There’s a common idea in pop psychology that people are either “extroverts” or “introverts”. This isn’t totally wrong but I don’t think the usual division is a good way to think about it, for two reasons.
I used to think of myself as an “introvert.” The more I allowed myself to use my own judgment of my situation and reason independently about others, the more it became clear that I experience (with some justification) most people as some combination of dangerously hostile and committed to derailing any really interesting interaction. The clearer and more accurate I make that judgment, the less costly it is to interact with people who deserve much more trust than average.
The latent need for beneficial interaction stays about the same as the perceived *availability* of it (and associated risk of trying for it) varies.
I used to think of myself as an “introvert.” The more I allowed myself to use my own judgment of my situation and reason independently about others, the more it became clear that I experience (with some justification) most people as some combination of dangerously hostile and committed to derailing any really interesting interaction. The clearer and more accurate I make that judgment, the less costly it is to interact with people who deserve much more trust than average.
The latent need for beneficial interaction stays about the same as the perceived *availability* of it (and associated risk of trying for it) varies.
I agree they seem separate to me. Wish I had more lives or a longer one to cover it all.
fite me