The unnecessary confusion of 'extravert' and 'introvert'

I do not know why, but lately I have heard a lot of people using 'extravert' and 'introvert' to describe themselves and others. It may simply be that I have been paying more attention to this distinction, or it may just be a coincidence.

Of all the things Carl Jung has given the world, the concept of humanity being divided into extraversion and introversion is probably the most well-known and used.

It's a fairly simple idea, which has probably helped it gain such a large following. The idea is as follows: All humans are either extraverted or introverted. Extraverts are gregarious and love being around others. In fact, they cannot get enough of being around others, and therefore want to be out and about all the time. They are more worried with things that are happening around them than they are in exploring ideas or taking time out alone in their head. Introverts, on the other hand, are quieter and are quite happy to be on their own. They spend more time in their head, focusing on concepts and ideas, and find being around others too long to be tiring.

This is a convenient way to describe people, but it doesn't seem to me to accord with reality too well. The first problem with it is that it essentially marginalises 'introverts' as loners who would rather be in their own, in their head all the time. Now, this wasn't necessarily Jung's intention, but it is what it has turned into, in no small part due to the work of Isabel Myers in the field of personality types. The thing is, from my experience those would define themselves as 'introverts' still tend to enjoy being around people, and many actually prefer the here and now instead of getting lost in the world of ideas. It seems more accurate to say that the E/I distinction is one purely to do with how involved a person wishes to be with others, and for how long.

This leads onto the second problem, in that both Jung and Myers believed that this distinction was the single most important part of a person's personality. I do not see how this can be so. Of all the parts that could potentially define someone's personality, the level and style of their interaction with others cannot be the most important distinction. If you were to observe a group of people over a long period of time, you would notice that while some people were clearly 'extraverted' and others 'introverted', many of the group would theoretically oscillate between the two depending on their mood, at best leaning one way or the other. Furthermore, the 'extraverts' would express themselves in a significant variety of ways, as would the 'introverts'. If this were the single most important factor, you would expect all the 'extroverts' to be not only obvious, but also more or less on exactly the same wavelength. They are not.

So, if the E/I distinction is neither as accurate nor as important as it is often assumed to be, is there any use in it? Well, I believe there is, but the terminology has to be changed a bit. My preference is for what David Keirsey has done in his temperament theory. Extravert and introvert are replaced with expressive and attentive. The difference between these two is portrayed as being both less distinctive and of the least importance in the traits that make up the whole of our personalities. The difference is most simply explained thusly: 'expressives' prefer talking, 'attentives' prefer listening. This says nothing about whether they prefer abstract ideas or concrete reality, or whether they prefer having things settled or leaving some wriggle room - that is, the kinds of things that have more impact on personality. It is simply a basic judgement on how people prefer to interact with others.

Personality and temperament is a field worthy of more attention than it gets, but the bigger problem seems to be that there are a large number of theories out there on how personality works, which makes it rather difficult for society to understand the way everyone within it works. If we were able to do this, relationships between people wouldn't suddenly be perfect...but they would be better. A simple way to get this ball rolling is to ditch the extraversion/introversion stuff, and focus on more relevant things.