A conversation with a fellow Satanist awhile back got me thinking about introversion and extroversion. How do we define these terms, and what are their implications for humans generally and Satanism in particular? The more I thought about this, the more I thought it might make for an interesting blog entry. So here are my thoughts about introversion, extroversion, society, and Satanism.
Introduction: what does it mean to be an extrovert or introvert?
Many people will define introversion and extroversion in an intuitive but simplistic fashion. They will tell you that an extrovert is someone who likes to go out to meet people and socialize. Whereas an introvert is a shy loner who prefers books and hobbies over going to parties.
There is truth to this in broad strokes. However, I understand C. G. Jung, a popularizer of the distinction, to have defined “extrovert” and “introvert” just a little more precisely than this.
An extrovert, in Jungian terms, is someone who finds it energizing to interact with things outside of oneself. Many extroverts will have larger friend circles and active social lives. But this isn’t necessarily true of all. The mark of extroversion is, rather, that connecting externally gives a sense of augmented meaning one feels incomplete without. Without that connection, things feel flat and irrelevant to them. Thus, extroverts aren’t inherently all shallow socialites. Some may undertake creative endeavors in isolation. But it’s then the prospect of others experiencing the end products that fundamentally motivates them. Exchange of energy is their sine qua non.
An introvert, on the other hand, is someone who finds it draining to interact with things outside of oneself. Many introverts will have smaller friend circles and less inclination to go out. But this isn’t necessarily true of all. The mark of introversion is, rather, a sense that meaningfulness is embedded in an internal order, which one needs “alone time” to maintain and refine. Thus, introverts aren’t all socially-awkward misanthropes. It’s just that socialization isn’t an end-in-itself for them: it has to bear upon their inner world of ideas-they-care-about, and they need time to recharge afterward. Integration of energy is where it’s at for them.
Why I’m belaboring the definitions of introversion and extroversion
I lay out the above somewhat pedantically out of irritation at a trend I’ve increasingly noticed in recent years. In online alternative circles, introversion has become strongly identified with what I’ve elsewhere glossed as “cutesy I-can’t-ism”. This takes the form of proudly advertising one’s ineptitude at socializing, whilst implicitly or explicitly deriding extroverts as “sheeple”.
Insofar as all human beings are social animals, such people at some point start seeming like romanticizers of maladjustment. They often don’t seem very happy themselves, whilst their discourse guilt-trips people into conflating misanthropy with intelligence, which in turn seems likely to create yet more actually-disconnected-and-unhappy people. When I hear extroverts arguing that introversion is disadvantageous and unhealthy, I can see why given this kind of introversion.
I, however, am not that kind of introvert. Yes, I have an intense inner life that causes me to spend more time alone than most people would prefer. But I also enjoy socializing and have no issues with confidently having a conversation with basically anyone.
I suspect many Satanists i) are my kind of introvert and ii) loathe cutsey-I-can’t-ism style introversion. Moreover, one notices that Order of Nine Angles (ONA/O9A) texts such as Naos contain notably pro-introversion elements: extroversion is associated with the less-evolved “salt” phases of the Star Game pieces while introversion is associated with the “mercury” phases they evolve into, for example.
So, is introversion a convenient rationale for behavior that thwarts worldly well-being, and thus Satanically-undesirable? Or is it, to the contrary, complementary to Satanism’s ethos and perhaps even integral to it? Offering an interesting response to these complex questions is my motivator for writing the current entry.
Aims of this discussion of extroversion and introversion
This post seeks to offer a clearer view of extroversion and introversion from a Satanic perspective, by advancing the following theses:
- It’s better to think of extroversion and introversion not as set personality types, but as circuits. Everyone has both, but one will be better-developed than the other, similarly to being right or left handed.
- In the context of society at large, there are significant advantages to extroversion. Therefore, it is foolhardy to deride extroversion as if introversion is inherently superior.
- In the context of Satanism specifically – especially O9A-adjacent forms such as Tenebrous Satanism – there are significant advantages to introversion. Therefore, it is also foolhardy to deride introversion as if extroversion is inherently superior.
- Dysfunctional forms of introversion and extroversion both exist. Both are readily used to advance the interests of Dogmagianism. We should therefore reject complacent framings of dysfunction as part of one’s unchangeable identity or as harmlessly-colorful idiosyncrasies. Satanists should instead actively seek to overcome these dysfunctions, even if it means venturing outside of our own comfort zones.
1) Introversion and extroversion as “circuits”
The first step in shedding light on this topic is to discard simplistic notions of “being” an introvert or extrovert. When people deride Jung’s personality classifications as “astrology,” the associated critique is that people are too complex for his categories. Classification says more about what people notice and/or like about themselves than about their actual tendencies. But one can find a grain of truth in such critiques without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Label-based simplification is the problem; it doesn’t necessarily follow that the tendencies Jung enumerates are meaningless.
Let’s therefore discard the notion that more-sociable people “are” extroverts and less-sociable ones “are” introverts. Let’s say instead that when you experience interaction with others as energizing, your extrovert circuit is active. And when you experience clarifying self-reflection in exclusion of others as energizing, your introvert circuit is active. If one predominantly finds oneself in the former mode, one is an extrovert; if the latter, an introvert. These labels are thus provisional: they describe what you habitually do comfortably, not what you fundamentally are.
It in turn follows that if you cannot weather being alone for lengthy periods, you are “stuck” in the extrovert circuit. Vs. if you get stressed about having to be around people for too long, you are “stuck” in the introvert circuit. In both instances, the problem is not that you are forced to do something “against your nature”. It’s that you haven’t developed the circuit best suited to the situation you’re in.
I’m not saying you’re somehow failing as a human being if you aren’t equally comfortable with others and alone. But I do think it advances human flourishing to integrate your shadow and thus attain at least some competency in the mode opposite to your default.
2) Society’s justifiable preference for extroversion
As per the preceding section, there’s an advantage to “balance” between extroversion and introversion. But said balance needn’t be 50/50 within any given person; some will lean more toward one, some toward the other, and that’s fine. You just don’t want 100/0 or 0/100, as either of these is likely to be maladaptive.
So, if extrovert = “inclined toward extroversion”, and introvert = “inclined toward introversion”, should society ideally have 50/50 introverts/extroverts? I would actually say no. Despite being an introvert myself, I reckon it’s probably better for society to have a moderate majority of extroverts.
The rationale for this stems from “human beings are social animals”. You cannot have a “society” in a meaningful sense among atomized individuals preoccupied with their own private affairs. For many great things to be accomplished, there must be people who take initiative to lead others, cooperate, promote, etc. Those sorts of roles are typically sought by extroverts and avoided by introverts. An extrovert-dominated society is thus more likely to build large-scale projects, solicitously care for its vulnerable, etc. It’s also more likely to experience the sort of powerful group bonding essential to success amid war or disaster.
A society does benefit from introverts too. Introverts are more likely to have incubated original and elaborate ideas, hence being great inventors, artists, etc. But in order for those kinds of things to actually matter, you eventually need collaboration, marketing, and so on. Too many introverts, and people will just be content to do their own thing without including others in it.
This kind of argument is naturally distasteful to “but we have to always say both are good, or else it’s unfair!” -type morons. But I strongly feel that honest engagement with forces that have driven human evolution makes this conclusion hard to avoid.
3) Satanism’s affinity for introversion
I’ve just argued that a healthy society has more need for fully-developed and engaged extroversion circuits. However, fully-developed and engaged introversion circuits are, I would argue, importantly conducive to Satanism. To see how this is, let us consider two fronts: the mythological, and the initiatory.
The mythology of Satan as the individualistic outsider
As per the First Key, consider first the mythological account of Satan. Satan’s “fall” entails him rejecting God and God’s order. What does he instead embrace? His own power, and his own seeking-out of happiness in isolation from the established order. An internal order, if you will.
One could argue in connection that in a certain sense, Satan was the first introvert! Sure, one needs a certain amount of “people skills” to inspire a rebellion. But look at the central motive, and consider what I said above about Jung’s definition of introversion, and how can one not see the parallel?
This, in turn, I would argue plays a role in the disproportionate drawing of introverts to Satanism. How many of us read Satan’s mythology and think, “ah, the fellow just wants to be free to do his own thing – I relate”?
Or for another angle on this, look at LaVey’s Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth. Do not give advice unless asked; do not burden others with your problems; when walking in open ground, bother no one. Does this not largely amount to “fuck off with every aspect of society that is especially annoying to introverts”?
I’ve even been in situations where I discuss Satanism in a university class, and students comment “this sounds like a great religion for introverts!” without my having brought up anything about introversion. So I’m confident I’m not the only one to whom this angle is plausible!
As per invoking LaVey, the preceding point re: introversion-affinity is relevant to both mainline and esoteric forms of Satanism. For an additional perspective relevant to the latter, though, consider the Ninth Key’s initiation protocol. Moon and Mercury both require setting aside significant amounts of time for meditation and similarly individual-focused endeavors. Sun and Mars both entail hefty introspection and ritual components. And Jupiter’s central focus revolves around enduring isolation in the wilderness.
The tasks of these stages – all of which have equivalents in O9A’s system – are of such a nature that they are all obviously easier for introverts. The person who is reluctant to clear their social calendar will not find time to get them done. And the person who “cannot be alone with themselves” will encounter difficulties with the tasks even upon making time for them. Consider too that in O9A terms, “external adept” is a grade below “internal adept”. The notion that other people are a distraction from the Sinister Path is thus virtually everywhere.
It’s important to stress that I am not saying initiated sorcerers have no use for the extroversion circuit. To the contrary, the Venus and Saturn stages are both designed such that the inflexible introvert will fail them! I designed Tenebrous initiation this way because I want my Satanism to “fix” the juvenile Satanic misanthrope who talks big online but can’t operate in real-world social contexts. Being an effective change-maker requires competent navigation of genuine inter-human energy exchanges – that is the simple reality!
To complete the path requires the activation and integration of both circuits. But starting it and continuing it I see as self-evidently more dependent on the introvert circuit than the extrovert.
4) Dogmagianism corrupts both introversion and extroversion
The traditional RHP finds extroversion more useful than introversion…
I’ve thus far argued that society benefits more from extroversion, while Satanism benefits more from introversion. It’s no stretch to shift from these insights to recognizing that extroversion often serves Satanism’s right-hand-path enemies.
One sees this in numerous religious customs that demand conformity and/or altruism. “Be more community-minded!”, the RHP constantly urges. Obeying such an order is more likely to seem natural and good when the extroversion circuit is engaged. Vs. when the introversion circuit is engaged, a natural resistance toward such incursions against one’s internal godhood arises.
I’d even go so far as to say that the more traditionally-RHP a society is, the more it will pressure people to be extroverts. And the more it will be suspicious and discouraging of introversion. Hence how these societies often operate as if their goal is not just to regulate your behavior outwardly, but to leave you feeling like the priests/inquisitors/secret police/etc. live inside your head: heaven forbid the introvert have anywhere to hide!
… but the non-traditional RHP is a special case
Note, however, that “traditional” is not the only kind of RHP there is. There are, I believe, contemporary forms of RHP – a.k.a. Dogmagianisms – that operate in a perversely-opposite way from this. This formation operates by brainwashing people into believing:
1) They possess Truth manifest in special-snowflake traits, which it would be catastrophic for others not to constantly acknowledge in a specific, prescribed manner;
2) Failure to agree with every aspect of their Truth constitutes hating them and wanting them not to exist; and
3) Any and all quirky personal traits they possess stem from their Truth, and should therefore be catered to, never pointed out as the causes of being less employable, less dateable, and so on, that they so often are.
In an online environment, one can surround oneself with a like-minded cult who abides by these self-imposed rules. Vs. real life tends to confront one with the unrealistic nature of these expectations, forcing healthy compromise.
Such non-traditional Dogmagianisms benefit from poo-pooing extroversion and playing up introversion. Extroversion is for dumb, boring normies, they proclaim, whereas introverts are scrappy outsiders who think for themselves. Subscribers thereby receive permission to swallow ideological claims and then cut themselves off from potential sources of realistic correction. The extroversion circuit doesn’t entirely atrophy, but becomes ruled by the introversion circuit: doom-scrolling and facebook-arguing scratches the exchange-energy-with-others itch, but the internalized order becomes so allergic to the possibility of being exposed to things outside of the ideological ecosystem’s “safe” zone that these people can barely leave their homes without having an anxiety attack.
This kind of victim-cult-sustained-by-one-sided-introversion self-evidently obstructs the vital existence Satanism stands for.
Concluding thoughts
This entry was born from my puzzling over how an extroverted Satanist friend of mine could assert that introversion possessed few or no advantages. I can understand such a view re: pro-social people being better for society. But like Jung, I do not define introversion as simply anti-social. And when one understands it as more than that in the way I do – i.e., as a drive to establish internal order – an affinity with left-hand-path spirituality clearly emerges.
Does it follow that I think extroversion is un-Satanic? Not at all! The extrovert just has more distractions to contend with at certain points in the path, is all. It may accordingly seem like there are more introverts than extroverts among “serious” Satanists. Ultimately though, the pure introvert can no more reap the full benefits of the Sinister Path than the pure extrovert. Jungian individuation demands the development of both circuits. You do not need to be equally introverted / extroverted to be a Tenebrous sorcerer. But you do need to be both introverted enough to build your internal world with focus, and extroverted enough act in the real world to correct the delusions your inward-focus may otherwise create.
Our times are haunted by forms of Dogmagianism that feed off excessive introverted focus coupled with lack of extroverted correction. I think my friend and I agree on this. But it seems to me that maybe the dynamics of said battle have understandably caused bad introversion on that path to blind him to the role of good introversion on our path. I therefore hope this entry helps clarify my perspective to him – and that it’s clear, in the process, that my taking the time to write this is itself a sign of the deep intellectual respect I have for him.
Thoughts? Let me know in the comments.