Introversion is not the opposite of extroversion
joshuaspodek.com
joshuaspodek.com
Introversion and extroversion have nothing to do with shyness or how outgoing you are. It has to do with where you derive energy and I disagree with the author of the linked article that introverts just need to practice social interaction. As the book points out, introversion and extroversion can be determined very early in life, she mentions a study where infants who were more reactive to stimulus turned out to be introverts and infants who were chill turned out to be extroverts:
-------
“The four-month-olds who thrashed their arms like punk rockers did so not because they were extroverts in the making, but because their little bodies reacted strongly—they were “high-reactive”—to new sights, sounds, and smells,” Cain writes. “The quiet infants were silent not because they were future introverts—just the opposite—but because they had nervous systems that were unmoved by novelty.” These “high-reactive” babies grow up to be children who need a lot of time to decompress after school, need time alone to be creative and explore. They are introverts, not anti-social, Cain explains. There is a big difference.
-------
This is, of course, not a useful thing to point out to someone who is weak (or an introvert). I am a firm believer in two things: Carol Dweck's idea of the "growth mindset", and that our energy is best spent on things we can control and not on things we cannot. Introverts can train themselves to have social interactions drain them less. They may never be loquacious, but good enough is good enough.
At a certain level, it feels like there is a social bloc with a plurality, who pressures all other groups to conform for its convenience. I don't feel the need to do that. Expecting me to act like them makes about as much sense as me expecting them to learn to juggle on a unicycle, or fly model aircraft, or play a particular game, or read books by a certain author, or practice hobby gunsmithing, or perform amateur stand-up comedy.
Why? Why would anyone expect an "introvert" to pretend to be more like "extroverts"? What they should be doing is socializing in a non-painful way with people who share their interests.
"Introverted" and "extroverted" refer to the external behavioral differences that one can use to categorize people. "Introvert" and "extrovert" are different terms and more refer to people's mental focus, or Jung's explanation of where they get their mental energy. But you can't conflate the two. The most talkative person I've known classified himself as a introvert. I, on the other hand, can be extroverted, but I don't particularly like people nor do I get so much out of interacting with them that I feel compelled to be extroverted. In other words, "introverted extroverts" are the shy people - "introverted introverts" don't really give a damn.
But the OP's article is certainly useful; I'd say he just needs to be more precise about the terms he uses and how it's primarily about the behavioral aspects of interacting with people. The idea that it is "draining" to use underdeveloped skills made sense to me.
I derive my energy from food and sleep ... Jokes aside, I have no clue what people are talking about when they say this. I don't feel energized by talking to people, and I don't feel energized by doing alone-time activities. I don't even see what energy has anything to do with having or not having interaction.
I also don't think "deriving energy" is anywhere near being a measurable scientific event but rather an ill-defined handwavy concept.
I might be mistaken for the non-energy model of an extrovert during one of these sessions, obviously being e.g. shy or retiring wouldn't work, nor is that in my nature.
The difference I perceived between my extroverted salesmen partners and myself was that I wasn't good for much of anything the next day, as I "recharged my batteries" or whatever you want to call it; call it an "ill-defined handwavy concept" not particularly "a measurable scientific event", but I know my productivity, how it works and doesn't, going back to long before I became a programmer. So I firmly believe this phenomena exists, even if you yourself are in-between both of these "types".
They don't get particularly "recharged" in that vague sense, but they never get discharged by the opposite either.
Extraverts are described as being "higher energy" rather than getting energy from X rather than Y.
As I understand it, the big five is one of the better regarded personality measures among personality psychologists, and "Extraversion" (sic.) is one of the measures. Psychological measures are generally better regarded if they produce more repeatable results (Briggs-Meyers, which despite being discredited is still popular, also uses a -- somewhat different -- extroversion scale).
If I spend a day with people outside my close friends and family, I definitely need some "quiet time" to recover. For instance, on work trips to another office you invariably get invited out for dinner/drinks after the working day, and I'd much rather sit in my hotel room eating roomservice.
I guess what I'm saying is that it's not so much that one side is a source of energy. It's just normal. It's more that the opposite side is draining.
Energy is a metaphor for the "stress level," of the individual for lack of a better term.
On my last test, the facilitator explained the energy/stress aspect with a number of examples like your dinner party. She also mentioned people are naturally one or the other, not 50/50.
I realized that my natural inclination was introversion. I believe that what I perceived as my extroverted side was learned through a social upbringing to engage others, which is beneficial. There are a number of social/extroverted things that I sincerely enjoy but I walk away exhausted.
Wikipedia states that the 'energy explanation' is a characterization by a few popular writers: "Some popular writers have characterized introverts as people whose energy tends to expand through reflection and dwindle during interaction." - Wikipedia (Introvert)
I've seen the 'energy explanation' repeated in social media like hundreds of times. They start by saying that everyone who belives that introversion is the opposite of extroversion is false, even though they're themselves focusing on a theory fully supported only by popular writers.
Perhaps in 10 years the classical definition of the word 'introvert' is lost and the 'energy explanation' wins, because for some reason it spreads like wildfire in social media. My own gut-feeling is that 'introvertism' has been high-status social quality in certain social circles (e.g. 'nerds'), and now some people feel like they want to attribute it to themselves.
And might as well mention that asocial is a more fitting word than anti-social if the intent is to describe lack of willingness to participate in social environments. "Anti-social" is better if one is describing behaviour that is socially destructive, like violence.
<insert "but languages evolve" reply here>
More modern view, which should be a blend of Minsky's models of "agencies" in the brain, and neuro-anatomic findings that a brain consists of multitude of highly specialized areas (which could have its deficits) and the notion that genetic predispositions could be compensated in some extent by environmental conditioning and cognitive re-training, should suggest meaninglessness of such articles.
Graphing two meaningless categories orthogonality instead of on a single line is a nice trick, and it seems like there is a new information to be read from it, but it is just a trick - replacing one vastly oversimplified generalization with seemingly more correct one, which, in fact, as meaningless as previous one.
Anecdotally, I identify with this much more closely than other analyses. So much so that this is a perspective altering epiphany-class insight. Really good stuff.
Thank you for your comment. The perspective change came to me over years of personal effort, observation, and finding so little basis in the Or view. It's gratifying to see someone describe it as you did. I hope it helps.
That's not completely true. For one thing, there are a lot of studies that have found correlations between introversion/extroversion (especially as defined by the Big 5 personality model) and behavior. That alone says that the term is not "meaningless." Just check any research journal for the keywords "introvert OR extrover big 5."
Here's what seems to be happening: The tests are measuring attributes that tend to go together, but do not always go together. Either you are typically outspoken in large groups you don't know well, or your are typically reserved in such groups. That's one attribute. Either you are typically drained by social interaction, or it typically invigorates you. That's another. These two attributes are correlated closely enough that research finds results, but there are probably exceptions.
Personality researchers will be the first to admit that personality is complex. One of the problems in research is that the more complex your model becomes, the harder it is to test and validate. We continue to use overly-simplistic models because they are validated by research that tells us we're measuring something; no one is claiming we're measuring it completely or perfectly.
I also happen to think the author's model is overly-simplistic, but that he's correctly identified the problem.
I suspect you meant to make claims about plausibility or truth within scientific discourse rather than about the meanings of words.
Same thing with "flow" - if you can't do your work because of extremely minor distractions like people walking by your desk, are you actually good at it? If it takes you 12 hours to get into the zone, whose fault is that?
I have never adapted to strange situations very quickly because I'm somewhat haphazard to trusting the unknown. It really grates me to hear people accept their lack of social ability as a given, when the fact of the matter is, the more you throw yourself out there, and make strange conversation comfortable, the less energy it will take next time. Same goes with riding a bike, or driving a car. Get used to it, and you won't be as drained next time. Everyone starts at a different point due to upbringing and aggregate social experience. Like anything, training helps make it easier next time. This goes for sociality no different than programming.
Do you expect people who swallow swords to be able to do it when someone slaps their back every five minutes?
Introverts are drained by social activity. Extroverts are energized by social activity.
Your type then drives your behavior, if you are near one of the ends of the spectrum. Extroverts will tend to be more outgoing because it is what energizes them. Introverts will tend to be less so, because they are drained by social activity and need time to recharge with solitary activities.
My wife is an introvert. We find parties and big social activities exhausting in very different ways. Her, because it involves a lot of social interaction she doesn't want to do. Me, because I feel I must go around and charm everyone, which is actually very tiring.
What's more, "forcing" me to choose sides, and then using it for some sort of employment decision, will result in a mistake.
Maybe there should be two scales, where it's more credible that there are actual opposites:
1. Enjoys group activity, or doesn't.
2. Enjoys activities involving concentration, or doesn't.
Introverts can enjoy group activity--they just have a capacity for it, that runs down as they use it, and then they tire of group activity (even if they were enjoying it) and must recharge by being alone.
Extroverts can enjoy solitary activity--and they just have a capacity for it, that runs down as they use it, and then they tire of solitary activity (even if they were enjoying it) and must recharge by doing something in a group.
Everything about the difference in "interests" of the two groups comes from the fact that, being forced (physiologically) to spend time alone, you'll naturally develop solitary interests; and being forced (physiologically) to spend time in a group, you'll naturally develop social interests.
I'm speaking mostly of my own experience here. I've been seeing a shift in the world of work in the past decade away from the idea of the specialist into the all-rounder. People would often tell me in interviews/appraisals that it didn't matter how good I was at my job, the most important thing was my ability to communicate.
There's an increasing pressure to socialise everywhere - from open-plan offices and group nights to ever more frequent team meetings. The place I last worked introduced a yearly evaluation that required people to be popular across departments. One person I know was told "your work is top-rate, but other department heads haven't heard of you, so they won't vote for your bonus." The next year, he had to spend his time doing meet-and-greets rather than working on technical issues.
So here it is: Mostly, I want to get my head down and solve problems. I don't mind focused meetings, but I really find forced socialisation tiring.
The whole concept of introversion is a dream for me. It allows me to succinctly explain why I'd rather just get on with work. I have no idea whether it's scientifically accurate or not, but I do think that challenging it on that front is missing the point. Even if it's wrong, I'll still need a word for what it means.
So that just like you point out with fitness and intelligence, so with introversion and extroversion, so people can find solitude, focus, and meditation help them develop skills of being outgoing and gregarious.
And that people can find talking, socializing, networking, and partying help them develop skills of spending time alone or with a small group of close friends.
I'm not introverted. It might just seem that way to you because I don't share any of your interests and I don't care for small talk. If you see that I am alone most of the time, that may just be an indicator that the sort of people with which I enjoy socializing are relatively rare in the general population.
I am generally offended by people who suggest that I learn to accomodate the social customs of the so-called "extroverts" rather than the other way around. They would have me stuck at a boring party with 10-40 people, unsuccessfully trying to avoid malicious gossip, instead of pretending to kill orc slavers on an imaginary war galley along with 3 to 5 other people for whom the real treasure to be found is friends that value you for the things that make you different.
Some people will always try to categorize you. It isn't necessary to help them do it.
Stop identifying yourself as a thing, and you may find that the label never really fit you in the first place.
extrovert: an outgoing, socially confident person
introvert: a shy, reticent person
They are defined in terms of particular traits:
shyness: the quality or state of being shy
confidence: the feeling or belief that one can have faith in or rely on someone or something.
People can have differing degrees of each trait and differ in how they exhibit those in different social situations. However, by definition, if a person is predominantly shy and reticent in most social situations then we're justified in calling them an introvert.
> ... if a person is predominantly shy and reticent in
> most social situations then we're justified in calling
> them an introvert.
"People who prefer extraversion draw energy from
action: they tend to act, then reflect, then act
further. If they are inactive, their motivation
tends to decline. To rebuild their energy, extraverts
need breaks from time spent in reflection. Conversely,
those who prefer introversion "expend" energy through
action: they prefer to reflect, then act, then reflect
again. To rebuild their energy, introverts need quiet
time alone, away from activity."
EDIT: Also, why does there have to be just one definition anyway?
I'm struggling to find the definition you're using. For example I found this:
"Introversion is not the same thing as shyness but it is
often mistaken as such by extroverts, who may find it
difficult to relate to introverted tendencies. Introverts
prefer solitary activities over social ones, whereas shy
people (who may be extroverts at heart) avoid social
encounters out of fear." [1]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion
Asperger's is a learned behavior, which could be unlearned and retrained by a set of CBTs, while severe forms of autism, which are caused by some neurological deficits in much greater extent that just environmental feedback, cannot be altered by mere CBT.
Usually people have no idea, and actively reject any possibility that something is wrong with them, instead of with the world.
Asperger's could be treated by CBTs, which any professional western psychologist (or eastern teacher) will tell you. Usually, you is the only one who could help you, especially in ignorant, third-world country.
Social habits (or skills as we call them) are definitely learned rather than hardwired.
Reading facial expressions, maintaining eye-contact, following other's gaze, catching other's emotions is hard-wired, while patterns of using such abilities (habits) are learned and could be altered.
So far I have only come across cases where someone made up a model, started using it, and people followed, same as the And model here.
Anyone can make up any labels, attach behavior to them, and lo and behold, people will fall into one or the other category. Add a few years for people to get used to them and people forget the labels were made up. Add a few more years for the labels to make it into standard language so people grow up learning them and they feel like parts of nature.
Penn and Teller could probably go to town on the concepts on their show.
I'd love to learn something new and be shown something I missed.
Personality theory is one of the weakest branches on the tree of psychology because of its historical roots and because of the difficulty of applying the full apparatus of science. There is no universal consensus for personality theories as there is about, for example, behavioural conditioning. Not even close. My personality textbook was very, very thick and nobody mentioned in it agreed with anybody else.
The strongest results in personality work so far come from aggregating work from different existing models; that's how the Five Factor Model (including the Intro/Extra axis) was developed.
The strength of the FFM is that it comes from multiple lines of evidence (lexical studies and factor analysis of existing personality tests regardless of underlying theoretical model). That is: it arose from what appears in the data, not from what appears to fit particular theories of personality. Indeed it finds support from work done on theories that flatly contradict it. Put another way, the FFM finds widespread support because it is merely descriptive.
Eventually, as I say, more work from the neuro direction will begin to tease out what, if any, correlations can be found with underlying neurophysiology. A quick squiz at Wikipedia shows some early fMRI studies with different brain activation patterns for folk identified as extra/introverted.
I wonder of the author has been Myers Briggs stuff where people are often slotted as one or the other (although a good assessment will still show where on each axis someone is)
Even introverts can have a hard time not seeing anybody.