Introversion can be portrayed as a strategy regarding the display of self. A metaphor is often used to describe this display. Imagine the general of a large army, the general’s aide, and a large tent. In the case of the introvert, we find that the person standing in front of the text is not the general. Rather it is the aide who is pretending to be the general. The actual general remains inside the tent, devoting himself to preparing and modifying the comments that are to be made in the address to the troops. He is handing notes out to the aide, who delivers them with great skill and gusto to the troops. All of this means, that we are never quite sure when interacting with an Introvert that we are interacting with the “real” person or with an “impersonator” (with the real person being hidden behind this “shell person.”)
Jungians write about the “persona” (mask) that we all carry with us when interacting with other people in our world. This mask hides the “real self”—whether we are introverted or extraverted. However, there is often a mask within a mask for the Introvert. Furthermore, truly gifted Introverts have a second or third mask that enables other people to believe that NO mask exists. They are interacting with a genuinely open person. Those who interact with the gifted Introvert often do not realize that this person is not really outgoing and not anywhere near being an Extravert. The Introvert can be a great actor and impersonator on any interpersonal stage.
A wonderful example of this impersonation is to be found among those who actually engage in acting on a stage or in a movie (who are inclined to be Introverts). We witness skilled actors such as Grace Kelly, Clint Eastwood and Harrison Ford playing a specific role. We are led to believe that this is the real person. The actor can play the role with skill and understanding because they are operating inside their tent, using this “alone” time to do careful work. Similarly, we find that many gifted political figures (such as Abraham Lincoln) are Introverts, who are doing their work in the tent. We are hearing from and responding to the aide.
Depth and Arousal
Introversion is also concerned about depth (contrasting with the Extraversion focus on Breadth). As Marti Laney (2002, p. 21) concludes, introverts will limit their experiences—in part because they feel deeply about these experiences. They read a book slowly in order to savor all of the characters and the rich narrative. There is no digested version for them. Skim reading is not in their “line of work.” Friendships are often limited to a few people and a deep commitment is often made to “quality family life” (or at least some carefully thought-out moments of great depth and openness with family members. As Laney poetically observes, Introverts declare “how deep is the ocean!” They will dive to the deepest part of the sea (be it a relationship or a work of art).
It should also be noted, however, that it might not just be a matter of preferring depth to breadth. In his own somewhat different version of Introversion and Extraversion, the controversial psychologist, Hans Eysenck (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1969) proposed during the 1960s that the differences in behavior of an Extravert and Introvert can be attributed to their handling of cortical arousal. He points to the Ascending Reticular Activity System (ARAS) as the culprit. Introverts have a higher base level of ARAS activation than Extraverts—making them more vulnerable to any outside experiences that increase activation. In essence, Introverts lack sufficient buffers to block the external stimuli. They must be selective about what they attend to outside themselves because they can easily be overwhelmed by what comes in unimpeded. The ARAS is “trigger-happy.” Words become shouts and sights become blinding images.
