The so-called "scientific proof" of physical differences between brains for different races was a tool used to justify racism, and it has been thoroughly refuted. It's not political correctness, it's the result of actual scientific methods, applied properly. I looked at a couple of your articles, in periodicals known to take liberties in presenting psychology to the general population, often using sources that are pure speculation and not backed by any actual studies. For example, citing differences in centers of activity only indicates that corresponding emotions or activities are associated with different regions of the brain. Same structure, just different areas being stimulated by the exercise of behaviors.
I'm not convinced. I think most of that science are bogus science with the goal to fix a world view that was established by more bogus science in the past. I find it extremely hard to believe that a species of animal that had no way of letting their gene pool mix for thousands of years should work the exact same way. The problem is that even though it's not correct debate this (which is why people will throw the racism label on anyone who dare to touch the subject), I persotnally dont much care for what people might feel about a subject, I care for what is true. And ofcourse, I would wish nothing better than for somebody to prove we are all the same, but I doubt it. Anyway, this was not what the thread was really about, so I am sorry for going so much off topic. On topic though, do you have any sources that would back up your argument against introversion and extraversion? Especially in regards to brain anatomy/chemistry? Logically, if we are just a collection of neurons and chemicals, then any difference between two people should be observable by looking at the braincells, and major personality traits should also manifest as physical differences between different brains.
Retook the Carl Jung personality type test. I'm an INFJ apparently, big difference than the ENFP I was last year
Hi, I'm introverted to the point where I don't even feel comfortable interacting with myself! Cheers, Greg.
I understand that some people have... friends? People they share thoughts and experiences with? Is that what they are called? Definitely an introvert... probably too much so. Shy also and probably a social outcast too!
OT: Brain differences do exist, but not as such on racial grounds. On a related note, the Chinese 'used' to believe (and many probably still do) that they were a different strand of human, but it was recently proven they weren't, much to their chagrin. Also it has been scientifically proven that old beliefs in brain and intelligence related to a person's colour aren't true either. There are differences between male and female brains, and there are differences between introvert and extrovert. Psychopaths are known to have different regions of their brain respond to emotional stimuli, and that those differences seem to have been existent from birth (a BBC Horizon documentary from a year or two back looked into it with reasonable scientific attention). What needs to be said though is that most differences in people's brains are likely due to nurture. Therefore cultural differences in education will affect a person's brain neural connections. But many similar brain differences like introvert and extrovert exist in all cultures, just as mental and physical disabilities exist all round the world and aren't racially dependent. But, scientifically speaking we are only just at the point where we can start to look at brain structures and information flow (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21487016), so there's a very long way to go before the subtleties of all the differences and similarities become more apparent.
A brief explanation of what these letters mean might be in order (or just google Myers Briggs)? The first letter can be either I or E: The very subject of this thread, Introvert or Extrovert. The second letter can be either N or S: Either intuitive (work on hunches and instinct) or Sensing (works on facts and solid data) The first letter can be either T or F: Primary focus of either thinking or feeling in how they approach decision making. The first letter can be either P or J: Perception or Judgement. Judging types prefer a done deal whereas Perceptive types keep options open. This gives you a four letter string, in my case its INTP: Introvert, Intuitive, Thinking, Perceiving. A proper online definition will give a much better idea than my brief attempt but I think the above is enough for the casual forum browser.
OT: I always think of that bittersweet symphony lyric by the verve about being a million different people from one day to the next. Categorising is difficult. I can be quite withdrawn with certain groups although I'm not sure if that's to do with being introverted or through a crippling insecurity. I find it hard judging what sort of chatter is appropriate and what people's reactions would be, in sober and normal situations, particularly if you aren't close to them, and so a lot of the time I would opt to stay quiet. Then, on the other hand, when I'm with real friends I can be particularly animated. Would that count as introverted or extroverted? I don't know.
I've just been reading up on ISTJ vs INTJ, and if there's one thing I've picked up on it's that any of these indicators are exactly that, indicators. They can never be the whole picture and it's always a matter of degrees and proportion. I took an MBTI test some years ago and couldn't remember if I was an INFJ or INTJ (as I said in an earlier post) but actually it was the difference between INTJ and ISTJ. In doing my bit of refresh reading up this morning, I fit both. My S/N indicator must be almost in the middle. In reading up on the personalities generally associated with the two types there are definite correlations with INTJ and also with ISTJ. I definitely prefer to have rational facts to understand the world (S) but at the same time I like to look at the whole bigger picture and imagine more beyond it (N). So in many ways I am both ISTJ and INTJ, which just goes to show that such a simple system is too basic really. What this all boils down to is this: I think the reason I like the idea of self-publishing a large scale novel serial is that I imagine the bigger picture (N) but love the detail (S), and want to have the control to do that properly (S), but also want and need to have the help of others (including some of their ideas) in bringing that bigger picture to the world (N). The more I think about my novel series, the more I feel it has aspects of the literary equivalent of 'Babylon 5' (not in storyline, just in scale and ambition)! I only saw it as a series last year when a friend loaned me the complete DVD box set, but I feel empathy for J. Michael Straczynski and his vision, even if I felt some of the programmes (especially the early ones) were a bit staid and simple.
I did a test a couple of years ago and I was ony 4 points clear of dead centre on the Introvert/Extrovert axis. I've done tests since where I've actually come out as ENTP rather than INTP...similarly I've swung way over in favour of Introversion. I think it is important to treat MBTI as exactly what its intended to be, it's in the title: Type Indicators!!!
I'm an introvert by nature, borderline reclusive. I can tolerate long, long periods of complete isolation (two weeks, max) before I start pining for human interaction. Those tests? Eh, call me paranoid, but I don't like the idea of some online test telling me what sort of person it thinks I am. Only I can tell what sort of person I am.
I think psychiatrists would disagree with you there my friend I agree online tests are dodgy. But everyone can be described in a certain way if you observe their behaviours and thoughts long enough. Or if you be extensive in how you gauge their personality.
I'm an introvert. I'm not sure about the 2:1 ratio, though it can feel like it sometimes. Susan Cain made a great video called The power of introverts. You can find it on youtube. I always feel better about myself after listening to it. She makes a great point about how just because something is said well, it doesn't necessarily mean its a better point. I get very frustrated when loud people with great verbal skills get taken seriously just because they're loud and have great verbal skills! Introverts often get comments like; 'You don't say much, but when you do its important.' Intorverts don't have that need to spew out a constant stream of noise.
I've a question: could some people see being introverted as a euphemism for being socially inadequate?
Definately. But that is false. The problem is that our culture value "the man" more than they value well articulated thoughts and ideas being presented after careful analysis. We Introverts do speak a lot less, and I guess I speak for most of us when I say we have had the label "shy" thrown at us more than one in our lifetime. This is far from the case though. We are perfectly capable of being social beings, we just dont like it as much, or prefer being with a small group of people rather than a large. Your subjective claim is meaningless without any reasoning.
'Retarded' is a very emotive word to use - and not really suitable. There is no way that all introverted people are retarded or could be labelled as such, so even though you've used the word along with 'socially', it comes across as an insult. However, introverted people are often less happy in large social groups because they don't feel comfortable paddling in the shallow end of the conversation pool. This means if they find themselves in such a situation, they can seem unhappy and therefore inept. But put them into a deeper conversation environment with fewer changes of subject (and preferably fewer people gabbling on about nothing of importance) and they start to show their abilities as listeners, helpers and even philosophers
I am definitly an intrevert i am extremely shy around people i get nervous and sweaty its NOT a pretty sight to watch.
A lot of people might think I'm an introvert, because I'm comfortable keeping no company but mmy own, and because I often don't say much at first in a group. The truth is, I like being around people, although I don't like dense crowds. I'm also quite outspoken when I do start speaking, but I tend to listen quite a while before I open my mouth. I'm a dedicated people watcher, and I enjoy having very different people around me - I get a greater variety of points of view that way. So, whichever way you try to classify me, you'd be wrong.
You make a good point, Mackers. I had forgotten what my Psychology 101 teacher taught me there. By gauging my behavior, they can make somewhat accurate guesses on just who I am.
Well, from what I know when you start to be listener and helper, you start to be kind of pathetic. Its not like introverted people have very much choice, so they focus and help for being accepted at least any way. Lots of thinking made me very careful about certain social stuff, but I would never help anybody unless I get something real out of it. You have to focus on your self-esteem, or you will not be one who makes choices
