This reads like a jumble of fragmented maybes. The first thing that bugs me is the casual spelling of "extravert," where "extrovert" is the common spelling unl

This reads like a jumble of fragmented maybes. The first thing that bugs me is the casual spelling of "extravert," where "extrovert" is the common spelling unless you're referring specifically to the Jungian interpretation of the trait(s). The second thing that bugs me is the "acts like" construction. The students in the experiment were indeed acting when they explicitly adopted traits they don't usually express for a period of time, but to also use "acting" throughout the rest of the essay as a fundamental organizing principle is to assume a person's motivations absent evidence, vs. sometihng like "appears to," which maintains the relationship that a person's motivations are a matter of interpretation by the observer. He gives a nod to neuroplasticity toward the end, which...fine, but it appears to be a euphemism for "nobody is really anything" when balanced against the rest of the text.