Revealing The World Of The Chatty And Friendly: Extrovert?

I am sociable, extroverted, and amiable. However, the term ‘extrovert’ does not resonate with me.

Forming friendships and engaging in communication brings me satisfaction; nonetheless, my candidness may serve as a superficial facade concealing uneasiness.

Approximately a decade ago, I completed the Big Five personality assessment, renowned for its candidness. I found it amusing to discover that I placed in the 91st percentile for neuroticism.

Upon sharing the ranking, my friend Sarah promptly replied, “Darling, I adore you, but that is not news.”

My extroversion score was also below average. I achieved a ranking in the 97th percentile. It reminded me of high school, when my English instructor, who had a penchant for pop psychology, required our class to do a Myers-Briggs personality inventory exam. My scores were unclear in three of the four categories; nonetheless, I was indisputably an extrovert.

I have been a “people person” since before I could articulate words. Once I started speaking, I never stopped. Forming friendships and engaging in communication have consistently been among the most genuine pleasures of my existence. However, my candour was really a superficial facade concealing profound unease and dread. At times, the presence of others served as the sole diversion from the incessant turmoil in my mind.

I felt justified in identifying as an extrovert, despite not consistently aligning with others’ perceptions of the term. I have consistently had to reconcile my worried disposition with my extroverted nature. Individuals who observed my humour at a gathering or my social interactions on the inaugural day of summer camp were perplexed when I experienced a panic attack. Individuals who mocked me for my numerous anxieties and neuroses were astonished when I effortlessly delivered a speech before an audience or remained composed during a crisis.

During the period I completed the Big Five test, introverts were experiencing a surge in popularity throughout pop culture. Susan Cain’s 2012 publication, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World that Can’t Stop Talking, which numerous individuals have characterised as “life-changing,” achieved immediate bestseller status.

In Quiet, Cain fervently contends that introverts are misinterpreted and undervalued, drawing from her own experiences as well as those of numerous others. Cain substantiates her tales with numerous research indicating that an introverted disposition appears to be innate, and that many children who are sensitive to stimuli develop into quietly influential thinkers and artists. Cain asserts that introverts are frequently urged to alter their nature to conform to the “Extrovert Ideal,” which she characterises as the pervasive view in Western society that the ideal individual is sociable, dominant, and at ease in the limelight.

Quiet assisted introverts in discovering their voices, and numerous individuals expressed their discontent towards people like me. Numerous publications criticised the annoyance and rudeness of extroverts. One of the most significant ironies of the social media era is that one of the most despised demographics consists of those who are sociable.

This, maybe predictably, induced a degree of anxiety in me. Did being an extrovert imply that I was noisy, annoying, intrusive, and inherently poor company? That there was no possibility for alteration on my part? I have accepted my extroverted nature, although being disdained for one’s true self is never pleasant.

Cain may be correct that Western society frequently favours extroverts. A 2019 study conducted at the University of Toronto indicated that extroverts possess a “minor, enduring advantage” in professional settings. The psychiatric literature has a bias against introversion, with a longstanding history of employing “introversion” as a criterion for numerous mental illnesses, particularly personality disorders. In the 2013 edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which proposes a novel framework for diagnosing and treating personality disorders, “extroversion” is regarded as an indicator of a healthy, normative personality.

Cain states that “the quintessential extrovert” favours action over reflection, risk-taking over caution, and assurance over doubt.

Extroversion and introversion appear to exist on a continuum, much like various aspects of life.

I believed that did not accurately represent me. I am beset by uncertainty and enjoy reflection. Engagement in risk-taking behaviour? I have no affinity for rollercoasters.

Critical reviews of the book assert that Cain categorises an excessive number of qualities as “introversion.” I concur that introverts do not only possess traits such as sensitivity, risk aversion, or cerebral tendencies; I have observed these descriptors on my own academic evaluations, alongside “talks too much.”

Extroversion and introversion appear to exist on a continuum, much like various aspects of life. What about “ambiverts,” those who do not conform to either extreme? Recent research indicates that a significant portion of the population, potentially exceeding fifty percent, belongs to this third category. Certain experts contend that ambiverts, rather than extroverts, possess the most significant advantage in contemporary culture.

What is the definition of extroversion and introversion?

“It is the source of your energy.”

I have encountered this specific description from acquaintances who expressed frustration with the popular cultural discourse about introversion and extroversion. They would assert that it was not a matter of being silent or boisterous. Those constituted stereotypes. Ultimately, introverts rejuvenate by engaging in solitary activities.

Extroverts rejuvenate by engaging with others.

A message from a sister or an embrace from a long-time acquaintance invigorates me. I journeyed solo for my birthday, and although I enjoyed exploring the area independently, I longed for companionship to discuss my experiences and observations.

However, it has required considerable time to arrive at those definitions. Carl Jung, the prominent psychologist and psychiatrist of the early 20th century, was the pioneer in delineating introversion and extroversion; yet, his classifications diverged significantly from contemporary interpretations.

In his book Psychological Types, Jung characterised introversion as “a shift of interest from the object to the subject, and one’s own psychological practices.” “The subject” was used to refer to oneself. Extroversion, or “extraversion,” as he articulated, was defined as “a transfer of interest from subject to object.”

Anastacia Favela, a therapist with a master’s degree in Jungian studies from the University of Essex, states that “the object” can refer to other individuals as well as “situations and experiences.” “He perceived the extrovert as an individual who engages with the external world as it beckons him to be, whereas the introvert attunes to their inner self.”

This paradigm posits that introverts tend to exhibit independence, obstinacy, and nonconformity, whereas extroverts are more inclined to be followers, preoccupied with the perceptions of their peers.

Jung classified as an introvert and had a rather patronising view of extroverts in Psychological Types: “If he is not excessively meddlesome, overly assertive, or superficial, he can be a notably beneficial member of the community.” The discussion on “irritating extroverts” appears to be over a century old.

Jung’s contributions established the groundwork for another renowned personality model. Merve Emre’s book The Personality Brokers details how magazine columnist Katharine Cooks Briggs authored an article titled Meet Yourself in 1926, which served as a precursor to personality testing based on Psychological Types. Briggs, alongside her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers, developed the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) test.

The MBTI facilitated the dissemination of the concepts of “introversion” and “extroversion” to a broader audience. It is commonly considered pseudoscientific; yet, psychologists Randy Stein and Alexander B. Swan have characterised it as “existing in a parallel universe to social and personality psychology.” Although Jung appreciated his interactions with Briggs, he likely disagreed with her and her supporters’ interpretation of his terminology. In a subsequent interview, he expressed dissatisfaction with his life’s work, referred to as The Houston Films, stating that “people… seize upon a word, and then everything is organised to conform to that word.” Pure extraversion and pure introversion do not exist. They merely serve as phrases to denote a specific inclination or tendency.

Jung and Briggs were not the final authorities on the subject. Numerous specialists assert that in the early 20th century, certain American and British psychologists dismissed the techniques of Freud and Jung in favour of more empirical approaches.

In the 1940s, British-American psychologist Raymond Cattell employed statistical analysis to categorise 16 personality qualities, one of which he designated as “extraversion.” Ten years later, Hans Eysenck, a German-British psychologist, deduced from brain wave investigations that extroverts generally exhibited low arousal levels, necessitating external stimulation, whereas introverts, possessing high arousal levels, did not require such stimulation.

Subsequent to Eysenck, the Five Factor Model of Personality, commonly referred to as the Big Five, emerged. The Big Five Personality Inventory assesses individuals on openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism; it indicated that my neuroticism scores were exceedingly high. In this context, extraversion correlates with exuberance, vitality, and impulsiveness.

The research conducted by Cattell and Eysenck has faced criticism for relying on personality evaluations and questionnaires, which are widely regarded as unreliable. The Big Five paradigm remains utilised in academia; however, it is contentious. Numerous academics have criticised the definition of its criteria, particularly regarding extroversion. Some research utilising the Big Five framework conflates the term “extroversion” with “positivity,” which this study indicates may result in erroneous preconceptions that sociable individuals are less prone to depression or anxiety.

Moreover, the ambiguous and evolving definitions of introversion and extroversion are compounded by the scarcity of foundational studies on personality that account for trauma, personal history, or cultural variances—an outcome that may be expected given that Cattell and Eysenck collaborated with white supremacists and endorsed eugenics. These studies also failed to consider disability and neurodivergence. Individuals with ADHD are more inclined to want external stimulation, irrespective of their tendency towards extroversion or introversion.

Thus, it is intricate. The modern interpretation of “the source of your energy” appears to be a diluted amalgamation of Jungian concepts and other studies from the United States and Britain. Certain characteristics can indeed be classified as “introversion” and “extroversion.” However, these ideas are not as rigorously delineated as many presume.

The introvert-extrovert dichotomy may not be as scientifically grounded as I previously believed. Almost everyone subscribes to beliefs lacking concrete evidence, particularly when such beliefs serve their interests. Many find it beneficial to identify as an introvert. Possessing extroverted traits has proven advantageous in numerous respects. Did the label itself provide assistance?

“The concept of ‘introversion and extroversion’ is merely a model,” asserts Flux, who subscribes to statistician George Box’s maxim: “All models are [false], some models are useful.” The key question may be how we utilise this paradigm. For example, to what extent would a modern therapist consider a client’s introversion or extroversion?

What is the answer? Insufficient quantity.

“When a client identifies as an ‘introvert’ or an ‘extrovert,’” states Jane Brundy, a professional mental health counsellor in Ohio. “I perceive that as insight into their self-perception and their desired external perception.”

She elucidates that identifying with such titles can facilitate our self-explanation to others. She asserts, “I consistently perceive that individuals regard themselves as awkward when they are merely exhibiting human behaviour.”

I have been aware for years that my anxiety presents itself in a distinctly extroverted manner. In moments of anxiety, I did not retreat. I externalised my anxiousness by monopolising conversations, impulsively speaking, and excessively disclosing personal information. I readily characterise myself as an “anxious extrovert.” The possession of a label enabled me to articulate my identity.

Katherine Briggs stated in The Personality Brokers, “Each individual is born either an extravert or an introvert and retains this disposition throughout their life.” Numerous studies on twins have demonstrated a genetic correlation to temperament, suggesting that this assertion is likely partially accurate.

Research indicates that features can evolve over time, and individuals may exhibit varying degrees of introversion depending on certain circumstances.

Some individuals report an increase in introversion following the outbreak. During my residence in urban areas of the United States, I became increasingly reserved and somewhat timid; the cacophony and vibrancy of city life encouraged a yearning for seclusion and apprehension regarding interactions with others. During my temporary relocation to Canada, I discovered a renewed inclination to smile at strangers and engage in conversation with everyone who was willing to converse with me.

Upon initiating my research on introversion and extroversion, I classified myself as a “natural extrovert.” I now question the veracity of the statement. Even if the statement is true, how does it benefit me? It may be more appropriate for me to define myself as “extroverted” rather than “an extrovert.” It constitutes but one aspect of my character.

I may be somewhat less worried than I was a decade ago. Last month, I reattempted a Big Five personality assessment. My extroversion score remains unchanged; I continue to rank in the high 90s. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that I am currently in the 71st percentile for neuroticism. That is indeed news.