Here's a wild idea: Why don't we all agree that the "introvert/extrovert" dichotomy is a false one, and that while we all have tendencies, it's also good to step outside our comfort zone a bit.
For those with introverted tendencies, that might mean working on being a bit more outgoing and trying to engage in social settings.
For those with extroverted tendencies, that might mean listening more and talking less, and spending more time alone and becoming comfortable with oneself.
Or, I suppose we could all just label and pigeonhole ourselves so we don't find ourselves uncomfortable and can avoid growing and changing. I guess that's okay, too...
> Why don't we all agree that the "introvert/extrovert" dichotomy is a false one
Because there's scientific evidence strongly suggesting otherwise. That said, the author is using the wrong term. He's talking about social anxiety, not introversion. Introverts at conferences tend to take more of a hit and run approach, like a sprinter, whereas extroverts can socialize for hours, like those damned cross country runners. :)
Despite these differences, a meta-analysis of 15 experience sampling studies has suggested that there is a great deal of overlap in the way that extraverts and introverts behave.[33] In these studies, participants used mobile devices to report how extraverted (e.g., bold, talkative, assertive, outgoing) they were acting at multiple times during their daily lives. Fleeson and Gallagher (2009) found that extraverts regularly behave in an introverted way, and introverts regularly behave in an extraverted way. Indeed, there was more within-person variability than between-person variability in extraverted behaviours. The key feature that distinguishes extraverts and introverts was that extraverts tend to act moderately extraverted about 5-10% more often than introverts. From this perspective, extraverts and introverts are not "fundamentally different". Rather, an "extravert" is just someone who acts more extraverted more often, suggesting that extraversion is more about what one "does" than what one "has".
That article goes on to say:
Humans are complex and unique, and because introversion-extraversion varies along a continuum, individuals may have a mixture of both orientations. A person who acts introverted in one situation may act extraverted in another, and people can learn to act in "counterdispositional" ways in certain situations. For example, Brian Little's Free Trait Theory [35][36] suggests that people can take on "Free Traits", behaving in ways that may not be their "first nature", but can strategically advance projects that are important to them. Together, this presents an optimistic view of what extraversion is. Rather than being fixed and stable, individuals vary in their extraverted behaviours across different moments, and can choose to act extraverted to advance important personal projects or even increase their happiness, as mentioned above.
In short: The dichotomy is a false one. To imply anything else is just pop psychological BS, albeit fashionable BS right now.
He's talking about social anxiety, not introversion.
That's a whole other problem, and is considered an anxiety disorder. If it's resulting in career limiting behaviour, it's probably worth therapy, such as CBT, to try and resolve:
I mean actual scientific evidence, not self-reporting studies which are not in any way scientific or psychological studies, which are almost universally bogus.
> If it's resulting in career limiting behaviour, it's probably worth therapy
Once again, we disagree. I've only seen anxiety disorders get worse through so called "therapy". There are ways to deal with it on your own, which is pretty much your only option anyway, unless you want to take benzos, which will irrevocably screw up your brain chemistry.
Despite early findings of an association between the DRD4 48bp VNTR and novelty seeking (a normal characteristic of exploratory and excitable people),[24][25] a 2008 meta-analysis compared 36 published studies of novelty seeking and the polymorphism and found no effect.
and goes on to say:
Novelty-seeking behavior is probably mediated by several genes, and the variance attributable to DRD4 by itself is not particularly large.
All that does is prove my point. If novelty-seeking, which let's all assume is a proxy for extraversion for the moment, is mediated by multiple genes, then of course there will be a spectrum of variation depending on the combination a particular person possesses.
You picked the first thing you could find in wikipedia and claim that refutes an article you haven't bothered to read? Who's cherry picking again? Introversion/Extroversion has nothing to do with novelty seeking. Read the article I linked.
Sure, but the argumentation in that blog post is that novelty seeking is a proxy for dopamine sensitivity, and dopamine sensitivity may be linked to extraverted/introverted tendencies, hence why that gene study is relevant.
But, as I noted, since multiple genes likely regulate for dopamine sensitivity (not to mention things like sleep, diet, etc), there are many factors which regulate those tendencies, and it's false to claim there's a dichotomy and that people are fixed to one tendency or the other.
> Because there's scientific evidence strongly suggesting otherwise.
That's pretty generic, I could use that as an argument for anything.
I wonder if there was ever a scientific study checking if there is a correlation between the degree of introversion and competency in a deeply technical/scientific subject. Disclaimer: I studied Physics. Having specialized in Theoretical Particle Physics, extrovert people were just not there. Actually I wrote my thesis at a professor who had quite extrovert tendencies but it turned out he was not really helpful and rather rude. (Forced extrovert?) How do you actually solve an integral by talking? It's a trick question, of course it's possible but I have never seen how extroverts solve a complicated integral while thinking loudly and discussing. How do you socialize by not talking so much? It's also possible. Communicating with body language etc. might be what makes us human actually.
That said, being a strong introvert myself, I can network for hours when it's for a reason. But I rarely do that anymore because I don't see much of a point. Most people I meet through such Networking Marathons ended up in my LinkedIn/Facebook, congratulating them every few years for stuff or maybe coincidentally even being able to seek useful help sometimes. But my strongest connections I found "organically", frequenting places I have deep interest in or through common friends. With these connections I have co-founded 2 companies or given mutual help, inspiration and collaboration over years. I doubt extroverts have that very often. ;)
> Because there's scientific evidence strongly suggesting otherwise.
That's not actually true; extroversion/introversion, like other normal personality axes, does not, in the evidence, seem to be a dichotomy, but instead a continuum. It's a real area in which people vary, but not a binary one.
> That said, the author is using the wrong term. He's talking about social anxiety, not introversion.
Note that this is a fairly common conflation that is partially reflected in the popular Meyers-Beiggs personality typing system, in which the Extroversion/Introversion axis seems to combine both the Extroversion axis and the Neuroticism axis of the somewhat better validated Big 5 system.
The second and third sentences are reasonable; yes, we should all try to step out of our comfort zones every now and then. But I vehemently disagree with the first sentence. I have no scientific studies or similar sources to back up my views, but I've read several articles that very accurately describe the way I feel about this topic. For introverts (and I count myself here) social interaction is for the most part an energy drain, while for extroverts it's an energy source. There's people that cannot stand the idea of staying home on a Friday night and would actually feel down if they did. They crave social interaction, loud places, being around people even if they don't know them. And there's other people who cannot stand the idea of going to a club and party until [whatever time] in the morning. Loud places, crowded places, forced conversations, just suck away our energy, they don't make us "feel alive" or anything of that sort. So we stay home and read books, or attend small social gatherings with our close friends.
To summarize: in general, extroverts get energy from social interaction, and introverts lose energy in them.
A dichotomy is a claim that someone or something is either A or B, and it can only be A or B and not something in between.
With that definition in mind:
To summarize: in general, extroverts get energy from social interaction, and introverts lose energy in them.
There is no evidence that extraversion/introversion is a hard delineation. In fact, in my other comment I already cited studies that demonstrate the opposite, that it is a continuum and people are on different places on that continuum, sometimes day to day or hour to hour.
You may find this surprising, but sometimes I love parties, and sometimes I hate them! Sometimes I really want to be around people, and sometimes I want nothing more than to be alone for a while. Sometimes I really want to listen to loud, banging music! Sometimes, I would rather be in a quiet room with a book.
Step back and ask yourself: Are you really as consistently and persistently introverted as you claim? Because I'll bet you a large sum of money that, if you're being honest with yourself, the answer is a lot more nuanced than that.
To be honest, I find this entire trend interesting. On the one had, there's a strong movement that is driving a change in the perception of things like gender and sexual attraction as being on a continuum, based on the realization that humans are, in fact, complex, diverse creatures.
And yet, at the same time, we seem driven to slot people into these fixed personality types so we can all walk around with our "introvert" or "extravert" badge or brag about our Myers-Briggs personality type.
It's really baffling... it's like people both want to label themselves, and at the same time defy labels.
Ok, I do agree that it's not a black/white thing, it's a spectrum. If that was the point you were trying to make, then we're on the same page. In my personal case, I think I am pretty consistent on where I am in that spectrum. I might wiggle a bit, but it's more like measurement noise, not swings up and down from one end to the other. For example, I just can't recall the last time I genuinely enjoyed a big event with tons of people.
To your point about labels, I guess some people do label themselves in an "exclusively A or exclusively B" manner, but I think there's also a lot who say "I'm an introvert/extrovert" as short hand for "I'm on that end of the spectrum", it's just more convenient, if technically a bit unclearer.
I just went to a conference in Seattle last week (Deconstruct conf) and literally did not have one conversation the entire time I was at the conference. Between the talks I read a book. Recommended!
I don't think this is uncommon. I have attended 1 or 2 conferences every year for the past 15 years or so, and there are always lots of people who want to keep to themselves, spending time between talks reading or working on their laptops.
I was interested in an upcoming conference related to some technology I have been working with, so I decided to calculate what it would cost to attend. The fee to attend the conference was not outrageous, but I would have to fly to the location and find lodging for 3 nights.
I decided I could probably do it for about $1,000 if everything went well.
Then I realized that I would probably be able to just watch the videos on youtube afterward. Since I wouldn't know any of the people in attendance and my knowledge of this technology would barely let me converse with experts, it seems like a simple choice.
So if you're hosting a conference, how do you convince people to spend a significant portion of their yearly salary and miss several days of work instead of staying at home?
I'm at a conference right now. The serendipitous side conversations, the ability to get face to face with vendors and experts (even if it is just you listening to others ask questions) and the ability to sit and focus on learning (as opposed to being distracted by other work) are the primary reasons to attend in meatspace.
Most conferences I've been to I hardly talked to anyone but I still found the experience more memorable and useful than watching numerous talks on YouTube. There's of course good and bad conferences depending on speakers and organisation.
Except once all conferences I've attended were paid in full by my employer too. Some were actually suggested by the employer and some I suggested and they agreed to fund.
20 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 44.2 ms ] threadFor those with introverted tendencies, that might mean working on being a bit more outgoing and trying to engage in social settings.
For those with extroverted tendencies, that might mean listening more and talking less, and spending more time alone and becoming comfortable with oneself.
Or, I suppose we could all just label and pigeonhole ourselves so we don't find ourselves uncomfortable and can avoid growing and changing. I guess that's okay, too...
Because there's scientific evidence strongly suggesting otherwise. That said, the author is using the wrong term. He's talking about social anxiety, not introversion. Introverts at conferences tend to take more of a hit and run approach, like a sprinter, whereas extroverts can socialize for hours, like those damned cross country runners. :)
About this you are mistaken:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion
Despite these differences, a meta-analysis of 15 experience sampling studies has suggested that there is a great deal of overlap in the way that extraverts and introverts behave.[33] In these studies, participants used mobile devices to report how extraverted (e.g., bold, talkative, assertive, outgoing) they were acting at multiple times during their daily lives. Fleeson and Gallagher (2009) found that extraverts regularly behave in an introverted way, and introverts regularly behave in an extraverted way. Indeed, there was more within-person variability than between-person variability in extraverted behaviours. The key feature that distinguishes extraverts and introverts was that extraverts tend to act moderately extraverted about 5-10% more often than introverts. From this perspective, extraverts and introverts are not "fundamentally different". Rather, an "extravert" is just someone who acts more extraverted more often, suggesting that extraversion is more about what one "does" than what one "has".
That article goes on to say:
Humans are complex and unique, and because introversion-extraversion varies along a continuum, individuals may have a mixture of both orientations. A person who acts introverted in one situation may act extraverted in another, and people can learn to act in "counterdispositional" ways in certain situations. For example, Brian Little's Free Trait Theory [35][36] suggests that people can take on "Free Traits", behaving in ways that may not be their "first nature", but can strategically advance projects that are important to them. Together, this presents an optimistic view of what extraversion is. Rather than being fixed and stable, individuals vary in their extraverted behaviours across different moments, and can choose to act extraverted to advance important personal projects or even increase their happiness, as mentioned above.
In short: The dichotomy is a false one. To imply anything else is just pop psychological BS, albeit fashionable BS right now.
He's talking about social anxiety, not introversion.
That's a whole other problem, and is considered an anxiety disorder. If it's resulting in career limiting behaviour, it's probably worth therapy, such as CBT, to try and resolve:
http://socialphobia.org/social-anxiety-disorder-definition-s...
Take a look at this article. It goes into specifics about neurochemical pathways and the D4DR gene: https://musingsonmormonism.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/easily-t...
> If it's resulting in career limiting behaviour, it's probably worth therapy
Once again, we disagree. I've only seen anxiety disorders get worse through so called "therapy". There are ways to deal with it on your own, which is pretty much your only option anyway, unless you want to take benzos, which will irrevocably screw up your brain chemistry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine_receptor_D4
Despite early findings of an association between the DRD4 48bp VNTR and novelty seeking (a normal characteristic of exploratory and excitable people),[24][25] a 2008 meta-analysis compared 36 published studies of novelty seeking and the polymorphism and found no effect.
and goes on to say:
Novelty-seeking behavior is probably mediated by several genes, and the variance attributable to DRD4 by itself is not particularly large.
All that does is prove my point. If novelty-seeking, which let's all assume is a proxy for extraversion for the moment, is mediated by multiple genes, then of course there will be a spectrum of variation depending on the combination a particular person possesses.
Care to try cherrypicking again? :)
But, as I noted, since multiple genes likely regulate for dopamine sensitivity (not to mention things like sleep, diet, etc), there are many factors which regulate those tendencies, and it's false to claim there's a dichotomy and that people are fixed to one tendency or the other.
That's pretty generic, I could use that as an argument for anything.
I wonder if there was ever a scientific study checking if there is a correlation between the degree of introversion and competency in a deeply technical/scientific subject. Disclaimer: I studied Physics. Having specialized in Theoretical Particle Physics, extrovert people were just not there. Actually I wrote my thesis at a professor who had quite extrovert tendencies but it turned out he was not really helpful and rather rude. (Forced extrovert?) How do you actually solve an integral by talking? It's a trick question, of course it's possible but I have never seen how extroverts solve a complicated integral while thinking loudly and discussing. How do you socialize by not talking so much? It's also possible. Communicating with body language etc. might be what makes us human actually.
That said, being a strong introvert myself, I can network for hours when it's for a reason. But I rarely do that anymore because I don't see much of a point. Most people I meet through such Networking Marathons ended up in my LinkedIn/Facebook, congratulating them every few years for stuff or maybe coincidentally even being able to seek useful help sometimes. But my strongest connections I found "organically", frequenting places I have deep interest in or through common friends. With these connections I have co-founded 2 companies or given mutual help, inspiration and collaboration over years. I doubt extroverts have that very often. ;)
That's not actually true; extroversion/introversion, like other normal personality axes, does not, in the evidence, seem to be a dichotomy, but instead a continuum. It's a real area in which people vary, but not a binary one.
> That said, the author is using the wrong term. He's talking about social anxiety, not introversion.
Note that this is a fairly common conflation that is partially reflected in the popular Meyers-Beiggs personality typing system, in which the Extroversion/Introversion axis seems to combine both the Extroversion axis and the Neuroticism axis of the somewhat better validated Big 5 system.
To summarize: in general, extroverts get energy from social interaction, and introverts lose energy in them.
With that definition in mind:
To summarize: in general, extroverts get energy from social interaction, and introverts lose energy in them.
There is no evidence that extraversion/introversion is a hard delineation. In fact, in my other comment I already cited studies that demonstrate the opposite, that it is a continuum and people are on different places on that continuum, sometimes day to day or hour to hour.
You may find this surprising, but sometimes I love parties, and sometimes I hate them! Sometimes I really want to be around people, and sometimes I want nothing more than to be alone for a while. Sometimes I really want to listen to loud, banging music! Sometimes, I would rather be in a quiet room with a book.
Step back and ask yourself: Are you really as consistently and persistently introverted as you claim? Because I'll bet you a large sum of money that, if you're being honest with yourself, the answer is a lot more nuanced than that.
To be honest, I find this entire trend interesting. On the one had, there's a strong movement that is driving a change in the perception of things like gender and sexual attraction as being on a continuum, based on the realization that humans are, in fact, complex, diverse creatures.
And yet, at the same time, we seem driven to slot people into these fixed personality types so we can all walk around with our "introvert" or "extravert" badge or brag about our Myers-Briggs personality type.
It's really baffling... it's like people both want to label themselves, and at the same time defy labels.
To your point about labels, I guess some people do label themselves in an "exclusively A or exclusively B" manner, but I think there's also a lot who say "I'm an introvert/extrovert" as short hand for "I'm on that end of the spectrum", it's just more convenient, if technically a bit unclearer.
I was interested in an upcoming conference related to some technology I have been working with, so I decided to calculate what it would cost to attend. The fee to attend the conference was not outrageous, but I would have to fly to the location and find lodging for 3 nights.
I decided I could probably do it for about $1,000 if everything went well.
Then I realized that I would probably be able to just watch the videos on youtube afterward. Since I wouldn't know any of the people in attendance and my knowledge of this technology would barely let me converse with experts, it seems like a simple choice.
So if you're hosting a conference, how do you convince people to spend a significant portion of their yearly salary and miss several days of work instead of staying at home?