Conversely, Extroverts can’t get enough Dopamine, and they require Adrenaline for their brains to create it. Extroverts also have a shorter pathway and less blood-flow to the brain.Neuroscience became the new psychology in the middle/late 90s, and this was one of the pop psychology outputs from that period. The first study I'm aware of came out in 1999 and then The Introvert Advantage following in early 2000s.
self-identified introversion is likely to be an excuse for social anxiety and/or laziness in manners and socializing.When we looked at this earlier in Psychological study, there was a strong assumption that the "downtime" and "need to recharge" mentioned by many in this discussion are an introverted trait. Indeed, that is proposed continually by both experts and individuals alike. And there is a point at which it makes sense. If we consider the extrovert to be reactive and the introvert to be thinking, then the introvert's long brain pathways will demand more energy to generate attention during similar interactions, thus the introvert will be said to be 'tired' by social activity.
nickrussell, I'm sorry I don't have time to go into all of the ways I disagree with your comments in this thread, but I must note my disagreement. You are making some pretty out-there claims without evidence.It's ok, what you have below is representative and I will respond in kind. Most of what you seek is available in the top results of google, as well as in the Introvert's Advantage. So perhaps before saying that 1) my claims and unsupported, and 2) you do not have adequate time to prove them, you could take a bit of time to get your ducks in a row. Just a courtesy that is common... in business. Perhaps not in academic research. ;)
It's been half a decade since I last looked at this vein of research and thinking, so apologise if my cleaver is dull and the butchering imprecise.1)
To show your claim that extraversion co-occurred with "short pathways" you would want to demonstrate that reaction time was correlated with extraversion, which I don't believe anyone has demonstrated (but if you have a cite, I'd be glad to hear it).[Harvard, 2000] [Google results]
The idea that extraverts seek agreement rather than innovation? That ignores findings that extraversion is independent from agreeableness. The closest proxy I have for innovation, Openness to Experience, is also empirically independent from extraversion.[Boston Globe, 2011]
The idea that introverts get more blood to the brain than extraverts is so ridiculous on its face that it requires a cite.[The Journal of Neuroscience] [Google]
Dopamine is the reward chemical for interacting with the external world. It's provided to reward provision of food, water, sex, and the basic biological needs.[NYU]
This is incorrect. Dopamine is also released when reward is anticipated, not just acquired. It is also released in relation to the fulfillment or anticipated fulfillment of desires that are not basic biological needs.
The MBTI is not taken seriously in the psychology research community. It is a big hit in business, I suppose. Psychology researchers prefer the Big Five, Cattell's 16PF, Eysenck's three factor model, etc.[Toastmasters International]
I'm aware that it's difficult for more uninformed people to evaluate authoritative-seeming assertions, but a lot of what he's written should set off some alarms. I think it's unfortunate that the comment has been sidebarred, but what are you gonna do? People have to learn to evaluate claims on the internet critically. A good rule-of-thumb, though, is that any simple and yet comprehensive explanation of human personality and behavior is almost certainly BS and someone, somewhere, wants to sell you something on the basis of your acceptance of this explanation. It's true with absurdly ambitious generalizations about introversion/extroversionRather than attack me, correct what you find to be in error, man!
extro-posted by Sys Rq at 9:51 AM on November 28, 2011
variant of extra- (used to contrast with intro-): extrovert.
large chunks of your comment use terms and contain claims that look expert, but do not stand up to the merest scientific scrutiny.Ivan and I had a good mail about this very topic. The learning from my end was that offline, I exist in business as a managing consultant. I regularly take general concepts discovered in books, magazines, conferences, and put them together in briefs. Quite often, brilliant analysts grumble, "that's not what that means." They then develop workable outputs based on correct principles that we turn into actionable results.
it's good to see a conversation grow out of it.For me, this is the the real point. So yes, perhaps the side-barred post is lacking in depth. Perhaps it's a bit boarish. It was not written with malice, thus the soul remains unencumbered.
they are well aware that their audience is pretty much just you, not the zillion people who saw it on the sidebar.I sincerely hope that is not the case. Personally, I use the sidebar as a starting point for the greater conversation. I imagine we each use it in our own differing ways. From years in the media industry, I learned that at some point, you have to trust in the audience to take away from your content what they are looking for. It behoves one to make a depth of content available, however, at the end of the day, the audience will decide how much of that depth they are looking for.
« Older The world’s most prestigious consultancy prides it... | "The Nutshell Studies of Unexp... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
While I'll certainly track down the book the blogger mentions, and read its section on neurotransmitter function, I hope that some lovely MeFite Who Knows About This Esoteric Thing will come along and address this aspect of the post.
posted by MonkeyToes at 5:10 AM on November 27, 2011 [6 favorites]