Moved to Psych, I think you might get more (informed?) comment there 
I appreciate your effort to get this noticed.
But given the driveby nature of what we do here, some things will get overlooked for reasons not totally invovled with the quality of the post.
I keep trying to think of things to add to it to keep it at the the top of the cycle. And will continue to do so. And I may get a chance to slip it in to another string.
But if it doesn’t get noticed, it doesn’t get noticed.
Nevertheless, thanks, friend: for your appreciation as well as your effort. The appreciation of someone who had the brains to put something like this together is as about as much, if not far more than I could expect.
I need to think more about this before offering comment; however, I’m happy to see Jungian psychology interpreted as affecting political beliefs and consequent actions.
I am quite an introvert, I value myself, my well being and my happiness above all. I love money and being able to buy what I want. I am very career/business oriented. Those traits are of an extroverted conservative, rather than introverted moderate. Also, a democratic position, even socialist one tends to lean on society, “the people”, collectivism which is pretty different from the mindset of an introvert. I do not think that these two very simple categories can make up for the vast psycho-political picture. I’m just an egoist and an individualist, those traits actually are responsible for my political leanings.
One word: Eysenck.
The psychologist Hans Eysenck theorised
that Fascism and Communism, though diametrically opposed on the traditional
Left-Right spectrum, had something essential in common. This, he suggested, was
the ‘toughmindedness’ of Fascism and Communism alike. Toughmindedness is
connected with extroversion and low conditionability and inhibitability. For an
example of conditioning, one should think of Pavlov’s dogs. “To inhibit” in this
context means to temporarily wean from conditioning. People who are easy to
condition (and thereby to inhibit) tend to be introverts, because they tend to
avoid stimulation, as they are easily overstimulated. For this reason they tend
to be ‘Liberals’, that is, take a political position of seeking to curb
expressions of aggression and sexuality.
‘Liberals’ in this sense [tend] to be in the center of the traditional Left-Right axis,
which I think is because for them the individual is prior to society. For this
reason, they tend to be opposed as much to statelessness (as in Marxian
Communism) as to totalitarianism (as in Mussolinian Fascism). They are opposed
to statelessness because statelessness, contrary to what Marx thought, would of
course mean anarchy, the state of nature, the war of all against all (or, as
Nietzsche implied in The Greek State, the war of all families against all
families). And they are opposed to totalitarianism because they feel the
individual should be above the state (we should probably think of Kant here, who
thought the individual should never be treated as a means: and indeed, “Liberal”
here means Enlightenment Liberal).
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/human_superhuman/message/491
P.S.: True hysteria—hysteria of the type Jung meant—is a pathological condition of extroverts, i.e., people of low conditionability and inhibitability. It works like this: a great physical mass has a great inertia, i.e., it takes great force to get it to move; but once it’s in motion, it takes great force to stop it. Thus when extroverts have finally gotten into a state of over-excitement, it’s very hard to calm them down again.
Excellent points, Sauwelios. You certainly gave it a scholarly edge beyond what I’m capable of.
Actually, I’ve met a few reticent conservatives myself. But once again, being shy or reticent is only a contingent aspect of extroversion. The only necessity is that the orientation be towards the world of objects. Plus that, you have bare in mind that the introvert/extrovert relationship is not one of either/or, it’s more of a spectrum that people can fall at any point of.
And being an introvert myself, on a good night at the bar, I can be as social as anyone. And while I do have a kind of push-pull relationship with the world of objects, I like having things as well. The difference is that I simultaneously tend to have reservations about it as well.
I’m conservative about some issues and liberal about others. I really don’t see how my nature as an introvert decides which belief I will adhere to. I think we all swing both ways depending on need at the time.
Once again:
It’s not an either/or situation.
Even as Jung described it, it’s more of a spectrum within which
we shift from time to time.
Most of us are not an extreme either.
And as Jung pointed out:
all he can provide are models to work from in order to understand things:
it is by no means a mirror to the world.
I dunno. When I look at things like Bitcoins and the Silk Road, I see the Libertarian Dream: to be able to anonymously order drugs on-line and not interact with anyone. That is the view I think introverts tend towards, whereas an extrovert is part of the community regularly interacting with other people so of course they lean left.
Because I’m an extrovert and I’m a leftist. Therefore, both extroverts and leftists are better than introverts and rightists. So, to be extroverted is better than to be introverted. To be leftist is better than to be rightists. From that it follows that good people are like me and be they either extroverted (a good thing) or leftist (a good thing) they are much more likely to be both, because they are good people (people like me) and like good things (things that I like).
That is to say, personal bias tends to shape these sorts of discussions in very silly ways.
It’s all kind of a mixed package:
we can never pin it down to one model.
If we could, it would be lot easier to find a solution.
What I tend to see, especially when I see beer commercials, are extroverts and players who have a lot at stake in the system as is.
I even see them in real life in bars.
And they quite often tend to be Libertarians and Conservatives
I think you’re describing a really weird anomoly.
There are of course, the isolated militia type like Timothy McVeigh. But they’re pretty rare among introverts.
Now what you might be describing is what Bob Altymeyer described in the authoritarian personality, which something quite different than the extroverted authoritarian. It was the dominater type. They’re the ones that come along and give the extroverted authoritarians something to follow -much like Hitler who was a reticent type.
Plus that, I think you failed to recognize the main point about the introvert/extrovert spectrum. It’s not about being shy or social, it’s about an orientation to the world of objects. The person you describe may do so because they’re more into accumulating objects than they are being around other people.
Sorry, bud, but I have to disagree with you on this point.
Nice try though.
I think you missed the point.
My point is that we allign the system such that it agrees with our baises and makes us out to be the hero.
I think I get your point on this. And you may well be right that I did miss your point. But you’ll have to elaborate and refer it somewhat to the history of this particular exchange between us.
Given the decency and intelligence you’ve showed so far, I have to assume that your point warrants some consideration. But you’ll have to elaborate.
Perhaps what merits consideration is politeness.
Be as obtuse and shallow as you wish…but do it nicely.
We’ll all listen…with gaping mouths, as if something awe inspiring is being stated.
The British were masters at this.
They never produced any thinkers of any merit, besides an odd few, but they spoke with such eloquence and civility, and that stiff-upper lip that feigned reasoning, that all stop to listen to them speak.
All feel like something intellectual is being said when they read from a phone-book, or when they recite a verse from Cat with a Hat.
Even an imbecile is raised to the heights of enlightenment, when he is allowed to listen.
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.
That is all.