Seriously, would you say you're an Introvert or an Extravert

Post Reply New Topic

I give people more credit than you for the ability of self-knowledge, at least people with a few decades of living behind them. People may not know the currently fashionable textbook definitions of shyness or the way that social psychologists talk about features of introversion per se, though generally people do indeed know if they are shy etc from direct past personal experience, the observations of trusted close friends, media articles and so on. The old maxim of "know thyself" didn't mean go and read a textbook, it's about the examined life, personal reflection and thought that makes up growing maturity, and with that increased self-recognition.

I'm not sure if that's to me or to the OP, but in this case, definition matters because people who have an interest in personality psychology are aware that many have taken the original meanings of the words Carl Jung coined to mean something that they were never meant to mean. For example, people definitely associate shyness as introversion, but that's wrong, so when you think about it that way, many people don't actually know themselves. Self-knowledge is important, but so are definitions. People often think of extroversion as being better than introversion; and again, in personality psychology, the two are seen completely differently - more as a spectrum, honestly.

For me, insight is worth far more than definitions.

Mm.. Probably an introvert. But I don't think anyone can really fit either one entirely.

Could you explain?

I just know people often mislabel themselves when they don't know the correct definitions of terms. I've seen this happen with personalities but also when it comes to trying to figure out whether one has a disorder. It seems to happen a lot with OCD and BD, but I know it happens with others too, including ASD.

For example, can a person really "know" that they're autistic if they're misunderstanding the diagnostic criteria? Assume they either hold stereotypes of the disorder (the way people think OCD is just perfectionism and the way people associate all introverts as being shy individuals who cannot be talkative around anyone) or are just plain wrong about the diagnostic criteria. Personally, I don't care how much self-reflection they've done; if they're misunderstanding the diagnostic criteria for ASD, then it doesn't mean much and they can't be sure of anything. Knowing the correct definition of terms or criteria helps ensure insight is correct.

Insight is that deeper level of self-understanding that comes with an informed and intuitive perception of life and yourself, and their inter-relationship, at a deeper level than book learning, which is a proposed set of opinions/information which may or may not be factual. Insight is not related to book learning, more to expanding wisdom as you learn from experience.

In a nutshell: If knowledge is information, wisdom is the understanding and application of that knowledge and insight is the awareness of the underlying essence of a truth - about the self or life.

We can gain a lifetime of learning and knowledge, yet never translate it meaningfully into something bigger than someone's opinion. We can be wise, but still miss the deeper meaning, unless we have insight into what we know.

Last edited by B19 on 18 Jan 2015, 1:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'm an extroverted introvert.

Introvert. People drain me so badly. I'd rather haul around slabs of concrete for a living than have to talk to people all day.

That has nothing to do with being wrong about yourself though. The fact is, if you're wrong about the way you describe yourself, then your insight (which simply put only means "understanding of a person or thing") means nothing because it's based on misinformation. You cannot understand something if, yet again, you're using misinformation to claim your understanding. Insight most certainly is related to so called "book learning" in the many cases I've brought up though, because you can't change the definitions of terms or diagnostic criteria. Wrong is wrong. You can't change what introverted and extroverted were meant to mean, so if you claim to have insight into yourself, yet mislabel yourself due to false information, there is no insight/understanding of yourself in that area. True insight doesn't just involve intuition, rather it (and wisdom as well) involves that and also applying it to information we learn. People aren't wise because of understanding themselves, but rather a person is considered wise when they have both experience and knowledge. So called knowledge of self means nothing if you don't have "book learning/knowledge" to go along with it.

Last edited by Jezebel on 18 Jan 2015, 3:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

If only psychology had all the answers, what a different world we would be living in..my experience of academic psychology did not imbue me with the same confidence you seem to have concerning it.

I'm not saying it has all the answers. No science can explain everything, especially certain things like why people have faith in things we cannot see. It does however apply to many situations in everyday life though - and especially the self.

Everyone's experience differs though; what was yours if I may ask?

Masters degree, taught psychophysics and critical theory, clinical experience (humanist not behaviourist).
There are many problems in academic psychology. One of the most central questions that the field of psychology, psychiatry and the allied mental health professions must contend with is the various overlapping points and intersections between the individual, culture and psychosocial discomfort. While all psycho-social processes are mediated by bio-physiological processes, the assumption that all “clinically” significant levels of psycho-social distress and dysfunction have broken neurobiology at their root is a category error that is swept under a convenient carpet by many in the profession. I would argue that this is happening because we lack the appropriate meta-perspective that effectively articulates the relationship between physical, biological, psychological, and social dimensions of existence. What we currently have are reductionist, fractionated branches of academic psychology that make a greater claim to be empirical than is often justifiable, and which fundamentally lacks a coherent perception of what it means to be human.

Last edited by B19 on 18 Jan 2015, 3:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Well what I meant was more of what you considered negative experiences . I should have specified, sorry.

I consider reductionism to be extremely negative, and the certainty of "facts" in psychology has been profoundly subject to fashions over the decades, though reductionism is the most consistent theme through them all.

What types of facts? As far as I see, a lot is only theory. Obviously some things involve facts, especially where the line crosses over into neuroscience/biopsychology, but other than that I can only think of a few branches that aren't solely theory based.

I do have to ask though, how can you teach with a Masters? I'm interested in an academic career as well (along with research), but it seems like a PhD is required for those positions. I looked into psychophysics as well and it also seemed to require one. Is it different outside the US? I looked into positions at some international universities and it seemed to be the same. If you're aware of any universities, could you link me to them? It seems even those with PsyDs are having a hard time breaking into academics.

I just saw your edit on your other post - it seems that we define academic psychology differently, so I'm a bit confused. Here, an academic psychologist generally either describes a person who does empirical research or teaches (basically someone who sees psychology as being scientific), so I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. You seem to define it less broadly, but perhaps I misread your post.

It is at the discretion of universities who can teach, depending on competency in any given field, and I have known people to teach with only bachelor degrees (though this is rare). It is not uncommon now for people who have top marks to go straight from a bachelors degree to doctoral programmes, if the faculty heads approve. In my time, the six years spent fulfilling bachelors and masters requirements, particularly if the candidate had other qualifications, as I did, and an academically excellent record, was not an unusual background for lecturers.

My own view is that all new psychology students would be much advantaged by doing papers in philosophy of science first, so that they get a solid grounding in evaluating claims made by academic psychology in its currently reductionist form. It would lead ultimately to better quality research and perhaps some progress on the sorely needed meta-perspectives.