Logical Artist
New member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2012
- Messages
- 11
- MBTI Type
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 5w4
Even though it was the researchers words that are being debated here, the research itself is good.
I went back and read the original article:
This study just says that people's faces are more rewarding than flowers to extraverts, and that people's faces are equally rewarding as flowers to introverts.
It does NOT say that people are more meaningful or rewarding to extraverts than to introverts.
However, the quote in the livescience article is an example of why you can't take quotes from authority figures as valid research. He was voicing his own intuitions, probably as an extravert himself.
"[This] supports the claim that introverts, or their brains, might be indifferent to people — they can take them or leave them, so to speak. The introvert's brain treats interactions with people the same way it treats encounters with other, non-human information, such as inanimate objects for example," Fishman told LiveScience.
The results strongly suggest that human faces, or people in general, hold more significance than inanimate objectsfor extroverts, or are more meaningful for them, Fishman said.
Ignore the bolder parts, and I added the italicized parts to make it follow his findings more closely.
Altogether it reads, "[This] supports the claim that the introvert's brain treats interactions with people the same way it treats encounters with other, non-human information, such as inanimate objects for example. The results strongly suggest that human faces, or people in general, hold more significance than inanimate objects for extroverts"
Basically I'm just saying that it only compares different stimuli within introverts, and different stimuli within extraverts, NOT introverts to extraverts.
I went back and read the original article:
This study just says that people's faces are more rewarding than flowers to extraverts, and that people's faces are equally rewarding as flowers to introverts.
It does NOT say that people are more meaningful or rewarding to extraverts than to introverts.
However, the quote in the livescience article is an example of why you can't take quotes from authority figures as valid research. He was voicing his own intuitions, probably as an extravert himself.
"[This] supports the claim that introverts, or their brains, might be indifferent to people — they can take them or leave them, so to speak. The introvert's brain treats interactions with people the same way it treats encounters with other, non-human information, such as inanimate objects for example," Fishman told LiveScience.
The results strongly suggest that human faces, or people in general, hold more significance than inanimate objectsfor extroverts, or are more meaningful for them, Fishman said.
Ignore the bolder parts, and I added the italicized parts to make it follow his findings more closely.
Altogether it reads, "[This] supports the claim that the introvert's brain treats interactions with people the same way it treats encounters with other, non-human information, such as inanimate objects for example. The results strongly suggest that human faces, or people in general, hold more significance than inanimate objects for extroverts"
Basically I'm just saying that it only compares different stimuli within introverts, and different stimuli within extraverts, NOT introverts to extraverts.