The Negative Link Between Extraversion and Perceived Listening
journals.sagepub.com
journals.sagepub.com
> Furthermore, interaction partners assume that extraversion is positively associated with a greater ability to modify one’s self-presentation.
It seems like a can't-win situation for any extroverted people who are actually good listeners.
One, it's unexpected that someone seems to actually be interested in you. This may be projection as well, of course, because I am not actually interested in most people. People ask "How's your weekend been?" to me, but I don't ask that of others myself - one, I don't care, and two, how someone else spends their spare time is none of my business.
And two, it's awareness of these interpersonal techniques (e.g. Carnegie's book) to make friends, influence people, and sell them something - in other words, ulterior motives instead of genuine interest. Building rapport. It feels like an act.
Three, hopefully an edge case, I knew one guy who made it really overt that he only asked you how your day / weekend was so he could talk about his. I wasn't playing because I thought he was a prick, and I didn't care about his weekend, and was uncomfortable talking about my spare time, especially because there was no genuine interest but instead a segue into boasting.
> Ut recitem tibi nostra rogas epigrammata. Nolo. Non audire, Celer, sed recitare cupis.
> You ask that I recite to you my epigrams. I refuse: you don't want to listen, Celer, but to recite your own.
---
It's not the same, but a similar thing I want to mention in case reading the parent comment makes awkward people feel awkward about asking people about their days in case it's perceived as mercenary: I have a friend who is a bit ADHD-ish, and gets caught up with his own interests. I greatly enjoy talking to him regardless, but I know when he stops himself and asks me about what's going on in my life that's a very conscious decision on his part - and I appreciate it all the more for that.
Bingo. Not everyone is interested in medieval history, but some are fascinated by it. Some people don't care about the specifics of their friends'/colleagues' weekends, others are genuinely curious. To each their own.
And, yeah, some people are just socially engineering or, or just waiting for their turn to talk (John Mulaney has a funny bit about that)... but it's not all of us, I promise. And I think those people are fairly likely to identify themselves via other adjacent failings of character.
Sometimes those people creep me out and sometimes it forms a lasting bond. But I fully understand what you mean when you say you perceive it as BS. It just sets off alarm bells and makes my brain pay way more attention to decide whether they are being genuine or not (and if they are, to find out why the apparent bond is so asymmetrical).
I guess it really depends on how 'deep' the question is. If it is the 'how are your kids/how was your weekend?', I typically play along, because people expect a performance art ( or at least did pre-covid ). I might even make something up if I feel frisky.
But I don't really recall an adult asking me deep/attentive questions during work hours ( sadly, it is not a joke; my in-office interactions were highly scripted ).
Still, you made me think about the 'deep/attentive' questions from others. A decade or so ago, co-worker brought his kids to work. One kid was brutal and his questions made me re-evaluate some of my basic assumptions about my work/life balance.
edit: Obviously, I have no idea how I would have reacted if an adult stranger asked me the same questions.
Yep, as an INTJ, I find myself often repeating pertinent points because I dont see any lights-going-on moment in their faces, the negative for me is that I've been labelled by some as having dementia for repeating myself! I just dont see people reacting to the significance of some of the things I've said to them though and thats worrying when its authority type figures.
Classic example, kidney disease test uses creatinine as an indicator of estimated Glomular Filtration Rate (eGFR test). Things that elevate creatine and its breakdown product creatinine, is vitamin D and creatine body building supplementation. Vets and GP's use these creatinine tests to prescribe a whole host of drugs and treatments yet the lab test cant quantify and account for the Vit D and Creatine supplementation. My vet was surprised I give my dog creatine, but about 30% can be destroyed by heat and the raw diet makes huskies perform better by about 20%, ergo creatine supplement for dogs on cooked food can help get them closer to what they would have had on a raw diet.
Even GP's dont ask if someone is doing creatine supplementation at least on the NHS here in the UK. For the record you need to two weeks off Creatine supplementation for the lab test to become accurate and longer like at least 8-12 weeks for Vit D (Vit D has a 4 week half life) to get out of your system before arriving at a more accurate creatinine lab test. If GP doesn't ask the right questions, they could put your through unnecessary treatments which is a waste for taxpayers and the patient.
And thats just one example out of loads.
It's pretty hard to see what your long (in this forum), detailed anecdote about your dog has to do with the conversation at hand.
This is not intended as any sort of slight, but based on this comment alone I would suspect you may have Aspergers.
Then instead of sitting down and engaging a few brain cells on abstract thinking, you blame the poster for having Aspberger's because you can't make the topical leap.
This happens all the time in topics where one can actually be bothered to accrue significant knowledge, in my experience.
I didn't blame the GP; friends who have conversed with me in that manner (only 2) have had diagnoses of Asperger's [which is why I chose that term over ASD].
FWIW there were several interesting things in the comment, and I'm glad they made it.
I'm more used to talking to computers tbh.
I can also relate to feeling as though people are not getting what I'm saying. I really wish more people were active listeners, but it's one of those things you can't really ask someone else to do gracefully.
I feel like the best you can do is make sure you've designed your sentence so that the full impact gets through. Example, telling my doctor that I was an 8 or 9 out of 10 in pain was met with shrugs. Saying that I was woken at night with waves of pain that felt like I was being stabbed with a knife got their attention.
There's no emotion in text or little anyway and some people I think are more focused on their surroundings or body language, beside text (sight) is the fastest input into the brain.
>I feel like the best you can do is make sure you've designed your sentence so that the full impact gets through
And this is another point, GP's dont do a saliva test to see how high our cortisol/adrenaline levels are so someone in a high stressed situation wont feel pain like someone who is relaxed so then if the GP/paramedic asks the question of "1-10 10 being most painful how painful is something?", they have failed by not measuring the circulating levels of cortisol and adrenaline which is masking the pain level the brain is trying to convey to the GP.
Put another way, you go to the dentist and have a filling, the dentist injects whatever to numb the pain but some patients need more than they amount/kg. Why is this? Do they have a healthy liver which metabolises the drug faster, better blood circulation, higher levels of bilirubin or high levels of manganese which improves the nervous system?
So many variables to factor into a single or double ml shot of painkiller!
But yes, great point on body language. My saying 9 calmly through gritted teeth was received differently from my gesticulated comment on waves of pain..
It's very counter intuitive to question someone's motives when their external presentation is so disarming. Undoubtedly this keeps you from some genuine relationships as well though.
As adults, it is turtles all the way down..
This doesn't mean anyone who is extroverted can't be a good listener, regardless of how you define it, but it does suggest that whatever this pattern is in the paper, it's the thing that matters most?
So I agree with you in the sense that merely letting the other person speak and giving them enough attention to appear like you're listening is still putting their interests first. Though, if you're already there, why not actually listen? Or if you really don't want to listen, sounds like not a great relationship...
If you don't lord it over them you can generally get away with being pretty blunt. Judge but give no consequence otherwise. Like, you were definitely the assole here or wrong to do that but I feel ya.
It's even OK with me to switch from the first strategy to the second mid-conversation if the situation changes, with something like "Sorry, I was on autopilot for a minute. I think I'm following now."
Obviously no one expects perfect recall, especially of conversations from some time ago. But active listening and remembering are important in building up an accurate picture of the other person, and deep mirroring relies on deep and useful insight.
It's a completely different kind of interaction to superficial nodding and mirroring.
Related to this, I have never believed that (at least extreme) extroverts understand introverts in any deep sense. They tend to see us as lacking something vital (this constant social exchange of what is often mostly meaningless information). Introverts do understand extroverts though - we know the interactions are feeding a need in them not unlike the need for a fix of a someone addicted to an addictive, although not enormously harmful, drug.
> Introverts do understand extroverts though - we know the interactions are feeding a need in them not unlike the need for a fix of a someone addicted to an addictive, although not enormously harmful, drug.
These sound like the nihilistic words of neither an introvert or an extrovert but a misanthrope. I wonder if you recognize the irony intrinsic in stereotyping people into the categorically questionable binary separation between introvert and extrovert in a manner that favors and gets revenge on those "pesky" extroverts, as it's exactly the kind of treatment that the wrong members (who usually wear it with undue pride) of the "extrovert" apply destructively and quite regularly.
My opinion is that the impulse to accurately model the behavior of people this broadly, belies an inability to accurately model any of it at all.
That's not to say I might not also be a misanthrope. You're not the first to venture such a diagnosis. I most certainly am not a nihilist, however.
This is also true from my observation as well. I would go a step further and say there doesn't even need to be an exchange as some extroverts simply like to have words come from their mouth without regard to what is said in reply to those words (which is what you are saying but put a more exact way). To be clear this doesn't mean 'all' nothing is 'all'. But the pattern is what I have observed for sure.
> extroverts understand introverts in any deep sense. They tend to see us as lacking something vital (this constant social exchange of what is often mostly meaningless information). I
Again I agree. It seems to be accepted that the right way to be is to be social and to interact and if you don't do that you are 'off' in some way. ie 'Not normal'.
> Introverts do understand extroverts though - we know the interactions are feeding a need in them not unlike the need for a fix of a someone addicted to an addictive, although not enormously harmful, drug.
The reason I would say that introverts understand is because they are taking the time to observe and think and not so much what they will say in the interaction.
To illustrate the point take the experience of Dan Ariely:
https://www.thecut.com/2015/07/terrible-accident-led-to-dan-...
"He spent the next three years in and out of hospitals and surgeries, and, he writes, “since I had little else to do and badly needed distraction, I began to notice and record things.” "
If you are talking you are less likely to notice than if you are not talking. (I am sure others can bring up apocryphal examples of the same point that I am making).
> "Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism have distinct personality profiles. Specifically, grandiose narcissism correlates positively with Extraversion and negatively with Neuroticism, whereas vulnerable narcissism showed a reverse associations with these traits. Additionally, both types of narcissism have common antagonistic core as they are negatively related to Agreeableness."
Being agreeable if one has to engage in small talk conversation is the best option. Probably not the time to get into the optimal technological approaches in your particular field, even if that's what you've been thinking about all day.
Making small talk is such a chore... and 'uncomfortable silence' doesn't need to be uncomfortable... and please, Lord, preserve us from the amateur therapist out to demonstrate what a good listener they are.
I already know my stories, yours are new and exciting.
This went really weird places at times. People thought I was deeply interested in them because I happened to remember them.
My best guess: humans are designed for a little village or tribe of around 150 people and we really aren't that good at navigating social anything outside that circumstance.
Edit: I say that in part because I have read that Napoleon remembered personal details like that and it's part of why his troops were insanely loyal and would literally die for the man. I've read he liberally abused their assumption that he must deeply care because he could remember stuff about them.
Some people just remember such things without trying. It's other people who decide it means x, y or z when it doesn't.
Exercised as such, I find it is "best reserved" for just about every conversation you have.
If you're interested in how other people can present an environment for human growth, his work is still as relevant today as ever.
I do think there's a cultural distinction as well. Americans have a very intense small talk conversational culture. If you stop and think, it's a sign of weakness, so people are very good at filling the void if need be. In other cultures, speaking prematurely without anything good to say can be worse than saying nothing.
In Finland for example small talk is seen as a waste of time. A famous example of course being Kimi Räikkönen :)
Active listening is a black art (black? white?) -because it can be overbearing done wrong. It really depends how its done. "I know, I know" can be like "stop schooling me" receiver side, when in fact sender side its 'Yes, I am here, I agree, I follow, I am listening'
Aside from (as an extrovert) finding this helpful in understanding, as someone with ADHD it also stops my mind wandering from listening.
Done right, it deepens communication and a sense of feeling understood in a true sense.
I know it was true. I also know you did not know that.
Though, now I have learned they more than earn their money.
Example that hit the front page yesterday: https://jolynch.github.io/posts/distsys_shibboleths/ I've seen many of these "negative shibboleths" said by salespeople shoveling database products to secure the sale. They lied, they knew they lied, and they lied to worship at the altar of the almighty dollar.
But just from what I can read seems very very stretched theory. How do you even say with confidence that a person is 100% intro/extrovert and from there all the theories built on top go down the drain.... Even the terms extrovert and introvert were hijacked by mainstream culture to mean outgoing and not outgoing people which don't paint the proper picture of human behavior in my opinion... That's just me though.