BUT if you ask me, it may just be that they are more complacent and easily pleased. People who prefer talking to thinking possibly inhabit simpler worlds with fewer dangers and fewer rewards. Just as stupid people are often happier than intelligent people, drones more content than creative types etc….

Highlights

•We examined the effect of personality in youth on wellbeing at age 60-64 years.
•Extraversion had direct, positive effects on wellbeing.
•Neuroticism’s effects were largely indirect, via poorer mental and physical health.
•Personality dispositions in youth predict levels of wellbeing around 40 years later.

————————————————————————————————————————

Abstract
Neuroticism and Extraversion are linked with current wellbeing, but it is unclear whether these traits in youth predict wellbeing decades later. We applied structural equation modelling to data from 4583 people from the MRC National Survey of Health and Development. We examined the effects of Neuroticism and Extraversion at ages 16 and 26 years on mental wellbeing and life satisfaction at age 60-64 and explored the mediating roles of psychological and physical health. Extraversion had direct, positive effects on both measures of wellbeing. The impact of Neuroticism on both wellbeing and life satisfaction was largely indirect through susceptibility to psychological distress and physical health problems. Personality dispositions in youth have enduring influence on wellbeing assessed about forty years later.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656613000901#

They may be happier but can they spell?

pommiejohn said:

They may be happier but can they spell?

chuckle

I am guessing that Bubblecar considers himself an introvert, as well as creative and intelligent

The other reason extroverts may be healthier is that they are more likely to participate in group based recreational or exercise related activities.

>They may be happier but can they spell?

The correct spelling is actually ‘extravert’ (the habit of spelling it ‘extrovert’ is due to the spelling of introvert, but “extra” is how the term was correctly formulated by Jung).

Bubblecar said:

The correct spelling is actually ‘extravert’ (the habit of spelling it ‘extrovert’ is due to the spelling of introvert, but “extra” is how the term was correctly formulated by Jung).

So long as it makes you happy.

pommiejohn said:

So long as it makes you happy.

As an introvert, I’m not really happy unless I’m glum and tormented.

Neophyte said:

I am guessing that Bubblecar considers himself an introvert, as well as creative and intelligent

and he’s not on facebook

are Lone Wolves not easily pleased?

Dropbear said:

Neophyte said:

I am guessing that Bubblecar considers himself an introvert, as well as creative and intelligent

and he’s not on facebook

I am but I never post anything there.

>>I am guessing that Bubblecar considers himself an introvert, as well as creative and intelligent

He seems happy and gay.

Bubblecar said:

pommiejohn said:

So long as it makes you happy.

As an introvert, I’m not really happy unless I’m glum and tormented.

:)

I think I know the feeling.

I’m fine if people are happy, they’re quite welcome to delude themselves .

pommiejohn said:

Bubblecar said:

pommiejohn said:

So long as it makes you happy.

As an introvert, I’m not really happy unless I’m glum and tormented.

:)

I think I know the feeling.

I’m fine if people are happy, they’re quite welcome to delude themselves .

happiness is the default state..

I am happier than I have been for years and have never thought clearer. – if this is ‘delusion’ then the definition needs changing

Arts said:

pommiejohn said:

Bubblecar said:

As an introvert, I’m not really happy unless I’m glum and tormented.

:)

I think I know the feeling.

I’m fine if people are happy, they’re quite welcome to delude themselves .

happiness is the default state..

I am happier than I have been for years and have never thought clearer. – if this is ‘delusion’ then the definition needs changing

Think of it like a religion Arts, if there are only a few it’s a disease/cult, if there are many it’s a religion/normal…

Bubblecar said:

BUT if you ask me, it may just be that they are more complacent and easily pleased. People who prefer talking to thinking possibly inhabit simpler worlds with fewer dangers and fewer rewards. Just as stupid people are often happier than intelligent people, drones more content than creative types etc….

I do seriously find this opening comment ridiculous, especially when you refer to actual research findings published by neuropathologists, psychologists and such about neurotransmitters, comparative brain function, personality traits, the genetic basis for traits, behaviour training and and the benefits of having a social network and the behavioural basis for ‘being lucky’ (looking for more opportunity, putting oneselve out more, networking, having broader focus). And I’m struggling to see the ‘simpler world with fewer dangers and fewer rewards’ being directed to extraverts with such baseless conviction.

Arts said:

happiness is the default state..

I am happier than I have been for years and have never thought clearer. – if this is ‘delusion’ then the definition needs changing

You are changing your behaviour – making a very conscious choice to be happy. There’s a fair bit of research on this – and it works (to summarise). You will increase your chances for opportunities (social, work, networking, dealing with setback, etc..) and that will have positive feedback.

All the people on Facebook are on pills for their nerves and use it as a crotch.

>I do seriously find this opening comment ridiculous

It’s probably not controversial to suggest that the most thoughtful and creative people are introverts. It’s sort of necessary :)

neomyrtus_ said:

Arts said:

happiness is the default state..

I am happier than I have been for years and have never thought clearer. – if this is ‘delusion’ then the definition needs changing

You are changing your behaviour – making a very conscious choice to be happy. There’s a fair bit of research on this – and it works (to summarise). You will increase your chances for opportunities (social, work, networking, dealing with setback, etc..) and that will have positive feedback.

I have always been happy as a default. Just the last.. say, four or five, years my default state was confused and clouded.. but that was hormonal.. now I have that sorted out I am back to being happy as a default.. but this time I am proud of being happy.. proud that I wake up feeling like this.
I have discovered it’s ok to be proud of the good things that happen, and (probably more importantly) ok to accept that sometimes I make mistakes and not to be scared of them.

I agree with the seeking opportunities and ability to deal with the drags better.

I like the loop :)

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/the-science-of-love-26-happiness/4777920

anyways – should we differentiate introverts into groups – those with anxiety issues, or are poorly socialised, or are happier with less interaction (because it can be distracting or tiresome) and those who are contemptuous misanthropes?

Arts said:

I have always been happy as a default.

Others aren’t

neomyrtus_ said:

anyways – should we differentiate introverts into groups – those with anxiety issues, or are poorly socialised, or are happier with less interaction (because it can be distracting or tiresome) and those who are contemptuous misanthropes?

I don’t know how much sorting they did in the study. Only the abstract is available gratis.

Bubblecar said:

>I do seriously find this opening comment ridiculous

It’s probably not controversial to suggest that the most thoughtful and creative people are introverts. It’s sort of necessary :)

A bold statement made without referring to an actual study?

http://phys.org/news200072067.html

Happy extraverts are more creative: study
Aug 03, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) — Outgoing people who are in a good mood are significantly more creative than people who keep themselves to themselves, according to a new study.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news200072067.html#jCp

In the first study to examine links between personality type, mood and performance, a psychologist at the University of Portsmouth found extravert people in a good mood are the most creative thinkers.

Introverts on the other hand are no more creative whether they are in a good or neutral mood.

Dr Lorenzo Stafford, of the psychology department, said his results showed personality and mood play a vital role in creativity.

Extraverts are likely to be more successful at creative tasks because they have a higher than average level of dopamine, the ‘happiness chemical’, in their brains than introverts and this chemical floods the brain at even higher doses when a person is in a good mood, according to Dr Stafford.

“The more outgoing a person is the more active their dopamine system is and a positive mood increases dopamine activity even further in many parts of the brain. It’s effectively a combination of these two things I would suggest leads to greater activity in certain areas of the brain controlling mental ability,” he said.

“This is interesting in itself because it demonstrates that it is the combination of the extravert personality-type in a positive mood which encourages more creative performance, and not simply positive mood alone.”

Dopamine occurs naturally in the brain and affects a range of behaviour including mood, sleep, reward, learning and movement.

Dr Stafford’s research was published recently in the journal Personality and Individual Differences.

He said: “This is the first study to investigate how personality type and positive mood affect the brain’s ability to carry out mental – especially creative – tasks and the results are fascinating.

“Previous studies have shown that people in a good mood perform better overall at creativity tasks but finding that character type also influences creativity has added a whole new dimension.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news200072067.html#jCp

more on link

neomyrtus_ said:

Arts said:

I have always been happy as a default.

Others aren’t

then the deliberate changing of their behaviour should work.
You know the research on smiling.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=extravert+more+creative&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=extravert+more+creative&client=firefox-a&hs=Swa&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&ei=KGzjUe_OFouPkgXJgIH4Bg&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48705608,d.dGI&fp=ab5b7527b514333b&biw=1079&bih=553

I’ll leave the forum to google away – find whatever studies supports whatever argument

>A bold statement made without referring to an actual study?

Referring to the meanings of the words. Thinking and creativity (and here I mean creative in the sense of original, imaginative, inventive, rather than a performing-arts type sense) are activities that take place largely in the individual’s mind. The most thoughtful and creative people have to spend a lot of time in the privacy their own minds and be habitually at home there.

Arts said:

then the deliberate changing of their behaviour should work.
You know the research on smiling.

that’s all covered in the ABC link I posted

of

Bubblecar said:

>A bold statement made without referring to an actual study?

Referring to the meanings of the words. Thinking and creativity (and here I mean creative in the sense of original, imaginative, inventive, rather than a performing-arts type sense) are activities that take place largely in the individual’s mind. The most thoughtful and creative people have to spend a lot of time in the privacy their own minds and be habitually at home there.

Yep, it rattles me when people talk to me when my brain is busy.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=extrovert

1. A person who gets drunk, has sex, and goes to parties ALL THE TIME.

Correct spelling is determined by current standards and not by what someond thought 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, or 500 years ago.

MartinB said:

Correct spelling is determined by current standards and not by what someond thought 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, or 500 years ago.

Verilly, MartinB speaketh ye truthe.

The Rev Dodgson said:

MartinB said:

Correct spelling is determined by current standards and not by what someond thought 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, or 500 years ago.

Verilly, MartinB speaketh ye truthe.

Although the Wiki article on the subject has 79 matches to “extra” and 76 to “extro”.

the use of “ye” has always been like a thorn in my side.

Complicating matters, it seems the currently acceptable terms are extroverts and extraversion. However, I am wondering if that’s a US/UK difference in spelling?

Boris said:

the use of “ye” has always been like a thorn in my side.

You just think you’re so clever, don’t you.

MartinB said:

Correct spelling is determined by current standards and not by what someond thought 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, or 500 years ago.

Extravert is a German neologism (1916) contructed from “extra” (meaning “outside” etc) + Latin vertere “to turn”. The later spelling “extrovert” is influenced by the earlier term “introvert”. I merely pointed out that extravert is the original spelling (and the one still most widely used in proffesional circles).

proffesional = professional :)

Divine Angel said:

Complicating matters, it seems the currently acceptable terms are extroverts and extraversion. However, I am wondering if that’s a US/UK difference in spelling?

You’ll mostly find psychologists etc speaking of extraverts and extraversion, as in the paper I linked.

Bubblecar said:

Divine Angel said:

Complicating matters, it seems the currently acceptable terms are extroverts and extraversion. However, I am wondering if that’s a US/UK difference in spelling?

You’ll mostly find psychologists etc speaking of extraverts and extraversion, as in the paper I linked.

Although Wikipedia follows the convention mentioned by DA, so maybe not.

MartinB said:

Correct spelling is determined by current standards and not by what someond thought 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, or 500 years ago.

someond ?? is that oxford english?

Dropbear said:

MartinB said:

Correct spelling is determined by current standards and not by what someond thought 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, or 500 years ago.

someond ?? is that oxford english?

It’s past tense. Someone now thinks, someond once thought.

You just think you’re so clever, don’t you.

i think therefore i am.

:-)

so – has anyone else taken to task the OP, especially since the paper is comparing the mental wellbeing and life satisfaction of 60-64 year old neurotic vs extravert personalities – personalities as scored in youth (not comparative creativity, happiness and intelligence of introverts vs extraverts)?

The thread title equate ‘introverts’ with ‘neurotic’, which isn’t the case with the source publication.

I can’t access the source publication, but it is discussed here.

http://www.psmag.com/health/extroverts-live-happier-lives-61679/

Extroversion was assessed by determining their sociability, energy, and “activity orientation.” Neuroticism was assessed by such measures as emotional stability, mood, and distractibility.

Decades later, when the participants were 60 to 64 years old, 2,529 of them answered a series of questions measuring well-being and their level of satisfaction with life. They also reported on their mental and physical health. Their answers point to a distinct pattern. “Even after a period of nearly 50 years,” the researchers report, “extroversion is a direct predictor of well-being.”

Neuroticism, in contrast, predicted poorer levels of well-being, but it did so indirectly. Young neurotics were more susceptible to psychological distress later in life, “and also, to a lesser extent, poorer physical health,” the researchers write.

It seems intuitive that a neurotic youth may end up being unsatisfied and unwell later in life, and vice versa.

Boris said:

You just think you’re so clever, don’t you.

i think therefore i am.

:-)

I am what I think

did anyone mention narcissism?

without help/intervention/a life-changing epiphany, that is.

>The thread title equate ‘introverts’ with ‘neurotic’, which isn’t the case with the source publication.

True, because I accessed the link via pop science articles that talked in terms of extraversion vs introversion. OTOH, the study seems to cast neuroticism as the opposite of extraversion.

Wikipedia on Extraversion vs Introversion:

Extraversion
Extraversion is “the act, state, or habit of being predominantly concerned with and obtaining gratification from what is outside the self”. Extroverts tend to enjoy human interactions and to be enthusiastic, talkative, assertive, and gregarious. They take pleasure in activities that involve large social gatherings, such as parties, community activities, public demonstrations, and business or political groups. Politics, teaching, sales, managing and brokering are fields that favor extroversion. An extroverted person is likely to enjoy time spent with people and find less reward in time spent alone. They tend to be energized when around other people, and they are more prone to boredom when they are by themselves.

Introversion
Introversion is “the state of or tendency toward being wholly or predominantly concerned with and interested in one’s own mental life”. Some popular writers have characterized introverts as people whose energy tends to expand through reflection and dwindle during interaction. This is similar to Jung’s view, although he focused on psychic energy rather than physical energy. Few modern conceptions make this distinction.

The common modern perception is that introverts tend to be more reserved and less outspoken in groups. They often take pleasure in solitary activities such as reading, writing, using computers, hiking and fishing. The archetypal artist, writer, sculptor, engineer, composer and inventor are all highly introverted. An introvert is likely to enjoy time spent alone and find less reward in time spent with large groups of people, though he or she may enjoy interactions with close friends. Trust is usually an issue of significance: a virtue of utmost importance to an introvert is choosing a worthy companion. They prefer to concentrate on a single activity at a time and like to observe situations before they participate, especially observed in developing children and adolescents. They are more analytical before speaking. Introverts are easily overwhelmed by too much stimulation from social gatherings and engagement, introversion having even been defined by some in terms of a preference for a quiet, more minimally stimulating environment.

Introversion is not seen as being identical to shy or to being a social outcast. Introverts prefer solitary activities over social ones, whereas shy people (who may be extroverts at heart) avoid social encounters out of fear.

Bubblecar said:

OTOH, the study seems to cast neuroticism as the opposite of extraversion.

No it doesn’t. It assessed youth scores on two personality traits – these being Neuroticism and Extraversion as predictors of wellbeing and life satisfaction in old age in a cohort. These are being treated as distinct (independent) factors although you’d expect (and the analyses probably show some statistical interaction) (i.e. you can have neurotic extraverts).

You can only chuck introverts into the mix by assuming that low scores of Extraversion equate with Introversion, and I don’t know enough about the methods to make that assumption. All you can say is that that high scores in the youth Extraversion scale correlate with /predict / are associated with wellbeing and happiness in old age. And just focusing on extraversion is only looking at part of the study .

Bubblecar said:

Wikipedia on Extraversion vs Introversion:

Extraversion
Extraversion is “the act, state, or habit of being predominantly concerned with and obtaining gratification from what is outside the self”. Extroverts tend to enjoy human interactions and to be enthusiastic, talkative, assertive, and gregarious. They take pleasure in activities that involve large social gatherings, such as parties, community activities, public demonstrations, and business or political groups. Politics, teaching, sales, managing and brokering are fields that favor extroversion. An extroverted person is likely to enjoy time spent with people and find less reward in time spent alone. They tend to be energized when around other people, and they are more prone to boredom when they are by themselves.

Introversion
Introversion is “the state of or tendency toward being wholly or predominantly concerned with and interested in one’s own mental life”. Some popular writers have characterized introverts as people whose energy tends to expand through reflection and dwindle during interaction. This is similar to Jung’s view, although he focused on psychic energy rather than physical energy. Few modern conceptions make this distinction.

The common modern perception is that introverts tend to be more reserved and less outspoken in groups. They often take pleasure in solitary activities such as reading, writing, using computers, hiking and fishing. The archetypal artist, writer, sculptor, engineer, composer and inventor are all highly introverted. An introvert is likely to enjoy time spent alone and find less reward in time spent with large groups of people, though he or she may enjoy interactions with close friends. Trust is usually an issue of significance: a virtue of utmost importance to an introvert is choosing a worthy companion. They prefer to concentrate on a single activity at a time and like to observe situations before they participate, especially observed in developing children and adolescents. They are more analytical before speaking. Introverts are easily overwhelmed by too much stimulation from social gatherings and engagement, introversion having even been defined by some in terms of a preference for a quiet, more minimally stimulating environment.

Introversion is not seen as being identical to shy or to being a social outcast. Introverts prefer solitary activities over social ones, whereas shy people (who may be extroverts at heart) avoid social encounters out of fear.

I suppose there must be people who are, at times, more contemplative and at others more ‘gregarious’

>I suppose there must be people who are, at times, more contemplative and at others more ‘gregarious’

>Extraversion and introversion are typically viewed as a single continuum. Thus, to be high on one it is necessary to be low on the other. Carl Jung and the authors of the Myers–Briggs provide a different perspective and suggest that everyone has both an extroverted side and an introverted side, with one being more dominant than the other. Rather than focusing on interpersonal behavior, however, Jung defined introversion as an “attitude-type characterised by orientation in life through subjective psychic contents” (focus on one’s inner psychic activity); and extraversion as “an attitude type characterised by concentration of interest on the external object”, (the outside world).

In any case, people fluctuate in their behavior all the time, and even extreme introverts and extraverts do not always act according to their type.<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion

Wikipedia on neuroticism, which may help explain why it’s irrelevant to introversion but supposedly relevant to extraversion:

Neuroticism

Neuroticism is a fundamental personality trait in the study of psychology characterized by anxiety, moodiness, worry, envy and jealousy. Individuals who score high on neuroticism are more likely than the average to experience such feelings as anxiety, anger, envy, guilt, and depressed mood. They respond more poorly to environmental stress, and are more likely to interpret ordinary situations as threatening, and minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. They are often self-conscious and shy, and they may have trouble controlling urges and delaying gratification. Neuroticism is a risk factor for the “internalizing” mental disorders such as phobia, depression, panic disorder, and other anxiety disorders, all of which are traditionally called neuroses.

Emotional stability

At the opposite end of the spectrum, individuals who score low in neuroticism are more emotionally stable and less reactive to stress. They tend to be calm, even-tempered, and less likely to feel tense or rattled. Although they are low in negative emotion, they are not necessarily high on positive emotion. Being high on positive emotion is an element of the independent trait of extraversion. Neurotic extraverts, for example, would experience high levels of both positive and negative emotional states, a kind of “emotional roller coaster”. Individuals who score low on neuroticism (particularly those who are also high on extraversion) generally report more happiness and satisfaction with their lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism

Bubblecar said:

Wikipedia on neuroticism, which may help explain why it’s irrelevant to introversion but supposedly relevant to extraversion:

does it? is it? It says that Neuroticism is a trait (suite of traits) independent of Extraversion.

– and have we decided to accept that Introversion occurs for low scores of Extraversion? Only levels of Extraversion are discussed because that is how the tests are scored – on how much one interacts with the outside world for social stimulation – but low scores on the Extravert test do suggest an introvert personality.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/5/j5j/IPIPNEOdescriptions.html

>does it? is it?

Aye:

>Individuals who score low on neuroticism (particularly those who are also high on extraversion) generally report more happiness and satisfaction with their lives<

…but they don’t mention any relevant correlation with introversion.

Bubblecar said:

>does it? is it?

Aye:

>Individuals who score low on neuroticism (particularly those who are also high on extraversion) generally report more happiness and satisfaction with their lives<

…but they don’t mention any relevant correlation with introversion.

It’s physcology, it’s not supposed to make any sense or have any meaning.

>It’s physcology, it’s not supposed to make any sense or have any meaning.

It’s certainly grain-of-salt territory, particularly when they’re sorting people into two kinds.

Bubblecar said:

>It’s physcology, it’s not supposed to make any sense or have any meaning.

It’s certainly grain-of-salt territory, particularly when they’re sorting people into two kinds.

it’s like any science.. theoretical

There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don’t.

Bubblecar said:

>does it? is it?

Aye:

nup (clue: independent factors)

Bubblecar said:

>Individuals who score low on neuroticism (particularly those who are also high on extraversion) generally report more happiness and satisfaction with their lives<

…but they don’t mention any relevant correlation with introversion.

because (drum roll), low scores for Extraversion on the tests equate with high scores of Introversion (diff ends of same scale)

http://www.manoneileen.com/2011/01/18/a-test-introversion-and-extroversion/

http://academia.edu/166988/The_Big_Five_Neuroticism_Extraversion_Openness_Agreeableness_and_Conscientiousness_as_an_organisational_scheme_for_thinking_about_aggression_and_violence

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=extraversion+score+tests&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#client=firefox-a&hs=vsz&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=extroversion+test+psychology+site:edu&oq=extroversion+test+psychology+site:edu&gs_l=serp.3…36053.38655.2.39012.9.9.0.0.0.0.279.2101.2-9.9.0….0…1c.1.19.psy-ab._aY5mdRf__w&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48705608,d.dGI&fp=ab5b7527b514333b&biw=1079&bih=553

>because (drum roll), low scores for Extraversion on the tests equate with high scores of Introversion (diff ends of same scale)

OK, but that implies that you’re agreeing that extroverts (as long as they’re not neurotic) are likely to be happier than introverts (whether or not they’re neurotic).

And here, too. Seems I am neurotic, reading the posted info earlier in the thread. However I don’t do envy, and have rarely done jealosy.

Michael V said:

And here, too. Seems I am neurotic, reading the posted info earlier in the thread. However I don’t do envy, and have rarely done jealosy.

I don’t do envy and jealousy and am rarely depressed, but can score high on anxiety.

Bubblecar said:

>because (drum roll), low scores for Extraversion on the tests equate with high scores of Introversion (diff ends of same scale)

OK, but that implies that you’re agreeing that extroverts (as long as they’re not neurotic) are likely to be happier than introverts (whether or not they’re neurotic).

I’ve never collated data on the subject so I can’t disagree nor agree – all I can say is that the studies I’ve glanced over all seem to settling on a consensus of ‘Yes’: people who score high on Extravert personalities are happy chappies (positive outlook, wellbeing scores high, etc..), . Now you have to statistically tease out Neurotic effects and factor interaction.

While I’m generally quite happy there’s no point trying to become utterly, constantly, rapturously happy, because we’re all going to die anyway.

http://www.unige.ch/fapse/mad/static/fuerst/continuous-variable-interaction.pdf

huzzah – look at example 2

http://www.jstatsoft.org/v08/i15/paper

figure 5 – two (independent) covariates and interaction effect

data comes from this study

Cowles, M. and Davis, C. (1987). The subject matter of psychology:V olunteers. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 29:97—102.

>the detrimental effect of neuroticism is stronger for introverts.

So if you’re introverted but not terribly neurotic: don’t worry, be happy.

Bubblecar said:

While I’m generally quite happy there’s no point trying to become utterly, constantly, rapturously happy, because we’re all going to die anyway.

But, but, but, then we go to heaven, or at least the good one’s amongst us do.

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

While I’m generally quite happy there’s no point trying to become utterly, constantly, rapturously happy, because we’re all going to die anyway.

But, but, but, then we go to heaven, or at least the good one’s amongst us do.

Damnit

Totally useless way of seeing personalities anyway, Car.

The joy is in not comparing everything, knowing when whatever just stands alone.

The downside to overindulging the social and being given to wandering comparison at every turn is that it results in misery.

The social mechanisms involved in wandering comparison and relative perspectives comes close to those mechanisms involved in envy and worse jealousy. Even introvert and extravert/extrovert is a dichotomy that pushes comparison where in ought not go.

But comparison needs firm restraint, finesse, not loose and liberal application. Unfortunately science hasn’t done a lot for this difficulty involved in mananaging it, because it is part of an ideology of comparison. In fact i’d go so far as saying it’s a fucken disease in that department.

There is no rest in constant comparison, constant contrasting, in wayward relative perspectives.

In a way relativism is a form of absolutism, taken to its extreme.

I think every moment of normal consciousness involves certain determinings regarding what does stand alone. Even for the changing you need at least momentary anchors, some centre of gravity.

Who needs constant comparison. Neat little tool to give situational forces more power, and they can be quite stupid when allowed.

I’ve been considering a thought experiment in which case every human individual is considered a different and differentiated species. It fits with the requirements of consciousness I believe.

What’s possibly dangerous is that pop psychologists are likely to respond to studies like this by urging parents to encourage extrovert behaviour in their kids (somehow), and discourage introversion. It’s all rather crude really.

Bubblecar said:

What’s possibly dangerous is that pop psychologists are likely to respond to studies like this by urging parents to encourage extrovert behaviour in their kids (somehow), and discourage introversion. It’s all rather crude really.

if being extrovert or indeed extravert is supposed to make you happy, how come famous extroverts die by the time they are 27, usually from being unhappy drunks or drug addicts?

>how come famous extroverts die by the time they are 27

I’m sure many famous extroverts live long and healthy lives.

Bubblecar said:

>how come famous extroverts die by the time they are 27

I’m sure many famous extroverts live long and healthy lives.

rehab?

>>What’s possibly dangerous is that pop psychologists are likely to respond to studies like this by urging parents to encourage extrovert behaviour in their kids (somehow), and discourage introversion. It’s all rather crude really”

Well, you know there’s a lot of dicksperts in the world, no less so in the field of ideas about how minds/personalites ought work, they sure as hell don’t know how minds do work, and would you want them to know anyway.

There’s a bit of a stereotype around shyness too that needs donging on the fucken head. Not unrelated to the title of your OP. Imagine a moron with no consideration for the complexities of some situation they may find themselves with people thay don’t know at all or very well. I mean jesus.

I shy from things, dog shit being one.

Not to be diminishing seriously problem shyness, but you know who doesn’t grow up with the stereotype, so who knows the damage maybe done by that.

I shy from stereotypes.

I’d abandon the terms you mention entirely, screw the madness of comparison. Screw language that way.

in 1984 introverts were to be watched and rooted out.

wookiemeister said:

in 1984 introverts were to be watched and rooted out.

they missed me.