All I’m saying is that a conservative introvert is likely to think that all good rightist are introverts and all good introverts are rightists. Likewise, a rightist extrovert is likely to think that all good rightists are extroverts and all good extroverts are conservative. An introverted leftist will think that all good introverts are leftists and all good leftists are introverts. An extroverted leftist will think that all good extroverts are leftists and all good leftists are extroverts.
I’m saying it is a matter of personal bias, more than anything. I’m an extrovert and a raging leftist. Consequently, it follows that I think there is a relationship between extroversion and leftism. I’m guessing you are an introvert and a leftist, so you observe a relationship between introversion and leftism. Likewise, Saully is a known introvert, so it makes sense that he would provide a citation that lauds the introverted world view.
Yes, we do have to consider the egocentric dilema involved in this.
But you do make good point,Xunzian. Right on!
But I’m not totally convinced there isn’t a correlation between extroversion and conservatism. For me, it lies in the inherent logic of the the two. But once again, as Jung admitted himself, we’re talking about a mental model and not reality itself. All we can do with it is apply it to reality and see how it works out.
I’m just saying that you are liking introverts with the Aristotelian concept of the virtuous life and extroverts with the Aristotelian concept of the base life. I disagree with such a perception.
Indeed, I’d argue that is why introverts tend to be conservatives because in shunning healthy social behavior they turn everything into a commodity. An extrovert doesn’t find their energy in other people as a function of their perceiving those other people to be a commodity. Commodification represents the worst sort of reactionary conservatism.
No, that was not my intention at all. And I apologize if it came off that way. For one, we’re not talking about an either/or dichotomy here, but rather a spectrum in which most of us tend to lie somewhere in between. Secondly, even with the inherent logic, there is still any number of variation that might occur. For instance, a lot of those who lean toward the extroverted side, may be particularly a-political because a preoccupation with day to day matters. And there may, as well, be introverts who, because their tendency to shun the outer world, might choose, for instance, to become poets or artists with little to no political concern. I consider Rob Zombie a highly introverted artist. And as far as I know, he’s said little to nothing as concerns his political views. And if he did, it wouldn’t surprise me to find out his orientation was more toward a kind of libertarian conservatism due to his flirtations with satanism -which is explicitly libertarian.
Nor would I argue that being an introvert makes one immune to evil. Similar to your argument, I would argue that the kind inwardness at issue here could very well lead to the kind of solipsism typical of serial killers. Especially given the kind of push-pull relationship the introvert has with the world of objects. But no more than I would argue that extroversion equals evil, I certainly wouldn’t argue that introversion automatically assumes solipsism or the potential for serial killing.
Solipsism, due to our egocentric dilemma, and the leap of faith required in assuming the other has a perceiving thing, is a general disposition among introverts and extroverts alike. And this why I have to disagree with your attempt to make comodification the exclusive property of the introvert. It seems to me, given the extrovert’s orientation to the world of objects, they would be equally prone to commodification: the utilization of others as a means to an end. This can certainly be seen in the activities of players (who are clearly extroverted) who tend to see each other as a means to sex.
That said, my primary point was working from the given political positions to the introvert/extrovert spectrum. It just seemed to me to explain the positions that a lot of my conservative friends take: positions that tend to center around material well-being. It also explained their propensity toward popular opinions and assumptions, with what is apparently little relflection, since these opinions and assumptions are decidedly “out there”. Further, it explained to me the tendency of progressives to be more self-deconstructive and self scrutinizing which finds expression in their less assertive manner of stating positions. While this has been their strength in building their arguments, I also think this has been their liabilty in the general political discourse. They’re too hesitant and timid for their own good. I would also argue that this why more introverts turn to art and tend to be more successful at it -not the the so-called leftist conspiracy of the media many conservatives tend to embrace.
The main thing to keep in mind here, Xun, is that you can’t talk about causes, especially in the social sphere, as much as you can contributing factors. No matter what theory we present, it will always be incomplete. And it certainly wasn’t my intention to pose the personality types as causes. I was merely pointing to possible contributing factors.
I can agree with much of what you wrote, I’m just saying that for an extrovert “the world of objects” isn’t about material things, it is about other people. Hence extroversion. By saying that the extrovert begins and ends in the world of objects rather than beginning and ending in the worlds of others I feel you are commodifying other people, which is bad. And also misses the point.
Well, I would argue that the world of objects consists of material things. But on that we agree to disagree. However, to that extent, both introverts and extroverts have to form some kind of relationship with with the material. Also, I would point out that introverts don’t necessarily shun a healthy Social life. It’s usually given their inwardness they’re often not as successful at it. But once again, I do agree there is a solipsistic potential for the introvert. I suppose a lot of difference on this comes from our different experience of the issues at hand.
The terms you are using are too loosely defined for you to find a definite correlation. I’ve heard leftists describe their ideal model for society anywhere from a state run economy to anarcho-libertarianism and I’ve heard rightists describe their ideal model of society anywhere from a theocracy to anorcho-libertarianism. The same can be said for the terms liberal and conservative. Even introversion and extroversion aren’t as black and white as you might think. Its not quite a spectrum… It’s more like a multi dimensional model. It’s very difficult to attribute certain characteristics to either extroverts or introverts. I’ll try and show you what I mean… follow this reasoning.
Extroverts enjoy communicating because they are more confident. Introverts are shy and insecure and thus they stick to themselves. The logic seems reasonable… am I right?
How about this…
Extroverts need constant affirmation from people around them since they feel insecure about their own beliefs. Introverts are confident enough not to need this constant affirmation and can thus be comfortable to spend more time by themselves. This also seems reasonable.
What I am trying to say is that a person can be driven to extroversion/introversion because of either a surplus or a deficiency of (insert attribute) and perhaps there is a bit more to this argument than saying all introverts tend to be A while all extroverts tend to be B. I think a more efficient approach would be to identify many specific attributes that you think are associated with extroversion/introversion and find many specific attributes that are associated with liberalism/conservatism and then find attributes associated with leftism/rightism. Then you can probably find some overlap. At that point, you will notice that you will describe a conservative differently than he/she will describe him/herself and that you will describe an extrovert differently than he/she will describe him/herself.
Svet, I’m with you to the extent that such categories are little more than categories: a linguistic way of grouping a given phenomenon in order to make it easier to think about. And you’re right: the reality of people we tend to try to fix in such categories never seem to stay perfectly describable by said categories. Whatever we produce in our mental labs, it will never stand up to reality we are trying to describe with it.
That said, I think I should explain my sense of what it means to be an introvert:
If you were to ask me to keep a journal for the next thirty days, what you would get would not be a description of what I had done from day to day. What you would get, rather, is a description of an abstract process going on in my head. This is why I suck at Facebook.
Now as Jung described it:
For the extrovert, everything ends in the world of objects.
For the introvert, everything starts in the self and ends in it. The introvert is like a groundhog that goes out and collects reality, then takes it back into his own little hole.
From the way you described them an introvert kind of sounds like an individualist while an extrovert sounds like a utilitarianist. I believe that both political orientations have a heavy representation of each… However If I had to chose, I would guess that conservatism would have a higher correlation with introversion due to the emphasis that each places on individualism.
I can see your point from a deductive/analytic perspective. However, you still have to consider the conservative’s emphasis on the accumulation of wealth and their tendency to deal with what is in front of their nose. As I see it, they generally don’t to confuse issues with a lot of ethereal and high minded ideas. This is not to say they’re stupid. It is merely say that most of their mental energy tends to be focused on day to day matters. Now, of course, this is based on my generic understanding of the conservative. As I said, we’re talking about a categorization here.
Furthermore, I would argue that the individualism of the introvert is more of a wholesale rejection of the system as compared to the more economic individualism of the conservative that ultimately confirms the rightness of the status quo. The conservative, as they are now, does not reject the materialism of Capitalism. They only want more of their share of it while lacking the introspection to consider the experiences of those who don’t get access because of conservative policies.
But in all honesty, I’m not altogether convinced by the individualism of today’s conservative given their close association with christian conservatives.
However, that said, I can certainly see the possibilty of a conservative introvert based on the model you present.
I think an important thing to consider is the role introspection plays here -something the introvert tends to do a lot more of.
I think you unintentionally misrepresent the reasons for a conservative’s economic view. Why do you think that almost all conservatives oppose taxing the top 1% of Americans more? Nearly all of them would be better off if the government took money from the top 1% and spread it around equally. From a conservative perspective, it is a question of fairness. The government is set up to provide certain services for people. Just like everybody pays the same when they go buy a big mac, conservatives don’t think its fair that some pay significantly more to receive significantly less service from the government. Also, conservatives believe that reducing incentives for working hard and increasing incentives for not working hard decreases overall productivity. Conservatives also believe that small government and little taxation is simply a more efficient system… Just like liberals believe government can often provide better solutions than the private sector.
The reason why I say that conservatives are more introverted is because they often try and find solutions within themselves, while liberals tend to try and find solutions within the community (or government). I think materialism has a fair representation with conservatives and liberals. I think its fair to say that a lot of liberals vote democrat because they believe the government should tax the rich more and use the money to provide services for themselves. A lot of republicans probably vote republican so they can keep their wealth also. However, there is a great amount of intellectualism and introspection on both sides.
Fair enough. But I think you unintentionally misrepresent the liberals intent as well. First of all, we’re not out to provide services for ourselves (except for maybe healthcare), not if we’re working already. All we’re trying to do is make sure there will be a fallback should we, for reasons beyond our control, fall out of the economy. Granted, you don’t want to encourage laziness and you want to provide incentives for people. But I don’t think that warrants the do or die type situation that we’re being presented with now. And as far as the progressive tax, that is about the accumulation of power that comes with wealth and the economic stagnation that can come from too much buying power being accumulated at the top. Ultimately, it’s about the justice of a government that works in the capacity of a fair distribution of power, not an equal one. I think the primary difference between progressives and conservatives is the conservative’s tendency to think of government as being the only agent of power while the progressive sees it as being a matter of the powerstructure as a whole. But nobody wants to strip the rich of their assets and distribute BMWs in the ghettos. I think it’s a lot more complex than you’re describing here. But given your politcally neutral description, I see no reason for turning this into a politcal debate.
That said, I think you are focusing too much on the middle ground that consists of people (both conservative and liberal) who are generally somewhere in the middle of the introvert/extrovert spectrum. My primary point concerns the more extreme, authoritarian elements of it that tends to focus on what’s “out there”, things like dogmas and common assumptions, that which would require some self reflection to overcome. Right wing christians certainly don’t seem to be engaging in a lot of self reflection. Nor do Neo-Con FreeMarketFundalmentalists. For them, everything is out there and impervious to any ethereal or idealistic considerations. It just seems to me that this kind of authoritarian aggression can be easily explained by Jung’s point concerning the malady of the hysterical that tends to emerge in the extreme extrovert.
Furthermore, I think the malady of the introvert explains the kind push-pull relationship the progressive has with the material world and, by extention, producer/consumer Capitalism. It certainly seems to describe my situation. But this has to qualified with the admission that I don’t consider myself an extreme introvert. I still try to make time social engagement as a healthy antidote to the isolation required to do what am here. At the same time, I tend to get frustrated when people get under my feet. And I love looking at a beautiful woman as much as the next guy. And as far as material things, I like them too to the extent that they support my intellectual and creative projects. The main diference is that I tend to question the downside of our dependency on things, especially when it comes things like vulgar consumption for the sake of sign value and the exploitation and maniplulation we tend to suffer as consumers.
But as even Jung pointed out, all he could do was present models. Beyond that, it is little more than a matter of holding them up to reality and seeing how close they come it. But even at their best, I seriously doubt that any model, like most human constructs, can ever describe reality perfectly. There will always be room for debate concerning any model because there will always be people of different dispositions comparing the 2.
No wonder you favor capitalism with the occasional socialist diacritical – you entirely buy into the liberal narrative. Either recheck your thinking or recheck your allegiance. There isn’t anything wrong with either path. I’d rather you kept your allegiance. But do it right.
May I point out that democrats take around 80% Jewish vote and 90% of the muslim vote. Also, as far as Christians, they don’t lean very strongly one way or the other. Here is a study from gallup that categorizes the protestant and catholic vote over the past 50 years. gallup.com/poll/11911/protes … -vote.aspx Apparently Protestants tend to be a little more republican and Catholics tend to be a little more democrat. I will agree with you tho that christian fundamentalists (the people you hear about on the news) probably tend to vote republican…
As you said, I think that we can agree to disagree on the political orientation of introverts and extroverts. However, if you like, I would love to have a political debate if you are into it.
I am an atheist, introvert… Like you, I am able to maintain many healthy relationships, I just really enjoy spending long hours on the computer… Anyway, I spend more than a healthy amount of time researching and thinking about politics, economics, psychology and many other fundamental questions . The only people more anti-establishment than me are anarchists. I am very anti-authoritarian in all aspects of my life. I believe that the free market is more fair and efficient than a market in which government picks winners and losers through economic policies.
If you are interested, respond by starting up a thread . I’m sure a lot of other people would love to join also.
Well then I guess the main diference between you and me is that I see no diffrence between bowing before a corporate master and bowing before a government one.
. The only people more anti-establishment than me are anarchists. I am very anti-authoritarian in all aspects of my life. I believe that the free market is more fair and efficient than a market in which government picks winners and losers through economic policies.
. I’m sure a lot of other people would love to join also.