Lexicus
Deity
Among whom? Certainly not among archaeologists and anthropologists...
Why so extroverted?
- Thread starter Kyriakos
- Start date
-
- Tags
- why so serious?
Among whom? Certainly not among archaeologists and anthropologists...
I'm not gonna have a petty back and forth here.
I thought you have some sort of source that you were eagerly waiting to present and you just wanted me to hold that Pinker stirrup for you.
Well, apparently not.
Lexicus
Deity
You made a claim that the frequency of murder has been much greater than today for most of humankind's existence, and then claimed there is a "scientific consensus" that this is the case.
Well, I call bullfeathers on both claims. Human population densities were far too low to support murder rates anything close to what we experience today until the later neolithic.
I mentioned Pinker simply because I've spent a lot of time debunking Pinker's claims: I've found his book Better Angels is the most common source for uninformed people making ignorant claims about prehistory. If you're not getting your misinformation from Pinker, then I apologize.
Well, I call bullfeathers on both claims. Human population densities were far too low to support murder rates anything close to what we experience today until the later neolithic.
I mentioned Pinker simply because I've spent a lot of time debunking Pinker's claims: I've found his book Better Angels is the most common source for uninformed people making ignorant claims about prehistory. If you're not getting your misinformation from Pinker, then I apologize.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
Are we talking murder rates/1000 people or absolute number? The latter is obviously going to be higher with far more people, even if the rate is halved or smaller that would still be true compared to most of human history.
I also doubt given a) we don't have reliable tracking of homicide throughout historical time periods and b) less population density/competition for resources should naturally result in less incentive for homicide, even absence legal consequences for it. Speaking of law, what counts as homicide and how it was detected/punished varies by era too.
Given that I would at least guess that homicides/1000 people are higher today than historically, but I've never even heard of solid evidence pinning down historical homicide rates with any consistency.
I also doubt given a) we don't have reliable tracking of homicide throughout historical time periods and b) less population density/competition for resources should naturally result in less incentive for homicide, even absence legal consequences for it. Speaking of law, what counts as homicide and how it was detected/punished varies by era too.
Given that I would at least guess that homicides/1000 people are higher today than historically, but I've never even heard of solid evidence pinning down historical homicide rates with any consistency.
Look, we're not going to do a grandious source comparapalooza here.
Mostly because this is page 5 of a thread about "extroversion" and the etymology already triggers me.
Point being: Without modern medicine any petty fight involving minor injury can be quite dangerous to one's reproductive success.
"Relentlessly overthinking every social interaction" helps with that.
Last edited:
Lexicus
Deity
There isn't really any.
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,354
OP mixes up a ton of stuff that doesn't hang particularly well together: psychology, epistemology, evolutionary biology.
A priest I knew had heard of a formulation that instantly resonated with me: "socially-drained"/"socially energized" and some posts in this thread seem to echo this. I like people and interacting with them, but I find the process exhausting. I'm tired out after a social event. I'm glad I went. I'm not so "introverted" that I don't want to be with people. But I'm drained and need a good bit of private time to recover. Ditto work life, as Lex says. I like most of my colleagues. I like interacting with them during the work day. Then I need to go home and not.
haroon, you should just know that Farm Boy is hermeneutically brutal to native speakers! I've been speaking English nearly my entire life. (I took it up at about six months old.) I have a university degree in making sense of demanding texts composed in that language. And I still find most Farm Boy posts incomprehensible. It's his shtick. Just relax and go with the flow.
A priest I knew had heard of a formulation that instantly resonated with me: "socially-drained"/"socially energized" and some posts in this thread seem to echo this. I like people and interacting with them, but I find the process exhausting. I'm tired out after a social event. I'm glad I went. I'm not so "introverted" that I don't want to be with people. But I'm drained and need a good bit of private time to recover. Ditto work life, as Lex says. I like most of my colleagues. I like interacting with them during the work day. Then I need to go home and not.
haroon, you should just know that Farm Boy is hermeneutically brutal to native speakers! I've been speaking English nearly my entire life. (I took it up at about six months old.) I have a university degree in making sense of demanding texts composed in that language. And I still find most Farm Boy posts incomprehensible. It's his shtick. Just relax and go with the flow.
Last edited:
Probably a notional variation of the freudian slip; why bother speaking of faces of soldiers when you can present some banners in this mock-fight.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Is this true though? It seems to be true, but is there a citation?
It seems that extroverts are louder and more annoying, so it's easier to notice them blabbing away. Whereas introverts might be harder to count as they're trying to hide from the extroverts who have adopted them
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
The more outgoing I've been the closer I've come to making babies. It's easier to be confident when you are interacting with many people having your behaviors and triggers (or, cues to express) mediated by their influence. I've never met anyone who
The biological cases for introversion, the seminal thrust of the OP, has been largely made by metatron arguing for neurotic people avoiding conflict and Farm Boy for either wanting to spend time away from intimate partners within a household easing interaction overload (implied option #2), or more likely, spend time away from strangers but with intimates, and people vibing on that together and creating the landing necessary to make a baby on their shared wavelength (implied option #1).
I find the whole "introversion/extraversion" dichotomy to be a bit ridiculous. People stick to their comfort zone but your comfort zone isn't remoately all of who you are, it's how you've been. I know a lot of extroverts who became introverts and vice versa, and every extravert I know needs a lot of alone recharge time, and virtually every introvert I know needs social stimulation to not fall into a state of reclusive weirdoness. Most social discomfort in my experience is largely a lack of conditioning, which like exercise, fades really fast.
It's not like we divide people into two equal personalities of physically active and physically lazy. You're active if you practice activity, you're lazy if you don't. And if you're lazy but are dragged into exercise situations you're likely to over exert, needing more outside-your-norm recovery (rest, eating, nursing sprains and pulled muscles). Of course if you tell yourself you're an introvert and then go to a party once a blue moon it's going to exhaust you unless it's a really particularly banging party to you introvertedly particularly personally formed taste. We all have to train. Some people just a little more predisposed and rode the wave early as kids.
The biological cases for introversion, the seminal thrust of the OP, has been largely made by metatron arguing for neurotic people avoiding conflict and Farm Boy for either wanting to spend time away from intimate partners within a household easing interaction overload (implied option #2), or more likely, spend time away from strangers but with intimates, and people vibing on that together and creating the landing necessary to make a baby on their shared wavelength (implied option #1).
I find the whole "introversion/extraversion" dichotomy to be a bit ridiculous. People stick to their comfort zone but your comfort zone isn't remoately all of who you are, it's how you've been. I know a lot of extroverts who became introverts and vice versa, and every extravert I know needs a lot of alone recharge time, and virtually every introvert I know needs social stimulation to not fall into a state of reclusive weirdoness. Most social discomfort in my experience is largely a lack of conditioning, which like exercise, fades really fast.
It's not like we divide people into two equal personalities of physically active and physically lazy. You're active if you practice activity, you're lazy if you don't. And if you're lazy but are dragged into exercise situations you're likely to over exert, needing more outside-your-norm recovery (rest, eating, nursing sprains and pulled muscles). Of course if you tell yourself you're an introvert and then go to a party once a blue moon it's going to exhaust you unless it's a really particularly banging party to you introvertedly particularly personally formed taste. We all have to train. Some people just a little more predisposed and rode the wave early as kids.
Last edited:
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
To clarify, I don't mean to suggest that modernity has created the natural inclinations or preferences that form the basis of our classification of people as "introverts" and "extroverts". Rather, I mean that modernity has exaggerated them, by vastly increasing the number and frequency, arguably even the intensity, of situations where those inclinations will strongly manifest themselves. We then take exaggerated reactions to what are, from the evolutionary perspective, abnormal situations, and try to build a general model of human psychology around it. It isn't an honest or useful description of human beings work, rather, it is an attempt (however unwittingly) to universalise the historically-specific, to frame the experiences of human beings under certain abnormal conditions as the baseline of human experience. It's ideology.
I'm not a primitivist, of course, I don't believe that because a hunter-gather lifestyle is evolutionary "normal", it is preferable. But hunter-gatherers make for a pretty compelling control-group against which to measure the behaviour of modern and even pre-modern people.
H4run
Deity
This is true, in a much bigger picture; we are alienated from our own work, our own family, our own time, our own society while at the same time we are told that this is a norm(ality).
When I watched Heidi with my family, an anime series about the life of small community in Switzerland, the life pattern of the farmer and shepherd back then were pretty much less stressful. They work and accumulate goods to prepare for winter, and during winter they rest the whole season. Sometime I'm thinking it would be lovely to own a land and animals and live a simple life with healthy natural pattern.
Last edited:
