> 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, t

> 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.