3 ms·

I mean actual scientific evidence, not self-reporting studies which are not in any way scientific or psychological studies, which are almost universally bogus.

by 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
    Sure, but the argumentation in that blog post is that novelty seeking is a proxy for dopamine sensitivity, and dopamine sensitivity may be linked to extraverted/introverted tendencies, hence why that gene study is relevant. But, as I noted, since multiple genes likely regulate for dopamine sensitivity (not to mention things like sleep, diet, etc), there are many factors which regulate those tendencies, and it's false to claim there's a dichotomy and that people are fixed to one tendency or the other.

by lj3 9y ago

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
  Sure, but the argumentation in that blog post is that novelty seeking is a proxy for dopamine sensitivity, and dopamine sensitivity may be linked to extraverted/introverted tendencies, hence why that gene study is relevant. But, as I noted, since multiple genes likely regulate for dopamine sensitivity (not to mention things like sleep, diet, etc), there are many factors which regulate those tendencies, and it's false to claim there's a dichotomy and that people are fixed to one tendency or the other.