> It's highly questionable whether she changed her personality at all.
She’s offered her strategy and provided some measurements. It is fair to question the results, but what specifically are you questioning?
> Why is being extraverted so highly praised, anyways?
In general I think introversion is a fine trait to have, but some of her descriptions in the text made it seem like she was introverted to the point where it was causing her problems. Everything’s a spectrum, I wouldn’t want to be an extrovert, but it is nice to be able to strike up a conversation in a social setting instead of playing with one’s phone.
I think it just strongly translates into a significant ability to "win friends and influence people" and so on, relative to the alternative or in other words mastery over social interactions and empowerment for an individual to do with it whatever they choose to, while introversion is limiting in this or that way even just making one be viewed socially "less than" in relation to peers.
I see it as almost no different than "why would someone want to be more physically attractive". And, not exactly the same as but close to "charisma" which having more of makes someone more admired, liked, attractive etc.
Having said all that, regardless of other people's perception of you, It seems like being naturally extroverted makes social interactions come easier, effortless, while being introverted and still having to interact socially requires much more effort and is less enjoyable. So having fun and being at ease doing something is better than not.
This is the main problem with talk of being able to "change your personality". It is almost self evident this isn't possible to any significant degree because the thing about extroverts doing something that introverts want to be able to do is, for extroverts or those with social charisma, it comes naturally. They don't have to work hard at it. They are not thinking and analyzing and calculating about it. They just do it without thought. Their mental process around these things is much more efficient in other words. It is akin to someone who knows a language well vs someone with limited mastery of a foreign language, having to constantly exert mental effort to translate thoughts words by word in their head. Some people are also naturally funny; someone who is not can not really change their personality to become this, they would be working hard at something that the other one does not really have to "try" to do.
> [extroversion] comes naturally. They don't have to work hard at it. They are not thinking and analyzing and calculating about it. They just do it without thought
I'm not sure I would frame it as a fixed trait (genetic).
I completely agree one shouldn't neurotically overthink everything. Faking a response using rationality is unhealthy; also people don't respond well to fakeness nor the apparent manipulation.
I believe we can change ourselves somewhat, but I always try to think along the lines of internal encouragement (or even operant conditioning).
I guess my underlying belief is that we are both rational and irrational, and that our rational side can influence our irrational side by self-teaching.
Then again I hate this modern belief that we can do anything if we just believe in ourselves enough. Of course the outcome is that we blame ourselves if we don't make it, or blaming our society (which isn't any more helpful).
Life-goals are a modern weirdness, and there's a lot of adjacent woowoo like manifestation.
Personally Im more on the introveted side and that is due, I think, to a sensory sensitivity. I could switch extroverted but it’s exhausting, possibly less if I drink but it’s still taxing. No amount of personality retraining would change that for me
Additionally, the author seems to be placing value judgments on agreeableness and neroticism.
That's fine they if want to change their personality, but I would be very hesitant to argue that turning up the agreeableness and down the self-awareness dials, are a net benefit to society.
I guess it's because being extroverted is more positive for society as a whole than being introverted. And so society is trying to -- even if it's not always a conscious efforts made -- kind of encourage and reward this type of behaviour.
EDIT: of course it's not all that simple. IMHO a society of pure extroverts would be an unstable network of salespeople with nothing to sell and no one to engineer and manufacture the things needed. I'm joking here, but... :)
My question exactly. They place extraversion as if it is a positive trait, which automatically suggests introversion is a negative trait.
It's probably just poor choice of langauge.
Sociability may be a better term. We benefit from relationships and hermits are unlikely to form close relationships. I feel as if the person is suggesting that being sociable and being extraverted are the same thing. They are not.
But also, how silly is the recommendation of how to be more extraverted. "Go to events and meet new people". I stopped reading at that point.
I think “sociability” would be a bad switch because the intuitive meaning of “sociability” would also imply some amount of agreeable-ness, right? Better to keep the basis orthogonal!
Sociability also sounds… good, right? Extroversion/introversion sounds more neutral to me.
Anyway, whatever we call it, I don’t think the author was trying to call extroversion universally good. Rather, they had identified their level of introversion as a problem, so the correction they wanted to apply was in the direction of extroversion. They just wanted to move closer to the middle, from an extreme.
bee_rider|1 month ago
She’s offered her strategy and provided some measurements. It is fair to question the results, but what specifically are you questioning?
> Why is being extraverted so highly praised, anyways?
In general I think introversion is a fine trait to have, but some of her descriptions in the text made it seem like she was introverted to the point where it was causing her problems. Everything’s a spectrum, I wouldn’t want to be an extrovert, but it is nice to be able to strike up a conversation in a social setting instead of playing with one’s phone.
PKop|1 month ago
I see it as almost no different than "why would someone want to be more physically attractive". And, not exactly the same as but close to "charisma" which having more of makes someone more admired, liked, attractive etc.
Having said all that, regardless of other people's perception of you, It seems like being naturally extroverted makes social interactions come easier, effortless, while being introverted and still having to interact socially requires much more effort and is less enjoyable. So having fun and being at ease doing something is better than not.
This is the main problem with talk of being able to "change your personality". It is almost self evident this isn't possible to any significant degree because the thing about extroverts doing something that introverts want to be able to do is, for extroverts or those with social charisma, it comes naturally. They don't have to work hard at it. They are not thinking and analyzing and calculating about it. They just do it without thought. Their mental process around these things is much more efficient in other words. It is akin to someone who knows a language well vs someone with limited mastery of a foreign language, having to constantly exert mental effort to translate thoughts words by word in their head. Some people are also naturally funny; someone who is not can not really change their personality to become this, they would be working hard at something that the other one does not really have to "try" to do.
robocat|1 month ago
I'm not sure I would frame it as a fixed trait (genetic).
I completely agree one shouldn't neurotically overthink everything. Faking a response using rationality is unhealthy; also people don't respond well to fakeness nor the apparent manipulation.
I believe we can change ourselves somewhat, but I always try to think along the lines of internal encouragement (or even operant conditioning).
I guess my underlying belief is that we are both rational and irrational, and that our rational side can influence our irrational side by self-teaching.
Then again I hate this modern belief that we can do anything if we just believe in ourselves enough. Of course the outcome is that we blame ourselves if we don't make it, or blaming our society (which isn't any more helpful).
Life-goals are a modern weirdness, and there's a lot of adjacent woowoo like manifestation.
grugagag|1 month ago
jiscariot|1 month ago
dryarzeg|1 month ago
EDIT: of course it's not all that simple. IMHO a society of pure extroverts would be an unstable network of salespeople with nothing to sell and no one to engineer and manufacture the things needed. I'm joking here, but... :)
NeutralCrane|1 month ago
grugagag|1 month ago
pedalpete|1 month ago
It's probably just poor choice of langauge.
Sociability may be a better term. We benefit from relationships and hermits are unlikely to form close relationships. I feel as if the person is suggesting that being sociable and being extraverted are the same thing. They are not.
But also, how silly is the recommendation of how to be more extraverted. "Go to events and meet new people". I stopped reading at that point.
bee_rider|1 month ago
Sociability also sounds… good, right? Extroversion/introversion sounds more neutral to me.
Anyway, whatever we call it, I don’t think the author was trying to call extroversion universally good. Rather, they had identified their level of introversion as a problem, so the correction they wanted to apply was in the direction of extroversion. They just wanted to move closer to the middle, from an extreme.