daily psychic crucifixion or spice of life variety?

[snafupants]

Is the behavioral pattern of introversion suboptimal psychic functioning?! Pathological?! Are ambiverts more psychologically healthy than extraverts or introverts? If so, why?

What are the root causes of introversion? Mainly heritable or experiential factors? Is introversion a cause and/or effect of poor psychological functioning?

The opinions expressed in the spoilers correspond to the link in the first spoiler. Feel free to skip the spoilers' borrowed content and read the whole article afresh.

The opinions expressed in the second spoiler are certainly stimulating and ostensibly cogent, yet they may be received as inflammatory or unduly confrontational for some "introverted" readers. You have been warned.

Spoiler

http://research.similarminds.com/tag/big-five

So they tell introverts - you are just different, you recharge alone, you are just pickier about who to be friends with, it's perfectly normal to have anxiety in a crowded area. The reality is that anxiety is not healthy, its symptomatic of a psychological (life trauma) and/or organic health issue (poor cardiovascular fitness).

Based on the actual evidence, I have to conclude that many aspects traditionally associated with introversion are in fact serious dysfunctions linked to poor psychological health and/or poor physical health/fitness. For example, being private can mean being afraid to show others who you really are (often because you don't even know who you are). How anyone could spin that as a positive is testimony to the marketing greed of personality test companies or good intentioned people pleasing of the Accommodating disposition.

Spoiler

The Introvert 'class' behave the way they do (quiet, shy, private, etc.) because they...

A. don't know who they are

and/or

B. intentionally want to hide who they are from others (because who they are is unattractive/offensive/etc. to others in perception and/or in reality AND/OR because they perceive some tactical advantage over others by not revealing their 'hand')

and/or

C. are overwhelmed by / afraid of / don't trust others

and/or

D. are mentally/physically depressed (i.e. unhappy)

and/or

E. have no to little interest in others (Schizoid)

Some are A, some are B, some are C, some are D, some are E, and some are a combo of the five. This is just another reason why no Introversion description is likely to satisfy many of the people who score as introverts. Having little to no interest in others seems to be the most innocuous of the above introvert qualities, but generally people who have little to know interest with others tend to suffer from depression. To separate / cut yourself from others, as a general preference, is an indication of problems within you and/or with others. It doesn't mean you still can't contribute great things to the world (as many introverts have) but achieving things doesn't preclude you from having dysfunctions that you would benefit by fixing. Even if you are objectively better than everyone, you are reliant on others so it makes sense to have some connection to the world and share whatever your advantages are to the betterment of the world, just as you benefit from the efforts of others.

Spoiler

Further Clarification: The main thrust of this essay is to illustrate that the popular conception of Introversion/Extroversion is not consistent with Jung's original ideas/descriptions and that commonly found/understood Introversion descriptions are conflated with low Emotional Stability traits. Consequently, validation of Introversion as it's currently understood would be a validation of emotional instability. Stripping away the Emotional Stability biases found in most Introversion/Extroversion inventories, you are left with two equally flawed dispositions as demonstrated by the following average health items:

Average Health Introvert/Subjectivist Items
Appearance to me, doesn't really strike me as a priority.
I have no need for power over others.
I prefer a basic/simple/spartan living space to a high-end/luxury one.
External indicators of success such as power or recognition seem shallow to me.
I seem to care less than my peers about wealth, fame, and status.
I do not like to appear better than others.
I don't care about dressing nicely.
When I am depressed, I desire less social interaction

Average Health Extrovert/Materialist Items
I find being better than others (superior) rewarding.
I gravitate towards people I think have the most prestige.
You can never be too attractive/popular.
I value beauty the most.
It is important that I impress my superiors.
I expect other people to entertain me.
I choose romantic partners I can control.
When I am depressed, I desire more attention.

One can see a clear pattern of rejection of external value vs. over dependence on external value in the above items, both of which are potentially very nonconstructive cognitive tendencies (in my opinion and in Jung's). So, while I think Introversion as it's defined by the MBTI, Big 5, and most personality systems and authors is more pathological than healthy, when it comes to a non-emotional stability biased Introversion/Extroversion spectrum, I don't think either preference is optimal. I think a middle preference is the ideal.

Emotionally Healthy Extrovert/Materialist Items
I do things that impress me.
I believe that we should be tough on crime.
I am assertive romantically.

Emotionally Healthy Introvert/Subjectivist Items
I never worry about my looks.
I don't measure my success by public opinion.
I do not get upset easily.

Emotionally Unhealthy Extrovert/Materialist Items
I'm jealous of people that I think are better than me.
My self esteem is based on how attractive I am to others.
I get upset when things don't go my way.

Emotionally Unhealthy Introvert/Subjectivist Items
I find not having to be in control rewarding.
I am overly modest.
I am not special.

If we are talking about Introversion vs Extroversion in terms of Carl Jung's original ideas. For the most part, both orientations are potentially equally dysfunctional, Jungian Extroversion is associated with Narcissistic, Histrionic, and Anti-Social personality disorders and being shallow and materialistic, so the middle, i.e. balance, is ideal. However, as previously discussed, Introversion/Extroversion as measured by the Big 5 and Myers Briggs tests (on my site, other sites on the web, or offline tests) shows greater correlations to the Vitality drive (with Big 5/MBTI extroversion correlating with a high Vitality orientation, and Big 5/MBTI introversion correlating with a low Vitality orientation) that's why the introvert descriptions on my site which are merely reflective of introvert self-ratings are more dismal than the extrovert descriptions.

In this study, the Extraversion factor includes at least five distinguishable components: Activity level (active, energetic), Dominance (assertive, forceful, bossy), Sociability (outgoing, sociable, talkative), Expressiveness (adventurous, outspoken, noisy, show-off), and Positive emotionality (enthusiastic, spunky). Note that these five components are similar to five of the six facets Costa and McCrae (1992) included in their definition of the Extraversion domain--Activity, Assertiveness, Gregariousness, Excitement-seeking, and Positive Emotions.

This is from another article, but "extraverted" traits certainly seem more psychological healthy, although I can see how the RL manifestations of dominance and expressiveness might be prone to abuse. I should add that some folks in the Big 5 community use the terms surgency (~positive affect) and extraversion interchangeably.

 

[snafupants]

Er, what?! Nobody has an opinion?

 

[Roran]

Read this a while back.
Didn't care then.
Don't care now.

 

[Duxwing]

I think that they missed out on all the good things that come of being introverted or extroverted. For example, introverted thinkers can cut off additional stimulation in order to focus on their theories, much like a Jedi meditating in isolation. Conversely, kind extroverted feelers often use their empathy to heal, support, and befriend others.

Thus, one can conclude that intro/extroversion can simply be a personal preference or 'default' state in which one is either more occupied with what is going on inside or outside their heads. Sure, social anxiety and shallowness plague both types, respectively, but that's no reason to diagnose those who stray from the norm as mentally ill.

-Duxwing

 

[snafupants]

Read this a while back.
Didn't care then.
Don't care now.

Thanks for airing that enlightening opinion.

 

[snafupants]

I think that they missed out on all the good things that come of being introverted or extroverted. For example, introverted thinkers can cut off additional stimulation in order to focus on their theories, much like a Jedi meditating in isolation. Conversely, kind extroverted feelers often use their empathy to heal, support, and befriend others.

Thus, one can conclude that intro/extroversion can simply be a personal preference or 'default' state in which one is either more occupied with what is going on inside or outside their heads. Sure, social anxiety and shallowness plague both types, respectively, but that's no reason to diagnose those who stray from the norm as mentally ill.

-Duxwing

Good point. I find the E/I dichotomy semi-ridiculous in itself though. It seems more helpful to focus on Jung's conception of object/subject orientation and the cognitive functions. This is more attuned to Jung's original ideas and it obviates the problem of differentiating social and cognitive introversion or teasing apart genuine introversion from social anxiety or whatever. There's probably still merit to the notion that introverts are more sensitive to environmental stimuli. I conjecture, however, that extraverts could possess low latent inhibition in greater amounts compared to their introverted counterparts. People who are Ne-dom seem extremely distractible and the personification of low latent inhibition; this finding is paradoxical because although introverts are stereotypically more sensitive to environmental stimuli, it seems like some extraverts (Ne-dom) are more attuned to their environment, you know? Maybe low latent inhibition primarily concerns Ne/Se instead of introversion per se. In their own ways, INXPs and ESXPs are somewhat distractible and that may have to do with incontinently incepting more of the environment via the respective snorkels of Ne and Se.

Spoiler

Oh, something shiny!

 

[Etheri]

A. don't know who they are

and/or

B. intentionally want to hide who they are from others (because who they are is unattractive/offensive/etc. to others in perception and/or in reality AND/OR because they perceive some tactical advantage over others by not revealing their 'hand')

and/or

C. are overwhelmed by / afraid of / don't trust others

and/or

D. are mentally/physically depressed (i.e. unhappy)

and/or

E. have no to little interest in others (Schizoid)

A. Extraverts are so simple even we can see through them. Ofcourse they know who they are and what they want. Know one ESFP, know all ESFP's.
B. We're not perfect. We're also lying, deceiving scum. I thought this was all part of being human?
C. This sounds perfectly sane to me... It's not that we don't trust anyone, it's just that we don't trust everyone.
D. I was called by a crying extravert only yesterday. Is there a clear correlation between happiness / sadness and I / E?
E. Problem?

I'm sorry, these are still just preferances. How do you say one is better than the other. How does one define 'psychological healthiness'? Why are some things 'healthy' and others a 'disorder'?
Upon discovering MBTI, I almost forgot my arguments of criticism towards psychology in general. Reading articles in some genres of psychology honestly make me doubt the 'scientific branche' as a whole. Reading other articles actually pushes me towards 'psychological sickness' purely based off the retardation of the ones who wrote the article. 'We tested and followed 100 kids and found a 55% result where we expected 50, this is stastically relevant!' We will then continue to vulgarise it into generalisation until you're convinced it's actually 95 out of 100 kids.

I admit i'm not talking about the actual high ranked scientific journals here. I don't actually care enough to read those. I have however felt this way in regards to texts used in the psychology bachelors at uni.

 

[pjoa09]

Take it down.


They know too much.

 

[snafupants]

Is there a clear correlation between happiness / sadness and I / E?

Apparently the MOTIV test's component of vitality correlates with extraversion. On that test the vitality component is typically viewed as more upbeat than the depressed dimension. I'm not sure if that finding constitutes "clear correlation" but there it is. Cheers.