Two bubbling identities
Some people do not exist without a profusion of signs of existence. Collectivism. But in what direction are these signs pointed? Do they indicate a spontaneous interest of the person in the collective? Or do they force the collective to take an interest in the person? The signs are mixed. It is not immediately easy to sort them out. Even if you are an expert in empathy vs. exhibitionism, this experience remains yours. Does the person use these signs with the intentions you imagine? We are in front of a big salad that perhaps deceives about the intentions of the cook. At what stage is her relationship with the other? A detailed investigation is needed.
The introvert, by comparison, requires no work. She has already sorted it out on her own. Instead of serving a salad with all the contents of the fridge, she puts on the plate a few small carrots, a lonely raspberry… or a sea urchin. Are you making an unfortunate remark? She looks like a burnt toast (in the most hardened the toast stays inside and you only see the immaculate mirror of the toaster).
Extrovert and introvert are bubbling likewise. What separates them, in the end, is a tiny stunner: the first forgot to put the lid on the pot.
The paradox of the extrovert
Isn’t it paradoxical to show the extrovert as the most difficult to judge, when she shows us a vast expanse of herself, unlike the iceberg that remains the mind of the introvert? Keep in mind that it is you or I who define the personality of the extrovert, who reconstruct it from the signs. This is not the way she feels. This is not her theory, unless we were able to verify it by talking at length with her.
While the introvert shows little, but what she shows is very precisely adjusted to what she is experiencing. She has completed her synthesis and expresses the result to you. You are in front of a finished puzzle. The extrovert is the box of pieces, but you’re not sure if she’ll put them together with the logic you’d use.
*