Healthy Introversion/Extroversion

[Natrushka]

Again, what about just plain not caring about it?

I suspect that's part of being an INTJ/ENTJ. I understand where you're coming from - I care little what others think most all 90% ? of the time, especially as it pertains to my own thoughts / feelings.

 

[ptgatsby]

They are. What definition do you propose? Can you be psychologically healthy and unhappy? I don't think so.

Only if it is in a transient state. However, introversion would also be easily defined as a lack of positive emotions... least, that's one definition of it.

 

[wildcat]

After reading this post by Toonia and posts on this thread, I am curious to know should these situations be considered examples of healthy introversion?

I've bolded the parts that I find questionable. I don't think that's healthy introversion. I would also like to add before I get tarred and feathered that I don't view introversion as a personality defect. If you need to be alone to recharge, that's fine. I don't try and force social interactions with the introverts in my life (at least to the best of my ability). Nor am I trying to quantify how much alone time introverts need.

I am not suggesting introverts make themselves into extroverts and then everything will be sunshine and rainbows. If the people listed in these situations are content with their lives as they are then they should continue as they are. But Toonia mentioned some of them experiencing anxiety just thinking about interacting with people. I wonder if people are confusing social anxiety and phobias with introversion.

An introvert marries an introvert.
Interesting.
What happens?

Nothing.
If a happening is a sign of a (social) life.

A marriage between introverts is the best kind of a marriage.

Sometimes.

 

[raincrow007]

I suspect that's part of being an INTJ/ENTJ. I understand where you're coming from - I care little what others think most all 90% ? of the time, especially as it pertains to my own thoughts / feelings.

Be careful, you might get sent to the Graveyard for that attitude.

Then again, probably not.

 

[wildcat]

Only if it is in a transient state. However, introversion would also be easily defined as a lack of positive emotions... least, that's one definition of it.

Yes.
This is what it is.

A definition.

What else but a definition?
Nothing.

 

[Natrushka]

Would you keep me company, raincrow?

 

[raincrow007]

Would you keep me company, raincrow?

Undoubtedly. I have a hard time resisting anything with wings.

 

[FDG]

Only if it is in a transient state. However, introversion would also be easily defined as a lack of positive emotions... least, that's one definition of it.

Two objections:

1)External display of emotions does not equal internal state of person
2)Lack of both positive and negative emotions can still be classified as happiness, imho

 

[ptgatsby]

Two objections:
1)External display of emotions does not equal internal state of person

Ok, but I'm not sure how that factors into it. Negative state of mind is unhealthy once it becomes normal - doubly so for emotions, which implies physiological change; similar to long term stress.

2)Lack of both positive and negative emotions can still be classified as happiness, imho

Not really.

Anyway, I was using the more biological definition of extraversion, which relates to positive emotions.

 

[The Ü™]

Anyway, I was using the more biological definition of extraversion, which relates to positive emotions.

But what about unleashing anger? That seems like one of the more extraverted traits.

 

[ptgatsby]

But what about unleashing anger? That seems like one of the more extraverted traits.

Biologically speaking, not so much. MBTI doesn't measure the trait (emotional stability/neuroticism) that expresses negative emotions.

The behavioural side of personality might say something similar to that, however, as part of their definition of extraversion. This is where the specific definition involved matters a lot (MBTI vs FFM vs Biology all say something somewhat different about what being "E" is.)

 

[cafe]

pt, isn't introversion tied to a biological higher arousal state?

 

[ptgatsby]

pt, isn't introversion tied to a biological higher arousal state?

That has been implied, yes. The problem is the language being used. There is no "introversion" and "extroversion" - that's a carry over from Jung.

Extraversion, biologically, is just the way the mind deals with emotions - emotions we consider positive. Interestingly enough, I just got a PM this morning that was talking about this. In that study, it showed that positive reactions are centered around only extraversion (and negative emotions are not)... that is, the degree of extraversion one shows is correlated to the degree of activity in specific parts of the brain.

IOW, introverts don't have the same capacity, tendency, whatever, for positive emotions.

The why of this comes in different flavours, but it would seem that low-extraverts, namely introverts, have lower reactions as a result of already being "primed" for the emotion. That is, the positive change is "repressed" because they are over sensitive to it. In a strange twist of logic, introverts avoid social situations because they make them feel "positive" - too much so. The feeling of being overwhelmed and everything else likely stems from this. However, biologically, no one knows why this is exactly, far as I know. Could be density, some form of chemical sensitivity, etc.

However, I don't know that much about this stuff, so I wouldn't take this as the "end all". Some of this information comes from stuff like introverts salivate more when presented with a stimulus. Not exactly what I'd call... uhhh... directly related. However, taken apart, it seems almost certain that these two theories are related... I think how is still a bit speculative.

 

[cafe]

I thought I remembered something like that. Like you say, I'm not sure how/if it correlates with MBTI, but, in the classic sense of introversion, there is a biological component.

Here's a portion of a Wiki entry:

Differences in brain function
Eysenck proposed that extraversion was caused by variability in cortical arousal; "introverts are characterized by higher levels of activity than extraverts and so are chronically more cortically aroused than extraverts". Because extraverts are less aroused internally, they require more external stimulation than introverts.

To me, this means that basically, we perceive the world as if it is set at a very high volume level and we cannot turn it down. The only way to reduce the sensory overload is to escape from the stimuli. It's easier to take when well-rested and in a good mood, but it's still draining.

For the extroverts, imagine being stuck at a rock concert for ten plus hours a day five or more days a week and not being allowed to leave. Even if you love the music, it's going to get to you eventually.

[Please excuse the technical difficulties ]

 

[ptgatsby]

To me, this means that basically, we perceive the world as if it is set at a very high volume level and we cannot turn it down. The only way to reduce the sensory overload is to escape from the stimuli. It's easier to take when well-rested and in a good mood, but it's still draining.

The problem is that this associates the lack of extraversion with negative emotions... In reality it's only at the most basic level that this arousal happens. It's difficult to use the chemical biological theory and explain it in behavioural terms.

A better analogy, maybe, would be that introverts have constant white noise that blankets out the sound of music. As such, we don't tend to like music. (The white noise referring to the concept of existing arousal, and the lack of desire to listen to music to the lack of positive emotional reactions - ie: the stimulus isn't strong enough to peak above the "white noise"). The draining refers to the effort required to "listen" through the white noise.

The really difficult part to get one's head around is the concept that "arousal" levels doesn't mean "stronger emotional reaction", rather that "arousal" means "diminished emotional reactions". One of these days I'll find someone who can explain exactly how this is suppose to work...

 

[cafe]

The problem is that this associates the lack of extraversion with negative emotions... In reality it's only at the most basic level that this arousal happens. It's difficult to use the chemical biological theory and explain it in behavioural terms.

A better analogy, maybe, would be that introverts have constant white noise that blankets out the sound of music. As such, we don't tend to like music. (The white noise referring to the concept of existing arousal, and the lack of desire to listen to music to the lack of positive emotional reactions - ie: the stimulus isn't strong enough to peak above the "white noise"). The draining refers to the effort required to "listen" through the white noise.

The really difficult part to get one's head around is the concept that "arousal" levels doesn't mean "stronger emotional reaction", rather that "arousal" means "diminished emotional reactions". One of these days I'll find someone who can explain exactly how this is suppose to work...

Hmm. Yeah, I'd like to understand the concept better, but honestly it does feel like everything is just turned up too high.

 

[heart]

If you enjoyed participating in this thread, please consider coming to this thread to take the social anxiety vs. introversion quiz. Thank you.

 

[Natrushka]

A better analogy, maybe, would be that introverts have constant white noise that blankets out the sound of music. As such, we don't tend to like music. (The white noise referring to the concept of existing arousal, and the lack of desire to listen to music to the lack of positive emotional reactions - ie: the stimulus isn't strong enough to peak above the "white noise"). The draining refers to the effort required to "listen" through the white noise.

That's a great explanation, pt.