Introvert \In`tro*vert"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Introverted; p. pr. & vb. n. Introverting.] [Pref. intro- + L. vertere, versum, to turn.] 1.To turn or bend inward. 2. To look within; to introspect..

egocentric adj: [syn: self-centered; self-centred] n: a self-centered person with little regard for external focuses [syn: egoist]

Egotism \E"go*tism\ (?; 277), n. [L. ego I + ending -tism for -ism, prob.] The practice of too frequently using the word I; hence, a speaking or writing overmuch of one's self; self-exaltation; self-praise; the act or practice of magnifying one's self or parading one's own doings. Syn: Egotism, Self-conceit, Vanity, Egoism. Self-conceit is an overweening opinion of one's talents, capacity, attractions, etc.;

egotism is the acting out of self-conceit, or self-importance, in words and exterior conduct; vanity is inflation of mind arising from the idea of being thought highly of by others. It shows itself by its eagerness to catch the notice of others.

extroverted adj 1: [syn: extrovert; extravert; extraverted; extrovertive; extravertive] 2: at ease in talking to others [syn: forthcoming; open; outgoing] 3: not introspective; examining what is outside oneself [syn: extrospective]

These are general definitions which pertain little to the psychological aspects which make up a person. They deal chiefly with philosophies instead of personalities. It is quite possible to have an egocentric personality without being selfish, yet to have an egoistic philosophy results in egotism, or selfishness. There are a lot of subtle differences between  gocentrism, egotism, selfishness, and self centeredness.  Curiously enough though, many egocentrists are made of two very different strands of metal. There is the caring, loving, selfless side that is soft and beautiful like gold. Then there is the egocentric, strand that is hard like steel. The two are woven together in a mix of soft and hard, yielding and unbending. I make no concessions about being egocentric. I know that I am. I have always known it, and I’ve never seen it as a problem, but as a positive aspect. Some people are introverts, some are extroverts, some more conservative, and some more liberal. And to presume that everyone who is not the same as you needs to become like you is a fallacy. That was my fallacy  ong ago. But I’m getting ahead of myself. The point is, I am egocentric and I certainly don’t see that as something I want or need to change. All great leaders are egocentric (not that I’m a great leader, but I am a leader by personality and calling).

Egocentric (as the definition above notes) is someone who is self-centered. Someone whose center, or balance is found  within themselves. Someone who is influenced and finds how they relate to life and others, and who they are, within themselves. That’s not a bad thing. I wouldn’t have it any other way. Things on the outside don’t effect them so much, because that’s not where their balance or their focus is. As a side note though, they are the safest people emotionally because they aren’t as shirtsleeve. However, when they allow someone or someone else’s emotions inside them, then  they are the most at risk, because when something throws their innerbalance off, everything becomes unstable. Hence true introverts can not survive without God on an emotional and psychological level because once their inner balance is thrown off, if they don’t have something absolute and non-relative to base it on to regain balance, then they just slide downward into brokenness and madness.

This is basically also the definition of an introvert. An introvert is, by definition, egocentric. Look at the two definitions. They say the same thing. Introversion = Egocentrism. Both find their center, their point of reference and their balance within themselves, as opposed to the world surrounding them. While the introvert is in danger when he allows someone else to affect his internal center of balance, the extrovert is in danger almost constantly because they are always vulnerable to the world around them, and outside stimuli. Because the outside is their point of focus (not that they don’t spend time examining themselves or introspecting, but it is usually an introspection in how they relate to outside things). There is a certain kind of stability in this though as well because of the constant flux of the world and their surroundings. Everything is constantly in motion for them. When one thing is affecting them positively, another is affecting them negatively, thus they rely on a natural tendency of things to balance out naturally, though there are times when the negative will be stronger, and times when the positive will be as well. So, their general welfare is more precarious than the introvert, but is less cataclysmic when it is overbalanced.

Just as with the introvert, they can not survive long in a world where their point of focus is constantly in flux, and mainly out of their control without God as an absolute point of reference. One of the differences in the introvert’s concept of God, and the extrovert’s is that even though He is the absolute center of non-relative focus for both of them, the extrovert is more likely to be affected by outward movements of God, or what they may perceive as God. A word spoken by someone in passing or in conversation, they might well perceive as directed toward them. They are more likely to hear God’s voice in things outside themselves. Also in their general day to day lives they tend to hear things people say as being directed toward them, or effecting them, when in fact, it may not be, or shouldn’t be.

Conversely, the introvert will hear the voice of God inside himself. When a person or circumstance speaks to him, or to people in general, he is likely to receive the information, filter it into himself and examine it carefully against his core beliefs and what he already knows. Then they either allow it to effect them, or they reject it. Thus it generally takes longer for an introvert to evaluate information in relation to himself, while the extrovert being more shirtsleeve, is quicker to be effected, and often doesn’t seem to have a choice of whether they are effected or not, because their point of focus (balance) is being effected.

Because of the introvert’s focus on an internal relativity, they are often seen as being cold, or uncooperative. They don’t generally play social games, in fact, they don’t generally live by anyone else’s ideas or standards, with the possible exception of seeking to make someone more comfortable, or in an attempt not to offend, they may compromise and act as expected, instead of by their internal rules and principles. This in no wise means that the introvert lives by his own rules, but that the rules he does live by are inside himself, and are unlikely to be effected by the ideas of society or others. Thus, when the introvert does not act or react as others think he should, he is seen as rebellious, uncaring, or arrogant. It is easy for the introvert to become arrogant because of his natural self-centeredness. A point of internal focus is not necessarily a focus on self, or spending a great deal of time thinking about oneself, or more highly of oneself. That is egotism, and it is easy to blur the line between the two, especially for someone observing from the outside. Thus the
introvert may be seen as cold, arrogant, or selfish, just as the extrovert may be unjustly seen as shallow and weak.

Because of introversion, it is easy to not be too concerned with what other people think. Mostly because it doesn’t effect an introvert too greatly. How or what most people think of the introvert is of no concern. He is who he is and that is generally who he wants to be. You may hear the introvert say something similar to: No one else has to be me, or even understand who that is. They don’t have to answer for me or my thoughts or actions, therefore understanding or approving of them is relatively unnecessary. Neither do I have to answer for them or their lives. I only have to answer for myself and my actions and thoughts. When I stand before God, I will have to answer for me, no one else. Then why should anyone else determine how I should act or think? They shouldn’t and they won’t. I will find in myself who I am and who I should be. Only I can determine right and wrong in myself.

Now by this I don’t mean that I will not listen to counsel or advice. I am always glad for another viewpoint, but I will always evaluate that viewpoint with an internal truth, and accept or reject it. The Bible is the word of God. God is absolute, non-relative truth. With this, and with what I experience of the character of God, I will reconstruct a shattered truth that I will not bend on. I am willing to reevaluate my thought processes, but if I do not find a mistake, or something that contradicts what I believe, then I will reject it, regardless of who, or how many people believe it and for what reason. They are responsible for finding truth, and for forming themselves around it, deciding who they will be, just as I am. I believe that there are only three possible states of anything in the Universe. 1.) Truth 2.) Falsehood  3.) Matters of taste. Everything fits into one of these three categories. Every statement, every belief, every position, every action,
everything. I don’t believe in the things that people call opinions. Unless it is a matter of taste, as in, "I like chicken better than steak," then it is either true or false, and no one’s view or belief will change it from one to the other. Truth is absolute. It does not change. I strive to have principles that are based on truth, and in all my human ignorance, I do a pretty good job due to the help of God, His word, and spirit. He says, if anyone lacks wisdom, let him ask of God who gives liberally to all who seek. And once I have established something in my mind as truth, then I am willing to die for it. I am willing to tell anyone who contradicts it that they are wrong, unless they can present a truth that supercedes the one that I believe - and even then, on a deeper level, how we evaluate truth is based on other deeper things that we accept as truth, and we are usually not willing to accept contradictions to that.

I used to say that arrogance is the requirement of true belief, but I long ago decided that statement was misleading because arrogance is defined as a belief without reasonable support, and truth has reasonable support. But the point of the saying is that unless you are willing to call everything that contradicts what you believe false, even if the whole world tells you you’re wrong, then you have no real belief in it. Unless you are willing to tell everyone else "you’re wrong," and believe it, then you don’t really believe something, you simply think it might be true, and it’s no good basing your life on what might be true. If you are going to base your life on something, you might as well REALLY base all your life on it and believe it with all your heart. 'Kind of' believing something gets you nowhere, whether what you believe is right or wrong. Truly believing will at least get you SOMEWHERE. It maintains integrity in what you believe and in yourself. I can’t tell anyone else that they should die for my beliefs. That’s part of how God made us, with the ability to
choose, but I can tell them that what they believe is wrong. They should be willing to die for their own beliefs if they know they are based on truth. Only I answer for myself, and only they answer for themselves. If you are not willing to die before you give up what you believe as truth, then you have nothing worth dying for, and hence by extension, you have nothing worth living for either. It’s much harder work to live, and live by truth, than it is to die, or just ignore it, so if you can’t die for it, you certainly can’t live for it. Truth and life go together, and they are hard work.

As I’m sure you can see, that unbending belief is very like arrogance. It is easy to call someone who tells you that you’re wrong, arrogant, or an egotist, though it’s not necessarily so. It’s also very easy to call someone who has so little regard for what other people think he should do, and how he should think, arrogant, though once again, it is not necessarily so. I don’t trust anyone else to determine what I should believe, or who I should be. I don’t trust anyone else to find truth for me, and I don’t think we’re meant to. Everyone is responsible for their own souls, and their own choices. They can accept help and wise council that helps them determine truth, but don’t let anyone else determine how you act, who you are, or what you should believe. That’s horrible and small minded. I won’t do it. And rebelling against something without a good reason is just the same as accepting someone else’s beliefs. It’s just a reaction to some external stimulus, not a true, inner determination of who you should be.

So, as you see, as an introvert, the things that motivate me to act, react, and what I think all come from the inside. When someone comes walking down the beach and I’m laying there resting, their expectation of what I should do, or how I should act doesn’t effect me. Regardless of what they or anyone else thinks, I am going to live by what I think. I can’t, shouldn’t, and will not live by what other people think. What people may see as a rebellion against what other people, or society thinks I should do, be, or like is really just a casual disregard. I am completely inattentive to it, caring very little, preferring to live by my own thoughts and reasoning, being who I want to be, and who I think I should be. I find who I am inside myself, not in what other people may think, or what their rules or standards are.

There is however a flip side to this. Now, if I thought that someone would be offended, then there would be a point in reacting to her rules of how things should be. I certainly wouldn’t jeopardize my relationship with a long time friend just to maintain such autonomy. This comes into play only in areas where I feel I have a choice. There are areas where I am compelled by what I believe to live by the standards of others (taking for granted that I live by God’s standards in any case). These are areas that if I feel it injures another person, then I conform usually. There are reasons to bend, and that is when it causes another harm, and we are only doing it out of self-interested reasons. In other words, if I usually listen to Starflyer 59 in my car, and I am giving a friend a ride and I know he believes Alternative music is wrong, and I fail to turn it off just because I know it isn’t wrong, and I enjoy listening to it, then I am being selfish. There are many reasons to bend, and that is where the gold strand comes in; the soft flexible side.

I love everyone and I care quite deeply about several people, and when something is important to them, then I will sacrifice what I want, as long as it isn’t a principle, and just go along with things, trying to be as loving and understanding of their principles as I can. However, this is only in cases when I think that it is genuinely important to them. In anything else, I am purely myself regardless of what anyone else thinks. To me rebelling is just as bad, if not worse than total conformation, with absolutely no sense of self. Both of them are just reactions to what other people think and expect instead of finding who they are in themselves. Knowing who I am in myself, outside the views and expectations of other people brings a self-confidence and a surety. When my identity and balance comes from within myself and from within the inner view that God has given me of who I am and how He sees me, then I can’t be shaken by what others think or do to me. I am secure in who I am and one begins to stop reacting to the outside stimuli such as what others think
of me, or even what happens to me. Regardless of all that, nothing damages the inner part because it isn’t based on any of that, but on an inside core that is independent of all those influences.

Thus, also by necessity, an introvert is often seen as a ‘control freak’ simply because he or she usually has the choice of whether they allow something to effect them since it comes from the outside and must be accepted on the inside in order to have any real effect. I allow myself to be sensitive to the pain of others. That is something that an introvert has to choose. Because everything that influences them happens from the inside out, they have a choice to be cold stone, or allow things to penetrate them. That is where the golden strand comes in. Most people have never seen me any other way but open, and don’t know from where I’ve come. I most certainly have been called arrogant, and pessimistic by many people. There are also those who’ve said it, and then gotten to know me, and told me that they were wrong, that I’m anything but. It’s easy to see introverts as being arrogant, distant, or dispassionate because they do things according
to inside influences that are unseen by the observer. One example is a girl that I ended up dating for some time several years ago. My first contact with her was at church. I’d seen her before and smiled a hello in passing. I knew her name but hadn’t ever really spoken to her. One day after the Sunday morning service she came up to me smiled, said hello, and asked me for my phone number. I asked her why she wanted it. She frowned at me and we were interrupted before she could reply. Well, later I found her and gave it to her asking again why she wanted it. As it turned out, her mother wanted to go to my parents’ fellowship group. I said ok, smiled and that was it. It wasn’t until months later and after we’d gone out a few times that she told me, "When I first met you, I thought you were the most arrogant person on earth because when I asked you for your number, you asked me why I wanted it. Since then I know better." She interpreted my directness as arrogance. I simply wanted to know why someone that I didn’t really know just came up out of the
blue and asked for my phone number. I wasn’t intending on not giving it to her, or didn’t have anything odd in mind, I was just curious, and I asked her what I wanted to know. It wasn’t an arrogance at all. It was simply an innate desire to know. So I asked. She took my casual honesty as arrogance because to her it seemed motivated by some outside influence, when it was simply an internal question of curiosity.

When you can’t see the internal reasons for an action or speech, then it isn’t unusual to search for a likely external reason like insecurity, or jealousy, or arrogance, etc. And the only way that you get to understand the internal reasoning and workings of someone who is an introvert, or of anyone really, is by observing their behavior, by asking them what they mean, by taking the time to understand them instead of presuming what their words, or tone, or questions mean.

What follows is a quote from an analysis of introverted personality types:

hard to get to know. Unusually rich inner life, but very reserved and tend not to share reactions except with those they
trusts. Because of vulnerability through a strong tendency to introject, can be hurt rather easily by others, which, perhaps is at least one reason why they tend to be private people. People who have known them for years may find sides
emerging which come as a surprise. Not that they are inconsistent; they are very internally consistent and value
integrity. But they have a complex, convoluted personality which sometimes even puzzles them.

It’s hard for anyone to read the reasons behind my words or my actions unless that someone and I think almost exactly alike, or unless they have known me for a very long time in a rather intimate way. Add to that the fact that most have a naturally skeptical outlook on people, and it seems that almost everything that I do and say is in question. An extrovert by definition sees things as a reaction to outside influences because that is how he or she sees the world. For an example of both of these things, look at the instance of while I was waiting at Kyoto’s one Saturday night. I was pointing out the dresses that I liked and disliked, and there was one with a gold sequined top that I thought was particularly non-attractive. My friend's comment to that was something like, "I think you don’t like it just because everyone else would." I let it go by without comment because we were having such a good time and I didn’t want to bring
any disagreement into the evening I was enjoying so much. But the point is - that is so much anathema to who I am and how I think that it’s almost funny. People who are internally self-consistent are often seen as societally rebellious simply because they have no regard for the things that so many people conform to.

First, looking at it just from the point of an introvert, or someone who’s egocentric, that would be very inconsistent with the way they operate and think. It is an extroverted concept (for the most part. No one is completely unaffected) to be effected at all by what other people would think, whether that would be to conform and like it because everyone likes it, or to rebel and dislike it because it’s so popular. They’re both the same to me. They’re both just reactions to what other people, or society (or a section of society in this case), thinks. In either case it’s letting someone else make you who and what you are. When I like or dislike something, almost anything, it is because I like or dislike it. I could care less about what other people think about it one way or another, unless it’s someone whose taste means something important to me. If my wife liked it, then I’d learn to like it too. Just like trends in society. If everyone likes it, then people make themselves like it so that they won’t be different or left out. So, with someone I care about, I’d do the same thing. But that’s rare, and once again, it’s the mix of metals. My likes and dislikes are still coming from inside myself, not from popular opinion, or society, or ‘normalcy.’ That’s egocentrism- determining what and who you are and like by internal standards and gauges. I determine who I am and what I like or dislike. Even when it is for someone else, it will be from within outwards, not outwards to within. Another quote from the analysis:

Authority based on position, rank, title, or publication has absolutely no force. Not likely to succumb to the magic of slogans, watchwords, or shibboleths. If an idea or position makes sense, it will be adopted; if it doesn't, it won't, regardless of who took the position or generated the idea. Authority per se does not impress the true introvert.

 
Of course, this doesn’t mean that they have a problem with authority. I will accept it if it is authority over me, whether I think it is right or wrong, though if the person is not in personal authority over me then I will listen to what they have to say and give it thought, but will ultimately decide on my own, by my internal principles and view of truth. I don’t mind disagreeing with anyone. I don’t care who they are. I have no problem telling them that they are wrong, if they are.

I don’t particularly ‘like’ being corrected, but when I’m really wrong, I’d rather be. Just like I’d rather someone disagree with me if they really do, instead of not saying anything for the sake of not upsetting me. Because chances are, it’s not going to upset me. I take criticism very well, as long as it’s not misunderstanding. Misunderstanding REALLY bothers me though. It is the bane of my existence! It REALLY troubles me when someone else misunderstands ANYTHING, and even more when I misunderstand something.

This began with the premise that introverts don’t necessarily have a problem with authority, though they may be commonly seen disregarding it. I, personally, respect anyone in authority over me by listening to what they have to say, and obeying if they are in the position to insist, however, I have no illusions that they may be wrong, and I don’t mind telling them so if they are. Once again, I’m responsible for my self, and my actions and decisions, so I am not going to live by someone else’s view of what I should be, or think. Do not misunderstand though, I hate to disagree with people. I find conflict very tiring and emotionally draining for me, and I do avoid it whenever I feel that it is not important enough to warrant conflict. I very much enjoy pleasing people, and I very much like for people to be happy. When people that I care about (ones that I have allowed to become part of my internal self) are not happy, or in conflict or pain, it brings me pain. I had to end my close relationship with a friend, Felicity, for that reason. I could not maintain the closeness that
we had as friends as watch her kill herself slowly. It caused me too much pain, and so I told her goodbye. I’ll always be here if she needs me, but I won’t stand by and feel her self-inflicted pain while she sinks into death. It is very painful and unbalancing for an introvert who has allowed someone inside his or her internal balance because that person is no longer filtered through the barrier of understanding and withholding judgement until it is weighed against the introvert’s inner scales. The ones they allow inside their center of balance have a direct influence on their inner core. That person no longer interacts with them from the outside, seeping inwards, but is already inside directly touching their most crucial of balances and the center of their being. They can be devastating, or a very blessed soothing and growing touch. If you know an introvert who has invited you onto the inside of their balance and their filters and constructs, the way they interact with life, treat it with respect and care, as something fragile and sacred. It is rare that they allow anyone that much sight or depth into who they are. Not necessarily through a fault of their own, or an inability to get close
or form bonds, but as rather a question of them finding someone who can see that deeply, or understand enough to 'connect’ at so fundamental a level. The person who reaches this level of emotional and intellectual intimacy with the introvert should be very careful. They wield much influence over the balance and center of that person.

And because of the rarity of such an occurrence, the introvert is most likely feeling his or her way along very carefully, not used to someone being on the inside of their self instead of the outside. They may tend to be hurt rather easily as their inner persona is rather tender from not being ‘touched’ frequently. Someone who finds themselves with an introvert mate may be tempted to ‘toughen them up’ by insisting that they interact with them, and the rest of the world on their level, building up a tolerance or ‘thickening their skin.’ In my estimation, this is NOT the proper approach. This tends to breed cynicism and sociopathic personality traits. The introvert should be allowed to adjust their sensitivity levels to that one person at their own pace. The extrovert may want and encourage them to ‘open up’ to life as the introvert has opened up to them, but this will not, and should not happen. The introvert may learn to deal with the world, and his or her circle of friends on an extroverted level, which takes GREAT amounts of energy to maintain, but he or she will never connect with the same intimacy and intensity with a group, or with the world in general as with the few people which they find to
relate to them on a personal level. Just as introverts who go into the ministry have to develop extroverted roles, which is very taxing to them. However, introverts who are well adjusted socially will develop these extroverted roles to some extent; connecting with crowds in general and developing extroverted traits and roles. For myself, I find that I can and do this in cycles. I develop my extroverted roles, take a position in leadership, almost by default, and then run out of energy after a while. When the introvert in this role begins to run out of energy or initiative, his or her extroverted interactions become very shallow and generally meaningless. I then have to ‘recharge’ myself and go for another cycle. I have seen this tendency in many introverts, and have noted that ones in the ministry who operate on a very personal level with people, generally have extroverted mates who act almost as an energy source, to catalyze the introvert’s energy and keep the spark plug sparking to keep the engine of the ministry going. Personally, I can connect with the same
passion and intimacy with a group as I do with individuals only when teaching, or relating spiritual principles, simply because it is something that I am passionate about. People have told me that I am 'fiery' when I'm preaching. On the other hand, when it has been the wife who has been the introvert and the extrovert man is the leader, she tends to keep him focussed and balanced.

Of course, an introvert can be a social butterfly, so to speak, but it is generally a phase on that cycle. The extrovert goes through the same cycle of intense energy expenditure and burnout, the cycle is just shorter. The third out of four possibilities of two extreme extroverts, or as my wonderful friend Paula would say, is two volcanoes. This is a truly exciting combination, but a very taxing one. One of the qualities of an extrovert is that of a catalyst. They are motivators, and two motivators lack balance and focus, but will blindly rocket from place to place both in terms of focus, emotional and spiritual health, and stability. Just as two introverts will lack motivation and inertia. Generally it is the introvert who exerts the calming, steadying influence to balance the ‘volcano’ of the extrovert, providing focus and calmness when it is needed. Conversely, it is the extrovert who will generally provide the motivation, energy and some enthusiasm in the relationship. Generally speaking the extrovert does not always appreciate the 'calming' except in retrospect, just as the introvert rarely appreciates the prodding of the extrovert except in retrospect. Of course both partners provide
all these things, but it is generally safe to say that the majority of these roles are focussed on one or the other. As the fourth possibility, two introverts are usually quite happy in their own little world, not too concerned with the outside, except how it relates to each other. They are generally content to explore each other, and their exploration of the life and the world is usually in the capacity to share the experiences with the other.

The introvert is very self-actualized. He or she understands more about themselves and the how and why of thought and feeling than any other type of person. They spend so much time inside, searching and seeking understanding that they gain insight into themselves. People who are not so introverted generally can’t appreciate the advantages of this. The largest one, being that someone who understands himself, understands others. Everyone is different, and every person has different influences operating in the machinery of who they are, but overall, humans are the same. The machinery is much the same underneath, it is just the decoration that changes. Out of ten people who are exposed to the same stimulus, probably six will react similarly. The other four will react in seemingly completely random ways. However, once you know what it is that is operating to override the common reaction, then you can understand them just as much as the common six. To take Mike Lowry's example one step further, if ten people are told to sit at a table, and six sit down and begin eating, then we understand their behavior. Why? Because we understand our own behavior. If someone told us to sit at a table for dinner, we would sit down, pray, and begin eating. However, four of them are not eating, but constantly glancing around, and rubbing their legs, or flinching away every time the person beside them raises their fork to their
mouth. Their behavior seems random, or illogical, but that’s only because we don’t know what element in their machinery is causing such a reaction. The implications are pretty easy to figure out though. We know there is something that is causing them to react the way they are. The first step is to determine whether the element causing the odd behavior is present, or projected. If it is present, then of course it can be observed and possibly even removed. If it is projected, then you are stuck attempting to figure out what influence in the past is causing it. A person who understands themselves well enough can possibly determine, if not the specific element, then a general idea of what it might be. That is a lot of where intuition comes in. Though there is an analytical function present, especially inmore intelligent people, the main initial function is intuition through empathy. In my case, I’d sense that the person was in fear and possibly pain, even if the pain is projected, being something in the past, that has been projected into present behavior. Then through that empathy, I would introject it and a situation would present itself in my mind. In the case of this example, I’d presume that the
person had been exposed to great pain or trauma when either sitting in a group, or at this particular event (eating at a table). I’d think that because that’s probably how I’d be acting if the same thing had happened to me. So by going backwards empathetically, I find in myself the cause of the behavior in someone else. Of course the situation that is causing the reaction is different every time. Maybe it was her father that stabbed her in the leg with a fork, or maybe it was his spouse, or perhaps even it was something completely different. Perhaps his mother had been the one who had been stabbed constantly in the leg by her husband, and so the child grew up thinking that’s how you act when you sit down to eat, or maybe someone is really still stabbing him in the leg even now under the table.

Regardless, after a little care and listening, or maybe even just watching, you can figure out the cause. Then with some love and sensitivity, you can maybe get the person to tell you the reason, which you generally already know, and perhaps with that understanding, begin to help them through it, if that is what they want. Of course, this being written out, it sounds like some process or some kind of analysis, but it’s really not, not in me anyway. It’s like when you watch a movie and you see someone get hit in the head with a hammer. You draw in your breath quickly and wince, drawing back. Why? Not because you went through the process of determining what element caused them to act oddly (falling over unconscious) was, but because you feel it. Your empathy causes an immediate sympathy and you KNOW why they fell over because at some level, you sense intuitively their pain, and the blow of the hammer, even though you’ve probably never been knocked unconscious with a hammer. It’s an intuitive, almost instantaneous understanding of how you would react, and thus understanding how someone else might. Of course everyone, whether introvert, or extrovert, or just plain stupid, can understand a blow to the head, but behavior is a much more subtle stretch of cause and effect,  then it’s mostly unseen. Thus people who understand more about human nature, cause and effect, and behaviorism (those who spend more time introjecting) have an easier time intuiting it. Thus, a lot of introverts are very intuitive when it comes to people. And it IS intuition. It comes as a flash of insight, not necessarily an evaluation and analysis. Analysis is just the proving ground of intuition.

As far as the determination of cause and effect being such an important issue to the introvert, as opposed to the extrovert, there is a logical reason. It’s not just a matter of personality. The introvert searches for the reason to every behavior or effect because the reasons why they act, and behave the way they do comes from inside them. Thus, they must understand the cause (which is internal) to understand the effect. If they do not, then they cease to understand themselves and by extension, those around them. All of their reasoning, and all of the things that affect them are internal, and thus have a purposeful and understandable reason or cause. And all of the decisions of others come from inside them, and have an understandable and purposeful reason or cause. Thus, to understand it is to assimilate it into their way of thinking which allows acceptance and working around, through, or with it. An extrovert however, is affected by external things. And truly external things often do not have a logical reason. An extrovert may get angry because he has been stuck at every stinking red light from Downtown to Goose Creek. He is angry. There is no logical cause or reason that he hit every stoplight. There is nothing to understand or evaluate. However, he may come home and snap at his wife. Let’s presume the wife is an introvert. She will introject, and understand most likely that some element has caused him to act in a way that isn’t consistent with what she logically expects. She knows he loves her and isn’t trying to hurt her, and so the snap itself doesn’t really hurt all that much in itself (though if she is human, it WILL hurt some, that can’t be avoided), and she is now trying to understand why he is acting in a way that will hurt her. To put it pragmatically, she can withhold the effect of his snap on herself until she understands its cause. She seeks the reason, the cause, for the effect that she sees, and is being subjected to. While to him, there is no reason. The lights were all red. There is no understanding to be gained. Things just happen. He is angry, that is how he feels. That is seeing it from the outside, the extroverted reasoning. While on the other hand, she is looking for the internal reason. He is upset because he is frustrated at having to wait. Stop and go, stop and go. She understands that would probably frustrate her too, though being an introvert she would probably introject and not take it out on him, or someone else. She would growl at the lights and then go on, where he growls at someone else and goes on. He externalizes his feelings and reactions, she internalizes. *(on a note to internalize feelings is not a bad thing, introverts share their reactions only with those they trust implicitly, as the rest of the world has no need, and it won't benefit anyone else to bear the brunt of those reactions. Internalized reactions are fine as long as the reactions do not linger. If the introvert can not dismiss the reaction, or understand the cause, then it is necessary to externalize the issue in order to work through or around it. However, if he or she can react and then it be done with, then internalization if the natural and healthy course of action. However, those who find themselves on the inside on an introvert may find themselves as a listening ear for the introvert to vent or share reactions, which once again is a gradual growth and takes time in a deepening trust and relationship)* So to him he insists there is no reason, just let him alone and forget about it, while she can not rest until she understands why he has acted the way he did. Until she
knows the reason, she doesn’t know whether it should affect her or not. If is because he is angry at her, then it should. If it is because he is feeling guilty about something then it shouldn’t. If it’s because he had a bad day then it shouldn’t. If it’s because he is tired of her as a wife at the moment then it should. If it’s because he wants some breathing space then it should. If it’s because he had to stop at every stop light from Goose Creek to Charleston then it shouldn’t affect her. But whatever the case or cause, she needs to comprehend it to rest. Also in the case of a loving spouse, when she knows what it is, empathy will take over and she will do everything she can to dissipate the element that is causing the effect, but to do this, she must know what it is. Thus, simply a difference in seeing things as an external cause as opposed to an internal cause makes a vast difference in how people relate to reality. To him there is no real reason or cause for his snap. It’s just the way he feels at the moment. To her it is because he is frustrated because of traffic lights, so the snap is no big deal. But both must understand this, and of course communication is the key.

So, if they are married for long, she will begin to understand this, and she will begin to be able to interpret more of his reactions and know how to take it. If they talk about it, then understanding will be easier in most cases. But there is an inherent difference in how they see the world and react to things. Oddly enough, most couples are one introvert and one extrovert. Possibly because either being an introvert or extrovert is being unbalanced one way or the other. Thus they each provide the other balancing half of what they are missing. Regardless, the two will forget about the minor incident most likely. It will be much easier for the extrovert husband to forgetit, because that is how an extrovert applies life. There are too many factors and balancing/unbalancing issues constan tly shifting in his or her life to be able to focus long on one thing. The very nature of extroversion implies that a million different things re affecting them at one time. Of course, the more basic the cause, the less other foci are active. For example, if the extrovert is in a tight financial situation, then other influences which usually effect him are inactive. Until the most basic influences are stable, then the other plethora of balancing issues are almost meaningless. Regardless though, the extrovert is always focused on external issues and are at the mercy of often trivial, and uncontrollable issues.

One of the more drastic dilemmas of a person is when they score somewhere around the middle of the introvert/extrovert type range. People generally tend to think that this is a good thing, allowing balance in a personality, but this is a serious misconception. Someone who does not score decisively one way or the other is relatively stuck being confused. They react to the world and life with characteristics of both an introvert and an extrovert. They are both egocentric and exocentric at different times, or worse, perhaps at the same time. They are affected by all the uncontrollable external stimuli yet, their balance is somewhere between complete internal, self-relative balance and an external balance. They introspect and see their internal wants, desires and principles, yet the outsideworld and all it's multiple issues still pulls them in a thousand different directions. With someone who is slightly more, or primarily an introvert, their center is built and determined from within, but there is no barrier of reason, or filters which keep the outside influences from moving and effecting them with their every shifting. So the inner core of who they are and their balance comes from within, but that core is at the mercy of extroverted influences, and so they have to deal with a paradox of how to react, and often a
contradiction. Thus they are frozen oftentimes, not being able to react or know how or why or whether they should react. It's a very confusing thing to them. And so they tend to gravitate toward the most simple and welcoming environment, where they can choose the illusion of doing away with, or suppressing one of the sides, either the introverted, or the extroverted. Generally speaking, someone who is on the borderline with introversion prevailing only slightly will have a hard time being happy for long with an environment which necessitates extroversion without an introverted mate. On the other hand someone on the borderline with the extrovert prevailing slightly, will also never be quite satisfied with an environment which necessitates extroversion unless they have an introverted mate or circle of friends. They will also not ever be quite happy in an environment that prohibits extroversion. It's not a balance for them, it's chaos. Hopefully for most people, this borderline state is a phase of growth. As it is, I have never known an introvert to grow to become and extrovert. Often I have seen extroverts grow to become introverts. Most often it is upon finding God. The change that religion brings to a person is by necessity to become more introverted to some extent.

Though it is difficult, those who grow into introversion eventually reconcile that it has very little to do with social issues. Once they begin to understand people and themselves it just requires more energy to maintain a very socially active and outgoing personality because so much of the attention and energy is now focussed on maintaining their inner core of values, principles and balance. Their attention shifts from what used to be important, external issues, to a new importance, internal ones; spiritual health, God, integrity and consistency, attitudes, etc. The external environment ceases to have so much power over them.

People in general and extroverts in particular find themselves on a roller coaster. Everyone goes through ups and downs, but when your balance is externally focussed then the rises and falls are much sharper, and often out of the person's control simply because the external environment is impossible to control to a large degree. There for they find a problem maintaining spiritual, emotional, and mental consistency. The solution to this is a one part solution that corrects every part of the problem. The key to mental stability and integrity is in controlling your thoughts. One of my favorite axioms is "You can't stop a crow from flying over your head, but you can keep it from building a nest in your hair." Thoughts will come with or without your permission or control. How you choose to react to those thoughts once they have passed into your mind determines much. If you choose to accept and dwell upon a thought, then you have changed yourself. It is important to realize that anything short of 'rejecting' a thought and thinking contrary to it, is accepting it. You can intellectually reject it and realize that it isn't true (or unhealthy), but if you do not take mental action to get it out of your head, and think thoughts that are in opposition to it, then you will end up in the same place that you would be had you accepted it, it will simply take longer. To control your thoughts is the key to mental stability. This kind of near-militant acceptance and rejecting of what will dwell in your mind is the only thing that provides a healthy thought life and a firm grip on reality. To allow a poison (a delusive, unhealthy thought) to dwell in your mind, infects every part of your view and philosophy of life, and through that, your actions and lifestyle become affected because our thoughts are what determine how we act and react.

The problem with having an unpredictable, or undisciplined thought life is that it doesn't stop in your head. Your thoughts, and your way of thinking determine your emotions as well. The correlation from thought to emotion is a very subtle one usually, but it IS a direct correlation. What you think determines how you feel. That is why romance is such an important part of a relationship between two loves. Romantic situations cause a certain type of thoughts, the mood and ambiance changes how we think about the situation, the person, and then the relationship as a whole. And those thoughts translate into feelings. To allow your self to focus on negative aspects of a situation or a person, or a relationships (negative thoughts) very quickly translates into negative feelings. Focusing on the positive, or even just making yourself think about the positive sides of these things, translates into positive emotions. Loving someone is just as much a mental state as an emotional one. If we are honest with ourselves, it is most often emotions that motivate us as humans. They are the engine of our lives, they are what move us, and get us places. They propel us into motion. Our thoughts are the steering wheel. Depending on where we turn them, that is where the car goes. If we turn our thoughts to good things, to positive things, then we steer our emotions to take us to a positive place. Our feelings, just like the car, will end up in a place that we want to be. But who can blame the car for taking them into a dark, gloomy part of town, when they are the one turning the steering wheel? Our thoughts lead and determine our emotions. The stability and consistency of our thoughts is what determines the stability and consistency of our emotions as well.

To make the case even more important, our spiritual health is based almost solely on our emotional health. As humans, we can operate outside of the emotional realm when it comes to God, but we do so with trepidation. We need to 'feel' God. We need to 'feel' His love and peace. So much of our spiritual health and consistency is based on emotions. Often we don't feel worthy of being God's children, so we avoid Him. We don't approach Him boldly as His beloved ones. Often we don't feel the love we should have for Him and so we let our relationship fall to the side. So if our spiritual motivation is mostly reliant on our emotional health and motivation, and our emotions and attitudes are based upon our thoughts, then suddenly the key to emotional, and spiritual health becomes our thought life. The key to relationships and consistent love, the key to attitudes and emotional health, the key to consistency in our relationship with God, the key to maintaining a marriage and true love, lies in the habits of our thoughts; what we think, what we dwell on.

This is a revelation and a revolution to so many people. There is a way to maintain emotional and mental stability regardless of history, or present circumstances. There is a way to have a healthy relationship even if you've never had one before. Your whole life, and your well being, in so many ways, depends on your thoughts. What you think on a practical, day to day, moment to moment level. It begins with the practical, mundane thoughts and extends into the massive, ephemeral areas of emotions, depression, mental stability, emotional stability, spiritual stability, stress, contentment, faith, belief, and finally to reality. Because reality is based on what we believe in. To use a quasi-quote from one of my favorite movies, 'Sneakers.' Posit: People think a bank is financially shaky. Result: People begin to withdraw their money. Reality: Soon the bank is financially shaky. Whether in reality the bank was financially shaky or not in the beginning is irrelevant because people believed that it even might be, and their belief made it reality-because we live and
act according to what we believe. Posit2: You think the relationship you are in is shaky. Result: You begin to doubt the relationship. You withdraw. Reality: Soon the relationship you are in is shaky. It goes the same way with emotions. Our thoughts determine what we feel, and our thoughts and feelings determine what we believe, and soon what we believe determines our reality. This is basically the same for both introverts and extroverts as far as I am aware. They seem to be on equal footing here. As an introvert, and an egocentric, it is my view that all of the important things in life originate inside of people. To understand these things, it is necessary to spend time introjecting, examining our insides. Even the voice of God is heard from within. Therefore my life should be based upon what is within me. My center of balance and focus should spring from the core of who I am to the outside world, not the other way around. I am not a judge of human nature, simply an observer, and so I leave to you to decide which is the better way to be, to live, to love, to exist.

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
 

The Founder,
M O R T A L