Talk:Extraversion and introversion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Comments at top of page[edit]

I transferred the main article here, away from the entry, Introversion and extroversion because this is the most common usage in psychology. Indeed, Eysenck frequently used the phrase, extraversion-introversion. I do not mean to imply that extraversion is normal or better than introversion. In fact, I think it is important to depict both orientations as having both positive and negative sides.

I am willing to discuss this issue further here, and I also want to work with all interested parties to develop this page further and make it as accurate as possible. I saw in some of the previous discussions on the topic that this has been a somewhat controversial entry.

Best regards, Jcbutler 21:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Under what criteria do you determine extraversion to be the most common spelling? Merriam-Webster lists it as the variation to extroversion. —C.Fred (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the dictionary may not be the best resource for this discussion. My dictionary has an entry for ain't, the classic example of poor usage. Please see the list of reasons I posted for further rationale. Jcbutler 17:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A comment by reader:

This article is the worst bullshit I have ever read. It is as far from the psychological explanations of both the term 'extraversion' and the 'introversion' as it possibly can be. What this person descriped is the common perception of these two terms, the meaning of which, in the context of psychology, has nothing to do with what has been said.

I basically agree, although I might not have put it so bluntly? I've never felt compelled to comment on, or edit a wikipedia article before reading this. This reeks of subjective opinion, and the writing style feels immature in many places. The article should define the terms as in the dictionary, and/or as they are understood scientifically (if it is distinct), and give examples of scientific studies on the topic. Anything more should be removed. Manu 03:33, 1 January 2012 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Wow, the worst bullshit you've ever read? As far from psychological explanations as possible? I'm really curious as to what you think should be here. Granted, the article is not perfect, and the dictionary definitions are not entirely accurate, but I don't think it is that bad. What were you expecting? Jcbutler 07:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I wrote much of the original content. However, I won't feel bad if a more knowledgeable person edits it to make a better article And I welcome constructive criticism.

Constructive = "the dictionary definitions are not entirely accurate. A better definition, from a psychological perspective, would be....". "Jung's theory is misrepresented. He actually said....", "the quoted study has since been discredited" etc.

Non-constructive = "this article is bullshit", "this is nothing but a cliche", "this is predjudiced against introverts/extraverts", etc. Fionah 10:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there's a lot of bullshit here. The article makes introversion sound like a personality defect by implying that introverted people are not assertive or social people. Nothing could be further from the truth. Introverted people are hard-wired to work from internal energy and stimulation, not external. We're not social aberrations, our brains just operate differently. Extroverts just assume their personality type is the ideal for human behaviour. It's not. Being loud and obnoxious and talking without thinking first are hardly redeemable personality traits. Thank God there are clear thinking introverts out there to balance out the overbearing behaviour of extraverts.

I'm a bit worried that this may be interpereted as insulting, so I'd like to apologize in advance. Now then, I just wanted to say that the person who made the above comment sounds rather hypocritical. First he/she said that "extroverts just assume their personality type is the ideal for human behaviour." Although this may be true when reffering to major extraverts in society, I don't think that it was a good idea to group all of them together like that. I'm sure there are a healthy number of extraverts that understand introversion, or that at least understand that both introversion and extraversion have their good sides and bad sides. But what really shocked me was when this person said this: "Thank God there are clear thinking introverts out there to balance out the overbearing behaviour of extraverts." Now I'd like to speak to the author of the above comment: Weren't you just saying that extraverts think that they are superior to introverts? Now it sounds like you think that introverts are superior to extraverts, which is the same mistake in the opposite direction. Don't get me wrong; I'm a pretty introverted person myself, and I like to believe that both ends of the spectrum have their ups and downs. You, however, only seem to be stressing the negative aspects of extraversion and the positive aspects of introversion. It's nice that you're supporting introversion, but only so long as you're trying to equalize, not dominate. The world's hungriest paperweight 19:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Reasons to use ExtrAversion instead of ExtrOversion[edit]

1. Extraversion is the original spelling of the word introduced by Jung and used by Eysenck, the two biggest theorists in this area.

2. Extraversion is the term used on most (if not all) major personality tests, e.g. NEO, EPQ, MBTI.

3. The etymology is from the German word extraversion, from Latin extra- + versus, past participle of vertere to turn (Merriam-Webster Online).

4. "Extra" is a more appropriate prefix because it denotes "outside the scope of something," as in extraordinary, extravagant, extraterrestrial, or extra credit. Similarly, extraverts go outside of themselves for social interaction and stimulation, as opposed to introverts who stay within themselves and "introspect."

5. Extraversion is the term most frequently used by psychologists and professional journals in psychology.

6. PsycINFO, the comprehensive database of research articles in psychology provides the following search results:

1270 articles found for: ((EXTROVERSION))
7274 articles found for: ((EXTRAVERSION))
167 articles found for: ((EXTROVERT))
275 articles found for: ((EXTRAVERT))

7. Extraversion is (not) more commonly used on the internet:

453,000 for EXTROVERSION (Actually "About 1,670,000 results")
1,140,000 for EXTRAVERSION (Actually - "About 511,000 results" for "extravert" and the phrase: Did you mean: "extrovert")
8,100 for EXTROVERSION(Google Scholar)
35,800 for EXTRAVERSION (Google Scholar)

8. Extraversion is the preferred term in Corsini's Dictionary of Psychology and four volume Encyclopedia of Psychology (2nd Ed.)

Jcbutler 17:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

9. The article on the Myers Briggs Type Indicator uses the extravert spelling. —C.Fred (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The "O" spelling is a deviation, the original comes from latin prefix "extra-". Too bad its inconsistent with "introversion", which doesn't keep the spelling form "intra-" Rad3k (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What about the idea that trA means something different from trO? TrA being part of thinking and TrO being socialization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Reason to use extroversion with an "o"[edit]

Wikipedia's policy on article titles is to use the name in common usage wherever possible. This is why the article on Bill Clinton is called "Bill Clinton" and not "William Clinton". See Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names for details. Here's a quick popularity poll:

  • Hits for "extrovert" on Google - 1,040,000 ("About 1,670,000 results" as of 2014.12)
  • Hits for "extravert" on Google - 401,000 ("About 511,000 results" for "extravert" as of 2014.12 and the phrase: Did you mean: "extrovert"))

C.Fred also wrote above that Mirriam-Webster lists "extrovert" as the main usage and "extravert" as a variation. I think that's pretty good evidence.

I'm sure that that you're right about "extravert" being the correct term in psychology and also the original spelling; however, this doesn't have any actual bearing on how to name the article. I'll leave this comment up for a while and then submit the page for renaming.

I do think that "extravert" being the psychological term and the original term is useful information. We should include these facts in the summary as a compromise. GypsyJiver (drop me a line) 04:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Another good external link on Introversion[edit] This article became very popular in '03 and generated many responses. I'm surprised its not in the external links.

Fellow Introvert -- 16:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

So why not add it? Fionah 10:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Extraverts or introverts[edit]

My ex-classmates used to be preoccupied with themselves. They didn't care about strangers and didn't have eye-contact with them. This sounds like introvertion. However, with friends and relatives they were talkative and even talked a lot. They smiled and laughted out loud. This sounds like extravertion. So, are they extraverts or introverts? 21:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia is not the place to discuss this, but anyway: extraversion/introversion is not such a firm dividing line. Nobody is 100% extravert or 100% introvert. Just like nobody is 100% hetero or 100% homo. It's not true that introverts are always quiet and lonely people who are uncaring of strangers. Introverts can be just as sociable as extroverts. But introverts just handle stimulus's differently then extroverts. Extroverts get the energy out of their environment, and thrive well with many different stimuli. Introverts get the energy out of their inner world, and are easily irritated when they feel like getting to many stimulu. It's not just the way a person acts, it's the way a person thinks. And that might be hard to determine.
By the way, you shouldn't base to much on the information from this article. It's a bit crappy. I might start making some plans to improve it. - Face 16:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not so concerned about the spelling, although I tend to lean toward intro/extro... but that is just me. In my opinion introversion is more about how you react to people (like described above) -- introverts are emotionally drained when dealing with others, extroverts gain energy. In that way, an introvert can be "extroverted" but it takes more out of them. Which is why you will find your introvert friends taking long walks in the middle of a party, or hiding in their room reading a book at the end of the week. This is also why extroverts want to go out again right after having a great time with friends. Hope this helps.(MTW)--Meghanwier 01:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What about cross-culture socializing, when it comes to a racial supportive community. Does all these theories prevail? In such cases an Introvert is being made, not from his genes, but from his community

I'm curious to one of the experiments listed in biological factors, specifically with the lemon juice experiment. I can't find any verifiable data and the original source. The source seems secondary, it's a pdf hosted on a random domain. - RahCom 21:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


The use of the term ambiversion suggests a misunderstanding of the concept, and the specifics of the explanation given here are further evidence of that misunderstanding. I don't know of any type system that doesn't place introversion and extroversion along a spectrum or polarity. Everything I've read on the subject also accepts that: most non-shy introverts are often "outgoing" in circumstances where they can speak on a topic of interest without extemporaneous response to incoming stimuli (e.g., giving presentations) and, also, that many people appear to have only a slight preference in one direction or another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Besides those characterized as "introvert" or "extravert, there are two other (midrange) types of responders on the Eysenck scale for introversion/extraversion: "Ambivalent" and "Ambivert," according to this study:

As these researchers put it, "Based on the findings, at least two groups are posited in the midrange of the IE dimension: an ambivalent group with mixed strong introversive and extraversive tendencies, and an ambiverted group with midrange scores." They found ambivalents to be high scoring on both ends and high on neuroticism, but ambiverts are midrange and low on neuroticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardHansen (talkcontribs) 23:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC) RichardHansen (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Definition of the two terms[edit]

The definition of introversion is written as a negation of extraversion - it needs a rewrite so that the strengths of introversion are presented in contrast to the strengths of extraverion. --TAOdesign 22:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Strengths of extraversion? Are there any? (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Socionics? Fixed.[edit]

I noticed that there was no mention of extroversion and introversion as understood by socionics. This was regrettable to the west, because the east is well ahead of us as regards the understanding of psychological functions. Although I've only written a short stub, I trust that others can see the rationale for expanding on the discussion of introversion and extroversion as understood by socionists. tcaudilllg 01:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The mentioning of socionics in the article seemed out of place without its inclusion in the article header and a link to the socionics article in the footer. Adjusted.

Is there any evidence that ambiversion is a majority view, or any that suggests the trait a continuum and not a dicotomy?

That reminds me... haven't there been Jungian theorists who have said, in peer reviewed work, that the opposing attitude comes into even polarity with the dominant attitude as one matures? Actually Jung says it himself in Aion, if I am not mistaken.

Tcaudilllg 20:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Jung's view of extraversion and introversion isn't the way the terms are used in psychology today, just as the pop-psych view of the terms are not. Jung viewed introversion as an enlightened state of awareness about the self. Introverts were those who were focused on their inward thoughts and spirituality, while extraverts were interested in things in the physical world--it wasn't a measure of how gregarious one was. Psychologists today (unless they are Jungian, which is by far a minority) do see the traits as two ends of a continuum, not as a dichotomy.RichardHansen (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd not heard of socionics before, but according to the WP article on the same, it is not an empirically supported theory nor is it accepted by mainstream psychology. Most of the references in the socionics article are to websites advocating the subject rather than independent sources. I'm not really clear how notable this topic is and due to its lack of support it would seem to be fringe topic or even a pseudoscience that should therefore not be given undue weight. I am concerned that because the current article mentions socionics in the same sentence as mainstream models, this might imply that it has more credibility than it merits. --Smcg8374 (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Bias toward extraversion[edit]

I find there to be a particular bias of definition towards extraversion. That's not to say that this article violates WP:NPOV, but I find it lacks an equal amount of focus on both topics. Connell66 09:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think these two articles should be split into two separate articles. Connell66 09:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Tcaudilllg 18:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Introversion and Extraversion are two extremes of a personality dimension. Some people are mostly introverted, some mostly extraverted, some at varying points in the spectrum. For example, I score mostly introverted but with a touch of extraversion. A friend of mine scores almost completely in the middle on measures of introversion/extraversion. Spliting this article would be a bit like splitting the human height article into "tall people" and "short people". Also, if you were to create two articles, most of the content (e.g. the Jungian and Eysenkian theories) would be replicated. Maybe there should be separate sections within the article entitled "Introversion" and "Extraversion"; however, I don't think a complete split is warranted. Fionah 09:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

Acting against type?[edit]

"A person who acts introverted in one scenario may act extraverted in another, and people can learn to act “against type” in certain situations."

What is meant by this? Most type theories posit that type is inborn and unchangable, and so prescient a factor that to act "against" it puts one at serious psychosocial risk. Tcaudilllg 20:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The key phrase is "in certain situations". A person may learn to modify their behaviour without necessarily changing type. For example, in social situations an introvert may make a conscious effort to speak up whereas an extravert may decide not to interupt. Also, I'm not sure that all type theories see type as unchangeable: for example, there is some evidence that people show changes in personality as they age. Fionah 09:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
While such discussion is not for Wiki ... I concur to this. I am one of those. Being ~80% intravert from childhood, I trained myself to behave as it was expected by the extraverts. I am quite happy to deliver a speech, mingle on a party and make people to talk to me. I need people to talk to me for i became a movie producer/director. (I used to be an engineer installing TV studios.) Still, the best times are when I am alone ... programming in C. Me and me computer purring under the desk, cup of coffee, looking at the lushes garden ... many moviestar's erratic behaviour could be explained by the itra- vs. extravesion conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The term should really be "counterdispositional behaviour" or "free traits", which I've changed it to reflect. "Type" implies a categorical/typological view of extraversion, whereas "counterdispositional" just means acting "out of character". In fact, people act out of character most of the time - introverts frequently act extraverted, and extraverts frequently act introverted. See work by Fleeson et al. (2002), McNiel et al. (2010), Zelenski et al. (2012), Brian Little (Free Trait Theory) for more. (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


"vs"?? Good god. —AldeBaer 16:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


Can we find a picture of a hotter introvert? That chick is ugly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


"By the way, if this is someone you know by the name of AJ its probably a good idea to let him take you out to dinner, if your name is Alyssa of course" seriously. thats not cool.

how the hell did that get put in there? 00:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My best guess is some guy named AJ wanted to get a date with some girl named Alyssa. I removed it though. And here's a message for "AJ" himself: Don't vandalize Wikipedia just to get a date! Jeez! The world's hungriest paperweight 02:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Horrible picture of introvert must be removed(Urgently)[edit]

Please, someone find a picture of a person reading alone that doesn't look as strange. The awful purple "dress" the woman is wearing suggests she tries to go against societal norms. Not to mention the fact, she appears to be sitting at an inappropriate place in the library. Many introverts dress and behave like average folks. Some of us read alone in a library without standing out or drawing negative attention to ourselves. Aikaterinē 20:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I really think you're overreacting. I don't see anything wrong with what she's wearing or where she's reading, and aside from those there's nothing wrong with the picture. Its purpose is to serve as a visual demonstrator of what a (stereotypical) introvert is like. Why replace it? The world's hungriest paperweight 20:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the picture represents a "stereotypical" introvert, if there even is such a thing. Why replace it you ask? The article should contain a picture of an introvert that doesn't make extroverts laugh.Aikaterinē 23:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see the problem. How would it make anyone laugh? Besides, if it bothers you that much, why not just try replacing it yourself? The world's hungriest paperweight 23:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I just saw that picture, and now I am fully on my quest on finding a proper picture. My guess, there would be thousands of introverted people pictures in the net. Also, it DOES make extroverts laught. bladez (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Aikaterinē.. If I walked into library, the first person I would notice is that girl. She's sitting right next to a window in a wooden chair (in a really awkward place) with a long purple dress on. She stands out. Introverts would gravitate to the back of the library in secluded seats at the far end of a deserted aisle. This girl looks like she's trying to stand out. Not "stereotypical" at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Aikaterinē. She looks like a normal girl in the bookstore, nothing "Introvert" about it. kashimjamed (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
She's by herself reading a book, and that is a more typically introverted activity than extraverted. If you can find a picture that somehow captures introversion better, then replace it. I think the comments about her taste in fashion, appropriateness, and whether or not she is trying to attract attention are a bit silly. And she is clearly in a bookstore, not a library. --Jcbutler (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed both pictures for now, seeing that none of them brought any additional value to the article. (Pictures just for the sake of pictures is something that magazines for the masses thrive on, encyclopedias do not benefit.)

The introvert picture is clearly unsuitable for several reasons (also stated by others above): The woman looks fat and unhealthy, which gives a negative message; further, a misleading message, because extraverts, IIRC, tend to be fatter. She is positioned in a manner that screams "lonely wall-flower", which is unsuitable, because wall-flowers are alone against their wishes (unlike introverts). The woman is a woman, which is perfectly fine, but atypical, because introversion is more of a male thing (like height, with the same caveats). The dress is awful, giving a poor impression. The dress attracts attention, which is something an introvert would typically avoid. (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Horrible picture of extrovert must be removed(Urgently)[edit]

Wait - what about this:
Extraverts thrive in large groups.

That's a straight up dude in that red dress.--Endless Dan 17:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

yup —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

They are all clearly raging extroverts there, a better picture could not have been selected to illustrate this concept. 23:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
"They are all clearly raging extroverts there," do you think so? Nah, the dog is not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Still, you can do a better job. There must be COUNTLESS pictures of extroverts on the net. bladez (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Anti-socionics movement[edit]

I've discerned the existence of an anti-socionics awareness movement on Wikipedia; my earlier edits have been reversed. I'll be keeping this page on watch to make sure its mentioning of socionics stays put. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a "movement," but my concern at least, is that socionics is not scientific, and not consistent with modern trait models in psychology. I'm not going to fight a small mention of socionics here, but keep in mind that the dichotomous model of I/E proposed by socionics is not consistent with the theory and research presented here.
By the way, as I said on the socionics discussion board some time ago, I'd still like to see some peer reviewed, scientific research on the matter, preferably in English. A PsycInfo search on "socionics" revealed exactly ZERO results in the recorded empirical literature. Incidentally, a comparable search on "extraversion" revealed 7648. --Jcbutler (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Awful article[edit]

This article gives a totally wrong description of extroverts vs. introverts. Some extroverts spend so much time and energy on other people, that they need time alone. Some introverts love being the center of attention. I usually recognize extroverts because they talk about people, and introverts don't, however, that's not fool proof either. Maybe the article should be split between popular word usage and the usage of these words within specific sciences? Dybdahl (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe some extroverts need more time alone than others, and maybe some introverts are more social than others. However, keep in mind that this article is about extroverts and introverts in general. The article already mentions (though not often) that extroversion and introversion are like two ends of a spectrum. No doubt most extroverts have some introverted qualities, and vice versa. However, when this article talks about introverts and extroverts, it's talking about the two extremes and doesn't focus too much on the gray area in between. The world's hungriest paperweight (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Acting 'requires' extraversion?[edit]

What utter bunk - sure, some actors might be extraverts, but speaking as an introverted actor, I can assure you that it doesn't 'require' extraversion. Although I know little about the other professions mentioned (...teaching, directing, managing, brokering...), I'd be willing to bet there are introverts in all these fields. If someone can't come up with a cite for this sentence soon, I'm removing the whole thing. (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I re-worded it slightly. I don't know if it's true, but it should be more accurate. The world's hungriest paperweight (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Totally agree with this, acting is a prepared performance; something introverts excell at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed they are good actors because they are introverts. Acting is (partially) about observation rather than 'social life' as the paparazzi presents it. And intraverts can observe better and can analyse the personality they need to present. Extraverts seem to have more superficial emotions and intraverts have deeper emotions. This is what s/he needs to 'connect to' when presenting an emotion on the stage/canvas. If one must say what is needed for acting it is intraversion rather than extraversion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Description of blood flow to the temporal lobe and extroverts needs some added detail[edit]

I wanted to make a comment about extroverts having more blood flow to the brain regarding sensory and emotions. While this is true, they also recieve more blood flow the brain in the temporal lobe, which houses memory and speech. This should probably be added. In class, I am simply amazed by the number of extroverts that can recall even the most banal of converstions, and are able to recall them at rapid speeds, which probably expains why many of them can tell a good story. (I am an introvert myself) At the same time, many of these same people stuggle with many problem solving problems such as Math or accounting that many introverts find easy (which supports the more blood flow to the frontal lobe study) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Bollocks. You've got the two mixed up.

Salivation WTF?[edit]

I don't buy the thing about salivation. The "experiment" linked to is a fucking joke; the data isn't even statistically significant. Should be removed, IMHO.

Lighten up, dude. The link is just a demonstration based on more formal research that has been published in psychology journals. As for the statistical significance, no probability testing was done, but the difference they found would most likely be significant, given the size of the effect and the number of participants. --Jcbutler (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Shyness and introversion are not wholly separated[edit]

I would just like to point out that although introversion and shyness are two separate conditions, introverts are more prone to shyness and most introverts are in fact shy. There is definitely a great correlation between introversion and shyness and I think this should be at least noted in the article instead of giving the idea that they are completely separate. Just my opinion, I don't comment on Wikipedia too much but I thought I should mention that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is this page "Favoring" Extroverts?[edit]

  • I feel like some of this page is just a homage to Extraverts, to me, all this is saying that Introverts are less "Superior" to our beloved Extraverted pals. Please! extraverts and intraverts are equal divisions in the socionics theory, and one should NOT be forsaken for another. Fix that up, favoritism shouldn't be on wikipedia pages, especially on such a subject as E and I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the page is bullshit as well. I also believe it is obvious that students never flunk out of psychology or poli sci and then major in physical science, so, the field is completely the work of retards and shows it by stinking to high heaven in every way. The word should be spelled, "extrovert". there is nothing to be gained by spelling it, "extravert". There are not two different words, "extravert" and "extrovert", as there are "intermolecular" and "intramolecular". The distinction is wasted. This distinction is an 'a' vs an 'o'. Does it matter how many people believe something? No, and when all of them are wrong (as usual in this field), the field is seen to be bullshit, ie, not worth studying. As a final indicator, the spelling of "extraordinary" is hardly important or meaningful given that the pronunciation itself, from which spelling derives its legitimacy, is not six, but only five, syllables. Rip the 'a' out of this word immediately and stop wasting real people's time. (Personal attack removed) (talk)sbillinghurst

Thank you for your constructive input, anonymous poster and sbillinghurst. Now maybe you can tell me what it is about this article that brings out such strong reactions in people! And indeed, some of my ancestors were German speaking Swiss. How did you know it was that part, and not my Irish and Norwegian heritage, that is telling you how to speak? You are quite perceptive. --Jcbutler (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Behavior section[edit]

I removed this part:

"Although extraverts and introverts have real personality and behavior differences, one should avoid pigeonholing or..."

Far as I know Wikipedia is not a self-help wiki, and thus, "should" avoid the uses of 'shoulds'.

Yeah, I put this back. What you deleted was a section explaining how traits need to be interpreted as continuous dimensions, not simple types. Self-help doesn't enter into it. --Jcbutler (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"One should avoid..." (doing such and such)

It's not the place for Wikipedia to tell people that they should quote: "avoid pigeonholing" others. Reads more like a reader's digest self help article.

Likewise on the article on racism for example. Sentences such as "One should avoid being racist and pigeonholing different races because this is bad" are not encyclopedic material. (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And once again, I say that this has nothing to do with "self help" or Readers Digest. The point of the sentence is not to tell people how they should live their lives, it's to make an important and frequently misunderstood point that personality traits are general tendencies, not absolutes. And are you seriously suggesting that the word "should" should never appear in a Wikipedia article? Please state the style guideline with that rule. In any case, I rewrote the sentence without "should." Hope that helps. --Jcbutler (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
"And are you seriously suggesting that the word "should" should never appear in a Wikipedia article?"
Of course, the problem is not the word 'should' itself. It's not appropriate in this particular context, there are obviously many other legitimate uses for it. What is not encyclopedic here is giving the reader guidelines in how he or she should think. "One must be careful not to pigeonhole..." would be equally as bad. (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. Wikipedia is full of "guidelines" for how to interpret various concepts and ideas. Now that we've both had our say, perhaps some other editors will chime in with their opinions, and we will be able to develop a consensus on this issue. I don't mind rewriting the section, but it is important to make the point that personality types should not be mistaken for stereotypes. --Jcbutler (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

ExtrAvert versus ExtrOvert[edit]

Whether it be Extravert or Extrovert, I do believe that the article content should match the title. Either all occurrences of "extrovert" should be changed to "extravert," or the article should be moved to Extroversion and introversion. Chrishy 02:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Extraversion is for children, Introversion is for adults.~SOUP —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Shy extroverts[edit]

A shy extrovert is someone who wants to be around people, but who is too shy and gets anxious. (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  • absolutely. If you get your main stimulus from external sources, you are extravert, regardless of whether you are shy.

IceDragon64 (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(Cultural) bias towards extroversion in article[edit]

I've reverted biased additions in the past but Jcbutler keeps adding them back again. His input includes lines like the following: "Extraversion may lead to greater happiness, happier people may become more extraverted, or there may be some other factor such as genetics that affects both." "Another factor is that introversion is generally regarded as less healthy in Western culture." "On average, extraverts also have a somewhat higher self-esteem than introverts. As in the case of happiness, this may be due to inherent differences in the brain, or differential social treatment." These statements border on the nonsensical, and the last three sentences are unreferenced. He also has a tendency to delete well referenced lines that detail introversion, see: [1]

His additions only serve to perpetuate the pop-cultural fallacy that introverts are "unhappy", "unhealthy" and "insecure". Even if (or especially if) he's a psychologist, this is no way to treat the article. Gregorik (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Gregorik, I've been reverting your changes for a variety of reasons. For example, you continue to switch the spelling from "extrAvert" to "extrOvert," despite the fact that most of the scientific references use the term extrAversion, not to mention that the title of the article is "ExtrAversion and introversion." You also seem to object to reasonable research findings and interpretations regarding the higher reported happiness of extraversion. I did not author the material you put in italics, but they are reasonable if not well referenced interpretations of the available research. Your claim that introverts have a "richer inner world," on the other hand, is completely unverifiable and even your reference does not seem to have this information! In any case, I'll find a reference for you before I put it back, ok? --Jcbutler (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

While it can be argued that these statements send the wrong message, they are not actually wrong. Extraverts, on average, are likely both somewhat happier and somewhat higher in self-esteem. Partially, interaction with people can have such effects (e.g. through positive feedback like smiles, to which extraverts are usually more exposed and more sensitive); partially, extraverts tend to be more overly optimistic about themselves and their abilities than introverts (although the latter are not free from this general human fault) through different amounts of thinking about the self and through different degrees of objectivity. An additional complication is that those in a minority often have a harder time, because work places, schools, entertainment, ..., are all made for the majority. Further, they have a problem of not being understood by others. (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You fall prey to the current (Western) cultural outlook when you say that extroverts are likely happier; the happiness and self-esteem of introverts are a quiet, inward, introspective state, achieved regardless of an exposure to external feedback. See Christians or Buddhists for obvious examples. Introverts tend to gravitate towards village settings and/or religions, where they find genuine happiness/self-esteem/ In turn, city life is the natural habitat of extroverts where the introvert outlook and behavior are unwelcome. The misunderstanding of introverts by extroverts is a sad (however ubiquitous) thing, and results in public articles like this, further disseminating these social/cultural misconceptions. Excuse me, Jcbutler and Gregorik (talk) 10:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Gregorik, this is an empirical issue, and the research clearly shows that extraverts report greater happiness, more positive emotions, and higher self-esteem. Introverts are not necessarily unhappy or miserable (they are no higher on negative affect), but the do report less intensity of positive affect. Put another way, they are more moderate in their emotional tone, whereas extraverts are more exubriant. Because this is a psychology article, we need to use the psychological research. If you know of contrary research, or methodological problems with the research reported here, then we have a discrepancy to discuss. Otherwise, there's not really much room for debate on this topic. Sometimes reality is biased. By the way, I'm a psychologist AND an introvert, so your "misunderstanding" argument doesn't hold much water. And your assertion that Buddhists and Christians are more likely to be introverted is so lacking in empirical support that it borders on the nonsensical. On the other hand, there may be some modest support for your urban/rural distinction. I recall reading an article last year about how people living on islands to to be more introverted. Maybe I'll try to find it and stick it into the geography section on this article. --Jcbutler (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the bulk of the article is supposed to be based on empirical data; but I think that the dry research facts should be augmented by at least a brief 'cultural' section revealing possible biases in the very outlook of the researchers themselves who carry out the experiments. The beauty of the Wikipedia format is that it affords more rounded (thus less biased) articles than a print encyclopedia. This is a sensitive article as it's very easy to cast introverts in an unsavory light, even unwittingly; I think the article should reflect that, while the current cultural climate would have it otherwise, neither end of the extravert-introvert spectrum is, in essence, "problematic". Your odd claim is that "sometimes reality is biased". That's the point; reality is never biased, sorry. The scientific method, though, is the product of a biased culture. But this is not going anywhere (until I find notable references criticizing empirical psychology). Gregorik (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems rather like saying that heterosexual people report greater happiness, more positive emotions, and higher self-esteem than homosexual people. Therefore, homosexuality creates sadness, right? It obviously couldn't have anything to do with lack of social acceptance from heterosexuals, hate crimes against gays, being denied rights to marry, or anything else _which has nothing to do with sexual orientation itself_. I'd have to say I agree with the notion of not propogating the cultural bias that says introversion is sad and lonely. (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that logic or that comparison is valid. Furthermore, I don't believe the article says anywhere that introverts are "sad and lonely." It just says that extraverts tend to be happier. Less happy is not the same thing as sad. For example, extraverts are more likely to say they are extremely happy, whereas introverts are more likely to simply say they are happy. By the way, it also says extraverts are more likely to be juvenile delinguents. I honestly don't see how this article is biased against introverts, but I suppose the fact that this interpretation continues to appear indicates that the article needs to be revised so that it is more clear. --Jcbutler (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I came here as a reader trying to decide if I am an introvert or an extravert. I did not have any real prior bias to either side. After reading this article, I feel like I definitely would not want to be an introvert (if I had a choice). I think that is a fairly good indicator that it is biased. It seemed to start with something positive about extraversion, and then say something negative about introversion, then go on to argue "but introverts are not really that bad." Jcbutler, the article might never -say- sad and lonely, but it does seem to imply it, doesn't it? I believe the reason it's biased is because it follows a pattern of being centered around extraversion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Implications section in particular was quite hostile towards introverts. I now try to remedy this situation by readding useful info about introverts that was deleted last year for unclear causes. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 22:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Line in opening statements[edit]

"But don't assume just becuase you have many friends that you are an extravert. Introverts, in contrast, tend to be more reserved, less outgoing, and less sociable." Is it me or should this be removed or edited. "But don't assume just because you..." Is the article talking to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khoasx86 (talkcontribs) 16:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


too much second person voice, too didactic. (talk) 04:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Extraversion and introversionExtroversion and introversion — Extroversion is the term in common usage. Even though extraversion was the original and is still preferred in academic literature, Wikipedia's policy is to prefer the name in common usage wherever possible. GypsyJiver (drop me a line) 01:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support. "Extroversion" appears to be the most common spelling by far, at least in the United States, even if it is incorrect (which is news to me). Powers T 13:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I also did a Google search to help with gauge the popularity of the two terms. See the talk above. GypsyJiver (drop me a line) 16:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, O-version much more common.--Kotniski (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Changed all instances of "extravert/extraversion" to "extrovert/extroversion"[edit]

I changed all of these as per the page move rationale above. I'm pretty sure I didn't mess up any links or references, but if you find any, please fix them! GypsyJiver (drop me a line) 07:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I question the validity of the vote to change the terminology on this page from extrAversion to extrOversion. The vote was done from November 21st to November 12th, which is only nine days. The consensus is only 4 votes, and it ignores all the previous discussions above. --Jcbutler (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I just noticed that the terminology was also changed in the titles of published references. This is ABSOLUTELY incorrect and should be reverted. --Jcbutler (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Now this is hilarious! An encyclopaedia that is based on votes rather than science and facts! One would think that the deciding factor is etymology. But no, you guys are voting! And if a million people are uneducated, the decision will be ... Is this what we call 'culture'? Science is not democratic, it is not based on negotiations and emotions and on voting. Lets vote about gravity! Shall water be H2O or O12Z9?? VOTE! This is not a vote-able issue. Etymology is the science that decides regardless how many times it was used wrongly on Google. Else, Wikipedia becomes a joke. Please change it back and perhaps put in a section with the explanation! The article is missing the etymology section anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Introversion and intelligence[edit]

The article states "Conversely, while introversion is perceived as less socially desirable, it is strongly associated with positive traits such as intelligence and "giftedness." For many years, researchers have found that introverts tend to be more successful in academic environments, which extroverts may find boring." but there is significant amounts of studies that give results, that personality traits and intelligence are not correlated [2] [3] [4] [5] and some even propose that intelligence is actually correlated with extraversion [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. The few studies that this article cites seem to be from the early 90's and 70's, should this part of the article be modified to say that there is no link at all or that / the link may be in either direction? -- (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed the part about introversion and intelligence, we can discuss it further here if someone has a different opinion. -- (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
While good old common sense does suggest a link between introversion and intelligence (or at least deep thinking), I guess someone introduced the lines you deleted in order to counter a pro-extrovert bias in the article. This bias still needs to be addressed, one way or another. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 22:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Move back to ExtrAversion[edit]

I've moved this page back to "Extraversion and introversion" because of the invalid and sloppy way the move was handled-- see comments above. I'm sorry if this comes across as rude or blunt, but this is a psychology article, and the use of "A" rather than "O" is much more typical. "Extraversion" is also the consistent usage in related articles, such as the Big Five personality traits and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. As the anonymous contributor stated above, this is simply proper usage of correct terminology, and the votes of four people during a period of less than two weeks do not change this. Respectfully, Jcbutler (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge from introversion[edit]

I am pasting contents of page Introversion here because most of it is flyby OR: I leave it to caretakers to select anything of value, and please keep an eye on that hatnoted link here that has been irrelevant for months. Thx

Introversion (from Lat. Intros - "inside" and vertere - "seek") - a notion introduced by Carl Gustav Jung in the work of Psychologische Typen (Psychological Types, 1921). In psychology, it means a personality trait involving a tendency to drive one's perceptions, actions, thoughts and emotions inside, resulting in reduced interest in activity directed to the outside world. (Number of introverts in society is determined by 25% - 46%) Introversion is often confused with shyness and schizoid personality. Causes may include abuse, bullying, bad experiences, low self-esteem or even self absorption and lack of proper social interactions.

Characteristics of Introverts[edit]

Introverts often:

  • Gain energy when they are alone, and lose energy when among many others.
  • Derive energy from the inner world, i.e., feelings, ideas, impressions.
  • Are good listeners.
  • Think carefully before doing or saying anything.
  • Maintain more eye contact while listening to someone than when speaking.
  • Have little interest, but any interest if present is high.
  • Consider only deep relationships with others as true "friendship".
  • Prefer to talk one on one than in a group.
  • Speak slowly, with pauses.
  • Need silence to concentrate, do not like it when they are interrupted (e.g., by a ringing phone).
  • Benefit from long-term memory, which often gives a feeling of "light-headedness" and may have trouble finding the right words during a conversation.
  • Are better than extroverts in coping with tasks requiring attention.
  • Perform better in studies than extroverts.
  • Find it easier to learn by reading than in a conversation with others.
  • Work at the same level regardless of whether they are praised or not.
  • May have difficulty remembering faces and names.
  • Often take pleasure in solitary activities such as reading, writing, music, drawing, tinkering, playing video games, watching movies and plays, and using computers, along with some more reserved outdoor activities such as fishing and hiking.
  • Tend to be more reserved and less outspoken in large groups.
  • Find less reward in time spent with large groups of people, BUT he or she may better enjoy interactions with a small group of close friends.
  • Trust is usually an issue of significance—a virtue of utmost importance—to an introvert choosing a worthy companion.
  • Prefer to concentrate on a single activity at a time and like to observe situations before they participate, especially observed in developing children and adolescents.
  • Are more analytical before speaking.
  • Tend to acknowledge more readily their psychological needs and problems.
  • Are mostly misunderstood for being emotionally cold, arrogant, social outcast or even freaks; they maybe shy or reserved but not antisocial.

Types of Introverts[edit]

Henjum (Henjum 1982) divided introverts into two main groups:

  • Group A introverts are self-sufficient, confident, hard working, aloof and fond of classes that require introspection. They come with strong provisions.
  • Group B introverts are shy, afraid of people and of doing things for others. They have low communication skills and like to be left alone.

Emotional energy model[edit]

There needs to be some discussion on this page about emotional energy. For most introverts, being in a situation where one or more extraverts have the floor and are the center of attention is extremely draining on the emotional energy of the introvert, and causes them to shut down and become even more introverted than they normally would be. It's like the extravert is leeching the energy of those around them. Other extraverts there are likely to join in and be just as energized by the situation (the situation becomes an energy source to them, rather than the energy sink that it is to the introvert). Extraverts come away from social situations with a net positive of emotional energy, introverts with a net negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


  • L.J. Francis: Faith and Psychology. London: Darton, Longman and Todd Ltd., 2005.
  • M.O. Laney: introversion is a virtue. ISBN 83-7301-542-6.

See also[edit]


Flying comment: although "extro" is in such common use that some accept it as normal, it is still a misspelling, brought about by popular confusion with "intro" - which is why it is seldom found in serious literature. I really think sometimes it's best to stick to the correct form even when an incorrect form is more common - it might even change that! Redheylin (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the definition of introversion and extroversion is wrong[edit]

It's my understanding the original definition of introvert is a person who recharges by being alone where an extrovert recharges by being around people. What is the source of the current definition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

They're dictionary definitions from Merriam-Webster. What's the source of your understanding? —C.Fred (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The whole idea of people "recharging" is a misleading notion from pop psychology. people aren't batteries. --Jcbutler (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Biological/developmental associations[edit]

Although there is some discussion of the possible biological underpinnings of extraversion and introversion, I noticed there isn't much information regarding development of these traits in children and/or possible links to infant temperament. Possibly a new section should be added addressing this? Allexe11 (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please broaden the scope. It is really narrow-minded to deal only with US-centric data.[edit]

I'm getting quite upset when almost every page written in english leads to US-centric bias. Time to quiet a bit on that and consider other cultures. Thoroughly.

Ophidian Gateman (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Other reasons[edit]

  • problems with defining introversion
+ introversion often seen as a lack of extraversion rather than an orientation in its own right. (Huta, V.(2011). Do extraverts always have greater well-being than introverts? It depends on how one measures extraversion, introversion, and well-being. Manuscript in preparation.
- lack of extraversion = lack of happiness
+ introversion seen as series of deficits

  • problems with defining happiness
+ positive affect is being measured with high-arousal states:
- widely used the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) positive affect scale is a measure of high arousal positive affect (Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.)
- The Oxford Happiness Inventory is a measure of high arousal happiness (Argyle, M., Martin, M., & Crossland, J. (1989). Happiness as a function of personality and social encounters. In J.P. Forgas & J.M. Innes (Eds.), Recent advances in social psychology: An international perspective (pp. 189- 203). Amsterdam: North Holland, Elsevier Science.)
+ types of happiness enjoyed by introverts are usually omitted from analysis
  • Happiness can be achieved through low arousal:
+ faith leads to happiness:
- intense religious experiences occur in solitude
+ introverts prefer pleasant yet low-arousal states (Tsai, J. L., Knutson, B., & Fung, H. H. (2006). Cultural variation in affect valuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 288-307.)
+ introverts enjoy intense inner life instead of vibrant social activities, life full of intellectual, musical or religious activities (Storr, A. (1988). Solitude: A return to the self. New York, NY: Free Press.)
+ calm and relaxed nature of introverts, combined with their vibrant inner lives gives them yet another advantage: they seem to be emotionally stable, and emotional stability has been found to be the strongest predictor of happiness and life satisfaction: (DeNeve, K., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197-229.)
- global introversion is positively related to affect valence when alone and when in nature (two forms of well-being)

(Kasob (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC))

Peer Review[edit]

Awesome! I thought you had a great use of links and included very interesting information. You may want to include the references/studies you are talking about right after that sentence (rather than list them as Argyle & Lu (1990). I think that wikipedia prefers you do the footnotes at the end of the sentence rather than as a citation (as it interrupts flow).
Re: In my contribution I did both. I put the name of authors in the text (as suggested by Jayzzee) as well as references at the end of the sentences.

Re2: Ahhh... I figured out what you meant. Referencing right after the name and date, not at the end of sentence. Good point! Thanks!

Also when you described Diener's (1992) study about extraverts it sounded as if extraverts had higher well-being at two specific points in their life (but in reality the extraverts just had higher well-being at the two points measured in their study right?) This is being picky and just a phrasing issue.

Re: Yes, extraverts had higher well-being at two specific points in their lives, which were the times during which Diener and friends collected their data.

For your affective regulate section, I didn't follow that because extraverts' positive affect faded slower (than introverts) this means they are better able to regulate their affective states. It may mean they are not as moody (emotionally stable?) or something but I don't know if that's evidence of regulating affective states (not sure though, just something to read over to be sure its right).

Re: I took it from work of Lischetzke, T., & Eid, M. (2006). They actually claim that extraverts are able to regulate their emotions better, especially their positive affect, for example, by letting positive emotions to linger within them longer, which could be a reason why they report more positive affect.

Also you may consider adding in a measurement section where you list some of the common ways to measure life satisfaction/introversion/extraversion/positive affect/negative affect (don't know if this is feasible though).

Re: I thought about it, but if I added measurement scales, which assess Happiness, I would do it on the happiness page. On the other hand, if I added extraversion/introversion scales, I would do it within the main "extraversion and introversion" section, not within "extraversion, introversion, and happiness" section.

You could also consider making a section labelled further reading or something and include Susain Cain's work (TED talk) or other interesting websites.

Re: I have already done it. :)

And having a section on limitations or criticisms on this research may be helpful (although I know you discussed some of the limitations of the theories).

Re: I talked about some particular studies just to give examples. Talking about each of those studies' limitations would not necessary bring anything general to the discussion, since those would be specific limitations for specific studies... To be able to talk about General limitations of such studies, majority of studies would have to be reviewed and it would be necessary to try to find some common limitations existing within all of them... something for a future consideration maybe..."

Could you also cite some of the lab research on extraversion and affective forecasting or ego depletion (even a poster presentation)?

Re: Since I am working in that lab and since we are suppose to be objective, i.e. we should not quote our own studies, I thought I should not talk about research done within our lab... I am not sure...about this one

Anyways I hope some of this is helpful, I changed the wording of a few things but feel free to change it back if it makes more sense to you. RaeD09 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)RaeD09

Thank you for your comments (Kasob (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC))

Peer Review - Extraversion, Introversion, and Happiness[edit]

I would consider deleting the correlations reported in this section. It may be enough to just note the findings of the studies cited and let those readers who are interested read any statistics in the actual articles. (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC) Re: Done.

Instrumental View - I think the opening sentence could expand a bit more on instrumental or operant conditioning. That is, it seems that the instrumental view is based on stimulus and response; Extraversion 'reward' themselves by seeking out social interaction, possibly where they can assert themselves and get a cortical rush as it were. So, extraverts seek out stimulating situations for the reward of the expected / sought after internal response 15015OakBriar (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC) Re: I thought I wrote about it in the next subsection: Personality trait as a cause of higher sociability

Good job on the Social Participation Theory section. Very comprehensive!!15015OakBriar (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The Social Reactivity Theory section is a bit thin. Dr. Brian Little did some excellent work on restorative niches back at the turn of the century that might tie in nicely with this theory. I would also search the New York Times site ( for some relevant human interest stories on how the ordinary and the rock stars of the world cope with the necessity of social interaction like public speaking, stage performance (as musicians), or other stressful interactionsLikewise, work flexibility affects job satisfaction. [41]. In fact, the flexibility to decide when work is performed is the number one job satisfier among women and the number two or three determinant of what makes a satisfying job among men. [41]. As was found with job autonomy, job flexibility was more important than income when evaluating job satisfaction. Flexibility to determine one's work schedule was an important contributor to job satisfaction across the spectrum of low- and high-income jobs. Work flexibility empowers employees by reducing the incidence of work-family conflicts and engagement in p,Anne's quitting to improve overall quality of life. [41]. They might provide a good 'hook' to peak the interest of your readers. 15015OakBriar (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Good start on the Social Attention Theory section. Are there other studies that support it? It sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy (which might have a link / page here in Wikipedia. 15015OakBriar (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You might want to add a few more sentences to your introduction to the Temperamental View. I realize that the internal link is there if the reader wants to know more about it, but a couple of more sentences that summarize the Overview of that page might help their understanding and save them the time required to go to that other internal page. 15015OakBriar (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The Affective Reactivity Model ties into the page I am editing on Affective Events Theory. It's very much orented toward Industrial-Organizatinal Psychology (I.e., work performance and good citizenship behaviors) but you might want to sauguay to that page as well. Just a thought .... 15015OakBriar (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The Affective Regulation Theory - how does this regulation occur? Are there other articles that describe or propose ways that extraverts regulate thie positive affect? 15015OakBriar (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC). Are there any studies that make connections between brain functioning and positive affect regulation in either extraverts or introverts? Are there any brain function studies that might support your section on set-point theory as well? 15015OakBriar (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Pleasure-arousal relation. Would the same be true if things were not going well for either extraverts or introverts? For example, would an extraverts 'push through' to achieve cortical arousal when things are not going well? Would intraverts 'escape' say, by hiding in their shells if things were not going well? 15015OakBriar (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

In your Well-being Measures section, were you interested in presenting instruments that measure well-being? You might want to talk about the most popular instruments used by researchers. I suspect that these are probably self-report surveys, which would give you a venue to talk about the problems associated with that type of instrument (e.g., impression management). You could also link to either internal Wikipedia or external links for more information to your readers.

Overall, good section! Like anything, it's an iterative process that becomes tighter as you modify and keep editing. 15015OakBriar (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent removal of mention of Big Five unjustified[edit]

Recently, user:MathewTownsend removed all reference to the Big Five from this article without giving a reason. The edit summary was simply "clean up" with no mention of material being removed. From comments made on other talk pages and similar attempts to remove information associated with the Big Five, it is clear that this user does not agree with the Big Five model. WP is not a forum for people to promote their own point of view and removing material relevant to the topic without proper justification represents disruptive editing. The Big Five model is clearly notable and is currently well-accepted in academic psychology, as attested by numerous references in textbooks and peer-reviewed journals (examples of which I am happy to cite if anyone has any doubt). Therefore, trying to suppress the fact that extraversion is a component of this well-established model, while a fringe theory like socionics with no academic support remains mentioned in the lead section seems ludicrously unbalanced. I would ask this user to stop trying to suppress information about the Big Five model and also to make his edit summaries more forthcoming about what they actually involve. E.g. removing valid information is not "clean up" or a "copy edit". --Smcg8374 (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"Poorly organised" tag - is it justified?[edit]

A clean up box has been added to the top of the article with a message that it is "poorly organised". The person who added this tag has not yet offered any explanation of his reasons for thinking the article suffers from poor organisation even though WP policy is that "Adding tags to articles should be accompanied by sufficient reasoning on the tagged article's talk page"[11]. I can see that the article has room for improvement but saying it is "poorly organised" seems overly harsh in my opinion. If the editor concerned would care to explain his reasoning and point out what the problems are that would help other editors to address the issues. I would also welcome anyone else to contribute constructive comments aimed at improving the article. Additionally, I have removed the "refimprove" tag added by this editor as I don't see the particular need for it. The article already has over 70 citations, so the article as a whole seems well-referenced. The "Measures" section lacks references, but all the other sections appear to have an adequate number of citations. --Smcg8374 (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

One suggestion I want to add to improve the organisation is that the subsection "Well-being measures and extraversion" be merged into the earlier section "Extraversion, introversion, and happiness" as they are dealing with the same constructs, albeit from different points of view. In fact, POV might be a problem for the "well-being measures" section. The argument that introversion may be associated with distinct forms of well-being may well be valid, but this section has problems in regard to the references. For example, the statement that "religion is positively associated with happiness and well-being" may be true to some extent, but the reference cited, "Emotional stability as a major dimension of happiness" does not state this, and religion is only mentioned in passing in one sentence. The assertion that "most religious experiences occur in solitude" may therefore be original research, i.e. extrapolation rather than reporting what the references say. Additionally, the same reference is used to support the claim that introverts "seem to be emotionally stable". In fact the referenced article never makes this claim, probably because introversion and emotional stability are regarded as independent personality dimensions in trait theories. What the reference does say is that "a minority of people may be classed as happy introverts", and that emotional stability is more strongly associated with happiness than extraversion, points actually worth mentioning in this article I think. Additionally, the article cites "Extraversion and positive affect: A day reconstruction study of person-environment transactions" in support of the statement that "introverts prefer pleasant, yet low-arousal states" and then goes on to cite the study by Tsai, Knutson, and Fung in support of this. While this citation is technically correct, the "Extraversion and positive affect" reference actually has only one sentence about this and uses Tsai, Knutson, and Fung for its reference. I would therefore suggest only citing this latter paper, as citing a paper that merely cites another paper in passing does not seem like good practice. I have not yet read the Tsai, Knutson, and Fung paper so will not comment on it at this point. I think it is important to discuss the possible advantages of introversion for well-being in this article, but I would suggest that the section be completely rewritten to address the issues that I have raised. --Smcg8374 (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I have just read the Tsai, Knutson, and Fung paper and have concluded that the "Well-being measures and extraversion" subsection should be deleted entirely due to inaccurate summaries of the references and the resultant fact that the paragraph is full of original research. The article currently states: "Studies have actually found that when types of happiness characterized by lower arousal were taken into consideration, a more positive association between happiness and introversion was observed, since introverts prefer pleasant, yet low-arousal states, brought by their intense inner lives full of intellectual, musical or religious activities. This relation was well-portrayed in the study of Tsai, Knutson, and Fung (2006)..." The study by Tsai, Knutson, and Fung did find that people in Asian (hence collectivistic) cultures do place more value on low arousal positive affect than people in the more individualistic American culture. But they also found that there is a distinct difference between what people value (ideal affect) and what they actually experience (actual affect). Furthermore, affective traits (extraversion and neuroticism) are stronger predictors of people's actual affect than their ideal affect. And here is the most glaring discrepancy between the research and what the article reports: extraversion is actually moderately positively correlated with actual low arousal positive affect (see Table 7 in the reference). In plain English, this means that people who are extraverted experience low arousal positive affect somewhat more frequently than introverts. On the other hand, extraversion had a modest negative correlation with ideal low arousal positive affect. That is, introverts tends to value low arousal positive affect slightly more than extraverts, but on the whole they experience it less often. Therefore, the statement that there is a more positive association between introversion and happiness when low arousal types of happiness are taken into account, is actually belied by the findings of this study. The statement about "their intense inner lives full of intellectual, musical or religious activities" is referenced to a book by Anthony Storr. I would be so bold as to suggest that this does not meet the criteria for a reliable source for a psychology article because the book is apparently the author's own personal reflections or "meditation"[12] rather than the product of empirical research. In the context of the present article, it seems misleading to cite Storr's personal opinions as if they are supported by research. In summary, the whole paragraph is full of misinformation. --Smcg8374 (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of the example measurement scale[edit]

Brozhnik recently removed an example extraversion scale because it lacked a source. It would be very easy to source similar items with introversion-extraversion measures that are available online. For example, see the International Personality Item Pool, especially here, or this page for others in the 'Big 5' tradition. In addition to the actual items, the omitted table was useful in demonstrating how combinations of answers lead to variation along the dimension of introversion-extraversion. On the other hand, the approach may have been a bit too 'textbookish' for a Wikipedia page. I welcome other editors' views on whether to retain the deletion or possibly reinstate something similar with better referenced items. --Jayzzee (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

other use[edit]

Introvert is also the anatomical term used for the collar-like zone behind the pharynx in Loricifera, Kinorhyncha and Priapulida. Dunno how to solve this, with the redirect. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Personality#Extraversion and happiness[edit]

Proposing merging the Extraversion and happiness section of Personality with a new section titled Extraversion and happiness. RT Wolf (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Agree. It seems a little out of place here all by itself. Though relevant, there's a better place for this. -- Typhoneus Talk 00:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support It has undue weight in Personality. Lova Falk talk 18:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree. This part of the text should discuss the Big Five in general terms, and refer to more specific pages --15:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)384400km (talk)

Think it should be re-written so that it discusses all elements of the big five model. But should potentially also include other models as well since big five, although widely used, is one of many used in isolation or together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Appearance vs underlying reality[edit]

Extraverts are mainly concerned with external appearance while introverts are more concerned with the underlying reality. Just granpa (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Extroverts are energized by crowds. Introverts worry that crowds will judge them by their appearance and therefore become drained of energy. Just granpa (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Introverts like people but dont like mindless mobs of people. Just granpa (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Extraverts and Eyesight[edit]

Anyone notice that extraverts seem to have better eyesight and wear glasses less often than introverts? Is there any research on this that could be incorporated into the article? (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Link to term "gregarious" is not at all helpful, relevant[edit]

In section 1 (Varieties) subsection 1 (Extraversion) - To be clear: 1 Varieties -> 1.1 Extraversion , the last word of the second sentence, "gregarious", used here as an adjective to describe/define Extraversion ( here it is in context: 'Extraversion is "the act, state, or habit of being predominantly concerned with and obtaining gratification from what is outside the self".[4] Extroverts tend to enjoy human interactions and to be enthusiastic, talkative, assertive, and gregarious. ) is a link to the Wikipedia page for "gregarious" [[13]] , which apparently only treats the term with respect to its usage in biology and botany, but nothing that seems at all relevant to its usage here. Maybe change it from a link to just text? It doesn't really seem that useful to edit the page for gregarious, because its just a simple adjective and only needs a definition if one is unclear about it being used In this sense. It doesn't really seem like it needs a link at all.

I'm brand new to suggesting edits for Wikipedia pages, so thanks for bearing with me. Also, I hope this post is comprehensible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia,, and thank you for your relevant comment. It has now been fixed. Not by me though. Lova Falk talk 07:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Shyness and Introversion: A mistake not just by extraverts[edit]

"Introversion is not the same thing as shyness but it is often mistaken as such by extroverts."

I think it is a little too judgemental and less ifnormative. It implies "if you think an introvert is shy you are an extro/avert" which is a logical fallacy, since an introvert may think or describe themselves as shy, when they might not be.

I'll propose (and change to): "Mistaking introversion for shyness is a common error." and leave it at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bromo33333 (talkcontribs) 13:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

can anyone prove these are actually real?[edit]

I mean I guess this affects the article so I'm asking (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This hasn't been considered correct for 50 years[edit]

No modern psychology considers this a correct methodology for humans to be messured by. It was originally created by a xenophobic racist who believed anyone who wasn't from western society must have a primitive psychology. Seriously can we treat this article as pseudoscience. Dispite what many statements in this article says the idea of a 2 set system for Mammals doesn't even apply to dogs! Even the idea of "alpha vs beta" was based purely off unnatural zoo/privet owner wolf packs made up of unrelated individuals (basically like basing human psychology on prisoners). Implying that it holds any truth or included in real science is completely false and based off decades outdated materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 5:50 am, Today (UTC+0)

Wikipedia tries to represent its references. If you can find a reliable source to say that this is all a lie and humans are actually more complicated than that, please, feel free to add it to the article. Preferably, many references, because that is a pretty big change. If you only have a few or one, you can add a "criticism" section, giving your reference in the format as "A study from this and this university says that and that.<ref>reference in a format stated at WP:REFB</ref>" Other articles on pseudoscience are well referenced as pseudoscience. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)