Questioning "introversion"

Gaze

Gaze

Donor
MBTI
INFPishy
I'm beginning to question the term "introversion" - since the connotations especially based on popular misconception are often negative. It suggests a desire not to interact or engage with people or a tendency to withdraw from people and society, to be antisocial, etc. And many introverts, as clearly as this site demonstrates, are rarely many of these things even if they aren't very social irl.

I also think the word introversion has a tendency to be used intentionally or unintentionally to become a self fulfilling prophecy. Labeling ourselves as introverts, meaning imposing a particular set of traits on our behaviors or identity, as we all know, can be very limiting and restrictive.

Now, by this i don't mean we need to be or become or care about being extroverted. Instead, my point is that we are falling into the the trap of seeing ourselves in a more negative light because of all the build up of negative connotations which the term "introversion" calls to mind.

As an example, just to further clarify this point, as any other self described or tested "introvert" I like spending time alone when i feel i need to clear some head space, and recoup, but this doesn't mean that i don't like being around people. I may not like being the center of attention or like large social gatherings or crowds, but this doesn't mean i hate talking to people or engaging people about feelings or ideas. I don't think introversion means having a natural dislike for social engagement or interaction. I think it's more comfort level or where we feel naturally oriented or what feels normal for us as individuals or personalities. And here's another way to look at it - saying someone is just being a typical introvert because they don't like interacting with people, when the issue is not the interacting but the people, is not really introversion, is it? I remember in college trying to fit in with many groups, some more extroverted than others, and I felt inadequate or socially inept :D because I wasn't extroverted and outgoing as they were. I felt as if something was missing in me. But now i realize that the problem wasn't me; it was as simple as i just didn't click well with that group.

So, is "introversion" really the best way to describe the personality traits we often associate with introversion? Or are we using a definition of introversion which does more harm than good to truly reflecting who we are as a type and as individuals?
 
I tend to understand introversion as the persons focus in a given lifetime. There is more focus on the person's inner life than an emphasis on others. There is more work that needs to be done internally in order to grow and ascend to a higher state of self.
 
Remember that the MBTI defintion of introversion is different from the popular definition of it. Are you talking about the MBTI definition of introversion or the popular definition of it? Because they are very different things. Over half of everyone is an introvert according to MBTI, but less than a quarter of everyone is an introvert according to the popular definition of it.
 
Dragon said:
Remember that the MBTI defintion of introversion is different from the popular definition of it. Are you talking about the MBTI definition of introversion or the popular definition of it? Because they are very different things. Over half of everyone is an introvert according to MBTI, but less than a quarter of everyone is an introvert according to the popular definition of it.
Click to expand...

Even if the definitions are different, the fact is that in general "introversion" is seen to have more negative connotations than extroversion and in this respect it's often being used to misjudge or even alienate us or we're often holding ourselves too much to a specific definition of introversion which alienates us from the world because of the anti-social or negative impressions or less positive connotations it calls to mind for anyone who hears the term.
 
helps to look at the facts & the history of your life. if you've more or less been with the same kinds of people all your life, then it'd be harder to gauge where you stand on the introvert-extrovert scale, but even so there should be a trend emerging when you consider how you normally respond to people (especially people you DO click with). extroverts become lonely and bored much more quickly when alone, and introverts generally feel their spirits rising when alone. after social situations, even enjoyable situations with people with whom they've developed a substantial rapport, an introvert will be seeking rest and relaxation, while an extrovert will usually just jump to the next activity. the distinction is certainly relative & context dependent, but i'd hazard to say it's completely illusionary. there is a difference in how people typically react.

that said, anita brings up a good point about labels limiting you. even if you are an introvert, doesn't actually mean you always will be one, or that it's useful or the best way to describe your tendencies. use the mbti as a tool for emotional and intellectual growth, not a way to define your character (which is truly too complex to be defined using such a simplistic model). people carry on being who they are while the psychologists & analysts struggle to keep up =P
 
April said:
that said, anita brings up a good point about labels limiting you. even if you are an introvert, doesn't actually mean you always will be one, or that it's useful or the best way to describe your tendencies.
Click to expand...

This was essentially my point. I am not arguing that there are no differences between introversion or extroversion. Instead, i'm arguing that the traits or qualities which we or the larger cultures often associates with introversion are often limiting which begs the question whether introverstion is the most useful term to describe the complexity of the function and its associated traits. Yes, we may have our own individual understandings of introversion based on a more inclusive description provided by a typing system such as MBTI, but if the general impression of the term still has more negative than positive connotations which influences how we're perceived and treated, then maybe we should rethink it. And if a word has a set of associations attached to it definition over a period of time, it's will usually retain that meaning and impression.
 
Last edited:
I much prefer the Eysenck model of introversion and extroversion. In this model these are both relative terms along a continuous scale based on how high an individuals default levels of cortical arousal are. Everyone is more comfortable and productive at medium levels of cortical arousal (the Yerkes-Dodson Law), and everyone has this arousal increased by the stress of interacting with others. In those who are relatively introverted it is easy to pass the point of healthy stress levels into the area where one does not function well, while in those who are extroverted external stimulation is needed in order to reach the comfort level. Since strangers are a major stresser while those who are intimately known cause hardly any stimulation at all, introverts tend to crave greater intimacy while extroverts fear intimacy and prefer more superficial relationships.
 
Last edited:
I would compare it to temperature, in which cold does not really exist, rather it just means less heat. We all depend on interaction and sociability, we just depend and need of this at different levels. Making it seem more like, "Mary is more extroverted than Paul but less extroverted than Shaun". Introversion is one of those words that it is constantly misjudge, and no matter how much the definitions are altered, we live in a society where was has to be better than the other. There are no shades, mostly "right or wrong". Introversion has sadly fallen in the "wrong category". I value my introversion and all of its traits, but whenever I try to discuss it I automatically get stereotyped. Its a shame.
 
Anita said:
This was essentially my point. I am not arguing that there are no differences between introversion or extroversion. Instead, i'm arguing that the traits or qualities which we or the larger cultures often associates with introversion are often limiting which begs the question whether introverstion is the most useful term to describe the complexity of the function and its associated traits. Yes, we may have our own individual understandings of introversion based on a more inclusive description provided by a typing system such as MBTI, but if the general impression of the term still has more negative than positive connotations which influences how we're perceived and treated, then maybe we should rethink it. And if a word has a set of associations attached to it definition over a period of time, it's will usually retain that meaning and impression.
Click to expand...

I think I see what you mean. if we called it something else, perhaps society would associate it with more positive traits, and thus respond to people with such traits better as a natural consequence. you're right that labels do change how people see & treat you, and extroversion is generally more favored. do you have any suggestions? maybe we could split up the term "introversion" into a couple of different categories. or switch it from introversion to "localversion" or something (Lol. I'm sure you could come up with something more marketable :P)

though I do think it's more important how you define yourself rather than how society in general responds to your definition of yourself. your own self perception is much more important & indeed malleable, than whatever other people see.
 
I would agree with the changing of the term, however, for me, I really don't care much about what society thinks introversion is. All that matters to me is that I'm definitely an introvert. Always have been, almost 100% sure I always will be. Why? Because my energy has always come from spending time alone. Time thinking and reflecting. I think long and hard before I speak, an introverted tendency that is very positive, as it means that you usually have something thoughtful to say. When in social situations, I enjoy being around others, but it's like an internal hourglass gets turned over, slowly draining my energy levels because it takes a lot more thought and emotions to be around people than to be within myself. I feel that this is not something learned, but just your natural way of being. The way of being that doesn't feel forced. If one strives to "become" extroverted, they are essentially going against their nature by stretching themselves. I think it's good to be content with either being an introvert or an extrovert, because then you experience all of the positive qualities of either one. Stereotypical introverts who spend a lot of time away from the social world are able to form their own opinions and values with less influence from others. If they enjoy spending some time in a social setting, they already have well developed thoughts to contribute to conversation.
I don't think we need to change the word, we just need to bring better awareness of what introversion means. But I think an important step in doing this is for everyone to agree on one single definition of the word, since it obviously means different things to different people at this point in time.
 
It is matter of view. I like mbti definiton, because with me is correct. For example, I like work in teams, but at one point i just need to be alone. I am better when I thnik alone and undisturbed. Now i don't see th introversion as negative. I know my good points an limits. I can be focused and deep more than many poeple I know, but yes, I don't do multitasking:) Amd unlike most extrovert when we are in big groups i can focused on one person and communicate. Extroverts, in my experience are more "migling" types wich made me hurt few times in not so grown:) period.
As for limits, I am teacher and speaking infront of class was great problem. But I got over that by time and practise and I find it good feeling. Introversions is not shyness. So I worked on my shyness. Introversion can be helpful to me and to others, so it's not negative. Just has to be under control. Awarness of it is enough.
 
I'm a fairly extreme introvert and discovering I was one was life saving, I shall be an introvert until the day I die, it is part and parcel of my core nature, I don't give a damn if the rest of the world views it as negative, it's not to me.
 
And yes, if someone has problem with me being introvert, well, that's her/his problem. people can misinterpret. If I had coin fro every time I heard:"You are not SO shy!" Well, good morning!! If I don't speak it does not mean that I don't see and understrand what others want to say or do. besides, being sort of outsider that looks at people from distance can be fun:) As a movie...people are so cute when they think they hide something:) Wich makes me think - am I that transparent mysel???:) Probably some person outside is being amused by my trys to cover obvious...:)
 
Just like magister mentioned, Introversion and Extroversion are no made up concepts, they are real and manifest in our neural physiology; and most importantly there is nothing wrong with either.

Arousal Level

Our arousal level identifies the amount and speed of our brain’s activity. Of necessity, our arousal level varies from waking to dreaming to sleeping. Moreover, when we shift from sleeping to waking we always “wake up” at the same level of arousal. In other words, we each have a stable level of arousal in the waking state, which may be seen as the set point for our waking arousal — that is how alert we are when we are simply sitting, fully awake, but not actively stimulated to “thinking” in a focused way about a problem.
Concerning arousal, Hans Eysenck’s research suggests that humans are distributed along a continuum according to a normal bell curve. That is, fifteen percent (15%) are very aroused, fifteen percent (15%) are only minimally aroused, and seventy percent (70%) are in the middle.
Importantly, those of us who are highly aroused take in much more information second per second than the average person and may subsequently need to diminish or limit the “volume” of the stimulation around us. This leads others to see us as introverted. This is because, being so highly aroused, introverts tend to “overload” more readily, especially in highly stimulating (noisy, varied, colorful, eventful) environments. When this happens, introverts tend to close down in order to control or to limit the level of incoming stimulation and to make sense of everything they have already taken in.
By contrast, those of us who are only minimally aroused take in much less information second per second than the average person and may subsequently need to augment or increase the “volume” of the stimulation around us. This leads others to see us as extraverted. This is because, being only minimally aroused, extraverts tend to not think clearly or even fall asleep if they do not receive more stimulation from the outside environment. For this reason, extraverts are commonly found increasing the volume of stimulation in their environment. They turn on the TV and radio. They open the door and invite the dogs and or children to come in. They turn on the radio while reading, or move to a noisy place to read.
Finally, it seems, many people, about 70% of the population wake up at just the right level of arousal, to be alert and able to think clearly, but not so alert so as to be vulnerable to being overwhelmed by intense stimulation. Given their balanced arousal level, these people are able to manage well in a wide range of jobs and environments, by scheduling an oppositely inclined activity immediately following any activity which is either highly extraverted or introverted.
Given the above, it is possible to understand the following definitions for Extraversion and Introversion as well as to understand their implications for an individual.

Extraversion

Having a naturally low level of arousal which causes the individual to seek higher than normal levels of stimulation in order to “feel alive.”
Typical ways in which the extravert seeks stimulation include: trying to influence or control his or her environment; confronting others; engaging in competition; attending crowded parties or events “where the action is.”

Introversion

Having a naturally high level of arousal which causes the individual to seek lower than normal levels of stimulation in order to not feel overwhelmed.
Over a period of years, this need to not be overwhelmed by external stimulation develops into an internally focused thinking style which may seem withdrawn, meditative, quiet, or even reclusive to more extraverted person. Typical ways in which the introvert seeks to control the level of stimulation include: spending time reading, reflecting, or otherwise alone; avoiding or being accommodating to others; competing mostly with oneself or self image; going to small parties or out of the way places.
Click to expand...
Physiology of Chronic Anxiety

When we are subjected to some type of chronic anxiety for months or years, it is our R.A.S. which shifts its set point so that we are continually more alert in our general waking state. Subsequently, we naturally become more introverted until we address the source of our chronic anxiety. Although somewhat disorienting, this shift is fully reasonable as it causes us to be more introspective, thereby increasing the chances that we will notice that we are living under some types of chronic anxiety which is “frightening” us and causing us to live on edge, always a bit in fear. As such anxiety is usually the result of some life choice we have made or some way we are living our lives, the increased level of introspection increases the probability that we will see the problem at the level of the problem and solve it. When this is done and the source of our anxiety is resolved, we can quite naturally return to our normal level of wakefulness.
Subsequently, by juxtaposing what we have learned physiologically with Jung’s own observations on extraversion and introversion, we have a clearer appreciation for Jung and as well as tools such as the MBTI and BTSA, others are using to help people apply Jung’s model to empower and guide themselves. Here for example are five questions, which have left many people confused about Jung, Type or the MBTI for several years. In the light of the new information science provides, the confusion surrounding each question dissolves.

Jung saw Introversion as “saying no to life” and at the same time, a natural, normal way of being?
According to Dr. Hans Eysenck, Jung was 100% correct when he said that Introversion is a normal and healthy way in which many people live life, based on their physiology. At the same time, Jung was also 100% correct when he noticed that at least some Introverts seem to be saying no to life.
In point of fact, Introverts actually take in so much information second per second that they might be said to be “gulping in information” – a definite yes to life. Yet, the fact that overly loud environments in which a lot is happening can cause them to be “overwhelmed” can cause them to appear to be saying – in that highly stimulating context – no to life, when in fact what they are saying no to is simply the experience of being overwhelmed.
As well, some Introverts develop a negative attitude towards life as a result of being continually shamed or devalued when they live in a culture which seems to value and reward Extraversion more than Introversion. This is certainly the finding of Elaine Aron in The Highly Sensitive Person: How to Thrive When the World Overwhelms You.

Yet another factor which “gives Introverts a bad name” is this one. Many people, under chronic anxiety – brought about by many consecutive years of high stress – develop a negative attitude because of the stress they have had to face. At the same time, these people experience a shift as a result of the chronic anxiety, in their arousal system. They become more Introverted. Indeed some natural Extraverts become so “stressed out” their arousal shifts so much they actually appear to be Introverts. All these people – who are experiencing a higher level of Introversion as a result of chronic anxiety – reinforce the older belief that “Introverts say no to life.”
Click to expand...
[source]

The bolded pretty much speaks for itself.

Here, you can also see how some Extroverts frequently mistype themselves.
 
Thx for posting @Peppermint but i am not arguing that the concepts of introversion or extroversion don't exist, as i completely agree with the article definition of the terms, but what i'm referring to is the continued use of the term introversion when it's been stereotyped into something which it isn't. Many here are describing the validity of the concept, which isn't in dispute, but rather the use of the term "introversion" which is often misleading because of the negative connotations assigned to it over a period of time, despite what we personally feel or think about what it means. I may value "introversion" but on the other hand, i (as a generic i) am being judged for it negatively indirectly, if not directly, because of the negative stereotypes others associate with the term. And as much as i'd love to have the luxury of not caring what people think, which is not realistic, because we are affected by the social perceptions of others, it is better to use language which celebrates rather than perpetuates the stereotype. People are less likely to change their understanding of a term, and hold to what they think it means than to accept a new term which they have no past associations with.
 
Last edited:
Wow... [MENTION=442]arbygil[/MENTION]

I want to post, but I almost don’t have the energy to fight back and forth so much :(

I’m not even going to try and explain it. Just going to quote from books:

extraverted
"psychic energy is directed out of the person to the world outside them”
"... maintains a positive relation to the object. To such an extent does he affirm its importance that his subjective attitude is continually being orientated by, and related to the object....”
"an extravert attitude is motivated from the outside and is directed by external, objective factors and relationships”
"behavior directed externally, to influence outside factors and events”

introverted
"the person's psychic energy is internally directed”
".... attitude to the object is an abstracting one.... he is always facing the problem of how libido can be withdrawn from the object....”
"an introvert is motivated from within and directed by inner, subjective matters”
"behavior directed inwardly to understand and manage self and experience”

Exampe:
Fe = our values
Fi = my values

good luck :D :m200:
 
my background is language, communication, and cultural studies and part of my interest and studies in this area was related to understanding the effect of language on shaping our consciousness and communication. One of the key things I learned which is a commonly accepted notion in communication studies is that if language shapes our understanding and our communication, then we either change the meaning of the communication or change the language we use to communicate it. One of the key elements in communication studies is realizing the effect of how our communication shapes the way we think, and that if we indeed want to change the change the world, by this i mean, make it more accessible and more open to different ways of looking at people and/or situations, then we would need to change how we define or describe it. Being critical about the language we use is pretty typical in this discipline because if we can deconstruct the language we use to define things then we can get at the underlying values being promoted in the language we use, and change it for the better. So, what i've argued would be common in my discipline and not that strange a thought as it seems to be here.

tbh, my original point was to simply to engage in critical thinking about a word and it's related concept. And this kind of critical analysis is second nature.
 
Anita said:
my background is language, communication, and cultural studies and part of my interest and studies in this area was related to understanding the effect of language on shaping our consciousness and communication. One of the key things I learned which is a commonly accepted notion in communication studies is that if language shapes our understanding and our communication, then we either change the meaning of the communication or change the language we use to communicate it. One of the key elements in communication studies is realizing the effect of how our communication shapes the way we think, and that if we indeed want to change the change the world, by this i mean, make it more accessible and more open to different ways of looking at people and/or situations, then we would need to change how we define or describe it. Being critical about the language we use is pretty typical in this discipline because if we can deconstruct the language we use to define things then we can get at the underlying values being promoted in the language we use, and change it for the better. So, what i've argued would be common in my discipline and not that strange a thought as it seems to be here.

tbh, my original point was to simply to engage in critical thinking about a word and it's related concept. And this kind of critical analysis is second nature.
Click to expand...

No no no no. Sorry, lack of effort in explaining and giving credit where it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top