Introverts treat human faces like inanimate objects...

[Joehobo]

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.

Your frustration is unreasonable. I've only seen two people before you made this comment who mentioned something MBTI related, and that was in the form of a (/ *comment* *insert type here.*)
I think most people on this forum would have an understanding of what the general accepted view of an introvert is. I did not see the need to click a stupid link to educate myself on what the definition of an introvert is because I already understood this meaning way before I discovered MBTI.
I'm an Introvert by MBTI's theoretical standards, and by societies standards. As the "studies" suggest, I fit the definition because of the following: I'm a recluse, I'm shy, I'm slow to open up, I like to read and do activities which don't involve other people, cry easily, ask wierd questions, have thoughts which people find to complicated to care to listen, and considered sensitive.
I wouldn't be surprised that other introverts can relate to this, and would agree that this notion that introverts value people at the same level as objects would feel a little insulted.

 

[Mal12345]

Your frustration is unreasonable. I've only seen two people before you made this comment who mentioned something MBTI related, and that was in the form of a (/ *comment* *insert type here.*)
I think most people on this forum would have an understanding of what the general accepted view of an introvert is. I did not see the need to click a stupid link to educate myself on what the definition of an introvert is because I already understood this meaning way before I discovered MBTI.
I'm an Introvert by MBTI's theoretical standards, and by societies standards. As the "studies" suggest, I fit the definition because of the following: I'm a recluse, I'm shy, I'm slow to open up, I like to read and do activities which don't involve other people, cry easily, ask wierd questions, have thoughts which people find to complicated to care to listen, and considered sensitive.
I wouldn't be surprised that other introverts can relate to this, and would agree that this notion that introverts value people at the same level as objects would feel a little insulted.

"Cry easily" is not in the definition of "introvert." That's more histrionic than introverted. And it looks like you're conflating the MBTI definition with the standard one.

The primary difference is Jungian, and it encompasses far more than just being shy and/or socially awkward. The latter may or may not be true of a Jungian introvert.

The benefit of Jung's definition is that an introvert is not defined negatively, as society would have it. Or to put this another way, the introvert is not defined cynically, and only by extraverted standards of social behavior, since extraverts are (or were) in the majority. Introversion, in Jungian terms, is defined as the devaluation of the object by the subject. And thus you have the study itself proving Jung's theory.

 

[Joehobo]

"Cry easily" is not in the definition of "introvert." That's more histrionic than introverted. And it looks like you're conflating the MBTI definition with the standard one.

The primary difference is Jungian, and it encompasses far more than just being shy and/or socially awkward. The latter may or may not be true of a Jungian introvert.

The benefit of Jung's definition is that an introvert is not defined negatively, as society would have it. Or to put this another way, the introvert is not defined cynically, and only by extraverted standards of social behavior, since extraverts are (or were) in the majority. Introversion, in Jungian terms, is defined as the devaluation of the object by the subject. And thus you have the study itself proving Jung's theory.

Taking a step back here, I think I may have misunderstood the angle you where coming from about this.
I'm not conflating the two, I was pointing out that I fit the standard by which the study defined an introvert. "Cry easily" was only one of the examples I listed, and you'd need alot more than that aswell as context to identify someone that has a disorder like HPD. I'm not mixing either as I'm going off by the same standard they have presented and by what is generally common knowledge between the differences of an extrovert and introvert as it is universally known.

I get the difference you're explaining between Jung's theory and societies view on the matter, I definitely agree on those differences you presented.

The point I was trying to make is that people feel disheartened by this article not because it attacks their understanding of the MBTI's variant of introversion, but the people who fit under the label of "introvert" defined by society, then proceeding to say that this study proves that introverts (in societies term.) value people at the same level they value objects.

EDIT: The OP had nothing to do with MBTI from what I could see.
It's better kept in the closet when talking about more practical things like what was going on in this study.

 

[Mal12345]

Taking a step back here, I think I may have misunderstood the angle you where coming from about this.
I'm not conflating the two, I was pointing out that I fit the standard by which the study defined an introvert. "Cry easily" was only one of the examples I listed, and you'd need alot more than that aswell as context to identify someone that has a disorder like HPD. I'm not mixing either as I'm going off by the same standard they have presented and by what is generally common knowledge between the differences of an extrovert and introvert as it is universally known.

I get the difference you're explaining between Jung's theory and societies view on the matter, I definitely agree on those differences you presented.

The point I was trying to make is that people feel disheartened by this article not because it attacks their understanding of the MBTI's variant of introversion, but the people who fit under the label of "introvert" defined by society, then proceeding to say that this study proves that introverts (in societies term.) value people at the same level they value objects.

The criticisms are based on the subjective notion that "I'm an introvert and I'm not like that." But it's hard to dismiss studies of neural activity on that grounds. The only way to do this would be to undergo an EEG and find out directly.

 

[Joehobo]

The criticisms are based on the subjective notion that "I'm an introvert and I'm not like that." But it's hard to dismiss studies of neural activity on that grounds. The only way to do this would be to undergo an EEG and find out directly.

Fair enough. Ha, If I had that opportunity I'd likely give it a try out of sheer curiousity. That is true it is harder to dispute it on those grounds, but the ending remarks made it seem more like a "lack of thereof" generalisation.

 

[Mal12345]

Fair enough. Ha, If I had that opportunity I'd likely give it a try out of sheer curiousity. That is true it is harder to dispute it on those grounds, but the ending remarks made it seem more like a "lack of thereof" generalisation.

It's a correlation study, as usual. The article itself only uses the word "suggests," not "proves."

 

[Xenon]

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

Lol. That's odd, since they were direct responses to your posts. And if you aren't reading other people's posts, where do you get off acting pissy because people don't change the tone of the discussion in response to yours?

The criticisms are based on the subjective notion that "I'm an introvert and I'm not like that." But it's hard to dismiss studies of neural activity on that grounds. The only way to do this would be to undergo an EEG and find out directly.

Once again, it isn't the study itself that is being criticized. It is the article about it and the explanation/interpretation. Yes, when you do a study, the results you get are the results you get. But their interpretation and presentation to the public can still illustrate people's attitudes and preconceptions. Their descriptions in the article really aren't a good explanation of what "introvert" means in common psychological terms either, so the fact that they weren't talking about the MBTI definition of introvert does not invalidate the criticisms about the article.

 

[violaine]

Study makes some sense to me WRT the way I function. I personally can def take or leave people. It's not that I actively dislike people. People in general just don't tend grab my attention because I'm focused on other thoughts. I have to make a lot of mental effort to switch into focussing on people. Especially if they are difficult interactions. I'll try for a while but then I just kind of drop off. I have a lot on my mind most of the time, mostly to do with forward planning for business and big life goals.

When I was younger, I had a hard time making people stick in my mind. I was meeting a lot of new people through friends and forced socializing and it was difficult to be interested enough in surface-style interactions to make one person out of twenty stick in my mind. I was more interested in people then as a curiosity, but from a distance. I am really content with one close relationship and being immersed in working on my business interests. I do make my partner a priority. (He and I have to be a really good fit though as I want mostly positive, life-enhancing interactions. Not draining experiences that distract me from where I'm going in life).

 

[Mal12345]

Lol. That's odd, since they were direct responses to your posts. And if you aren't reading other people's posts, where do you get off acting pissy because people don't change the tone of the discussion in response to yours?

Once again, it isn't the study itself that is being criticized. It is the article about it and the explanation/interpretation. Yes, when you do a study, the results you get are the results you get. But their interpretation and presentation to the public can still illustrate people's attitudes and preconceptions. Their descriptions in the article really aren't a good explanation of what "introvert" means in common psychological terms either, so the fact that they weren't talking about the MBTI definition of introvert does not invalidate the criticisms about the article.

I gave my objective response to the article above this comment.

 

[Such Irony]

I prefer flowers to people.

 

[Salomé]

Ur personality is in Ur brain. Yeah, thanks for that.

 

[Mal12345]

I prefer flowers to people.

Whenever I see flowers I think of them as little faces.

 

[SilkRoad]

The criticisms are based on the subjective notion that "I'm an introvert and I'm not like that." But it's hard to dismiss studies of neural activity on that grounds. The only way to do this would be to undergo an EEG and find out directly.

What is your point?

 

[Thursday]

That article is about as well-spoken as a fart in a flute. A better approach is to say that it feels like introverts treat and examine another's face in a detached manner like an appraiser would a sculpture.

 

[Mal12345]

What is your point?

Why? Do you have a problem with me saying that your face reminds me of a flower?

 

[Joehobo]

 

[Totenkindly]

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.

Hilarious.

I read the opening line at the top of the first page -- "EXTRAVERTS MORE ATTUNED TO SOCIAL STIMULI" -- and thought, "Well, DUH." That's what an extravert is.

Nothing new here, let's move along.

PS. People suck, I hate them. (especially their ugly faces)

 

[Red Herring]

PS. People suck, I hate them. (especially their ugly faces)

Right you are. I mean, just look at them, for crying out loud!

 

[Totenkindly]

Right you are. I mean, just look at them, for crying out loud!

What a big fat brownnose(r).

What do you think, Iggy?

Iggy? IGGY!

I hate how he just stares at me with that flinty look. What a blockhead.

 

[violaine]

I kinda overlaid my own interpretation according to the way I work. Which is that people aren't necessarily more interesting to me than (my) thoughts, concepts, society as a whole, cool buildings, planets, music, etcetera... It's all interesting, as far as I'm concerned.