Well, this makes me feel better about wondering for years whether I was really an introvert or in fact an extrovert. Now I can be proud to claim the term "ambivert"!
I wondered about this, too. I took a Meyers-Briggs test as a team-building exercise once, and in the I-E continuum, I fell very mildly on the Introvert side. But there are sub-categories in each of the fields, and I scored full marks for "gregariousness".
So I've spent the last few years wondering what a gregarious introvert is.
I think it's someone who laughs very loudly at their own jokes.
To be honest, most people have a completely incorrect view of introverts. Many stand up comedians are introverts. Many artists are introverts. Being an introvert is not the same as shy.
That's something I've noticed myself, being something of an introvert. On a number of occasions I've been "accused" of being timid, which I'm not, although I guess it might come across that way. Or perhaps it's just that introvert is a difficult word :)
MBTI is braindead pop-science which is based on the rantings of Jung. It was good for the time (when measuring people's skulls to determine their personality was popular) but has no place in modern science.
The biggest problem is, it's deliberately polarising. Jung thought there were fundamental personality types, and that everyone would fall into a specific box. That's good if you want to write a "what career is best for you" article for Cosmo, or for school kids. But it's bad science. Most personality traits are normally distributed, not categorial.
Most people are ambiverts, not introverts or extrovert. There's plenty of people who are heavily introverted, and plenty of people who are heavily extroverted, and it's useful to have a word for it, but most people aren't.
The other problem is, the traits it measures aren't important. Big 5 (Introversion, Openness to experience (i.e. culture / intelligence), Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism) is better. It uses more interesting traits, and puts them on a scale (rather than using categories). It's not perfect (there's no real model, it's just common factors in personalities - psychologists often say it's overrated) but it's much better than MBTI.
The article only talks about correlating Introversion to sales ability, so big 5 or MBTI wouldn't terribly matter. Further, in this case they used a different, 7 point scale.
As someone who is ambi in several of those categories I still think there's utility in the classifications. It's definitely pop-pseudo-science, but I'm not convinced proper science can even distill something as complex as personality into something a lay person can understand. Maybe it's the best most people will do in understanding themselves.
A friend of mine who also recognizes the pseudo-scientific nature of MBTI put it well: use the test to pinpoint where people may differ from you and learn why they do. He claims he has almost mastered all eight letters (he still stuggles with T), and I have to say that he is one of the most well-balanced people I know. Personally, the test revealed to me why people may think I come off as arrogant (it apparently comes with the J and T), which I have become more aware of in my interaction with others.
Meyers-Briggs was never meant to pigeon-hole people so that organizations could be better aligned, or for social engineering purposes. As a psychoanalytic tool, its main purpose is to help the subject understand his or her own inclinations.
Any application outside of therapy or introspection is pop-science; and any application within those fields is only relevant if the subject accepts the categorizations of the test.
The more important point about the Big 5 is that Introversion and Extroversion aren't opposing qualities - so "ambivert" no longer means you sit in the middle of some bipolar scale - more likely you just score high in extroversion and conscientiousness.
Neat. When explaining myself with MBTI terms, I usually say that while my default state is introverted, I have 'learned' to overcome this and act extroverted in many situations.
With the Big 5, I would instead classify myself as an introvert with a high degree of "openness to experience".
All models fall short of reality, it doesn't mean they aren't useful models. Saying something isn't useful because it categorizes people rather misses the point of modelling in the first place; of course it categorizes people, that's the point, to simplify reality.
It doesn't matter if the model has 5 types or 200 types, if the model is useful in grouping like minded people, then it's a useful model and the number of categories is simply a matter of how accurately I want to measure. I can create a model of 2 kinds of people, haters and non-haters; this is a useful model. Meyers Briggs is also a useful model especially as shorthand for Young's functions, which are also useful models.
While the big 5 might map closer to reality, it seems a less useful model precisely because it doesn't categorize. Giving me 5 scores on a scale isn't very useful in finding like minded people because I can't say "what's your big 5 type?" It doesn't simplify enough. Knowing I'm an INTP on the other hand, is very useful in finding like minded people.
The other thing few people realize about personality assessments is that they are almost always RELATIVE, not ABSOLUTE, values.
Where you rank on any scale is a function of the population you're being compared to - so, for instance, if you take an assessment as an undergraduate, you may score lower in Extraversion or Openness compared to your peers (since studies show people tend to peak in those values at that time of life) as opposed to the general population. Practically speaking, your results from an assessment are often benchmarked against a group, but it's rare you know who that group is.
Myers Briggs aims to measure preference rather than performance. A score highly biased towards extroversion is just as likely to indicate a weakness in "introverted" areas, such as approaching problems strategically, as it is to indicate a strength in communication skills.
A better rule of thumb when looking for the right qualities in a salesperson, especially a complex-software-solving-complex-problem salesperson, is to look for someone that listens to the other party more than they talk.
This is how sales has changed drastically over the past 10-15 years. Before, high pressure sales and using hard closing techniques have been replaced by a more "consultative" approach. IT's a more humanistic approach to selling your company wares.
Because of this, listening, or the appearance of listening has become the new training tool for salespeople. As such, using an extroverted or introverted label doesn't really apply.
Here’s the best part, however. The distribution of introverts and extroverts in the population looks eerily like the results Grant found plotting revenue across his 1-to-7 scale. Some of us are heavy introverts. Some of us are stalwart extroverts. But the vast majority of us are ambiverts.
Surely these results could be explained by saying that we are better at selling to people who are like us then?
Assuming there are few extroverts or introverts but lots of ambiverts in a population of sales people and the same distribution is found in the people being sold to. If we are better at selling to people similar to ourselves then the ambiverts chosen for the experiment will perform well in a wider segment of the population and hence make more sales.
Link-bait title for a mildly interesting study. I'm not surprised at the results, anyone with real sales/biz dev experience will tell you that listening and asking the right questions are the way to sell people, not "hustling" and being overly salesy/pushy - http://www.amazon.com/SPIN-Selling-Neil-Rackham/dp/007051113...
That said though, how you define yourself as "extroverted", "introverted", or an "ambivert" is questionable altogether.
> "The distribution of introverts and extroverts in the population looks eerily like the results Grant found plotting revenue across his 1-to-7 scale."
At face value the article is saying. If most people are "ambiverts" and ambiverts make the best sales people, and sales people are the best leaders, why are there not more leaders? Why is it that most people are not in charge.
Finding out that there is no correlation between extroversion and sales performance is interesting and all but I think it would be better to find a new scale to use, one with positive correlation for what you are looking for.
Pointing out that people's scores for extroversion fall along a normal distribution, and that people's sales preform aces fall along a normal distribution does not really say much.
Typically, a low correlation score means your model is wrong, not that you need to fix your model by choosing a different locus.
26 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 75.1 ms ] threadSo I've spent the last few years wondering what a gregarious introvert is.
I think it's someone who laughs very loudly at their own jokes.
MBTI is braindead pop-science which is based on the rantings of Jung. It was good for the time (when measuring people's skulls to determine their personality was popular) but has no place in modern science.
The biggest problem is, it's deliberately polarising. Jung thought there were fundamental personality types, and that everyone would fall into a specific box. That's good if you want to write a "what career is best for you" article for Cosmo, or for school kids. But it's bad science. Most personality traits are normally distributed, not categorial.
Most people are ambiverts, not introverts or extrovert. There's plenty of people who are heavily introverted, and plenty of people who are heavily extroverted, and it's useful to have a word for it, but most people aren't.
The other problem is, the traits it measures aren't important. Big 5 (Introversion, Openness to experience (i.e. culture / intelligence), Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism) is better. It uses more interesting traits, and puts them on a scale (rather than using categories). It's not perfect (there's no real model, it's just common factors in personalities - psychologists often say it's overrated) but it's much better than MBTI.
A friend of mine who also recognizes the pseudo-scientific nature of MBTI put it well: use the test to pinpoint where people may differ from you and learn why they do. He claims he has almost mastered all eight letters (he still stuggles with T), and I have to say that he is one of the most well-balanced people I know. Personally, the test revealed to me why people may think I come off as arrogant (it apparently comes with the J and T), which I have become more aware of in my interaction with others.
Any application outside of therapy or introspection is pop-science; and any application within those fields is only relevant if the subject accepts the categorizations of the test.
With the Big 5, I would instead classify myself as an introvert with a high degree of "openness to experience".
It doesn't matter if the model has 5 types or 200 types, if the model is useful in grouping like minded people, then it's a useful model and the number of categories is simply a matter of how accurately I want to measure. I can create a model of 2 kinds of people, haters and non-haters; this is a useful model. Meyers Briggs is also a useful model especially as shorthand for Young's functions, which are also useful models.
While the big 5 might map closer to reality, it seems a less useful model precisely because it doesn't categorize. Giving me 5 scores on a scale isn't very useful in finding like minded people because I can't say "what's your big 5 type?" It doesn't simplify enough. Knowing I'm an INTP on the other hand, is very useful in finding like minded people.
Where you rank on any scale is a function of the population you're being compared to - so, for instance, if you take an assessment as an undergraduate, you may score lower in Extraversion or Openness compared to your peers (since studies show people tend to peak in those values at that time of life) as opposed to the general population. Practically speaking, your results from an assessment are often benchmarked against a group, but it's rare you know who that group is.
A better rule of thumb when looking for the right qualities in a salesperson, especially a complex-software-solving-complex-problem salesperson, is to look for someone that listens to the other party more than they talk.
Because of this, listening, or the appearance of listening has become the new training tool for salespeople. As such, using an extroverted or introverted label doesn't really apply.
Ambiverts [...] are people who are neither extremely introverted nor extremely extroverted.
What can we really say about this third group if we are including everyone who is not an extreme example of the other two?
Surely these results could be explained by saying that we are better at selling to people who are like us then?
Assuming there are few extroverts or introverts but lots of ambiverts in a population of sales people and the same distribution is found in the people being sold to. If we are better at selling to people similar to ourselves then the ambiverts chosen for the experiment will perform well in a wider segment of the population and hence make more sales.
That said though, how you define yourself as "extroverted", "introverted", or an "ambivert" is questionable altogether.
'Ambiverts' make better marriages?
At face value the article is saying. If most people are "ambiverts" and ambiverts make the best sales people, and sales people are the best leaders, why are there not more leaders? Why is it that most people are not in charge.
Finding out that there is no correlation between extroversion and sales performance is interesting and all but I think it would be better to find a new scale to use, one with positive correlation for what you are looking for.
Pointing out that people's scores for extroversion fall along a normal distribution, and that people's sales preform aces fall along a normal distribution does not really say much.
Typically, a low correlation score means your model is wrong, not that you need to fix your model by choosing a different locus.