• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

"Do Introverted Christians Need To Be Fixed?"

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,182
1,360
✟720,085.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I think the best thing to do would be to clarify what the Myers-Briggs is supposed to do. It's not supposed to be psychological, and it's not supposed to define your personality.
Thats been done - they sought to correlate it with other scales, and the results were not conclusive, all they could say was: well it seems at times to be measuring this, though it calls it that.

What it was said to be for was to assist to find placements for mostly temporary work that women took on in the post-war industrial workplace, and not career guidence.


The fallacy is of course to think that improvement would come by being more scientific in testing, when in fact they need to be more human, something rather different.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟315,332.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Thankyou for your good natured reply, yes there seems to be some irony there, if not hypocrisy, and thankyou for pointing it out. I am sorry.

No need to apologize, I have a tenancy for argumentativeness and I generally seek clarity so I simply challenged you to see the other side of the argument there.

I have been through these systemical failure hitting the fan moments and they are not nice when you have no say. Personal choices are not predictable - that the nature to my mind of personhood - the good thing being truly personal decisions value all concerned as persons, not types, and not cogs, and valuing the person of another can't result in harm surely? Personhood is the highest value.

It has to do with how we experience one another. Labels are an attempt at short hand so that we can fit all the different things together without losing the picture completely.

Whether they are ultimately successful will reveal how well we have described someone else, but this process being "good" or "bad" will be based upon the intent of the person doing the describing.

The problem here is that we must describe one another and the trick is to never reduce the phenomena of the other person to the label we use to try to describe them.

I simply don't think this is optional, I think that we are descriptive beings by nature and MUST try to describe others, so the key is to do so well.

How we use labels, like any other tool will depend on us.

So, how you experience others, is a reflection of how you experience yourself and the world in general.

I have spent a good part of my life thinking of ways to defuse the sort of psychological determinism mindset so others, even if I can't can have some psychological space and freedom back.

I was wrong to say you sounded like a "straight-jacketer".

Well some people are simply a bit less tolerant of ambiguity.

You don't have to worry about me. I tend to enjoy watching unique thinkers try to piece together the world around them.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
42,021
22,652
US
✟1,721,042.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
A reader shared the following infographic with me and I thought it would be interesting to review and discuss. The infographic compares introverted Christians with extroverted Christians. It suggests that in our culture we tend to hold up extroverted Christians as the model while diminishing the value or esteem of introverted Christians.

That's likely true of every culture.

Introverts: Preferences for privacy; preference for hunches, visionary ability; preferences for hard facts over feelings; preferences for open-endedness, casual approach to life

Extroverts: Preference for groups, companionship; preference for concrete data when making decisions; reliance on feelings in decision making; preferences for closure, focus on clear objectives

Am I the only person who doesn't see any real difference between most of those "differences?" And it seems rather strange to me that the introvert would have "preferences for open-endedness, casual approach to life" while the extrovert would have "preferences for closure, focus on clear objectives."

It seems to me that by the descriptions of the author, an "extroverted church" sounds like a lot of non-denoms and the "introverted church" sounds like a lot of denominational mainstream churches. However, the article is 'way too vague with a clear ax that that the author is grinding.

Going back to my first sentence, extroverts are likely to be successful in any culture and obviously will be the most noticeably successful. I haven't attended a congregation that didn't have roles for introverts, but I would say it's true that pastoral staffs are not as attentive as they should be to make sure every member is offered a role that suits his abilities.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟315,332.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
That's likely true of every culture.



Am I the only person who doesn't see any real difference between most of those "differences?" And it seems rather strange to me that the introvert would have "preferences for open-endedness, casual approach to life" while the extrovert would have "preferences for closure, focus on clear objectives."

It seems to me that by the descriptions of the author, an "extroverted church" sounds like a lot of non-denoms and the "introverted church" sounds like a lot of denominational mainstream churches. However, the article is 'way too vague with a clear ax that that the author is grinding.

Going back to my first sentence, extroverts are likely to be successful in any culture and obviously will be the most noticeably successful. I haven't attended a congregation that didn't have roles for introverts, but I would say it's true that pastoral staffs are not as attentive as they should be to make sure every member is offered a role that suits his abilities.


It seems like you should be very wary of applying psychological findings to perceived theological problems...

It seems like a lot could go wrong with that at every step, and the idea would more likely be a pseudoscience avenue for abuse than anything.
 
Upvote 0

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,182
1,360
✟720,085.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Going back to my first sentence, extroverts are likely to be successful in any culture and obviously will be the most noticeably successful. I haven't attended a congregation that didn't have roles for introverts, but I would say it's true that pastoral staffs are not as attentive as they should be to make sure every member is offered a role that suits his abilities.
Honestly most people don't need to get that involved. I want to go to church to worship, give thanks, join in prayers, repent if I need too, receive the sacraments and have some fellowship. I don't want any role particularly thanks.

It's simply to meet with other christians, and for worship. If I am well spiritually I'll then be salt and light outside. That's all I am after. I have served in other ways, but really I don't go there for a role, or to be psycho-analysed. If they want me to move chairs, wash up, or make tea, no problem at all, done it many times in the church I grew up in. Far to much going on in some churches - becomes a kind of bubble.


Persons are more than phenomena.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I have never felt comfortable at church. It has been 20 years since I last had a church home. And when you hear something about yourself enough times, you believe it. Therefore, with the people around me at church playing a big part in it, I developed the belief that I was pathologically shy. Only in the last several years have I discovered and been able to fully appreciate that I am simply highly introverted. That does not repair the damage done from many years of believing that there is something wrong with you. Anyway, I can empathize with the writer's concerns here.

Being introverted, does not mean a person is; "pathologically shy". This is a big misconception that many have about introverted people.

For the most part, introverted people tend not seek attention as extroverted people do, but many introverted people are not shy to the point where they are uncomfortable around other people. Many introverted people are comfortable around others, but just don't have the same appetite for shallow discussion.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,393
20,703
Orlando, Florida
✟1,501,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I tend to think that the difference is one of awareness.
the introvert is more likely to be aware of self, while the extrovert is more likely to be aware of others.

That doesn't have anything to do with it at all. Self-centered extraverts are a dime a dozen. It's a common stereotype in American culture to see introverts as antisocial or selfish, but hardly accurate.


Myers-Briggs was for only some workplaces (particularly a post-war industrial workplace, and even more so for women in the industrial workplace due to post-war labour shortages), not for places of worship, missions, or fellowships, or families, or finding a husband or wife.

Its still widely used.

Psychological typing is putting people in a box, in a box for others convenience.

And religious ideologues like to obliterate distinctions between real people.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
42,021
22,652
US
✟1,721,042.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Honestly most people don't need to get that involved. I want to go to church to worship, give thanks, join in prayers, repent if I need too, receive the sacraments and have some fellowship. I don't want any role particularly thanks.

It's simply to meet with other christians, and for worship. If I am well spiritually I'll then be salt and light outside. That's all I am after. I have served in other ways, but really I don't go there for a role, or to be psycho-analysed. If they want me to move chairs, wash up, or make tea, no problem at all, done it many times in the church I grew up in.

That's a "role." No, I don't mean all this typing and pigeonholing. But I do believe "every member has a need, every member has a resource." Ultimately, the purpose of the Body of Christ is the benefit of membership for the sake of the members. Jesus doesn't actually need the Church to spread the gospel--as He demonstrated a couple of times during His ministry.
 
Upvote 0

grandvizier1006

I don't use this anymore, but I still follow Jesus
Site Supporter
Dec 2, 2014
5,976
2,599
30
MS
✟715,118.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Honestly most people don't need to get that involved. I want to go to church to worship, give thanks, join in prayers, repent if I need too, receive the sacraments and have some fellowship. I don't want any role particularly thanks.

It's simply to meet with other christians, and for worship. If I am well spiritually I'll then be salt and light outside. That's all I am after. I have served in other ways, but really I don't go there for a role, or to be psycho-analysed. If they want me to move chairs, wash up, or make tea, no problem at all, done it many times in the church I grew up in. Far to much going on in some churches - sickly bubbles, what do people think the church is there for?

If these churches are so 'extroverted' its amazing how few people bother to move away from their little friendship circle to speak to someone who is new, they wouldn't even know who was new. I stood drinking a cup of tea many times and looked toward people to start to chat, and the so called more "extroverted" ones are just caught up with themselves. Someone had the rudness to say well you better just go up to people and introduce yourself. Joined their small group and before long they blamed the new-comer for their loss of a sense of togetherness they had before. Started talking to a girl once, and she wanted to know my "type" she said she gets on better with an 'N' or a "J' or something? Forget it, if a church wants to keep going down that road it'll be finished within a generation. Why would I want to go somewhere God was almost ready to spit out of his mouth, or that was opening the door to a gnostic spirituality that would destroy any renewal, or vitality they had.

My depressions are due to this accursed Jungian typing, and the spirituality in it. I debated with someone who was into it and always on at me to let her test me, and I refused repeated. They're blinded by it, no amount of reason would make some of them see. Just avoid.

Persons are more than phenomena. But what's the point? People will only understand once they repent.

That girl who wants to know your "type"? Tell her what it is (I assume that you've been forced to take this test once or twice, I have), and then if she says, "Oh, well I just can't associate with you!" tell her that Myers-Briggs is not supposed to hand out labels and that she's being very prejudiced for judging you based on your Myers-Briggs type. If it makes you feel any better, she'd probably think I'm not N or J enough for her if she met me ;)

Also, there's no spirituality in Myers-Briggs. It's a guideline for people in groups to understand how people think and approach problems, so maybe you can see what sort of a job they'd be best at--assuming that you're a boss working in an environment and you just want to give people stuff they'd be good at. It's like asking someone what your favorite color is, it doesn't say that much about you, but it might be good to remember in other people. But there's no point in learning the "type" of acquaintances or strangers, even if you do have to come together to work on something. I don't know what my mom's "type" is, and that hasn't deteriorated our parent-child relationship :D

And I go to church for the same reasons you do. The thing is, churches need to start looking at how they can bring in all sorts of lost people with all sorts of demeanors and personalities. I'd also consider going to a smaller church where everyone would be seen as more valuable, and not just part of a huge mass of hundreds. Of course, my parents seem to LIKE big churches because they're "happy" or something, but I don't go for happiness or crowds. I wouldn't call my current church fake--it's been very Biblical and legitimate--it's just designed for extroverts and people who like to imagine that there is nothing north of the Ohio River and South of the Gulf of Mexico. If it works for them, that's fine, but I'd like to actually get really into my faith and grow with God, not have it be a part of my culture. I wouldn't call anyone I know a cultural Christian per se, as far as I know they're all saved, but they just blend in with their culture better than I do.

Are churches really locally-oriented in the UK? There's nothing wrong with being locally oriented, but where I am there are THOUSANDS of churches, and so for our giant church to be helping only a tiny community when there are already a dozen other churches ALREADY doing that same thing is tough.

Also, I'd look into the phenomenon known as "churchism". I was hoping that my European brothers and sisters were immune to this, but I guess not :( That might be a bigger problem than just the extroversion, actually. Like those people that got upset when you didn't fit in with them might have done so because they see their church community as like this club, but that's not what a church is supposed to be at all.

Just the other day I ended up chatting with a non-religious person, and he said that he wasn't considering joining a religion simply because he didn't want to be put into a group and didn't want people to see him as "a member of this or that group". He just wanted to be his own person, so he didn't even want to identify as an atheist or even an agnostic--just "not religious". He wasn't interested, plain and simple.

Now, my first thought was that his desire for autonomy sounded very familiar to the humanistic notion of someone being their own God or something (sorry, humanists, I'm just trying to make a point here, I really don't want to fight!). But it was clear that he didn't have any resentment of Christian morals or truth or anything. It hadn't really ever been "imposed" on him. The problem was that he saw religious affiliation as like being part of a club--maybe it's that way for some people, certainly, but if you're a Christian you shouldn't be joining a church JUST for community.

So while trying to be as non-imposing as possible I replied that for me personally, my becoming a Christian had no relation to do with fitting in with the people at my church. I didn't fit in with them before, and I don't fit in with them now! :D:dontcare:

I wish you good luck in trying to find a church that will understand. Pray consistently about it!:wave:
 
Upvote 0

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,182
1,360
✟720,085.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Also, there's no spirituality in Myers-Briggs.
I do know a bit about this, if you don't mind me saying. It opens the door to gnostic spirituality, because that was the spirituality of CG Jung whose psychological types it was based on. I am willing to accept I may be wrong. A spiritually mature christian, secure in their faith, won't be affected by having a Myers-Briggs test done perhaps. But I really can't see any point in it for christians. For baptised christians their identity has a completely new basis. Jung and Myers Briggs can't tell them anything about who they are or will become as followers of Jesus. Jung's types are based on who they were before their conversion. He never embraced christianity himself, because he accepted a false revelation as a child, and he wrote that "Lord Jesus never became quite real for me, never quite acceptable, never quite lovable..." (See Leanne Payne's book : The Healing Presence.)

If you want to read further there are other articles:

Critical Issues - Jungian Christianity

It should be obvious I don't care for that test or any other psychometric test.

To change the line of Mr. Keating (from the Dead Poets Society film) very slightly, "people" in stead of poetry.

"This is [people] we are talking about....we're not laying pipe."

Also, I'd look into the phenomenon known as "churchism".
Thanks. A while ago I read about churchism from John MacKay's book: Christian Reality and Appearance.

I think a local focus of mission is fine, with a few going further. Worship of God is supposed to be first, peoples needs secondary. Lead people into worship and many issues, needs, problems will begin to be resolved.

Christians in leadership, are to herald the coming of the Kingdom, but it has to what the New Testament writers meant when they talked of the Kingdom.

See this also, by Jacques Ellul:

http://www.ennyman.com/el-false.html
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Recalculating!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,572
11,470
Space Mountain!
✟1,354,472.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have never felt comfortable at church. It has been 20 years since I last had a church home. And when you hear something about yourself enough times, you believe it. Therefore, with the people around me at church playing a big part in it, I developed the belief that I was pathologically shy. Only in the last several years have I discovered and been able to fully appreciate that I am simply highly introverted. That does not repair the damage done from many years of believing that there is something wrong with you. Anyway, I can empathize with the writer's concerns here.

Perhaps. But it could also be that some of the extroverted Christians need to be tranquilized... ;)
 
Upvote 0

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,182
1,360
✟720,085.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Originally Posted by dms1972
Myers-Briggs was for only some workplaces (particularly a post-war industrial workplace, and even more so for women in the industrial workplace due to post-war labour shortages), not for places of worship, missions, or fellowships, or families, or finding a husband or wife.
Its still widely used.


Nothing I can do about that, people can think for themselves - I am just giving them something to think about, if something had a limited use at the outset and was rejected as an instrument for testing, then its really up to those who keep using it or rely on it, to be a little more open to what the critiques say. I'm really just putting forth some points about its questionable validity, because I think its fair that people get access to more than "success stories" about it. In the end if someone likes Myers-Briggs or found it helped them, they'll not be likely to question it much. There is no reason though to assume it helps everyone. And no reason for anyone to take it.

Psychological typing is putting people in a box, in a box for others convenience.
And religious ideologues like to obliterate distinctions between real people.


Yes. And Jung's types are mainly his invention, and yes how many real people are there? I'd say a lot, lot more. In the end this is about its use in churches and amongst christians. Not about its use in an industrial workplace. If some people find it helpful then fine.

In any case, I can only discuss any subject up to how much I know about it and sometimes I find more things out. For instance this:

According to Hans Eysenck:
"The main dimension in the MBTI is called E-I, or extraversion-introversion; this is mostly a sociability scale, correlating quite well with the MMPI social introversion scale (negatively) and the Eysenck Extraversion scale (positively) (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1985). Unfortunately, the scale also has a loading on neuroticism, which correlates with the introverted end. Thus introversion correlates roughly (i.e. averaging values for males and females) -.44 with dominance, -.24 with aggression, +.37 with abasement, +.46 with counselling readiness, -.52 with self-confidence, -.36 with personal adjustment, and -.45 with empathy.

The failure of the scale to disentangle Introversion and Neuroticism (in fact there is no scale for neurotic and other psychopathological attributes in the MBTI) is its worst feature, only equalled by the failure to use factor analysis in order to test the arrangement of items in the scale."

"This (the MBTI) creates 16 personality types which are said to be similar to Jung's theoretical concepts. I have always found difficulties with this identification, which omits one half of Jung's theory (he had 32 types, by asserting that for every conscious combination of traits there was an opposite unconscious one). Obviously the latter half of his theory does not admit of questionnaire measurement..."
That last sentence struck me. "does not admit of questionnaire measurement... " Because I am quoting doesn't mean I agree with all these psychologists say. But is he wrong in pointing out the unconscious aspect (as Jung understood it) is ignored by Myers-Briggs, and not measurable in any case?

Now it seems to me I am giving it its due here by quoting some research on it, and not just dismissing it. Even though the whole personality reduced to numbers thing is something of an anathema to me, because well I don't think humans are a "piece of pipe", or should be treated like one.

Also this from Karl Stern (book: The Third Revolution)
"...the perfect psychological situation between human beings is the real meeting of "I" and "Thou." This situation differs in essense from the one which exists when man is confronted with inanimate matter - the meeting of "I" and "it". In order to fit "Thou" into a frame of mathematical references, you must be reduced to an "It," and thus the relationship becomes dehumanised. If anyone ever succeeded in establishing laws about the relationships of men to one another, comparable to the laws of physics, he would create a world in which metaphysical values have no place. Freedom, love and the personality itself would be denied. Everything that makes human relationships human would be denied."
This sort of testing and reductionism as Karl Stern points out doesn't admit for Grace. When the gifts of the Holy Spirit in a Christian Fellowship are of Grace, I don't see how secular Psychometric tests can be of service in christian work.

Its a simple matter of who understands a human soul better? Jesus of Nazareth or Carl Jung. Jung himself didn't risk the incompatiblity of his theories with Christian theology, he told christians who sought his help he "couldn't do it better than Jesus." and sent them back to their christian group.

Seems obvious to me christians would be better looking to Jesus, like the Psalm writer in Psalm 139. http://biblehub.com/niv/psalms/139.htm
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SuperCloud

Newbie
Sep 8, 2014
2,292
228
✟3,725.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I have never felt comfortable at church. It has been 20 years since I last had a church home. And when you hear something about yourself enough times, you believe it. Therefore, with the people around me at church playing a big part in it, I developed the belief that I was pathologically shy. Only in the last several years have I discovered and been able to fully appreciate that I am simply highly introverted. That does not repair the damage done from many years of believing that there is something wrong with you. Anyway, I can empathize with the writer's concerns here.

I looked at that link and it appears Protestant in cultural tone and perception to me. But the diction in you're second sentence in which you say, "It has been 20 years since I last had a church home," ought indicate to me you are Protestant. For one thing, it reflects how you understand the conception or reality one calls "Church" or "church."

One side of my family is Protestant (with only a few practicing Protestants). And the other side is Catholic (with the only remaining practicing Catholic being my mother--all her siblings and her children have left the 'Church.'"

So, I have some grasp of the different cultural traits between the two. Be sure that difference is shrinking as even conservative Catholics assimilate themselves into some of the dominate and successful cultural and media presentations of Protestant Christianity.

Both conservative and liberal lay Catholics alike would loath to be as meek, humble, and self deprecating as St. Bernadette. A saint I have prayed to often. Both of them tend to glamorize being extrovert. The conservatives Catholics are the most self righteous on any internet discussion board about the subject. Rarely do I inject myself into the convo. In general the #1 response conservative lay Catholics have is that introvert people, introvert Catholics are simply narcissistic.

I think narcissism can be one of the contributing factors (irrespective of how they got that way) for some or perhaps many introverted people. But I'm of the opinion all humans--or mostly all anyways--have some small or great narcissistic traits to their personalities. Yes, that includes me. But it's along the lines that I think no human you know or see can be 100% selfless. We can be more selfless than others but not 100% selfless as even seeking eternal salvation in heaven is motivated by a selfishness, a self interest.

There is nothing wrong with being extrovert. There is nothing wrong with being the life of the party. There is nothing wrong with being outgoing or the great communicator.

But one thing I notice about adults--and I pick on adults because we are often smug and we are the ones that cause this world to be so messed up, not children--is that we like to interact in the world as thespians. We learn this as children through the learning process we call "playing." And as adult we still "play" by "acting" a certain way in public. And adults in general prefer to stay in this sleep or fictional "reality." They don't want to take the matrix pill that wakes them up.

So, Bill Cosby and Bill Clinton would be extroverts. And the adult world would love them for it. Pope John Paul II and probably Pope Francis as well would be regarded as extroverts. Pope Benedict the 16th was much more of an introvert. A very closed-behind-the-doors scholarly type.

Does God love only extroverts?

I'm not persuaded God does.

I'm persuaded God values loyalty to Him above whether or not you are introvert or extrovert.

But what do I mean by "loyalty." If you are a man (or woman) think of yourself as a wife and think of God as husband. Your husband. Do you prostitute yourself to His reviles like protecting the Satanic religion beside Christianity or above it so you can be "cool" and "American" amongst your peers?

To understand loyalty I would suggest one reflect upon the Orthodox monks be they on mount Athos or in the Egyptian deserts, and reflect upon the Muslim Ummah which would tolerate no rival beside their God nor tolerate injury to their beloved prophet Jesus.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA59E_phBnw


I used to be very fearful to speak as a child in large part due to my father threatening me and exploding over things even as minor as spilling a cup of water. Now, my father was Federal law enforcement. But I have some cousins that had it much worse (actually, I have many cousins on both sides of the family that had it much worse). Their father, my uncle, was a cop, and he emotionally and physically abused them. When they were kids they were extremely "shy" and you could tell in the look of their eyes their spirits were broken. As older teens and now adults that became "off the hinges." Buck wild. Lots of bottled anger too. They are night and day from what they were. They rarely speak to their father.

Unlike conservative Catholics I don't think being "shy" merely and only comes from being a wicked narcissistic person. There can be a number of things that leads to a person being shy.

Liberal Catholics like that whole stage theater performance where you walk into the parish church and every stranger is magically best friends, holding hands during the Our Father prayer, taking extra long tome to "chop it up" during the kiss of peace (or whatever it is called). I find the whole thing childish and disingenuous. And they all want to be entertained like the "Sister Act" or whatever that movie is.

This is probably the most I have ever said on the issue of being introvert vs extrovert. And I don't think I'll have anything else to say about it. Nor am I going to argue over it.

Though, I'm not sure what I am. I'm more extroverted than some, and less so than others. Though, I'm generally mistrusting of others, including those regarded as "good people" by popular society.

I should also say... for whatever psychological reason... it is said in Alcoholics Anonymous and CA and NA that alcoholics and drug addicts often develop a fear of people. I think there is a lot of truth to it. At least for those that have been addicted for decades. I'm not sure if it may be related to addicts being the most shamed people on earth who prefer to hide in the shadows, or not? But AA claims that with their help the recovering addict will overcome those fears.
 
Upvote 0

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,182
1,360
✟720,085.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
There is nothing wrong with being extrovert. There is nothing wrong with being the life of the party. There is nothing wrong with being outgoing or the great communicator.

Sorry I still don't get this sort of simplistic typing, or even the need for it at all, can someone explain that?. Why would extroversion, awareness of others not equally lead one to be a listening sort of person, rather than just more self-expressing. As I have said it seems to me its not a case were one is either introvert or extrovert, that its a false dividing line.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0