Extroversion — Jung’s term for the libidinal attitude directed outward toward the object — stands as one of the most foundational yet contested concepts in the depth-psychological canon. Jung’s own formulation in Psychological Types (1921) establishes it as a biological and psychological mode of adaptation characterized by interest in the external object, readiness to be influenced by events, cultivation of social relations, and the attachment of supreme importance to outer appearance. Against this baseline, the literature radiates in several directions. Von Franz and Hillman press into the phenomenology of the inferior attitude: when an introvert falls into extroversion, the result is possession and barbarism — driven, uncontrolled, beyond the brake of consciousness — whereas the extrovert’s compensatory introversion, if not spoiled by vanity, can yield a purity of inner experience unavailable to habitual introverts. Thomson recasts the polarity in developmental and typological terms, arguing that extroversion is, in a sense, the psyche’s natal condition — the original mode of world-engagement — and that mature extraversion enables risk, vulnerability, and social trust. Quenk attends to the clinical consequences: depression strikes extraverts with particular force because it enforces an introverted mode that is alien territory. Across these voices, the central tension remains whether extroversion is a strength, a susceptibility, or — when inferior and possessed — a pathological channel. The answer, the corpus suggests, is all three.