logo logo

Analytical Essay on Types of Temperament

The division into introverts and extroverts is almost the only characteristic of the identity, about the existence of which psychologists and psychotherapists do not argue. The brain researchers gradually explain the nature of the differences. In popular literature, the question has long been solved in the most primitive way: extroverts are called sociable individuals with a strong nervous system, and a beautiful title “introvert” was appropriated to individuals who are not sociable, immersed in the world of experience and has a weak nervous system. This is a combination of three factors. These are sociability, the strength of the nervous system and reversal of the external world as an opposition to closeness, weakness, and directionality inward. Thus, the thesis statement is as follows. Two popular interpretations of the theory of introverts and extroverts are not entirely legitimate and cause questions. These notions are complicated and discursive. At present, various specialists put into these words diverse content, so the purpose of this analytical essay is to reveal a legitimate comprehending.

Carl Jung believes that the extrovert prefers social and practical aspects of life, operations with real external objects. The introvert prefers immersion in the world of imagination and reflection. Karl Leonhardt states that the extrovert is a weak-willed identity, subject to influence from the outside, and the introvert is a strong-willed identity, with clear values, in conformity with which he is not afraid to oppose himself to the environment. The extrovert by Hans Eysenck is sociable and optimistic. He is impulsive, has a wide range of acquaintances and weak control over emotions and feelings. The introvert is calm, shy, and distant from everyone except close individuals, plans his actions well in advance, loves order in everything and keeps his feelings under strict control. There are also other approaches. In every rhetorical analysis, “introvert” and “extrovert” are interpreted in a special way.

Another reason that various experts put different concepts into these concepts is confusion in the outer-inner and deep-surface axes. When extraversion is understood as reversal outside, and introversion as inwardness to the individual, we get one meaning. If we add the comprehending of extroversion as something superficial, and introversion as the depth of identity, then the meanings would be diverse. We should distinguish two types of each of these personalities. It is possible to talk about two types of the extrovert – a deep thinker and a superficial talker, as well as two types of introverts: an empty self-contained remnant and a person prone to deep introspection.

There is a poetic formula of Carl Jung. An extrovert feeds on energy from the outside world and in charging first of all from communication with individuals, the introvert derives his energy from his inner world, being alone. However, it should be clarified.

Some individuals believe that extroverts and introverts are divided unequivocally: as black and white. This theory affixes the following labels: if I realize your identity type, then it is clear what you think, what you do, what you will do and what you need to do. But, if you look out the window, you can make sure that the world is arranged in another way. Individuals have more than two behavioral algorithms.

Other individuals think that the division is not unambiguous, but here there is a diapason from extreme introverts to extreme extroverts, in which most are close to the middle. But with this comprehending, there are still questions.

How to relate the physiological differences between introverts and extroverts with this distribution? Let’s say we differ genetically, then what gene is inherent in those individuals who are in the middle of the division? If our brain processes information in different ways, how does the brain work for individuals from the middle of the diapason? Moreover, why do we need such a theory? If the majority is in the middle of the diapason, then what’s the matter who is the extrovert, and who is the introvert? If in any person some qualities of one or another type can unite, what is the reason of such dividing? It boils down to a banal topic sentence that individuals are different. And we do not realize what the difference is.

Everything falls into place if one realizes that introversion and extroversion are not behaviors. These are types of temperament. Introverts differ from extroverts by the type of mettle that is inherent in us from birth and does not change during life. Temperament is physiological characteristics and propensities. We differently react to stress. Our brains work differently with dopamine and acetylcholine, so the information we receive is processed in diverse ways. We have a diverse level of sensitivity to external stimuli and different ways of restoring energy.

Fortunately, mettle does not completely determine our behavior, and due to the freedom of will, we can live controlling our behavior contrary to temperament. Mettle and character are also not the same things. Temperament is the physiological basis of the identity, inherent in us since birth, while the character is our way of communicating with the world. It forms and changes throughout our lives. We can change the character slowly and hard, but we cannot change our mettle. Introversion and extroversion are not a type of character, but a type of temperament by which individuals are divided into introverts and extroverts, and by behavior, there is the full diapason between anomaly introverted and extroverted behavior.

Most introverts are able to behave like extroverts. The fact idea is that the opposite rule is also legitimate.  They are in their half of the diapason of behavior, but closer to the middle. With age, individuals tend toward the center. They learn how to communicate with individuals, and how to be alone. They comprehend their strengths and weaknesses and develop them. Only a small part of individuals behaves like stereotyped extroverts and introverts.

There are questionable theories that stick labels and try to determine the behavior depending on the type of person. The theory of extroverts and introverts does not do it. It does not predict the behavior of individuals and does not give unequivocal advice, but it helps to comprehend and accept yourself and the world around.

In this analysis paper, I offer the following conceptual solution.  An extrovert is a person turned outward, open to the world, directed towards individuals. The problematic extrovert is superficial and poorly able to control himself, unlike a healthy extrovert, who has a deep inner world and inner core. An introvert is his opposite. It is a person turned inward and interested primarily in his inner world. However, if a problem introvert, looking at himself loses contact with the outside world, then the adapted one is quite sociable and socially adequate.

We can comprehend our strengths and weaknesses, but we decide either to develop our strengths or work on the weaknesses. We can sincerely comprehend that half of the individuals are not like us, but we decide what individuals to communicate with.  We often do not realize our inclinations. And we think that all individuals have the same thing thinking about other individuals as strange and incomprehensible. Or vice versa – we believe that there is only a certain quality in us, and we consider ourselves to be strange.

It is useful for us to remember the peculiarities of our mettle. For example, extroverts tend to get involved in adventures, and introverts tend not to get involved at all. An introvert may need to stop thinking of the 16th version of the solution, and an extrovert, perhaps, should not immediately take up the implementation of the first idea that came to mind.

Comprehending our temperament and the mettle of individuals around, we comprehend the rules of the game. It becomes easier to live. The behavior of individuals and our reactions cease to be unpredictable and inexplicable. You can trust yourself, but at the same time accept and comprehend that other individuals think differently and appreciate their dissimilarity.

Works Cited

Blackwell, Sasha Collins. An Examination of the Goodness of Fit Model: How Is the Relationship between Child Temperament and Behavior Expressed in Different Types of Classroom Environments? 2010.
“Four Temperaments.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 6 Nov. 2017, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_temperaments.
Garcia, Yvette D. Revival Types: a Look at the Leaders of the Great Awakening through the Lens of Psychological Type and Temperament. 2007.