Why so extroverted?

[H4run]

Fight or flight ties in to "survival mode"

True

and being in control

Not necessarily

could we say that "do something" in the face of fight or flight

Fight or Flight is a part of "do something" Bernie

fight or flight negates the option of doing nothing and thus diminishes our control by limiting our options....i guess it depends on the circumstance and individual judgment...

Fight or flight is the reaction to negates of one losing the control to maintain us being in control. While doing nothing is to accept the reality of losing control.

Ok now I will used a very very bad example. Those who use psychedelic substance of a certain "commodity", will somewhat entering a stage where they losing control over their ego, the fear of losing control makes them struggle to keep themselves in control, which most of the case worsen the situation, the correct reaction according to some consumer is to surrender and embrace the lost of control, which is something that very hard to do because it is too scary.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think that "introversion" and "extroversion" are largely inventions of modernity.

Most introverts are not anti-social, but find interacting with people with whom they do not have clearly-established relationships, and consequently do not have clearly-established mutual expectations with, to be stressful or emotionally draining, and their behaviour expresses the sort of aversion to or limited tolerance for stressful situations which is in itself nearly universal among human beings. In a simple band or village society, almost everyone you encounter on a daily basis is somebody with a clearly, often explicitly established relationship to you. Most interactions with people outside of that community are handled by specific individuals within the community, usually based on a demonstrated aptitude for dealing with strangers, or in more complex societies, established relationships with people outside of those groups. "Introverts" and "extroverts" do not exist in this society, because the sorts of situations which give rise to the behaviours which produce "introversion", or by juxtaposition "extroversion", do not exist.

In modern society, people are constantly thrust into contact with people who they do not have a clearly-established relationship: not only strangers, but co-workers or neighbours who recognised but do not really know each other. How easily or comfortably a person is able to carry out these interactions thus becomes a much more prominent aspect of their character, to the point of being interpreted as a fundamental characteristic. There are plenty of people who can appear "introverted" in certain contexts, and very lively in others, because "introversion" is not genuinely a description of that person at an essential level, but of how they respond to certain environments. The trick we've played on ourselves is framing certain environments as normal, as representing a plausible baseline of human experience and thus a basis on which to draw broad judgements about the essential characteristics of individual human beings, when in fact these environments are, in the long view, profoundly abnormal, and could only exist in a society structured in a specific, complex, and historically novel if not simply aberrant way. We put people in confusing and often hostile environments, and frame their responses to those environments as personality traits at best, and as actual pathologies at worst.

tl;dr: "introversion" is bourgeois ideology.

 

[H4run]

I think that "introversion" and "extroversion" are largely inventions of modernity.

Most introverts are not anti-social, but find interacting with people with whom they do not have clearly-established relationships, and consequently do not have clearly-established mutual expectations with, to be stressful or emotionally draining, and their behaviour expresses the sort of aversion to or limited tolerance for stressful situations which is in itself nearly universal among human beings. In a simple band or village society, almost everyone you encounter on a daily basis is somebody with a clearly, often explicitly established relationship to you. Most interactions with people outside of that community are handled by specific individuals within the community, usually based on a demonstrated aptitude for dealing with strangers, or in more complex societies, established relationships with people outside of those groups. "Introverts" and "extroverts" do not exist in this society, because the sorts of situations which give rise to the behaviours which produce "introversion", or by juxtaposition "extroversion", do not exist.

In modern society, people are constantly thrust into contact with people who they do not have a clearly-established relationship: not only strangers, but co-workers or neighbours who recognised but do not really know each other. How easily or comfortably a person is able to carry out these interactions thus becomes a much more prominent aspect of their character, to the point of being interpreted as a fundamental characteristic. There are plenty of people who can appear "introverted" in certain contexts, and very lively in others, because "introversion" is not genuinely a description of that person at an essential level, but of how they respond to certain environments. The trick we've played on ourselves is framing certain environments as normal, as representing a plausible baseline of human experience and thus a basis on which to draw broad judgements about the essential characteristics of individual human beings, when in fact these environments are, in the long view, profoundly abnormal, and could only exist in a society structured in a specific, complex, and historically novel if not simply aberrant way. We put people in confusing and often hostile environments, and frame their responses to those environments as personality traits at best, and as actual pathologies at worst.

tl;dr: "introversion" is bourgeois ideology.

Is this perspective is from Focault?

 

[Kyriakos]

I think that "introversion" and "extroversion" are largely inventions of modernity.

Most introverts are not anti-social, but find interacting with people with whom they do not have clearly-established relationships, and consequently do not have clearly-established mutual expectations with, to be stressful or emotionally draining, and their behaviour expresses the sort of aversion to or limited tolerance for stressful situations which is in itself nearly universal among human beings. In a simple band or village society, almost everyone you encounter on a daily basis is somebody with a clearly, often explicitly established relationship to you. Most interactions with people outside of that community are handled by specific individuals within the community, usually based on a demonstrated aptitude for dealing with strangers, or in more complex societies, established relationships with people outside of those groups. "Introverts" and "extroverts" do not exist in this society, because the sorts of situations which give rise to the behaviours which produce "introversion", or by juxtaposition "extroversion", do not exist.

There is also 'the village-idiot'
In so small societies some people become more visibly something "problematic" and are termed as mad, or just end up being confined to their house.

 

[bernie14]

I think that "introversion" and "extroversion" are largely inventions of modernity.

Most introverts are not anti-social, but find interacting with people with whom they do not have clearly-established relationships, and consequently do not have clearly-established mutual expectations with, to be stressful or emotionally draining, and their behaviour expresses the sort of aversion to or limited tolerance for stressful situations which is in itself nearly universal among human beings. In a simple band or village society, almost everyone you encounter on a daily basis is somebody with a clearly, often explicitly established relationship to you. Most interactions with people outside of that community are handled by specific individuals within the community, usually based on a demonstrated aptitude for dealing with strangers, or in more complex societies, established relationships with people outside of those groups. "Introverts" and "extroverts" do not exist in this society, because the sorts of situations which give rise to the behaviours which produce "introversion", or by juxtaposition "extroversion", do not exist.

In modern society, people are constantly thrust into contact with people who they do not have a clearly-established relationship: not only strangers, but co-workers or neighbours who recognised but do not really know each other. How easily or comfortably a person is able to carry out these interactions thus becomes a much more prominent aspect of their character, to the point of being interpreted as a fundamental characteristic. There are plenty of people who can appear "introverted" in certain contexts, and very lively in others, because "introversion" is not genuinely a description of that person at an essential level, but of how they respond to certain environments. The trick we've played on ourselves is framing certain environments as normal, as representing a plausible baseline of human experience and thus a basis on which to draw broad judgements about the essential characteristics of individual human beings, when in fact these environments are, in the long view, profoundly abnormal, and could only exist in a society structured in a specific, complex, and historically novel if not simply aberrant way. We put people in confusing and often hostile environments, and frame their responses to those environments as personality traits at best, and as actual pathologies at worst.

tl;dr: "introversion" is bourgeois ideology.

Sorry, but that sounds like a whole lot of malcontent projection to me

 

[Traitorfish]

Is this perspective is from Focault?

Not directly, but I daresay he's in there. I certainly wouldn't claim it's a wholly original insight. But mostly it's a question of historical perspective: thinking about human beings as something which has been around for two hundred thousand years, rather than just two hundred.

There is also 'the village-idiot'
In so small societies some people become more visibly something "problematic" and are termed as mad, or just end up being confined to their house.

I think that's really a very different question.

 

[H4run]

Not directly, but I daresay he's in there. I certainly wouldn't claim it's a wholly original insight. But mostly it's a question of historical perspective: thinking about human beings as something which has been around for two hundred thousand years, rather than just two hundred.

I see now I know from where the Foucault's theme comes from, it is from your approach to the object of discussion, you use historical discourse to exposed how our modern institution and discourse of knowledge are tools to protect bourgeois class and modern economy structure. Well that's Focault's approach I think, even though my knowledge is still introductory (I only read a small book about panopticon with a brief overview on Focault's philosophical ideas).

Let me rephrase
So according to you introversion and extroversion are not an intrinsic human's trait, it is a product of defining human new behavior pattern that resulted from our new model of human interaction that happened after Industrial revolution (?). Educational institution normalized the reaction as a personality category that intrinsically exist within us, they do this in order to ease the integration of society with the new social structure/economic model.

There are several questions from my part:

1. Following your logic, I can also conclude that introversion is not exist between family member, are you sure? Because like Mary mentioned one of the many aspect of introversion is the different way of personality having a break. In a family, it is possible that the extrovert mother prefer the family to spend their weekend outside, while the introvert father insist for this weekend they will just stay at home. A different method for the same motive.
2. Let's say that I agree with you that introversion is a new modern phenomenon, Jung may coined the term because the phenomenon exist and observable, it is our new reality, and it is not necessarily a concept that serves the bourgeois.

 

[bernie14]

Fight or flight is the reaction to negates of one losing the control to maintain us being in control. While doing nothing is to accept the reality of losing control.

Dont agree completely, of course it depends on circumstances and timing. Fight or flight do not guarantee control while freeze may buy time. Which makes me think, in a panic situation, as you say, we may be more prone to action (fight or flight) than to inaction (freeze)...are we also more prone (to a lesser degree) to action in a non panic state? Does this have anything to do with the illusion of control and extroversion/introversion?

 

[H4run]

Dont agree completely, of course it depends on circumstances and timing. Fight or flight do not guarantee control while freeze may buy time. Which makes me think, in a panic situation, as you say, we may be more prone to action (fight or flight) than to inaction (freeze)...are we also more prone (to a lesser degree) to action in a non panic state? Does this have anything to do with the illusion of control and extroversion/introversion?

Bernie, in a sparring you will notice it a lot in boxing, the new inexperience one will flinch a lot and freeze unable to react toward the incoming attack, it is not because they are being well composed, it is because they are panic don't know what to do. Now as I type this, if suddenly a multi headed dragon break the wall and scream at you before he chew you to pieces, you will get frozen at that moment, not because you are so confidence, because you are so panic and don't know how to react to that.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Bernie, in a sparring you will notice it a lot in boxing, the new inexperience one will flinch a lot and freeze unable to react toward the incoming attack, it is not because they are being well composed, it is because they are panic don't know what to do. Now as I type this, if suddenly a multi headed dragon break the wall and scream at you before he chew you to pieces, you will get frozen at that moment, not because you are so confidence, because you are so panic and don't know how to react to that.

Might not be the best example, since a wall breaking that way might successfully trigger primitive "flight" instincts immediately (I don't think most people would willingly be near a failing wall even in the absence of a dragon). Still, encountering such a dragon in the open would likely result in a freeze. I'm not sure any possible actions would be relevant though.

In boxing and such you get hesitation because the correct action does not come to mind fast enough and picking random ones is unlikely to end well.

 

[H4run]

Might not be the best example, since a wall breaking that way might successfully trigger primitive "flight" instincts immediately

Ok so the wall breaking will triggers the flight reaction even before the dragon is appear, lets changes that scenario:

At the comfort of your house, while you were reading this comment, suddenly you heard a huge breaking sound that follow up with a breeze, when you look up, you just realize the roof of your house already open and you see a mutl-headed black dragon staring at you.

What will be your honest reaction:

1. Freeze
2. Take a nearest object and throw it to the dragon as a fight reflect.
3. or Run?

You will freeze isn't it?

In boxing and such you get hesitation because the correct action does not come to mind fast enough and picking random ones is unlikely to end well.

You flinch, you close your eyes, cover yourselves, and you feel your feet is so heavy and you cannot move. You are in panic.

 

[Farm Boy]

What will be your honest reaction

"Wherever you got this? Get more."

 

[H4run]

"Wherever you got this? Get more."

Farm boy, you should be more merciful to non-native English speaker like me and elaborate more about your point

 

[Farm Boy]

It's mostly just mushroom-based humor. Some varieties are more exciting than others.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You will freeze isn't it?

I might manage to attempt to run, or I might freeze. A year and a half ago I looked down after my computer cut off and there was a fire on my carpet. I reacted pretty well to that one, but we have protocols on how to deal with fire.

The problem with a giant dragon is that even in a rested, comfortable state like right now I can conceive no plausible action that would allow a meaningful improvement in my chances to survive. I'd probably be best off trying to talk to it. If it wants me dead I'm toast, short of carrying a weapon around at all times that defeats dragons (considering they don't exist, I'm unsure what that would be). Encountering a dragon is something I assign an incredibly small probability in terms of future anticipated experiences though.

A better analogy would be one where the situation is unexpected/little time to react, but there *is* at least one action that meaningfully improves your odds compared to doing nothing. Those are the ones where you want fight/flight to work. Such as a situation where a woman wouldn't have drowned if she had left her car after it was submerged (IIRC she called 911 as the car was sinking/sunk, but couldn't handle the pressure of the situation/leave the car when instructed).

I can't recall a time where I entered a state of panic like that, at least not in my adult life. I have been in scenarios where the correct choice wasn't obvious, and it's in those where I envision I might freeze rather than picking something. I'm hit or miss on those. I did well when a car in front veered off the road and knocked a phone pole onto the road (trying to stop might have gotten me hit, seeing what was happening I actually accelerated), but I'd be a fool to think I could make a choice well in that short a moment every time.

 

[H4run]

I might manage to attempt to run, or I might freeze.

Oh come on you will freeze you don't know how to react to that

A year and a half ago I looked down after my computer cut off and there was a fire on my carpet. I reacted pretty well to that one, but we have protocols on how to deal with fire.

When I was a child, I like to play the combination of kerosene with fire in my parent's house roof top (there is a concerete after I pass climb the roof where I can play and hang around without anyone to bother me), until one day the fire turn out to be bigger than I plan, I manage to handle it despite the huge fear, but hey it is a fire not a huge multi headed black dragon.

The problem with a giant dragon is that even in a rested, comfortable state like right now I can conceive no plausible action that would allow a meaningful improvement in my chances to survive. I'd probably be best off trying to talk to it.

You will look up and start to open your mouth and said "draaa draaa draa"

Such as a situation where a woman wouldn't have drowned if she had left her car after it was submerged (IIRC she called 911 as the car was sinking/sunk, but couldn't handle the pressure of the situation/leave the car when instructed).

That's nice example, maybe before she went to call 911 she try to calm herself and said "don't panic, don't panic" then she can come up with that idea. The point is when you are in utmost panic, there is a moment when you don't know what to do.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You will look up and start to open your mouth and said "draaa draaa draa"

Almost certainly won't say anything initially, given past history of life or death scenarios with almost no time to react. If it keeps staring for meaningful time w/o killing me it's a different story.

And again, I don't see a possible action in this hypothetical that meaningfully alters survival. Panic, freezing, running, or instantly standing up and slinging my computer monitor at it while firing a gun like I'm captain Price out of CoD all have roughly the same life expectancy so it wouldn't matter. Perhaps a small minus for the last option as there's no upside to antagonizing it deliberately.

 

[metatron]

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

For most of humankind's existence there has been more homicide - death from minor injuries even - than we are exposed to.
So "relentlessly overthinking every social interaction" probably helps with that.
And being alive certainly relates to reproductive success.

 

[Lexicus]

For most of humankind's existence there has been more homicide - death from minor injuries even - than we are exposed to.

This just...isn't true. Pinker's data is garbage, if he's where you're getting the idea from.

 

[metatron]

This just...isn't true. Pinker's data is garbage, if he's where you're getting the idea from.

This is a fairly widespread scientific consensus.
If you have an article in some woke magazine disputing that, well, feel free to show it.