Introversion/Extroversion, and Beatles’ Conflict: A Dialogue

~by Karen and Erin

Introduction

Karen

Some time ago, Erin and I began a discussion about how the perception of conflict between Paul and the other three Beatles, particularly in the days prior to the band’s demise, has essentially been characterized by many  biographers as an outcome of Paul’s perfectionism.  In our opinion, however, the “Paul was too bossy” trope–a view often promulgated by the other three Beatles, as it happens–was simply too convenient and in its gross oversimplification of creative conflict, woefully inaccurate.  It seemed more likely that the conflicts within the group, and between Paul and George in particular, were due–at least in part–to their innately different creative and interpersonal styles.  The Beatles are not unique in assigning false attributions to one another in conflict situations; as a matter of fact,  many people have a tendency to assign pejorative labels to behaviours which they don’t understand, find frustrating, and get in the way of their own creative needs.

But what exactly is creativity?  Psychologist Robert Franken, in his book Human Motivation, defines it this way:

Creativity is….the tendency to generate or recognize ideas, alternatives, or possibilities that may be useful in solving problems, communicating with others, and entertaining ourselves and others.  In order to be creative… you need to be able to generate new possibilities or new alternatives. The ability to generate alternatives…is linked to other, more fundamental qualities of thinking, such as flexibility, tolerance of ambiguity or unpredictability, and the enjoyment of things heretofore unknown.

Myers-Briggs Type Inventory

The  ‘fundamental qualities of thinking’ which shape the creative process also include the way in which energy is obtained to facilitate the creative drive, how information is organized in the development of the creative product, and how all of that is communicated to other participants in the creative endeavor. Collectively, we refer to these elements as introversion/extroversion, judging/ perceiving, feeling/ thinking, and sensing/intuiting. These concepts were developed by two psychologists, Isabel Myers and Katherine Briggs, who based their work on the works of psychoanalyst Carl Jung.

First, some quick defintions of the concepts:

Introversion/Extroversion continuum: to what extent energy is drawn from the outside world or from within.

Judging/Perceiving continuum: to what extent you need order and structure or are more comfortable going with the flow. ‘Judgement’, in this regard, should not be confused with ‘judgemental’.  It’s simply how one prefers to organize information and respond to it.

Feeling/Thinking continuum: to what extent you make decisions based on how people feel or what you objectively think.

Sensing/Intuiting continuum: to what extent  you pay attention to the concrete world or meaningfulness in patterns.

Since the inventory was developed for use in psychometrics, there have been validity concerns in its application as a psychometric instrument.  In its original conceptualization as a psychological measurement, these concerns–particularly in terms of consistency and  replicability (i.e., achieving the same profile over time) may be valid, particularly if administered and interpreted (improperly)  as a static measure of personality structure. In its use as a tool and general guide, however,  the Meyers-Briggs provides a handy framework to understand interpersonal styles in working groups.

So how are the Myers-Briggs concepts applicable to the interpersonal conflicts and working styles of Messieurs McCartney, Harrison, Lennon and Starr?  Here’s the preliminary discussion Erin and I had:

KAREN: Paul I would consider an extrovert; he clearly requires contact with the outside world for his personal and creative needs. I think Ringo is also an extrovert, although maybe closer to introversion on our continuum than Paul.

George I would consider a classic introvert. He’d be positioned pretty firmly on the introversion side of our continuum.

John is interesting. While he has strong extroverted tendencies, he also seemed to require and draw a lot of energy from the world of ideas. I’m guessing he might have falling closer to the middle of the continuum.

ERIN: I’d agree with your assessments, Karen. John would be the most difficult to pin down as either/or, both because he seems to fall somewhere in the middle of the scale and because its difficult (for me at least) to separate his introverted/extroverted qualities from the psychological tangle of his other mental health issues and/or drugs.

Introversion/Extroversion is the one area of psychology where I have more than a rudimentary understanding; as in, I’ve read more than a few books on the subject, but I wouldn’t consider myself an expert. I’m a dyed-in-the-wool classic left-brained introvert, raised in family of introverts, married to an introvert, raising two future introverts. (We’re not purposefully trying to make them introverts; they are simply born that way). I’m not shy; I’m not anti-social, just introverted.

That distance between George as a classic introvert and Paul as the most extroverted member of the Beatles explains, for me, a great deal about their interaction and relationship as it unfolded over time. If George was a classic introvert, than someone like Paul — type A, energetic, sometimes bossy, talkative, bouncy, zooming around like a pinball and gushing with musical ideas (which, after 1966, were often fully conceptualized and therefore needed little input from George) — would simply become exhausting after a time. I can’t emphasize this enough (for the roughly 75% of the population who aren’t introverts) and I speak from personal experience, but it really, genuinely, does not matter how much you like and/or love a person; if you are an introvert, you need to be alone and or calm to recharge. John and Ringo fall more in the middle of the spectrum than Paul does, which would help their interaction with George considerably, particularly after LSD mellowed John.

I’ll turn the discussion over to Erin now, who will share more of her thoughts about how the characteristics and preferences of introversion and extroversion, in particular, potentially shaped the interactions (and conflicts) between George and Paul.

 Erin: 

Thanks, Karen. First, a little background on introversion/extroversion. 75% of the population are what we would label extroverts, although people can fall anywhere on the scale from an extreme introvert to a lesser extrovert. That means that 25% of the population qualify as introverted — which makes the Beatles a classic representation of that introverted/extroverted percentage breakdown with George, the one introvert, representing 1/4 of the Beatles. Like extroverts, introverts range across an entire spectrum of introversion, from seriously introverted to more moderate introverts.

Let’s dispel some myths: Introverts aren’t anti-social. They’re not shy. They’re not snobby, or withdrawn, or low-energy. Introversion and Extroversion are, at their core, about energy. Extroverts gain energy from being around other people: from social activities, to big group meetings, to rock concerts. It recharges them. Introverts are the opposite. They need quiet — and often solitude — in order to recharge. “Extroverts spend energy freely and often have trouble slowing down … Extroverts may experience loneliness and a feeling of being drained when they are not in contact with people or the outside world. Introverts are energized by the internal world … They need a quiet, reflective place where they can think things through and recharge themselves.”

When I first read works by Beatles authors such as Ray Coleman and Philip Norman, I was struck by their almost universal depiction of George as a mean, sour grump; someone who was “born bitter,” and seemingly resented the majority of his experiences as a Beatle. I found this depiction of George suspicious: it conformed too readily with his “A Hard Day’s Night” caricature, allowed George’s contributions to the band to be overlooked and dismissed by avowedly pro-Lennon writers, and overlooked the wealth of testimony from numerous individuals — who weren’t reporters — attesting to George’s generosity, dry wit, and ability to maintain deep, personal friendships. Neil Aspinall, Derek Taylor, Tony Barrow and other crucial Beatles insiders all attest to George’s warmth; it seemed that George connected better with people one-on-one, rather than in large groups.

This piqued my interest, as this is a classic sign of an introverted personality. As an introvert myself, the theory of George’s introversion intrigued me. Introversion and extroversion are hard-wired into our brains from birth; they impact our personalities, characters and decisions throughout our entire lives. More, introverts in general have long been mis-characterized as grumpy, snobby, shy, withdrawn, and rude; all qualities which had been ascribed to George.

George acknowledges his own introversion in a 1964 interview, and his life and work display many introverted qualities. In her memoirs, Chris O’Dell, a female Apple employee who lived with George and Pattie for a time, notes George’s differing reactions to something as trivial as gossip. On one day, George would join in a gossip session with good will, trading information and having a great time. The next day, he’d dismiss gossip as inane, and criticize Chris and Pattie for indulging in it. As trivial as this might seem, George’s seeming hypocrisy on gossip is another signal of his introversion: introverts have to have the energy and willingness to engage in small talk. When that energy is present, they can enjoy and participate. When that energy isn’t there, they have no use for “small talk.”Ringo discussed in Living in the Material World how George was very “black and white,” and his wiring as an introvert may have encouraged those aspects of George’s behavior.

George’s introversion has been, as I see it, criminally overlooked by his and Beatles biographers. Not only did this fundamental aspect impact George’s entire life, it impacted Beatles history to a staggering extent. Once George’s introversion has been established, the reasons behind his loathing of touring — the crowds, the incessant noise, the screaming fans, the endless demands of the press, the terrible performances — becomes blindingly clear. George, more so than any other Beatle, was fundamentally hardwired to find all those aspects of touring uncomfortable, frustrating, and deeply exhausting. Every minute on stage, every press conference, every inane interview, took more effort and energy for George to get through than it did the others. No wonder he gained a reputation as the grumpy one: he was perpetually being drained of energy on tour. That doesn’t mean that there weren’t enjoyable moments; that George didn’t have fun either on or off the stage. It does mean that the demands of being a Beatle were fundamentally at odds with the basic precepts of George’s personality and character.

Karen: 

Thanks Erin.  I’d like to piggy back on your discussion by adding that introversion and extroversion aren’t likely the only elements at work here; also shaping George’s response in your gossip example is his preference for structure (Judgement) and his intolerance for ambiguity (Intuiting.)  I see his contradictory behaviour as an intolerance for the nuanced, flighty nature of gossip, which he sometimes can engage in, but as many times cannot.   Saying it another way, an extrovert like John could find solitude rejuvenating one week and isolating and horrible the next, and so on.

When we turn our attention to Paul and his differentness to the other band members, it gets really interesting. Paul’s approach to the creative process is entirely on the judgement continuum:  this is how Geoff Emerick described Paul’s approach to the creative task:

Paul was meticulous and organized: he always carried a notebook around with him, in which he methodically wrote down lyrics and chord changes in his neat handwriting. In contrast, John seemed to live in chaos: he was constantly searching for scraps of paper that he’d hurriedly scribbled ideas on. Paul was a natural communicator; John couldn’t articulate his ideas well. Paul was the diplomat; John was the agitator. Paul was soft-spoken and almost unfailingly polite; John could be a right loudmouth and quite rude. Paul was willing to put in long hours to get a part right; John was impatient, always ready to move on to the next thing. Paul usually knew exactly what he wanted and would often take offense at criticism; John was much more thick-skinned and was open to hearing what others had to say. In fact, unless he felt especially strongly about something, he was usually amenable to change.

When you consider Paul’s approach to the creative process as compared to the other Beatles (and if you want a really interesting example, read the Maxwell’s Silver Hammer post on my In Their Own Words blog), it’s clear how different and potentially conflicted their creative styles were.

Erin and I would like to now turn the discussion over to our readers.  What are your thoughts and speculations about the Beatles’ interpersonal conflict as it relates to the psychological elements we discussed here? We’d love to hear from you.