On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Stuart Jansen <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip] > Did you consider that I was aware of the studies you cited, but that I > choose to reject them? No, I did not. It sounded like you just came up with your own definition out of the blue--thus the admonishment to read up on it. > I acknowledge that some situation are draining, > but I reject the binary labels "introvert" and "extrovert". I don't find > it helpful to talk about a person as one or the other but instead > situations that trigger one response or the other. My point is that they are not binary states--merely labels on either end of a spectrum. I agree that people may react differently based on the situation--exhibiting behavior from a different point along the spectrum. The whole concept around this aspect of personality is that most people exhibit behavior from one side of the spectrum the majority of the time--thus earning the respective label. If you take a Jung/Briggs&Myers personality test, for example, it will calculate the % along the introvert-extrovert spectrum where you most often land. > > You will forgive me, I hope, if I choose to understand the world based > on what I have lived in addition to what I have read? I should hope so. But it is also helpful to learn the vocabulary and definitions that a field dedicated to studying this phenomenon has chosen to use when discussing it. You can disagree with their results if you like, but IMO it's pointless to simply disregard their chosen vernacular outright. You can't just redefine what the words mean because you don't agree with the meaning. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
