Introverts treat human faces like inanimate objects...

[Xenon]

But it just seemed like the article suggested we don't like people or can "take or leave" human relationships. If you saw me with a good friend you wouldn't say that...

My first thought was something along these lines - presumably these would have been unfamiliar human faces, would they not? The results may have been quite different if the subjects were viewing the faces of important people in their lives.

Also, the fact that introverts' brains show the same P300 response to flowers and (strangers') faces doesn't mean their entire brains were responding identically. If they were, they wouldn't be able to distinguish between people and flowers.

And as for this...

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 subjects were looking at a series of unfamiliar faces. How does that tell you anything about their neurological responses to "interactions with" people?

The study could well tell us something interesting about introverts vs. extroverts, but the way these things are interpreted and reported just makes makes me sometimes.

 

[SilkRoad]

The study could well tell us something interesting about introverts vs. extroverts, but the way these things are interpreted and reported just makes makes me sometimes.

I can't help wondering if it's the way the study is reported that tells us something interesting about introverts vs extroverts...

 

[prplchknz]

its true, very rarely remember what people are wearing or what they look like. that's why i hate the question: "what were they wearing" because honestly i don't know. uh clothes?

 

[Xenon]

The article is not talking about MBTI introverts. If only you would simply click the link where it says "introvert." http://www.livescience.com/6291-study-sheds-light-people-shy.html

Wow look at that, even the link to the other page has the word "shy" in it.

It pisses me off to have to explain this after mentioning it above once already.

"Socially shy" is not an acceptable definition of "introvert" IN MBTI TERMS. You know this to be true. And yet you continue to berate the author of that page on the basis of your OWN idea of what an introvert is.

And in fact, your (or our) idea of what an introvert is really isn't generally accepted by psychologists.

Who are you talking to?

First of all, the link in your quote above is an article about a completely different study. Yes, that study was defining introverts as anxious and inhibited personalities. Yes, that definition doesn't apply to everyone who is an MBTI "I" type - there is likely a correlation, but there are plenty of MBTI introverts who are not sensitive, shy, neurotic and inhibited. How does that negate all the criticisms made here? The study in question here doesn't say how they classed people as introverts or extroverts. Even if they were using the sensitive-shy definition, all the criticisms still stand: relationships are still important to shy/inhibited people, their temperament doesn't mean they "dislike people", they don't see people as objects, etc. And a lot of MBTI introverts are shy/inhibited types and relate to those traits at least somewhat. Not all by any means, but a lot. So the fact that people see reason to be critical of the study doesn't mean they don't understand that there are different definitions of "introvert", and that this entire discussion should come to a close once you come along and enlighten everyone. Thanks anyway.

I can't help wondering if it's the way the study is reported that tells us something interesting about introverts vs extroverts...

Oh, I don't know about that. I think both introverts and extroverts prefer to interpret information in a pretty self-flattering way when they have the opportunity.

 

[Mal12345]

Who are you talking to?

First of all, the link in your quote above is an article about a completely different study. Yes, that study was defining introverts as anxious and inhibited personalities. Yes, that definition doesn't apply to everyone who is an MBTI "I" type - there is likely a correlation, but there are plenty of MBTI introverts who are not sensitive, shy, neurotic and inhibited. How does that negate all the criticisms made here? The study in question here doesn't say how they classed people as introverts or extroverts. Even if they were using the sensitive-shy definition, all the criticisms still stand: relationships are still important to shy/inhibited people, their temperament doesn't mean they "dislike people", they don't see people as objects, etc. And a lot of MBTI introverts are shy/inhibited types and relate to those traits at least somewhat. Not all by any means, but a lot. So the fact that people see reason to be critical of the study doesn't mean they don't understand that there are different definitions of "introvert", and that this entire discussion should come to a close once you come along and enlighten everyone. Thanks anyway.



Oh, I don't know about that. I think both introverts an extroverts prefer to interpret information in a pretty self-flattering way when they have the opportunity.

Geesh.

The link to the OTHER study appeared in the FIRST study. Nobody bothered to click the link to the first study so we can all know what "introvert" they were talking about in the first study.

"relationships are still important to shy/inhibited people." That's not what the first study said. It says that introverts (using their definition provided by the link to the other study) view faces the same way they view inanimate objects. Even the thread name says it.

 

[Xenon]

Geesh.

The link to the OTHER study appeared in the FIRST study. Nobody bothered to click the link to the first study so we can all know what "introvert" they were talking about in the first study.

"relationships are still important to shy/inhibited people." That's not what the first study said. It says that introverts (using their definition provided by the link to the other study) view faces the same way they view inanimate objects. Even the thread name says it.

The article (not the study itself, but the interpretation and reporting of the results) does, in fact, suggest that people are less important to introverts, and that introverts just plain don't like people. Some direct quotes:

...introverts, or their brains, might be indifferent to people — they can take them or leave them, so to speak.

Extroverts like to be around other people and generally enjoy social situations while introverts are the opposite.

The results strongly suggest that human faces, or people in general, hold more significance for extroverts, or are more meaningful for them

So yes, it says straight out that introverts "can take or leave" people, that people are less "meaningful" for them, that an extrovert is someone who enjoys people and an introvert is "the opposite". These things are not accurate, either of MBTI introverts or socially shy people. That is what people are criticizing here. Even if the subjects were grouped largely according to social inhibition, that does not invalidate any of these criticisms.

The fact that the other study was about shyness/neuroticism/inhibition doesn't mean that's what was measured here. The site just puts links to studies on similar topics at the bottom. There are different ways of classing people as introverts; some of them are likely quite strongly correlated with MBTI type. You have no way of knowing what people "bothered to click", since once again, they are making criticisms of the study that are equally valid even if they had been defining "introvert" as a shy, inhibited person.

So, there is no reason to expect that "they meant introvert this way, not that way" should stop people from criticizing the article, and no reason to come in and bitch out [MENTION=7063]SilkRoad[/MENTION] or the entire thread or whomever (I'm still not any clearer on whom your bitching was directed at) when that doesn't happen.

 

[Mal12345]

The article (not the study itself, but the interpretation and reporting of the results) does, in fact, suggest that people are less important to introverts, and that introverts just plain don't like people. Some direct quotes:





So yes, it says straight out that introverts "can take or leave" people, that people are less "meaningful" for them, that an extrovert is someone who enjoys people and an introvert is "the opposite". These things are not accurate, either of MBTI introverts or socially shy people. That is what people are criticizing here. Even if the subjects were grouped largely according to social inhibition, that does not invalidate any of these criticisms.

The fact that the other study was about shyness/neuroticism/inhibition doesn't mean that's what was measured here. The site just puts links to studies on similar topics at the bottom. There are different ways of classing people as introverts; some of them are likely quite strongly correlated with MBTI type. You have no way of knowing what people "bothered to click", since once again, they are making criticisms of the study that are equally valid even if they had been defining "introvert" as a shy, inhibited person.

So, there is no reason to expect that "they meant introvert this way, not that way" should stop people from criticizing the article, and no reason to come in and bitch out [MENTION=7063]SilkRoad[/MENTION] or the entire thread or whomever (I'm still not any clearer on whom your bitching was directed at) when that doesn't happen.

From your comment, I see that the report is defining "introvert" and "extrovert" (notice it's not spelled the MBTI 'extravert' way) either according to common psychological practice or according to dictionary definitions.

in·tro·vert/ˈintrəˌvərt/
Noun:
A shy, reticent, and typically self-centered person.
A person predominantly concerned with their own thoughts and feelings rather than with external things.


ex·tro·vert/ˈekstrəˌvərt/
Noun:
An outgoing, overtly expressive person.

"An extroverted person is likely to enjoy time spent with people and find less reward in time spent alone. They tend to be energized when around other people..." (Wiki).

It's Jung who is off-the-wall in obscurely defining these two terms according to cognitive attitude or focus of attention regarding functions. That's not to say he is wrong, but that we are comparing two different systems here that happen to use the same words.

 

[Cellmold]

It's Jung who is off-the-wall in obscurely defining these two terms according to cognitive attitude or focus of attention regarding functions. That's not to say he is wrong, but that we are comparing two different systems here that happen to use the same words.

The article doesn't really bother me but Mal did you forget that it was Carl Jung who gave the world the terms Introversion and Extraversion? Incidentally the difference in spelling has nothing to do with MBTI, it is merely a difference with no real significance beyond a dilution by the general populace, then again it could be significant depending on which side you take with the spelling.

However if you can provide evidence as to why im wrong on this I will happily admit it and alter my perception.

Unfortunately from what ive seen information on the subject seems contradictory and divided. Some sources define them as separate between one being used as a psychological term, (extraversion), and one being just a set of general outward traits, (extroversion). But then other sources say that they are merely two different spellings of the same thing.

 

[Xenon]

It's Jung who is off-the-wall in obscurely defining these two terms according to cognitive attitude or focus of attention regarding functions. That's not to say he is wrong, but that we are comparing two different systems here that happen to use the same words.

I've been acknowledging from the beginning that there is a difference in the MBTI and common psychological definitions of introversion/extroversion, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to quote the dictionary to me. My points are 1. Many MBTI introverts also relate to the more standard definition of an introvert in a number of ways (from my own observations and experience, more often than not), and many people here identify with both and 2. The article is painting a picture of introverts as not liking/being indifferent to people, which isn't accurate regardless of which definition you use - preferring to spend more time alone or have fewer relationships doesn't mean the relationships you do have are any less important or you are "indifferent" to them. Psychologists have been saying this for years; there's no reason for the article not to make this distinction. Therefore, even if there were no relationship at all between the two definitions of "introvert" and the article was only talking about the common psychological definition, the criticisms that have come up in this thread would still be valid.

If you aren't interested in discussing false perceptions of introverts unless we're talking strictly about MBTI introverts, you're free to go post in another thread and talk about something else, rather than coming in here and bitching because other people want to talk about it.

 

[Mal12345]

The article doesn't really bother me but Mal did you forget that it was Carl Jung who gave the world the terms Introversion and Extraversion? Incidentally the difference in spelling has nothing to do with MBTI, it is merely a difference with no real significance beyond a dilution by the general populace, then again it could be significant depending on which side you take with the spelling.

However if you can provide evidence as to why im wrong on this I will happily admit it and alter my perception.

Unfortunately from what ive seen information on the subject seems contradictory and divided. Some sources define them as separate between one being used as a psychological term, (extraversion), and one being just a set of general outward traits, (extroversion). But then other sources say that they are merely two different spellings of the same thing.

M-W.com states that the first known use of the term "introversion" was in 1654. It is possible that its first known psychological (versus biological or some other) use was by Jung. But Wiki states that they were first popularized by Jung.

I think Jung coined some terms, but those weren't among them. He redefined a lot of known concepts and corrected some errors made by other psychologists. And I'm sure he redefined those too.

The word "extraversion" is relatively late in coming into prominent use as a synonym of "extroversion." My big Webster's New World Dictionary, which I've owned for 30 years, does not list it.

 

[Mal12345]

I've been acknowledging from the beginning that there is a difference in the MBTI and common psychological definitions of introversion/extroversion, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to quote the dictionary to me.

It's simply because I did not read your previous posts on this thread.

My points are 1. Many MBTI introverts also relate to the more standard definition of an introvert in a number of ways (from my own observations and experience, more often than not), and many people here identify with both and 2. The article is painting a picture of introverts as not liking/being indifferent to people, which isn't accurate regardless of which definition you use - preferring to spend more time alone or have fewer relationships doesn't mean the relationships you do have are any less important or you are "indifferent" to them. Psychologists have been saying this for years; there's no reason for the article not to make this distinction. Therefore, even if there were no relationship at all between the two definitions of "introvert" and the article was only talking about the common psychological definition, the criticisms that have come up in this thread would still be valid.

I deleted the rest of your comment because it treats me like an inanimate object.

 

[Blank]

Sounds like autism to me, not introversion.

 

[Cellmold]

M-W.com states that the first known use of the term "introversion" was in 1654. It is possible that its first known psychological (versus biological or some other) use was by Jung.

That sounds cool, where is the information for that, id love to read up on it.

I had assumed that something akin or at least in trait being descriptive of Intro/extraversion would be around at some point but most books ive read claim he gave the world those particular terms. The concepts of course may be much much older.

 

[lunalum]

I feel you, yeah.

'Offensive' studies aren't necessarily wrong. But if the results of studies don't jive with our intuition and experience, though--especially in matters as "soft" as psychology--they ought to be examined for internal consistency ("it makes sense") and external validation ("yes, it's flippin' true").

Part of the problem is that scientific studies use language such as "x this suggests that y" and the media touts it as "Holy shit, x is y!! Forever!! Protect your kids!! Kill everyone of a different ethnicity!" Since our scope gets blown up, we've been told at least a few times that we can't predict some of the things that we've purported to predict, that we're part of a government conspiracy, etc.

LiveScience is mostly on track here, but some of the other articles are embarrassing as hell in their interpretation of this work. Then again, Fishman is the one making pretty bold claims in that interview--look at that paragraph about what the study "supports."

And here's Fishman et al. At first glance, it seems that it's mostly misinterpreted--the study is mostly claiming that introverts aren't as stimulated by human faces, not that they can't tell the difference between a damn face and a flower.

Quoted for emphasis.

 

[lunalum]

Might this really be one of those "well, duh" sort of studies? Like "yeah let's have these people take this test that determines their I/E preference based on questions like whether they are more or less responsive to strangers, and then see if the Es are more responsive to the stranger's faces or not. And omigosh they are!"

 

[Mal12345]

That sounds cool, where is the information for that, id love to read up on it.

I had assumed that something akin or at least in trait being descriptive of Intro/extraversion would be around at some point but most books ive read claim he gave the world those particular terms. The concepts of course may be much much older.

It's right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion

 

[Mal12345]

Might this really be one of those "well, duh" sort of studies? Like "yeah let's have these people take this test that determines their I/E preference based on questions like whether they are more or less responsive to strangers, and then see if the Es are more responsive to the stranger's faces or not. And omigosh they are!"

Probably.

 

[Cellmold]

It's right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion

I have read that before. But I didn't see the part about 1654, although I might have missed it.

As for that part about Jung popularising the terms, technically this is a case of which sources to trust...however what I read about 'giving them to the world' could have been meant as 'popularised' and I misread it.

 

[Mal12345]

I have read that before. But I didn't see the part about 1654, although I might have missed it.

As for that part about Jung popularising the terms, technically this is a case of which sources to trust...however what I read about 'giving them to the world' could have been meant as 'popularised' and I misread it.

The part about 1654 I stated was at M-W.com. That's where you find word etymologies and origins.

"Giving them to the world" sounds rather exaggerated.

 

[Cellmold]

The part about 1654 I stated was at M-W.com. That's where you find word etymologies and origins.

"Giving them to the world" sounds rather exaggerated.

It does, doesn't it? Cheers for the information though.