12 ms·
Extraverted People Talk More Abstractly, Introverts Are More Concrete (2012)
- illuminant 2y agoThis has it all wrong. Introspective people are abstract, extrospective people are concrete. Introversion/extroversion has nothing to do with abstraction. In fact, all the best known abstract geniuses throughout history are all introspective introverts. (Yeah, I'll pitch that your extrospective extrovert society would never have crawled out of the bronze age without INTJs!)
- yamrzou 2y ago> This has it all wrong. It's not. The article is about language, not thinking. See some examples here: https://www.bps.org.uk/research-digest/introverts-use-more-concrete-language-extraverts https://www.bps.org.uk/research-digest/introverts-use-more-c...
- illuminant 2y agoThe article is well written (not just some blog) so I appreciate some time has been invested, though still not buying it. I think with all of the frumpy attitude with temperaments (I don't think we should be pigeon holed either, though they're useful), these aspects have not been properly explored. Further, one point mentions color and mood as abstract, when these are actually emotional. The second and the fourth parameters of the kiersey system addresses these "perception" and "enactment" qualities. (How we internalize and express.) This is the tricky thing with studying the human mind and behavior! We're so dynamic.
- rat9988 2y agoI'm not sure someone citing pseudo science is in position to criticize researchers who spent much more time doing the real work. I'm pretty sure they know what is the tricky thing with studying the human mind and behavior. I'd really advice you to give their research a better read. Usually the state of art section of a paper is quite enlightening.
- bloqs 2y agoPlease take a less hostile tone on HN. Lest this website become reddit
- scrollaway 2y agoGP wasn’t hostile, and a good way to have this website “become” something else is to lose common sense and ignore science for pseudoscience.
- Spastche 2y agoI think introverts are less likely to talk about their ideas unless they are going to put them into practice though, so you get extroverts just blabbering about whatever whim comes to them, confusing everything
- morbicer 2y agoFeynman seemed pretty extroverted. Von Neumann as well. "All" is a pretty strong word, it's 3 times in your post and all wrong.
- jraph 2y agoThe MBTI [1] is pseudoscience. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi...
- bloqs 2y agoMBTI is pseudoscientific. The Big Five is more reliable
- Xcelerate 2y agoEvery time an article involving personality pops up, someone inevitably mentions MBTI, and shortly thereafter a "pseudoscience" or "astrology" comment follows up to accompany it (I feel like this phenomenon should have its own name—akin to Betteridge's law of headlines). And of course I always follow up on the follow-up comment to point out that none of Big Five, MBTI, or even the latest peer-reviewed attempts at temperament classification based on various dimensionality reduction techniques (e.g., ICA) perform very well. Not one. Sure, they're all more predictive than random chance, but it's not like MBTI is a horoscope and the SOTA matches the accuracy of particle physics. It would be as though someone switched from using logistic regression to a random forest, but the nature of the data is such that there's only a very minor bump in precision/recall, and both were already low to begin with. I would ask what purpose is the model being used for in this case? It's not like quant trading where even slight improvements can lead to outsized returns. If a personality model is being used to predict human behavior for any purpose other than entertainment, then I'd argue that this practice is misguided and should be discontinued in all professional settings. Whereas if the purpose is simply to have fun, then I'd argue MBTI achieves that goal much better than the other models. So what is the point of Big Five then?
- illuminant 2y agoI appreciate your view, and would not recommend these devices for qualifying or prescribing outcomes, however I have found at least one useful application: understanding why certain people have difficulty communicating with other certain people. Haven't you noticed there are plenty of instances even the most intelligent and experienced persons cannot communicate with each other? I find for instance that N/J's cannot communicate with S/P's in a more than superfluous way for instance (speaking the same language and everything.) x/J to N/x; or x/P to S/x are great. They "get" each other. The x/J to S/x just cannot. I correlate this as due to N/J using abstractions and S/P are pragmatists requiring concrete specificity. So a rough cut, sure, definitely "pseudo", however somehow practical as a guide explaining why some intelligent people do not pair well.
- readthenotes1 2y agoCan't wait to see how this is replicated. Seems like the title should talk about vaguely vs abstractly though...
- nickpsecurity 2y agoShould it be replicated abstractly or concretely? And will one be a failed replication or just the replicator’s respective?
- kinakomochidayo 2y agoI’ve always thought that it’s a difference between intuitives (abstract, and possibilties) vs sensors (concrete, and what is/was)
- SlightlyLeftPad 2y agoHmm, yes this might be a breakthrough discovery for my marriage.
- BeetleB 2y agoMy rather obvious question: is this not merely a difference in how the two camps interpret the instructions given to them?
- cromulent 2y ago(2012). I understood that Myers-Briggs and other pseudo-scientific categorizations that value direction over degree and therefore produce polarization rather than distribution ("You are 51% extrovert in most situations? Come over here with all the other extroverts") are rather discredited these days.
- ojbyrne 2y agoIs “extraverts” the English spelling?
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y agoIt might be a mondegreen
- fred123 2y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversio...
- amenhotep 2y agoI like the idea of referring to "normal" socially energetic people as extroverts and reserving extraverts for talking about the ones that are just utterly exhausting.
- gtussamh 2y agoAnd what of those who talk of abstractions concretely? You know, the mathematicians.
- kelseyfrog 2y agoAh yes, the reificationists
- Terr_ 2y ago"Wesley Salmon, what about the ROUSes?" "Reificationists Of Unusual Solidity? I don't believe the concept exists." *gets attacked*
- immibis 2y agoAnd what about those who sculpt abstractly out of concrete?
- immibis 2y agoAnd what about those who abstract concrete from the concrete plant? It had to be subtracted from the contract. The exact impact isn't a known fact. They extracted it by Amtrak.
- kazinator 2y agoThis all looks like a nice way of saying "extroverts say less considered, less precise, dumber things than introverts". > describing things that were not directly visible in the pictures I.e. making up shit about the picture, like an image-to-text AI.
- benreesman 2y agoI’ve always struggled with the extrovert/introvert dichotomy. The DSM-5 is pretty unsatisfying on this and it goes downhill from there in terms of scholarship. I think it’s more useful to parameterize situations than people: one can never step in the same river twice. These days “extrovert” seems to be asymptotically approaching “amoral charismatic” in common usage. We have nomenclature for amoral people who lead cults of personality. I appreciate the desire to re-brand this type of extravagantly self-serving storyteller, given that we put basically no one else in any position of influence, but on HN I think we can still call them assholes.
- jraph 2y ago> I’ve always struggled with the extrovert/introvert dichotomy. Yeah, I wonder if there's more to it than bullshit like the MBTI. It also doesn't seem to match what I observe of people. I don't think there really are extroverts in one side and introverts in another side, even accounting for different, finer levels. There are only if you expect to find such a split, at the cost of ending up with a wrong model for your observations. I would be happy to be proven wrong, I'm curious about topics around personality, but the domain seems riddled with pseudoscience and beliefs. I don't know where to look. I'm not interested in theories that came out from someone's ass, I want proofs that come from rigorously applied scientific method.
- a13o 2y agoSelf-identifying as an introvert or an extrovert is a limiting belief. Free yourself from this pseudo-science garbage.
- kaffekaka 2y agoI agree that forming your identity as either extroverted or introverted is a bad idea, but using extraversion/introversion as tools for understanding tendencies in your mind is very beneficial.
- analog31 2y agoIt can also expose you to bias, for instance assumptions about what kinds of jobs or tasks you are suited for. This is why I advise against self-identifying as an introvert in a business situation.
- blitzar 2y agothat is such a Libra thing to say
- contingencies 2y agoDichotomies are generally false.
- JackSlateur 2y agoYes ! Unless they are git related, in which cases they are awesome :p
- derlvative 2y agoDichotomies are generally false, whereas other forms of systematizing knowledge are more often correct.
- dmichulke 2y agoHypothesis: Introverts are more afraid of social consequences when they say something that somebody else might criticize (loudly) as wrong, hence - they speak less - they are more precise when speaking - they are more tired after social situations - they are less interesting to small talk with because they leave little room to engage (which could be done by expressing, e.g., preferences, ideas, hypotheses, jokes, ...) Another hypothesis: Extroverts made the experience in their life that at a certain point more confidence begets less criticism begets more confidence. Anyone has thoughts on this?
- bawolff 2y agoI think you are mixing up being an introvert with being socially anxious. While the two can go hand in hand, there are plenty of socially anxious extroverts and socially confident introverts.
- dmichulke 2y agoI don't think the socially anxious gain energy by behaving like extroverts. But I agree with socially confident introverts. I guess you can have more reasons to behave a given way, and it's really hard to isolate traits or narrow them down towards a definition.
- bawolff 2y ago> I don't think the socially anxious gain energy by behaving like extroverts. My point is that they are seprate traits (albeit with sone correlations). Socially anxious people don't gain energy by "behaving" like extroverts. Being an extrovert is not a behaviour.
- FeloniousHam 2y agoI think this is insightful, based on my own experience. I think the two traits are orthogonal. I'm naturally(?) extraverted, but have always been shy and am still anxious in most social situations. People would probably recognize me as extraverted, but it requires something like mental/emotional gatecrashing (or some disinhibiting agent).
- bawolff 2y agoIt seems quite a stretch to extrapolate how one describes a picture of an ambigious social situation to how abstract/concrete you talk in general.
- sjducb 2y agoTalking abstractly is usually better in social situations. Your audience can get the main point really easily, and if they want more details then there are lots of questions they can ask. Diving into concrete details is bad because. - Explaining details takes time and can lead to monologues. You want to be sure that people want the details before you do this - Understanding the details can take a lot of effort so it’s tiring for the other person, and you risk making them feel stupid if they don’t understand. I think that this experiment is showing that extroverts have better social skills.
- mewpmewp2 2y agoAlthough far more frequently they will talk abstractly enough that they are not really saying anything, and they just keep going. When the point could in this case would have been possible to make with 2 short detailed sentences. I am afraid to ask any questions, because I think they will not understand the question anyway, and it will just be another reason to keep saying whatever they want to say with no meaning at all. I think in work settings, many extraverted managers are like that. Just so much time in meetings spent on this yapping. Ultimately I think they just do it because it gives them feeling of control, authority and visibility. Because people will see someone with a lot to say as higher status.
- lolinder 2y agoMore likely they do it because the social interaction is an end in itself for them, so dragging it out doesn't feel like a waste of time.
- mewpmewp2 2y agoThere's a productive reason to do it for themselves, because it indicates higher status, and that is good for their career. It's probably subconscious and naturally rewarding for a lot of them for sure. But overall for team productivity, it hurts since more time in meetings, more energy and time wasted, less time spent on development. As an introvert I would find those meetings very draining, but coding is stimulating and energizing.
- lieks 2y agoAs an introvert, it's really annoying when I'm talking to someone else and tell them something, only to be told I'm wrong, with no arguments or data whatsoever. If I wasn't certain, I wouldn't be talking about it in the first place.
- kaffekaka 2y agoI feel exactly the same. And it is obvious to myself, but I have realized that I must let other people know this, since many people are much less stringent in handling certainty, confidence etc. A gross oversimplification: some people seem to throw confident statements of facts around just to see what sticks. Regarding introversion and fear of social consequences, I am definitely introverted but have been told that I speak my opinion too much sometimes, so I cannot agree that introversion is related to fear of making statements other may object to. In my case at least.
- mensetmanusman 2y agoYou can be right about a specific and wrong about its role in the big picture/abstraction. Left brain dominance if a thing.
- hansonkd 2y agoAlso the flip side that a lot of people miss: You can be right about the big picture/abstraction and wrong about a specific. Just because you argued or proved part of an argument wrong doesn't make the whole thing wrong.
- jalapenos 2y agoBest technique I learned for this is to get good at remembering the points you made clearly, then counter-attacking using specifics, "oh so on [point X], what have you found to be the case?". Basically you're trying to force them into positions where they reveal they don't know what they're talking about. They'll then commonly start trying to squirm out of it by talking around the topic or using dishonest techniques. Each time you do, you just make sure to softly bring attention to the fact, in your very next response, that they haven't addressed your previous point, and the importance of it. You never let them sidestep or squirm away for a split second. Their game is to go vague and talk shit, yours is to keep asking for details and pointing out why they're needed, revealing to others that they're a "fake it til you make it" idiot, until they either back off or others do something about them. Doesn't work though if they're in a clear position of power over you, as this behavior is indicative either of stupidity or narcissism, and in which case you nod your head, and save your energy for breaking out.
- gpvos 2y ago(2012)
- cryptica 2y agoI think what is meant is that many extroverts don't fully understand what they're talking about. Their communication often consists of catchphrases which sound good and clever, superficially. But by prioritizing form over substance, they don't allow themselves to develop a nuanced, in-depth understanding of anything. They tend to fall back on socially accepted axioms as opposed to thinking from first principles. Catchphrases and first-principles thinking don't mix. Catchphrases are more geared for triggering emotional responses. I find that, on average, extroverts don't have the same level of rational, critical thinking as introverts do because everything they say and hear passes through some kind of emotional layer. For example, with many extroverts, what I've found is that if they tend to get defensive when you're trying to share ideas and they often don't seem to understand nuanced arguments. I believe this is because, to the extrovert, the primary purpose of communication is to exchange emotions, not information. Also, when an introvert debates an extrovert, they're not playing the same game. The introvert tends to be laser-focused on crafting the most logical arguments possible. On the other hand, the extrovert is laser-focused on crafting the most palatable argument which they believe most people will agree with. The extrovert is laser-focused on triggering desired emotional responses. Introverts tend to craft arguments as if trying to convince god himself. Extroverts know that this isn't how you win debates; they know who their audience is and what their emotional trigger points are. They know what narratives they need to invoke to activate blind-spots and neutralize opposing arguments. IMO, the reason people are extroverted is mostly because they enjoy the emotional validation which social interactions provide (both inbound and outbound). Unfortunately, this tends to cloud their judgment. That said, the zero percent interest rate economy has given extroverts a massive advantage since it has made it possible to profit from emotional thinking... People made a lot of money from companies like Facebook, Twitter, Bitcoin, Dogecoin, Bored Apes NFTs, real estate in trendy inner-city suburbs... Most people got into these assets with an investment thesis of "My friends agree this is cool!" In a proper, functioning economy that kind of investment thesis typically wouldn't pan out... Certainly not to such extent as we have witnessed.
- aeonik 2y agoI recognize what your saying here as a real phenomenon, and there is definitely a correlation with extraversion and introversion, but I've met a few people who don't fit this rule. I.e. Extraverted logical and introverted emotional.
- drewcoo 2y agoIntrovert/extrovert is a false dichotomy. https://www.simplypsychology.org/what-is-an-introverted-extrovert.html https://www.simplypsychology.org/what-is-an-introverted-extr... Like horoscope signs, though, we all know ours and confirmation bias kicks in so the predicted behaviors start to seem more true. Just knowing the traits we're "supposed to have" can cause us to change our behavior to act that way. I also think abstract/concrete is often more varied in real life. Personally, I use abstractions often, think ambiguity adds layers of meaning, and hate it when people start stacking hypotheticals on one another because then entire conversations happen about nonsense. So which camp does that put me in?
- jalapenos 2y agoOr: "extraverts talk more shit"
- jonahbenton 2y agoThese single task correlative behavior studies are interesting but useless. So much behavior is wholly contextual and inferring "personality type"/identity labels from them is deceptive and limiting.
- neilv 2y ago> Participants who scored higher in extraversion tended to describe the photos in terms that were rated by an independent coder as more abstract. For example, they used more "state verbs" (e.g. Jack loves Sue) and adjectives, and they admitted to engaging in more interpretation – describing things that were not directly visible in the pictures. How do we distinguish accurate intuitive thinking, from hallucinating or BS-ing? Is one way to evaluate the truth of the assertion? For example, if the subject says "Jack loves Sue"... are those their names (or is the subject using an idiom, or making a cultural reference), and (unless metaphor) does the male in the photo actually love the female in the photo? The researchers might not know, a priori, that the man in the photo loves the woman in the photo, but if they could get an authoritative answer to that, then they might find that the subject is picking up on cues they didn't, or they might find that the subject is just talking out of their buttocks. Would be interesting to know how accurate social intuition correlates with introversion and extraversion. Think of the clickbait value -- gasp -- of a research finding that there's a sizable class of introverts who understand more of what's going on in social situations, than many extraverts just cruising on unwarranted/indifferent confidence.
- vishnugupta 2y agoI’m probably about 80-85% introvert. Whenever someone speaks makes a sweeping generalization I ask for examples. So I guess the article is sort of correct.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- cafard 2y agoA boss was an extrovert, not really a favorable example of one. My impression is that he started talking and hoped that it would all make sense in the end. A peer of his was quite introverted, and seemed to start talking only when he knew what the end of the paragraph would be. It was amusing to see them in meetings, and it clearly wore on the introvert.
- erinaceousjones 2y agoSample size of 40 people, all from the same company and same workplace. Whilst results are interesting, I'm not a big fan of that press release making it "new research has found" when it could do with a few dozen study reproductions at larger and more diverse scales followed by a meta-analysis. 40 people is a tiny amount to eke any statistical significance from.