5 ms·

This has it all wrong. Introspective people are abstract, extrospective people are concrete. Introversion/extroversion has nothing to do with abstraction. In

This 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    I'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 ago
      Please take a less hostile tone on HN. Lest this website become reddit
      - scrollaway 2y ago
        GP 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 ago
I 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 ago
Feynman 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 ago
The 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 ago
MBTI is pseudoscientific. The Big Five is more reliable
- Xcelerate 2y ago
  Every 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 ago
    I 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.

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 ago
The 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 ago
  I'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 ago
    Please take a less hostile tone on HN. Lest this website become reddit
    - scrollaway 2y ago
      GP 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 ago

I 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 ago

Feynman 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 ago

The 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 ago

MBTI is pseudoscientific. The Big Five is more reliable

Xcelerate 2y ago
Every 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 ago
  I 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.