20 ms·

It’s a spectrum - most of us are ambiverts.

by neofrommatrix 2y ago

SecretDreams 2y ago
> Ambiverts My new favourite word!
jfengel 2y ago
I'm not convinced it's a single dimension, either. I suspect it's less a spectrum and more of a blotch.
- lupire 2y ago
  People say "spectrum" when they mean "1-dimensional ranged value". But a real spectrum is a bitfield of attributes.
- pizza 2y ago
  Considering we're talking about real people and the real conversations you have with them, definitely. The 5 people I talk to and the patterns I've come to expect from socializing with them, and the way that those patterns interact with my own behavior, don't really have a neat apples-to-apples comparison with your 5 people and their patterns and how you interact with those patterns, etc. We could both be calling ourselves introverts and extrapolating wildly different chains of observations and predictions about how those hypothetical conversations would be affecting the other one's energy levels, etc.
shermantanktop 2y ago
The whole concept of *verts is an early 20th century psychological concept from an era which produced practices and ideas which are now mostly antiquated. It has become pop psychology and never had much meaning.
- hollerith 2y ago
  The field of personality psychology continues to believe it has meaning: extraversion is a factor in the five-factor model.
  - fsckboy 2y ago
    the five factor model suggests nothing about "gains energy/drains energy", it simply measures tendency toward extraversion and identifies it as a highly explanatory factor in personality. There are 5 factors because those 5 are the factors that when measured appear to be independent variables, and explanatory.
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      > There are 5 factors because those 5 are the factors that when measured appear to be independent variables This is not correct; they are not independent.
      - fsckboy 2y ago
        the goal is for them to be independent variables in the statistical sense. science is a process of refinement so there will undoubtedly be improvements, but they are as independent as they can be based on current knowledge, they can be measured separately, and people exist in every combination (the scales of each measure are not dependent on one another), and we can't describe what we know about personality without including all of them. Myers-Briggs comes to mind as a comparable metric which has more dependence among its variables, and essentially ignores neuroticism.
        thaumasiotes 2y ago
        > the goal is for them to be independent variables in the statistical sense. No, it isn't. The goal is for them to have high explanatory power. They aren't independent variables, and the fact that they aren't is a frequent criticism of them. But it's not relevant to whether they are useful descriptors or predictors. Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Limited_scope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Li... : > In many studies, the five factors are not fully orthogonal to one another; that is, the five factors are not independent. Orthogonality is viewed as desirable by some researchers because it minimizes redundancy between the dimensions.
- RHSeeger 2y ago
  It seems relatively true that some people gain energy from socializing, while others expend energy to do so; extrovert vs introvert; which is what I been told is the difference between extroverts and introverts. It's not that introverts _can't_ socialize, it's just that they have a limited capacity to do so (with the caveat that there are people who have social anxiety that cannot socialize, who _also_ fall into the category of introvert). Given how obviously true it _appears_ to be when talking to people about their experiences, why do you say that?
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > with the caveat that there are people who have social anxiety that cannot socialize, who _also_ fall into the category of introvert Interestingly, I know people who say they are socially anxious extroverts—they need to be with people to draw energy but have high levels social anxiety. This usually means they need to spend a lot of time with people they know well and trust.

It’s a spectrum - most of us are ambiverts.

SecretDreams 2y ago

> Ambiverts My new favourite word!

jfengel 2y ago

I'm not convinced it's a single dimension, either. I suspect it's less a spectrum and more of a blotch.

lupire 2y ago
People say "spectrum" when they mean "1-dimensional ranged value". But a real spectrum is a bitfield of attributes.
pizza 2y ago
Considering we're talking about real people and the real conversations you have with them, definitely. The 5 people I talk to and the patterns I've come to expect from socializing with them, and the way that those patterns interact with my own behavior, don't really have a neat apples-to-apples comparison with your 5 people and their patterns and how you interact with those patterns, etc. We could both be calling ourselves introverts and extrapolating wildly different chains of observations and predictions about how those hypothetical conversations would be affecting the other one's energy levels, etc.

shermantanktop 2y ago

The whole concept of *verts is an early 20th century psychological concept from an era which produced practices and ideas which are now mostly antiquated. It has become pop psychology and never had much meaning.

hollerith 2y ago
The field of personality psychology continues to believe it has meaning: extraversion is a factor in the five-factor model.
- fsckboy 2y ago
  the five factor model suggests nothing about "gains energy/drains energy", it simply measures tendency toward extraversion and identifies it as a highly explanatory factor in personality. There are 5 factors because those 5 are the factors that when measured appear to be independent variables, and explanatory.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    > There are 5 factors because those 5 are the factors that when measured appear to be independent variables This is not correct; they are not independent.
    - fsckboy 2y ago
      the goal is for them to be independent variables in the statistical sense. science is a process of refinement so there will undoubtedly be improvements, but they are as independent as they can be based on current knowledge, they can be measured separately, and people exist in every combination (the scales of each measure are not dependent on one another), and we can't describe what we know about personality without including all of them. Myers-Briggs comes to mind as a comparable metric which has more dependence among its variables, and essentially ignores neuroticism.
      - thaumasiotes 2y ago
        > the goal is for them to be independent variables in the statistical sense. No, it isn't. The goal is for them to have high explanatory power. They aren't independent variables, and the fact that they aren't is a frequent criticism of them. But it's not relevant to whether they are useful descriptors or predictors. Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Limited_scope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Li... : > In many studies, the five factors are not fully orthogonal to one another; that is, the five factors are not independent. Orthogonality is viewed as desirable by some researchers because it minimizes redundancy between the dimensions.
RHSeeger 2y ago
It seems relatively true that some people gain energy from socializing, while others expend energy to do so; extrovert vs introvert; which is what I been told is the difference between extroverts and introverts. It's not that introverts _can't_ socialize, it's just that they have a limited capacity to do so (with the caveat that there are people who have social anxiety that cannot socialize, who _also_ fall into the category of introvert). Given how obviously true it _appears_ to be when talking to people about their experiences, why do you say that?
- lolinder 2y ago
  > with the caveat that there are people who have social anxiety that cannot socialize, who _also_ fall into the category of introvert Interestingly, I know people who say they are socially anxious extroverts—they need to be with people to draw energy but have high levels social anxiety. This usually means they need to spend a lot of time with people they know well and trust.