3 ms·

> Why don't we all agree that the "introvert/extrovert" dichotomy is a false one Because there's scientific evidence strongly suggesting otherwise. That said,

by lj3 9y ago

> Why don't we all agree that the "introvert/extrovert" dichotomy is a false one Because there's scientific evidence strongly suggesting otherwise. That said, the author is using the wrong term. He's talking about social anxiety, not introversion. Introverts at conferences tend to take more of a hit and run approach, like a sprinter, whereas extroverts can socialize for hours, like those damned cross country runners. :)

zzalpha 9y ago
Because there's scientific evidence strongly suggesting otherwise. About this you are mistaken: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion Despite these differences, a meta-analysis of 15 experience sampling studies has suggested that there is a great deal of overlap in the way that extraverts and introverts behave.[33] In these studies, participants used mobile devices to report how extraverted (e.g., bold, talkative, assertive, outgoing) they were acting at multiple times during their daily lives. Fleeson and Gallagher (2009) found that extraverts regularly behave in an introverted way, and introverts regularly behave in an extraverted way. Indeed, there was more within-person variability than between-person variability in extraverted behaviours. The key feature that distinguishes extraverts and introverts was that extraverts tend to act moderately extraverted about 5-10% more often than introverts. From this perspective, extraverts and introverts are not "fundamentally different". Rather, an "extravert" is just someone who acts more extraverted more often, suggesting that extraversion is more about what one "does" than what one "has". That article goes on to say: Humans are complex and unique, and because introversion-extraversion varies along a continuum, individuals may have a mixture of both orientations. A person who acts introverted in one situation may act extraverted in another, and people can learn to act in "counterdispositional" ways in certain situations. For example, Brian Little's Free Trait Theory [35][36] suggests that people can take on "Free Traits", behaving in ways that may not be their "first nature", but can strategically advance projects that are important to them. Together, this presents an optimistic view of what extraversion is. Rather than being fixed and stable, individuals vary in their extraverted behaviours across different moments, and can choose to act extraverted to advance important personal projects or even increase their happiness, as mentioned above. In short: The dichotomy is a false one. To imply anything else is just pop psychological BS, albeit fashionable BS right now. He's talking about social anxiety, not introversion. That's a whole other problem, and is considered an anxiety disorder. If it's resulting in career limiting behaviour, it's probably worth therapy, such as CBT, to try and resolve: http://socialphobia.org/social-anxiety-disorder-definition-symptoms-treatment-therapy-medications-insight-prognosis http://socialphobia.org/social-anxiety-disorder-definition-s...
- lj3 9y ago
  I mean actual scientific evidence, not self-reporting studies which are not in any way scientific or psychological studies, which are almost universally bogus. Take a look at this article. It goes into specifics about neurochemical pathways and the D4DR gene: https://musingsonmormonism.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/easily-the-most-fascintaing-and-illuminating-comparison-of-introversion-and-extroversion-ive-ever-seen/ https://musingsonmormonism.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/easily-t... > If it's resulting in career limiting behaviour, it's probably worth therapy Once again, we disagree. I've only seen anxiety disorders get worse through so called "therapy". There are ways to deal with it on your own, which is pretty much your only option anyway, unless you want to take benzos, which will irrevocably screw up your brain chemistry.
  - zzalpha 9y ago
    Hmm, funny, because a little googling on that gene turned up this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine_receptor_D4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine_receptor_D4 Despite early findings of an association between the DRD4 48bp VNTR and novelty seeking (a normal characteristic of exploratory and excitable people),[24][25] a 2008 meta-analysis compared 36 published studies of novelty seeking and the polymorphism and found no effect. and goes on to say: Novelty-seeking behavior is probably mediated by several genes, and the variance attributable to DRD4 by itself is not particularly large. All that does is prove my point. If novelty-seeking, which let's all assume is a proxy for extraversion for the moment, is mediated by multiple genes, then of course there will be a spectrum of variation depending on the combination a particular person possesses. Care to try cherrypicking again? :)
    - lj3 9y ago
      You picked the first thing you could find in wikipedia and claim that refutes an article you haven't bothered to read? Who's cherry picking again? Introversion/Extroversion has nothing to do with novelty seeking. Read the article I linked.
      - zzalpha 9y ago
blablabla123 9y ago
> Because there's scientific evidence strongly suggesting otherwise. That's pretty generic, I could use that as an argument for anything. I wonder if there was ever a scientific study checking if there is a correlation between the degree of introversion and competency in a deeply technical/scientific subject. Disclaimer: I studied Physics. Having specialized in Theoretical Particle Physics, extrovert people were just not there. Actually I wrote my thesis at a professor who had quite extrovert tendencies but it turned out he was not really helpful and rather rude. (Forced extrovert?) How do you actually solve an integral by talking? It's a trick question, of course it's possible but I have never seen how extroverts solve a complicated integral while thinking loudly and discussing. How do you socialize by not talking so much? It's also possible. Communicating with body language etc. might be what makes us human actually. That said, being a strong introvert myself, I can network for hours when it's for a reason. But I rarely do that anymore because I don't see much of a point. Most people I meet through such Networking Marathons ended up in my LinkedIn/Facebook, congratulating them every few years for stuff or maybe coincidentally even being able to seek useful help sometimes. But my strongest connections I found "organically", frequenting places I have deep interest in or through common friends. With these connections I have co-founded 2 companies or given mutual help, inspiration and collaboration over years. I doubt extroverts have that very often. ;)
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Because there's scientific evidence strongly suggesting otherwise. That's not actually true; extroversion/introversion, like other normal personality axes, does not, in the evidence, seem to be a dichotomy, but instead a continuum. It's a real area in which people vary, but not a binary one. > That said, the author is using the wrong term. He's talking about social anxiety, not introversion. Note that this is a fairly common conflation that is partially reflected in the popular Meyers-Beiggs personality typing system, in which the Extroversion/Introversion axis seems to combine both the Extroversion axis and the Neuroticism axis of the somewhat better validated Big 5 system.

by lj3 9y ago

zzalpha 9y ago

Because there's scientific evidence strongly suggesting otherwise. About this you are mistaken: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion Despite these differences, a meta-analysis of 15 experience sampling studies has suggested that there is a great deal of overlap in the way that extraverts and introverts behave.[33] In these studies, participants used mobile devices to report how extraverted (e.g., bold, talkative, assertive, outgoing) they were acting at multiple times during their daily lives. Fleeson and Gallagher (2009) found that extraverts regularly behave in an introverted way, and introverts regularly behave in an extraverted way. Indeed, there was more within-person variability than between-person variability in extraverted behaviours. The key feature that distinguishes extraverts and introverts was that extraverts tend to act moderately extraverted about 5-10% more often than introverts. From this perspective, extraverts and introverts are not "fundamentally different". Rather, an "extravert" is just someone who acts more extraverted more often, suggesting that extraversion is more about what one "does" than what one "has". That article goes on to say: Humans are complex and unique, and because introversion-extraversion varies along a continuum, individuals may have a mixture of both orientations. A person who acts introverted in one situation may act extraverted in another, and people can learn to act in "counterdispositional" ways in certain situations. For example, Brian Little's Free Trait Theory [35][36] suggests that people can take on "Free Traits", behaving in ways that may not be their "first nature", but can strategically advance projects that are important to them. Together, this presents an optimistic view of what extraversion is. Rather than being fixed and stable, individuals vary in their extraverted behaviours across different moments, and can choose to act extraverted to advance important personal projects or even increase their happiness, as mentioned above. In short: The dichotomy is a false one. To imply anything else is just pop psychological BS, albeit fashionable BS right now. He's talking about social anxiety, not introversion. That's a whole other problem, and is considered an anxiety disorder. If it's resulting in career limiting behaviour, it's probably worth therapy, such as CBT, to try and resolve: http://socialphobia.org/social-anxiety-disorder-definition-symptoms-treatment-therapy-medications-insight-prognosis http://socialphobia.org/social-anxiety-disorder-definition-s...

lj3 9y ago
I mean actual scientific evidence, not self-reporting studies which are not in any way scientific or psychological studies, which are almost universally bogus. Take a look at this article. It goes into specifics about neurochemical pathways and the D4DR gene: https://musingsonmormonism.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/easily-the-most-fascintaing-and-illuminating-comparison-of-introversion-and-extroversion-ive-ever-seen/ https://musingsonmormonism.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/easily-t... > If it's resulting in career limiting behaviour, it's probably worth therapy Once again, we disagree. I've only seen anxiety disorders get worse through so called "therapy". There are ways to deal with it on your own, which is pretty much your only option anyway, unless you want to take benzos, which will irrevocably screw up your brain chemistry.
- zzalpha 9y ago
  Hmm, funny, because a little googling on that gene turned up this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine_receptor_D4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine_receptor_D4 Despite early findings of an association between the DRD4 48bp VNTR and novelty seeking (a normal characteristic of exploratory and excitable people),[24][25] a 2008 meta-analysis compared 36 published studies of novelty seeking and the polymorphism and found no effect. and goes on to say: Novelty-seeking behavior is probably mediated by several genes, and the variance attributable to DRD4 by itself is not particularly large. All that does is prove my point. If novelty-seeking, which let's all assume is a proxy for extraversion for the moment, is mediated by multiple genes, then of course there will be a spectrum of variation depending on the combination a particular person possesses. Care to try cherrypicking again? :)
  - lj3 9y ago
    You picked the first thing you could find in wikipedia and claim that refutes an article you haven't bothered to read? Who's cherry picking again? Introversion/Extroversion has nothing to do with novelty seeking. Read the article I linked.
    - zzalpha 9y ago

blablabla123 9y ago

> Because there's scientific evidence strongly suggesting otherwise. That's pretty generic, I could use that as an argument for anything. I wonder if there was ever a scientific study checking if there is a correlation between the degree of introversion and competency in a deeply technical/scientific subject. Disclaimer: I studied Physics. Having specialized in Theoretical Particle Physics, extrovert people were just not there. Actually I wrote my thesis at a professor who had quite extrovert tendencies but it turned out he was not really helpful and rather rude. (Forced extrovert?) How do you actually solve an integral by talking? It's a trick question, of course it's possible but I have never seen how extroverts solve a complicated integral while thinking loudly and discussing. How do you socialize by not talking so much? It's also possible. Communicating with body language etc. might be what makes us human actually. That said, being a strong introvert myself, I can network for hours when it's for a reason. But I rarely do that anymore because I don't see much of a point. Most people I meet through such Networking Marathons ended up in my LinkedIn/Facebook, congratulating them every few years for stuff or maybe coincidentally even being able to seek useful help sometimes. But my strongest connections I found "organically", frequenting places I have deep interest in or through common friends. With these connections I have co-founded 2 companies or given mutual help, inspiration and collaboration over years. I doubt extroverts have that very often. ;)

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Because there's scientific evidence strongly suggesting otherwise. That's not actually true; extroversion/introversion, like other normal personality axes, does not, in the evidence, seem to be a dichotomy, but instead a continuum. It's a real area in which people vary, but not a binary one. > That said, the author is using the wrong term. He's talking about social anxiety, not introversion. Note that this is a fairly common conflation that is partially reflected in the popular Meyers-Beiggs personality typing system, in which the Extroversion/Introversion axis seems to combine both the Extroversion axis and the Neuroticism axis of the somewhat better validated Big 5 system.