Why so extroverted?

[Kyriakos]

I will indulge your intellectual masochism when you ask.

It's ok, Hygro, as long as you don't expect a serious response to your garbage-post, we are all fine.

 

[Synobun]

All posts are garbage posts because they're all extroverted.

 

[Kyriakos]

All posts are garbage posts because they're all extroverted.

Far be it from me to claim that 4 isn't the same as 50000000000000000000000000000000; they are both non-primes.

 

[H4run]

Actually I can relates this with two ideas, the first will be from Immanuel Kant where human is understand as both unsocial and social creature.

As a social creature we would like to create bond with other, to express our idea, to belong to a group, to nurture and get nurtured by other, our extrovert model of social behavior I believe simply to achieved this.

While as an individual being we also like to isolate ourselves, have a break from society who often tires us because we sometime need to quit being ourselves in order to be compatible in certain society platform.

the unsocial sociability of men (i.e. their propensity to enter into society, bound together with a mutual opposition which constantly threatens to break up the society). Man has an inclination to associate with others, because in society he feels himself to be more than man… But he also has a strong propensity to isolate himself from others, because he finds in himself at the same time the unsocial characteristic of wishing to have everything go according to his own wish. Thus he expects opposition on all sides because, in knowing himself, he knows that he, on his own part, is inclined to oppose others. This opposition it is which awakens all his powers, brings him to conquer his inclination to laziness and, propelled by vainglory, lust for power, and avarice, to achieve a rank among his fellows whom he cannot tolerate but from whom he cannot withdraw.

The second from an interesting hypothesis by Jacques Lacan, he said that, in the womb, where all of our need is provided, the temperature is neither too hot or too cold, there were no hunger, no thirst, there was an absent of need inside a mother womb, it is an ideal place to live, hence over there no language is need to be spoken, no word need to be utter. However when we went out from our mother womb where we got exposed by cold, hunger, pain, thirst, and all of that, there is a need of language to express our need.

 

[Hygro]

Yet imo all material are partly notional anyway, regardless of being so consciously or not. You don't have to think about how you can move to reach a chair so as to sit down, yet the ability to do all (move, identify the chair, differentiate it from other stuff etc) is mental and not sensory; the sensory part is only formed by the external objects, while the identification and reaction is mental.
Not that the above is anything new, of course - in general this is usually referred to as 'idealism', though that is a huge over-category of philo stuff. Yet imo it is likely that all material identified are identified only by forming fossils in the world of thought, which in turn tie to those material (this is so not only for external objects, but for internal ones too; ie for thoughts or parts of thoughts). So in the end you just swim about in an ocean of notional stuff, which are interlinked in ways that cannot realistically be fully accounted for past some general level.
If the above is true, though, how exactly does being extroverted have a biological positive value?

Please enlighten us how this question follows your criticism of being lost in a sea of entertaining symbolic thoughts.

 

[Kyriakos]

Actually I can relates this with two ideas, the first will be from Immanuel Kant where human is understand as both unsocial and social creature.

As a social creature we would like to create bond with other, to express our idea, to belong to a group, to nurture and get nurtured by other, our extrovert model of social behavior I believe simply to achieved this.

While as an individual being we also like to isolate ourselves, have a break from society who often tires us because we sometime need to quit being ourselves in order to be compatible in certain society platform.



The second from an interesting hypothesis by Jacques Lacan, he said that, in the womb, where all of our need is provided, the temperature is neither too hot or too cold, there were no hunger, no thirst, there was an absent of need inside a mother womb, it is an ideal place to live, hence over there no language is need to be spoken, no word need to be utter. However when we went out from our mother womb where we got exposed by cold, hunger, pain, thirst, and all of that, there is a need of language to express our need.

Kant does examine the issue of notional against sensory in his critique of pure reason. Though his general view is that sensory input gets fused with notional in the mind, there is also an argument to make regarding no proto-sensory existing without a notional vessel for it. Imo one does project notional material and then picks it up again, with the specific external environment influencing chances that things get projected and picked up that way.

 

[H4run]

Well I just take your first and third paragraph mostly, when you questioned how being an extrovert can be biologically profitable to us when it's exposed and turn ourselves vulnerable to exploit. However I don't see being introvert or extrovert being related of how we keen to think empirically (sensory) or with abstraction (notional). Or in general I don't see its relation with the world of ideas and the world of matter (sensory).

While I quote one of Kant's law just to give a sight and expand the discussion by relating introvert with his concept regarding unsocial side of human, and extrovert with social side of human. Like you implied earlier that being an extrovert makes you an easy target of exploitation, but it also can win you allies and group belonging, or a spouse like Valka said.

While being totally reserved and isolated, may somewhat protects you behind your mental wall, but it will makes you isolated that it may harms you psychologically or biologically, especially in a strong communal society where groups offer you protection. But yes that's just some of it, but I believe even without that we are intrinsically build to be both social and unsocial.

I think the balancing between our introvert and extrovert side is our struggle to wisdom.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It isn't a philosophical discussion; It's mostly genetics with cultural, social and learned overlays. And as haroon said, at the individual level, it's all about how you deal with your "affliction", use it, and apply it in your daily life.

 

[Kyriakos]

It isn't a philosophical discussion; It's mostly genetics with cultural, social and learned overlays. And as haroon said, at the individual level, it's all about how you deal with your "affliction", use it, and apply it in your daily life.

The actual result of how many are extroverted and how many are introverted isn't philosophical, yet the philosophical point (an old one, not one i made up for the thread) is that ultimately all input is notional.

 

[bernie14]

That isn't in tautology with introversion vs extroversion though. I did share my thoughts, which doesn't magically make me extroverted.

But if you shared more thoughts with more people would you be?

 

[Hygro]

With all input being notional, where does the introvert get a biological positive value?

 

[Lexicus]

With all input being notional, where does the introvert get a biological positive value?

Constantly existing half in a dream world and relentlessly overthinking every social interaction clearly give me massive reproductive fitness bruh

 

[Kyriakos]

Constantly existing half in a dream world and relentlessly overthinking every social interaction clearly give me massive reproductive fitness bruh

But not enough patience to read the op

But if you shared more thoughts with more people would you be?

I don't think so. Besides, most extreme introverts were artists, and they published their works.

 

[Lexicus]

But not enough patience to read the op

I actually did read the OP but I didn't really get what it was saying

 

[Kyriakos]

I actually did read the OP but I didn't really get what it was saying

Couldn't this be part of the point?

Well, tbh i didn't feel like presenting it in detail. Can you blame me given some of the posts in the thread?...

 

[Hygro]

Constantly existing half in a dream world and relentlessly overthinking every social interaction clearly give me massive reproductive fitness bruh

I talk to men on forums and spend most of my days asleep and nights awake, alone, thinking. I assure you positive biological value can't be reproductive success.

Unless reproductive success means the best or nothing.

In which case, perhaps.

But to what end?

The shrew that grew humans wasn't the shrewest of shrews. Probably ugly by the shrews dreaming of their best shrew.

But not enough patience to read the op

I read it 6 times. Obviously the answer to your question is that more minds together create the notional experiences that lead to greater survivability, and a bias towards sharing with each other (notions, resources, time, space, ourselves) is obviously an advantage particularly if our notions are useful which is how an introverted would confer any advantage in the first place.

A successful species if there's value to thinking alone deeper but also in sharing those thoughts would have a mix of different types.

 

[Lexicus]

Couldn't this be part of the point?

Probably. I am not really familiar with the treatment of extraversion and introversion in neurology or psychology so I don't really know how to answer the question. I found the OP's apparent focus on philosophical treatment of the topic odd given the question is supposed to be about biological fitness; to me that means the discussion should revolve around how helpful extraversion was for navigating the presumed environment of early humans and other hominids...but that doesn't seem to be what has happened.

I talk to men on forums and spend most of my days asleep and nights awake, alone, thinking. I assure you positive biological value can't be reproductive success.

Eh? I interpreted "biological value" as being identical with "reproductive success," why do you say they're different?

 

[Hygro]

Probably. I am not really familiar with the treatment of extraversion and introversion in neurology or psychology so I don't really know how to answer the question. I found the OP's apparent focus on philosophical treatment of the topic odd given the question is supposed to be about biological fitness; to me that means the discussion should revolve around how helpful extraversion was for navigating the presumed environment of early humans and other hominids...but that doesn't seem to be what has happened.



Eh? I interpreted "biological value" as being identical with "reproductive success," why do you say they're different?

Poking fun at Kyrbear, because obviously being outgoing is reproductively good for most any individual and a certain degree for the group. But also if it meant something else, then maybe I misunderstood, so for charity, too.

 

[Farm Boy]

Outgoing is probably a lot more advantageous with a broad and shallow social interaction net and somewhat less advantageous with significantly smaller and more intimate codependents.

 

[MaryKB]

My understanding is being social and outgoing isn't the same as being extroverted. You can be a total introvert and not be shy at all, but rather quite a people person.

Introversion and extroversion's about how you recharge your energy. I'm introverted, and I need my alone time. Social interaction exhausts me. But if I was extroverted, I'd feel lonely easier and I would feel recharged by socializing.