes:

Here I shall confine myself to a general indication: on the one hand, the peculiar nature of the extravert to expend and propagate himself in every way; on the other hand, the tendency of the introvert to defend himself against external demands, to refrain as far as possible from any expenditure of energy directly related to the object, and instead to create for himself the most secure and powerful position possible.

Thus, extraverted and introverted attitudes are understood by Jung as two different, biologically rooted ways of adaptation, each of which is viable and successful in its own way.

Conclusion

In Jung’s psychology, extraversion and introversion are general attitude types that differ:

in their relation to the object;
in the direction of interest and the movement of libido;
in their instinctual foundation;
in their mode of adaptation to the environment.

Jung regards them as two fundamental modes of psychological adaptation, each possessing its own logic and its own form of vitality.

Home