4 ms·

I’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’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.