Me, an introvert, instantly wanted to punch her in the face, in a fit of uncharacteristic “quick” processing.

The first def you mention seems to support my view when it mentions a prioritization of social relationships over inner thoughts and feelings, yet you state that it doesn’t. Social relationships would “involve other people”, yes?

“a personality trait characterized by a tendency to be more concerned with the outside world and social relationships than with one’s inner thoughts and feelings.” (def here)

and according to Wikipedia’s page on the topic, Merriam-Webster defines extroversion as

“the act, state, or habit of being predominantly concerned with and obtaining gratification from what is outside the self.”

Both of these are in disagreement with the post’s assertion that “Extroverts are people who need external stimulation from others,” the crucial point being that the external stimulation doesn’t have to involve other people.

I agree that taking a Myers-Briggs questionnaire is not a great way of evaluating one’s personality, but I don’t think that means that the definition of extroversion which Myers-Briggs uses is necessarily wrong.

FS

Rarely, a hiring manager will take the time to make an introvert feel comfortable, get to know you, and read your resume. Then you have a prayer of getting a good job with a thoughtful boss.

Fascinating thread. Yes, extroverts do have privilege. Yes, introversion is something you’re born with. It’s not a “handicap” – in fact it makes you better at some skills – but you can sure be made to feel that it is a defect. Thank you.

Why is there this attitude that two hours of my time is better spent sitting silently in a movie theatre in the mere presence of other people than discussing abortion rights or examining the psychology of people in extreme situations (roleplaying) with people I –god forbid– can’t smell what they ate for dinner on their every exhalation?

Exactly, Raeka! My extroverted boyfriend just about went through the roof when I decided to complete my education online and not in the constant physical presence of others. I wouldn’t have connections, etc. and so on, he was just so negative. And he hates me blogging on line too. When I explained that I can talk to people about more substantive topics online he angrily demanded to know why I didn’t talk to real life people about these things. Apparently he has forgotten about the need for small talk and the rules about not talking politics, religion, or other unpleasant topics in mixed company due to the screaming matches that ensue. I certainly can’t talk to him about anything “deep” without him saying it’s media created or I’m making generalizations. At least on line the words are there to read, so everyone gets “heard.” One must also carefully consider before they write those words in order to get a point across. There’s no way I could be more eloquent speaking than writing.

BTW, MB pegs me as bordering I/E. This, I assure you, is just not accurate.

That said, I will acknowledge that many of my examples of -vert behaviors were anecdotally based on people I have known and assessed to be I or E. It’s wholly possible I’ve made some incorrect assessments. But you say I claim introverts are more “fair.” That’s not at all what I said. I said that introverts are more likely to act on their perception of fairness without regard to how the pursuit of fairness might undermine social structures.

“I do define introverts as people who are more sensitive to external stimuli, and this can lead us both to highly sensitive accurate reactions and over-sensitized flying off the handle events.”

E/I is not something that you are free to define how you like or based on how you see the world—it is a tool for understanding that has rules. I am by no means an expert, but was coached on personality by a trained, myers briggs qualified professional and am the daughter of someone with experience in this field. To my understanding, ‘sensitivity’ as you use the term has little to do with E/I.

The following sites give a decent summary idea of the difference between introverting and extroverting (there is more to it—I was taught in person so I can’t recommend a good book personally, but I’ve heard “Please Understand Me” by kiersey is a very good one). Personality Page lists under extroverting behaviors actions such as making coffee and working on a car: demonstrating that doing something by oneself does not necessarily mean one is introverting. Journaling thoughts, as we discussed earlier, is not introverting merely because it is done alone. The myers briggs page reminds us that extroverts often feel better when they can ‘talk out loud’ about something and hear what people have to say about it—notice however that they do not say ‘talk with someone,’ using the broader ‘talk out loud.’ This is because the literal action of talking out loud, of externalizing, helps an extrovert formulate ideas. Having someone else there is even better for us, but when chewing over a truly complex issue in our mind we may talk out loud to ourselves as we drive alone, or even move our mouths without producing sound, because both actions bring our thoughts into the external world, which is the palette we prefer for thinking.

http://personalitypage.com/four-prefs.html

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/extraversion-or-introversion.asp

I appreciate your edit’s clarification but you continue to make assumptions about an ‘other’ (extroverts) based on introverted preference. That you see these traits as neutral despite negative connotation is somewhat irrelevant since many of the traits you attribute to extroverts are based on misconceptions.

When a person asseses the world, in this case to draw conclusions about ethical behavior, they look for evidence. But what people think of as evidence differs based on how they go about making ethical decisions and what evidence they produce. Your assertion that extroverts are less likely to be whistleblowers is based on the fact that you make ethical decisions differently than extroverts.

Upper classed people look at the impoverished and see, despite all the evidence to the contrary, evidence that people have made ‘bad choices’ because agency is what they understand. An introvert who says ‘I don’t see much evidence of ethical decision making, so they must be that extroverts do it less/to a lesser degree’ is probably unwittingly limiting what constitutes evidence to that which constitutes their own introverted process of ethical development–much in the same way that a privileged person will define success and failure in terms of choice even though choice is not the appropriate lens through which to look at the situation.

I can contribute to this general idea by drawing on personal experience. I have rigorous, in-depth conversations (that probably sound like angry arguments to sstrangers) on a daily basis with one of my close friends. I hugely enjoy these ‘arguments;’ we aggressively nitpick what constitutes morality in a variety of different contexts from day to day, a discourse that continually helps me to hone not only my ethics but my class, race and gender consciousness. Both extroverts and introverts can be ethical or unethical; fair or unfair—how they arrive at either of these fluid states differs. I am positive that if there were any concrete evidence of introverts being more fair in some way, the extensive research done on personality type would have revealed this. Given the staggering implications of the assertion, it would have been made public. In any case—it’s a pretty offensive assertion to those of us who strive, through discussion, reflection, journaling, listening, that we are somehow ethically impaired. The sheer variety of human nature belies so simplistic a statement.

“I just mean they have more points of criteria a situation has to satisfy before they’re convinced it is, in fact, abuse.”

There are several things wrong with this assertion (and others made). Firstly, this trait you attribute extroverts with having is frankly an unfounded overextension of E/I theory. There simply is no basis in E/I theory for extroverts having such a criteria based on their social preferences. Rather than being based in the theory, this seems to be based on your own inferences about the world—and as I said above, if you lean strongly towards one end of the spectrum you may be not seeing something because you don’t know to look for something there.

To further develop that point: this assertion attempts to give the extroversion/introversion concept far more scope that it actually has. The E/I element of personality type is very useful in its place, but it is also limited. It is used effectively on an individual basis, and useful for analysis of groups only when looking at groups as sets of individuals; it does not take into account sociology. I am hard pressed to think of any theory so overarching and broadly applicable that it can be used accurately and effectively to diagnose so complex a situation as any involving abuse or ethical misconduct!

Since it is neither such a theory, nor sociological in nature, this particular application to group ethics and dynamics is unfounded in the actual theory. It is akin to attempting to put a sink-screw into a wall with a hammer–the tool, very useful in it the proper context, is being applied to a task to perform a function for which it was not designed.

Lastly, you are speaking to a binary that does not exist. All people extrovert and all people introvert at times and to varying degrees. E/I exist along a spectrum; someone is an introvert because that is their preferred form of processing, not because they are incapable of extroversion. Indeed the preference can be very slight and the person is still technically an introvert. Such absolute, sweeping generalizations about how extroverts and introverts deal with ethical dilemmas in group situations cannot be supported because they are based on an incorrect understanding of E/I as a binary rather than a spectrum.

I find myself more wary than ever of this analysis of privilege. Certainly on an individual level, combating the privilege in our lives requires actively seeking an understanding of people who are, in some way, ‘other’ to us. The sweeping assertions made in this analysis and subsequent commentary however demonstrate a lack of understanding of extroverts. There is more to E/I theory than realizing that one side really resonates with us; our intuitive understanding of the _____vert side does not mean we understand the whole theory! Indeed, E/I is a device meant to help us realize that there are things we cannot understand so intuitively; that we must actively seek to understand the other side of the spectrum because if we don’t are perceptions are bound to be defined in the terms of our own preference. This article serves up inferences that are so biased towards introversion that I can only conclude that the author didn’t grasp this necessity. These personal inferences are presented as truth but they are unfounded in the theory referenced—giving the impression that these inferences are based in it.

My apologies if this is somewhat convoluted. It’s late.

Clara

For example, the engaging conversation that ends abruptly. I would classify someone who needs to journal further thoughts on it as an introvert. And I didn’t mean their brain would be empty when the conversation ended. The people I classify as extroverts thrive on feedback and exchange, so they prefer to wait until they have feedback available before continuing with that topic. The advantage of this system is they might ultimately get better, or at least more relevant, ideas because of the feedback. The disadvantage is that quality feedback isn’t always available.

For introverts, the advantage of not preferring feedback is they need only themselves. The disadvantage: this can lead to stale ideas or intellectual self-indulgence.

As for whistle-blowing, I have only my experience in several workplace discrimination incidents and family abuse situations. Extroverts definitely had minds and values: until things escalated, they felt introverts were blowing perceived wrongs out of proportion, and believed it was in everyone’s better interest to accept that nothing is perfect and try to get along rather than take great risks to corrects the wrong. I frankly can’t say that’s a wrong way to look at things, even though I disagree with it. I wasn’t suggesting there would never come a point when an extrovert would blow a whistle, but rather that introverts tend to have a lower tolerance for perceived wrongs because they don’t always value what’s working in the relationship the perceived wrong came from. This is good in a situation where someone’s rights are being significantly violated, but it can be bad when the perceived wrong is a small detail in an otherwise beautiful picture. Say, for example, you have a wonderful job you like that pays well and you’re treated with respect and appreciation, but you notice one of your co-workers gets special perks you don’t get. Instead of fixating on that until you become obsessed, it would be better to shrug it off and focus on the fact that you’ve got what you want.

ETA: Argh, again, re-reading this post a lot of the language sounds like I’m saying extroverts tolerate abuse and try to silence victims more than introverts, and that’s not at all what I’m thinking. I just mean they have more points of criteria a situation has to satisfy before they’re convinced it is, in fact, abuse. This is not a bad thing at all in the sense that introverts are sometimes truly “oversensitive” and the counsel of extroverts to be patient and take a step back is sometimes the most appropriate advice possible. And even when the introvert is correct in her early labeling of the situation abusive, waiting for more indicators isn’t necessarily a bad thing because you need evidence to get anything done anyway (even in an informal setting where you’re confronting someone as a group or something like that). Like Anemone says, I do define introverts as people who are more sensitive to external stimuli, and this can lead us both to highly sensitive accurate reactions and over-sensitized flying off the handle events.