Extrovert and Intovert Chart Divisions

[staragewiz]

Jim, years ago Rick Orstrander published a Sidereal Newsletter of which I have
some of them. In these he divided a chart into Extrovert,& Introvert divisions..Where constellations and planets above the horizon are expressed Extrovertly and those below Introvertly,

Can you opine on this approach to interpretation?

Most of my planets are in the 2nd & 3rd house; thereby painfully an Introvert
Mars paran-Sq Sun conj. Jupiter modifies my chart somewhat..

Mercury conj. IC 28Tau conj. Fagans Mercury sq. your Moon helps to keep me busy Sidereally..thanks!

[Jim Eshelman]

My opinion is that this isn't so - that there is no such thing evident.

To give Rick benefit of the doubt: There might be some definition of introversion-extraversion for which something like this is true, but it's not any of the classic definitions of introversion-extraversion of classic psychiatry.

Simple example: On most I-E tests we've ever taken, both my wife and I score very close to the 50-50 boundary of I-E. More often than not, she scores a hair more E, I score a hair more I (but only a smidge). Of the 10 basic planets, she has 6 below the horizon (four above), I have 7 below horizon (3 above). While here 6-4 split is close to 50-50, my 7-3 split is not. - I'm not fond of single case examples, but thought I'd start with that one.

How we look at this theoretically varies with whether we think something like the classic 12-house model is legitimate. If we do think it's valid, then we have to remember that numerous planets in the 8th and 12th houses would be attributed to introversion, while lots of 11th and 10th house planets would be more reliant on our integration with others (individually or collectively). Similarly, numerous 5th house planets would be attributed to considerable extraversion.

If we don't consider that such a house model exists, then we are left to decide whether there is a simpler model that exists that is only a hemispheric (above-below) pattern connected to I-E. I just did a search of mostly public figure charts in Solar Fire for everyone with a "bowl" or "bucket" chart pattern - to filter out a couple of hundred people who have all or most of their planets on one half of the chart - and I'm about to go through and see which of those have at least 8 planets on one side of the horizon.

Be back soon, hopefully...

[Jim Eshelman]

In looking at examples, I understand that we don't have a single definition of I-E that we're using and we don't have access to psychological testing metrics on the people I'll be listing. We have to go by a gut feel, our impression of whether these people are what we might consider more introverted or more extraverted.

What I see - rough impression - is that there is a mix of cases that fit, cases that are the opposite, and cases that are unclear - meaning, it seems random to me with perhaps some that seem individually persuasive but others that seem to me to be acute exceptions. But I'll list the cases I found so that everybody can draw their own conclusions.

Let me start with extreme examples: Self-help guru Dr. Wayne Dyer has all 10 planets under the horizon. Would you call him very heavily biased toward introversion? While I'm certain that there are private and in-turned aspects of him, my opinion is that, overall, no: He's quite outward facing and relying on his interface with other people primarily.

Similarly, Joe Cocker has all 10 planets below the horizon. That dude is not an extreme introvert.

Roger Ebert had all 10 above the horizon. He's a better case for easy extraversion.

OTOH, Queen Victoria had all 10 planets above the horizon. She was certainly a public figure, but an extreme extravert doesn't spend decades in self-imposed near-exile as she did.

Murderer Peter Sutcliffe had all 10 above the horizon. I don't know his story well enough to have an opinion, but I list him as an extreme case - he should be easy to research.

Here is the list of the rest:

8 OR 9 PLANETS BELOW HORIZON (Introverted?): Amelia Earhart, Brian Wilson, Charlie Sheen, John Lennon, Ringo Starr, Rosemary Clooney, Thomas Alva Edison, Kesha, Sir Richard Burton, James Huberty, Charles Whitman, Myra Hindley, Meghan Markle, Sec. Julian Castro, Bradley Whitford, Hans Eysenck, Theo Van Gogh, Paul Gauguin, Washington Irving, Marcel Proust, B.F. Skinner, Alfalfa Switzer, Rep. Karen Bass, Victor Neuberg, Britney Spears, Marianne Williamson

8 OR 9 PLANETS ABOVE HORIZON (Extraverted?): Matthew Quellas, SteveS, Julian Assange, Al Sharpton, John Forbes Nash Jr., Albert Einstein, Al Pacino, Charlton Heston, Eleanor Roosevelt, Paul McCartney, Toni Tennille, Nancy Sinatra, Ike Turner, Jerry Garcia, Rudy Giuliani, Bernie Sanders, David Schwimmer, Kobe Bryant, Sugar Ray Leonard, Vincent Van Gogh, Ricky Nelson, Sharon Gless, Terrence McKenna, Pres. Harry S Truman

[Jim Eshelman]

My opinions:

8 OR 9 PLANETS BELOW HORIZON (Introverted?): Amelia Earhart, Brian Wilson, Charlie Sheen, John Lennon, Ringo Starr, Rosemary Clooney, Thomas Alva Edison, Kesha, Sir Richard Burton, James Huberty, Charles Whitman, Myra Hindley, Meghan Markle, Sec. Julian Castro, Bradley Whitford, Hans Eysenck, Theo Van Gogh, Paul Gauguin, Washington Irving, Marcel Proust, B.F. Skinner, Alfalfa Switzer, Rep. Karen Bass, Victor Neuberg, Britney Spears, Marianne Williamson

Some of these, of course, might seem to fit. One has to wonder if perhaps it's right that, as a contrast, John Lennon may show as more introverted, Paul McCartney as more extraverted. However, Ringo Starr is notably gregarious and people-connecting. Some of the others seem fine for an introverted interpretation - e.g., Brian Wilson - but Charlie Sheen as as "out there" and, again, gregarious as can be - as far as I can tell.

I find it a reversal of their basic characters that Vincent Van Gogh shows (by this theory) as an extravert and his business-tending brother Theo as an introvert - they seem the opposite to me. Karen Bass, whom I know somewhat, may well be more of an introvert, but Marianne Williamson is a public grandstander.

8 OR 9 PLANETS ABOVE HORIZON (Extraverted?): Matthew Quellas, SteveS, Julian Assange, Al Sharpton, John Forbes Nash Jr., Albert Einstein, Al Pacino, Charlton Heston, Eleanor Roosevelt, Paul McCartney, Toni Tennille, Nancy Sinatra, Ike Turner, Jerry Garcia, Ricky Nelson, Rudy Giuliani, Bernie Sanders, David Schwimmer, Kobe Bryant, Sugar Ray Leonard, Vincent Van Gogh, Sharon Gless, Terrence McKenna, Pres. Harry S Truman

Similarly, here are some good examples of the theory - in particular the interesting fact that there are a lot more music performers. But Julian Assange seems a deep introvert to me. Einstein might well have been an extravert by (sociable) definitions - I'm not sure - but Dr. Nash is surely one of the clearest introverts of modern record.

I leave final conclusions to you. My opinion was asked, and it is that this theory does not seem to hold water.

[staragewiz]

Will look deeper...thanks!

[By Jove]

How about charts on the East/West (MC/IC line) divide? It would seem people with more planets on the west half of the chart would be more introverted. Maybe?

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

I still subscribe to the extroverts are energized by being around other people while introverts are drained by being around other people definitions. The definitions Jim referenced define shy/outgoing to me. I think defining what is meant by introvert/extrovert would be key to this discussion.

I don't see anything in this theory, not in relation to houses, above or below horizon or east and west of the MC-IC lines.

[Jim Eshelman]

How about charts on the East/West (MC/IC line) divide? It would seem people with more planets on the west half of the chart would be more introverted. Maybe?

I'd have to regenerate the sample set of bucket and bowl charts and check that separately, but I have a couple of thoughts.

If houses are valid, then people with 7H and 5H predominances in particular would not be thought of as introverts, but as especially "people persons." Of course, it's always possible that there are legitimate hemisphere factors but not house factors. (With your massive 7H predominance, I know you don't think of yourself as an extravert, which is more or less a demonstration of why I'm skeptical about I/E being a hemisphere or domal factor - more likely an angularity, aspects, and [somewhat] sign matter.)

By my house model, planets on the western half of the chart are undertaking the process of gradually shifting from most outward facing to most inward facing - more simply, from public to private - but that very process means that there are zones (houses) in different stages of the process, whether resisting it, flowing with it, incorporating it, achieving it, etc. Traditionally, 4H is intensely private, 8H is in the sense of "secretive" but is also potentially a relationship, "connected to the greater world" relationship type house, 7H is others-driven, 9H could be monastic or withdrawn academic but is mostly involved in the larger community of public institutions and traditions, 6H might have a personality that is more sedate and withdrawn, 5H is fundamentally an others-connected, entertaining, bursting into life character - etc. Really quite a mixed bag.

But this, as I said, is all theory.

[By Jove]

How about charts on the East/West (MC/IC line) divide? It would seem people with more planets on the west half of the chart would be more introverted. Maybe?

I'd have to regenerate the sample set of bucket and bowl charts and check that separately, but I have a couple of thoughts.

If houses are valid, then people with 7H and 5H predominances in particular would not be thought of as introverts, but as especially "people persons." Of course, it's always possible that there are legitimate hemisphere factors but not house factors. (With your massive 7H predominance, I know you don't think of yourself as an extravert, which is more or less a demonstration of why I'm skeptical about I/E being a hemisphere or domal factor - more likely an angularity, aspects, and [somewhat] sign matter.)

By my house model, planets on the western half of the chart are undertaking the process of gradually shifting from most outward facing to most inward facing - more simply, from public to private - but that very process means that there are zones (houses) in different stages of the process, whether resisting it, flowing with it, incorporating it, achieving it, etc. Traditionally, 4H is intensely private, 8H is in the sense of "secretive" but is also potentially a relationship, "connected to the greater world" relationship type house, 7H is others-driven, 9H could be monastic or withdrawn academic but is mostly involved in the larger community of public institutions and traditions, 6H might have a personality that is more sedate and withdrawn, 5H is fundamentally an others-connected, entertaining, bursting into life character - etc. Really quite a mixed bag.

But this, as I said, is all theory.

At least that makes sense. 7 House and 8 House are dominant in my chart. I'm definately an introvert. People have commented that I have a weak sense of self, and I intensely feel the need of a "significant other" to complete me. And I am quite private and secretive. Plus my thought process is much more "spider-web" and holistic as opposted to atomised and linear. This seems very 8 House.

[By Jove]

Also, with houses and signs. Perhaps the zodiac signs change houses with each astrological age. Like in ancient Egypt, Taurus ruled House 1. In ancient Rome, Aries ruled House 1. Today, Pisces rules House 1, etc.

[Jim Eshelman]

I still subscribe to the extroverts are energized by being around other people while introverts are drained by being around other people definitions. The definitions Jim gave define shy/outgoing to me. I think defining what is meant by introvert/extrovert would be key to this discussion.

Yes, it's really all about definitions of the terms, and I don't think we have Rick's original definitions of the terms.

I remember your definitions and think they're quite functional in communicating with other people and with meaningful assessment. Even in very early psychiatry, Freud and Jung definitions are nearly opposite - I long ago fell into the pattern of thinking of these in the Jungian sense that the distinction is based on where one predominantly expresses psychological energy (outward turning of libido vs. inward turning of libido, or whether their psychological investment and interaction is more in relating to what they find outside themselves vs. inside themselves - extrapsychic or intrapsychic). Extraverts are motivated most by input from outside themselves and their engagement with it; introverts are motivated most by intrapsychic input and their engagement with it.

But I do like the functionality of your working definition.

[Jim Eshelman]

Also, with houses and signs. Perhaps the zodiac signs change houses with each astrological age. Like in ancient Egypt, Taurus ruled House 1. In ancient Rome, Aries ruled House 1. Today, Pisces rules House 1, etc.

Are you suggesting that the houses themselves change their meanings, or just that our metaphors change?

BTW, in ancient Rome Libra was the 1st house, not Aries.

[By Jove]

Also, with houses and signs. Perhaps the zodiac signs change houses with each astrological age. Like in ancient Egypt, Taurus ruled House 1. In ancient Rome, Aries ruled House 1. Today, Pisces rules House 1, etc.

Are you suggesting that the houses themselves change their meanings, or just that our metaphors change?

BTW, in ancient Rome Libra was the 1st house, not Aries.

Maybe just the metaphors? Like the sign-house relationships change, if that means anything to you.

[Jim Eshelman]

I don't yet see anything practical in just shifting the metaphors. If anything, I've been leaning more toward completely disentangling the sign-house metaphors, at least being as flexible as "7H is either metaphorically Aries or Libra, depending... I think the bigger questions are (1) foremost, determining whether houses exist at all, or are just addictive fictions and (2) confirming what they mean in their own terms, from observation, rather than deriving them from a model.

In terms of sign-house metaphors, the one thing I'm clearest on is that, ultimately, there can't be any real equivalency because sign themes necessarily flow dexter (the order of the signs) - Taurus themes moving to Gemini themes, etc. - while house themes necessarily flow sinister (the order of planetary diurnal motion) with 10H themes moving to 9H themes, etc. The unconscious, neurological experience of every human that has ever existed on Earth through the entire course of our species has invariably been that every planet moves through houses clockwise, while luminaries (and, with rarer retrograde loops, all other planets) move through signs counter-clockwise. The "story" each series tells is different from the story the other tells.