4 ms·

Is there a good test for being introvert or extrovert? I have always imagined that an extrovert just has a better ability and finds it easier to express his/her

by mitko 17y ago

Is there a good test for being introvert or extrovert? I have always imagined that an extrovert just has a better ability and finds it easier to express his/her emotions. However, the Wikipedia definition sounds more like a description of egoist/altruist: Introversion is "the state of or tendency toward being wholly or predominantly concerned with and interested in one's own mental life". Extraversion is "the act, state, or habit of being predominantly concerned with and obtaining gratification from what is outside the self"

jasonfried 17y ago
I've found this piece describes introverts well. Definitely resonated with me (a definite introvert): http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200303/rauch http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200303/rauch
- alanthonyc 17y ago
  Awesome article. "[introverts]...tend to think before talking, whereas extroverts tend to think by talking, which is why their meetings never last less than six hours." I can definitely be pretty active at parties and stuff, but this is something that I've learned to do as I realized how being my "natural" self turns people off. I guess you can say that my social stamina is low and I need to rest more than extroverts do.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
j_baker 17y ago
An egoist is a person who is concerned with how good they are. Whether they're an introvert or extravert would only define where they project that feeling. For instance, an egoist introvert would likely spend all day thinking about how good they are to themselves. An egoist extravert would spend all day telling everyone else how good they are.
Goladus 17y ago
Is there a good test? If by "good" you mean "scientific" then the answer is certainly no. There are tests where you answer questions about how you think about various different kinds of real-life scenarios and will assign you to one or the other. The tests use casual and vague definitions and the label is assigned based on entirely subjective self-measurements. "Do you enjoy being the center of attention?" Since everyone shares traits of introverts and extraverts, it's easy to take a test and read the vague description they give you and think "oh yeah that sounds like me."
- j_baker 17y ago
  I don't know that it's fair to say that the MBTI isn't scientific. Do you agree with the scientific assumptions and methods? Maybe not, but that's a lot different from not being based in science at all.
  - Goladus 17y ago
    MBTI classification is unscientific because there are 16 pre-defined categories with complex definitions and the tests filter 100% of test-takers into one of those categories. There is zero possibility that a test will fail to find the appropriate label. There is no way to prove the test wrong. You can show that an animal was missclassified as an invertebrate by showing the flaws in the test that failed to identify the spinal cord that exists. If you disagree with your MBTI label, you can just take the test again and answer the questions differently, at which point your label changes. Or does it? Nobody knows, because MBTI is a game masquerading as science. When zoologists label something 'frog' or 'mouse', they observe specific traits that differentiate the mice from frogs and group them into categories. The specific observable traits and the definition of the species are essentially the same thing. It's possible to discover an animal with traits that correspond neither to frog, or to mouse. It's possible (though obviously unlikely because our skills at observing and describing physical traits in animals are far superior to our skills at observing complex patterns in our own behavior) for a test to mis-classify a frog as a mouse, and that a subsequent test will show the flaws of the original test. MBTI doesn't do that. MBTI tests assign unspecific predefined labels to test-takers, and that's why I say it is not science. There is no real discovery.
alanthonyc 17y ago
The definition that I've found most useful is that introverts get recharged when they are by themselves, whereas extroverts get recharged when they are around people. This separates a person's interpersonal skills from their intro- or extro-vertedness. This definition is useful for me because I'm pretty outgoing in "party" situations, but eventually need to spend alone time, recharging, I guess. On the other hand, I have friends who hate to be alone.
- m0th87 17y ago
  That's what I've always heard as well. I think this might be a useful reference as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion In terms of a test, the MBTI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator) is pretty good IMO.

by mitko 17y ago

jasonfried 17y ago

I've found this piece describes introverts well. Definitely resonated with me (a definite introvert): http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200303/rauch http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200303/rauch

alanthonyc 17y ago
Awesome article. "[introverts]...tend to think before talking, whereas extroverts tend to think by talking, which is why their meetings never last less than six hours." I can definitely be pretty active at parties and stuff, but this is something that I've learned to do as I realized how being my "natural" self turns people off. I guess you can say that my social stamina is low and I need to rest more than extroverts do.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

j_baker 17y ago

An egoist is a person who is concerned with how good they are. Whether they're an introvert or extravert would only define where they project that feeling. For instance, an egoist introvert would likely spend all day thinking about how good they are to themselves. An egoist extravert would spend all day telling everyone else how good they are.

Goladus 17y ago

Is there a good test? If by "good" you mean "scientific" then the answer is certainly no. There are tests where you answer questions about how you think about various different kinds of real-life scenarios and will assign you to one or the other. The tests use casual and vague definitions and the label is assigned based on entirely subjective self-measurements. "Do you enjoy being the center of attention?" Since everyone shares traits of introverts and extraverts, it's easy to take a test and read the vague description they give you and think "oh yeah that sounds like me."

j_baker 17y ago
I don't know that it's fair to say that the MBTI isn't scientific. Do you agree with the scientific assumptions and methods? Maybe not, but that's a lot different from not being based in science at all.
- Goladus 17y ago
  MBTI classification is unscientific because there are 16 pre-defined categories with complex definitions and the tests filter 100% of test-takers into one of those categories. There is zero possibility that a test will fail to find the appropriate label. There is no way to prove the test wrong. You can show that an animal was missclassified as an invertebrate by showing the flaws in the test that failed to identify the spinal cord that exists. If you disagree with your MBTI label, you can just take the test again and answer the questions differently, at which point your label changes. Or does it? Nobody knows, because MBTI is a game masquerading as science. When zoologists label something 'frog' or 'mouse', they observe specific traits that differentiate the mice from frogs and group them into categories. The specific observable traits and the definition of the species are essentially the same thing. It's possible to discover an animal with traits that correspond neither to frog, or to mouse. It's possible (though obviously unlikely because our skills at observing and describing physical traits in animals are far superior to our skills at observing complex patterns in our own behavior) for a test to mis-classify a frog as a mouse, and that a subsequent test will show the flaws of the original test. MBTI doesn't do that. MBTI tests assign unspecific predefined labels to test-takers, and that's why I say it is not science. There is no real discovery.

alanthonyc 17y ago

The definition that I've found most useful is that introverts get recharged when they are by themselves, whereas extroverts get recharged when they are around people. This separates a person's interpersonal skills from their intro- or extro-vertedness. This definition is useful for me because I'm pretty outgoing in "party" situations, but eventually need to spend alone time, recharging, I guess. On the other hand, I have friends who hate to be alone.

m0th87 17y ago
That's what I've always heard as well. I think this might be a useful reference as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion In terms of a test, the MBTI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator) is pretty good IMO.