RE: No, You Are Not An Introvert
I strongly disagree, it's like you are arguing that there is not a "distinction" in humans in "fast running" ones and "slow running" ones and you claim that we are all "the same". We are not the same, we all have different attributes and while for some of us "running" is a much easier activity, for others it can be quite laborious. And I'm not just talking about "fitness" levels here.
For example...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23201182
...we have explored circulating cholesterol and triacylglycerol concentrations, which appear to be decreased in hyperbilirubinemic individuals/animals,and are accompanied by lower body mass index in highly powered studies. These results suggest that bilirubin could be responsible for the development of a lean and hypolipidemic state in GS
Find an Extrovert (on the extreme side) and tell him to STFU for a whole day and see how this will work out!
[EDIT}
Upvoting for visibility
Very good rebuttal. I'd add to it that there seem to be two main misconceptions at play here too:
What does it really mean to be introverted? If your introvert/extrovert classification is lynch-pinning on motivation, how does that apply to individuals that just aren't very motivated to begin with?
More importantly though, introversion/extroversion is most likely a gradient (kind of like gender). Most people don't 100% fit in a nice pigeonhole of a label, but for succinct communications labels are very useful and efficient. That is to say, a 60/40 and 90/10 (introvert/extrovert respectively) are both "introverts" but would most likely have observable differences in social behavior. In fact, the spectrum itself is basically describing behavior.
Though, to that end of behavioral assessment there is definitely some re-evaluation needed for our criteria of what is a "genuine" social encounter.
I agree with chryspano. Also people wth a higher I.Q tend to be an introvert because they're thinking about something intelligent to say and are afraid of talking nonesense; lower I.Q people just talk of the game or the tv show thay saw yesterday and budge in any argument screaming their opinion with no second thought.
Most of these factors are genetic and can't be changed .
I.Q is bullshit to begin with . Also, if you are thinking to say something intelligent, then you are not so intelligent to begin with.
Even playing Chess is bullshit. Just move your pieces randomly and you'll beat Garry Kasparov, because being a chess grandmaster is just a social construct and we are all the same. Yea, sure :)
this is again irrelevant. playing chess requires training in a specific subject. Being an introvert does not require training.
you need to upgrade your arguments
haha. This is so good! mud slinging at its best. Why care so much about IQ or some arbitrary number so we can compare amongst ourselves?
Geez.
Not entirely, we somewhat know what to expect from someone with 70 100 130 or 160IQ
IQ is not bullshit at all. It is the best way we have to make a generalization of our capabilities. Lower IQ is even associated with lower impulse control and violence. Very high IQ is also associated with certain negative traits.
A person who scores 80 on an IQ test will NEVER be able to take a doctors degree. A person with 60 IQ will never be able to do manual labour without proper supervision.
IQ is probably the single most important tool we could use to improve everyone's lives. But it is so personal and "cold". It's so much shame connected to it, because it basically says; "You have an IQ of 80 and you can't become this and this and that" But rationally speaking it would be better for that person if he would accept that. My IQ is somewhere between 115-120. Which means I shouldn't go for certain things. I wouldn't be a great engineer. I probably couldn't get through a phd in maths or physics. My IQ has many limitations. I'm not incredibly bright. I'm a about a standard deviation above average. I understand some things, but there are tons of smarter people than me who look at me like a simpleton. And someone with an IQ of 80 is a simpleton to me. And someone with an IQ of 50 is a simpleton to them.
What's there to be so scared of?
Research on IQ is very well documented. But because of "hurt feelings" on behalf of others no one really pays any attention to it. It's a big mistake in my opinion.
No you can't because, yet again, is all about training and cultural relevance.
I debunk the whole thing with scientific studies here
https://steemit.com/intelligence/@kyriacos/iq-and-eq-cannot-measure-intelligence
according to the definition for intelligence on google intelligence is "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." the ability to acquire skills is what IQ tests do though the use of Logic puzzles that anyone can do, that require no training. It's tests you on your ability to solve problems its culturally relevant because its a good way to measure the ability of people to figure shit out. and if people can do better on the tests with training then they can train themselves to be more intelligent
I think your problem is that everyone else is talking about this definition of intelligence, and I think that you mean something different when you say intelligence. You really need to define your terms if you want to have any kind of constructive dialogue otherwise everyone is just arguing past one another.
if you can train and improve on them then they do aggregate training. I.Q tests are based on the western model of understanding the world. This is why most African countries have very low marks. This is why most indigenous people don't do good on them. Take any high I.Q person in such a country and they will starve to death because the environment requires different kind of intelligence.
actually not. if they stop training the I.Q falls back. in other words, intelligence is nothing but gaining expertise on a specific way of thinking.
let me guess your I.Q. score didn't come back very positive, did it.
Let me guess. You have no idea how to argue the subject and resort to strawman fallacies.
FYI: 136
false dichotomy and wrong example.
We are not but we don't have to fall into a false dichotomy either
again, wrong example. I could say some people have black skin and some white and still be using a wrong example.
This is a scientific study about something completely different. The study can be falsified and replicated. Introversion/Extroversion is hearsay and opinions which can change in a person's life style depending on the situation.
I can find an "extrovert" and examine their responses when they are 15 and when they are 45. When they are in college and when they meet their first true love.
again. situations matter. these are not intrinsic values.
My example is not wrong, the one about the skin is though.
It's almost impossible for an Introvert to become a fully Extrovert, this requires a lot of "work" and suffering and I see no reason for someone to strive for it. "Extroversion" simply drains our batteries, period, how much of it we can withstand is another story.
It's not different, you claim that everyone can run with the same pace, you neglet the fact that for some groups of people this activity is much easier and for others it's harder, a lower BMI group like those with GS can run 10km with less effort. When you ask from everyone to "run at the same pace" you have to acknowledge that some groups are strugling to do that, it's not easy for them and it has nothing to do with "how much they try" obviously they try and they strungle more than those who seem to outperform them.
Of course there can be some variations through life. Genetics and our environment is what I think mostly determine us, we can try to change part of our environment but we can't do much about our genes.
It's impossible because nobody is a fully introvert and nobody is a fully extrovert. We are all a blend depending on the situation. Introvert exclusive and extrovert exclusive is a culture meme. You are online all day talking to people. You are not an introvert.
I don't claim everyone runs with the same pace. I claim that people sometimes run fast and sometimes slower and that this is not a race or a competition. Again, false example. You use physiology. I use situation related example. Again, someone who talks to 100 people at a party is the same as you who talks to 100 people online.
well, this is all there is to the equation..
thing is there is no scientific basis that genes make you an introvert or an extrovert. In fact, there is no scientific evidence that at all that is falsifiable and replicable because the dynamics are so fluid.
it is a cultural meme. nothing more, nothing less.
I'm starting to doubt that you have ever met Introverts and Extroverts that you have understand them, part of the "problem" is that most people rank somewhere in the midle and you can't easily tell the difference in the first place. Another point of posible confusion is when an Extrovert or someone that "ranks" somewhere in the midle lives in an environment that forces him to behave more like an Introvert, ofcource he is not an Introvert! and you could be 100% accurate in this case, perhaps it's this group of people and behaviour that lead you to post this article.
"No, you are not an Extrovert" could as easily be as accurate as your title is.
You are going in circles mate. At least read another person arguing against it.
Your personal opinion and experience is rather irrelevant. this is why we have science. You just bought into the meme characteristics and you are reflecting on that belief
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-buddha-was-introvert/201404/there-is-no-such-thing-introvert-or-extrovert