I have a patient to see in a few minutes so have to be brief. I am familiar with the various definitions of introverts and extroverts. My problem with all the labels we use for personality traits or psychological traits is that they are very poor descriptors of an individual's complexity. They are gross simplifications and either imprecise, or precise but only in certain circumstances. As an example of the latter, a person's level of extroversion may be influenced by their stress level, their physical state (say being premenstrual, or fighting off a cold), or whom they are associating with. As a clinician I find all these labels misleading or worse because people tend to adopt them as an identity. In certain contexts a label can be helpful. The social battery (second definition) is useful for me when I have someone who is depressed and needs to engage in activities that are going to energize them and not deplete them. If the depressed person likes being around others, but finds it draining, then advising them to go to parties is going to make them more depleted and more depressed. I need to find activities that are enjoyable and not draining for that person. On the other hand if I am not in a clinical role and am planning a party for a friend, then if the friend enjoys lots of people (first definition of extraversion) then I am going to plan a party with a lot of people and perhaps in a public setting.
Got to run. Interested to hear what others have to day.
I used to use assessment tools with clients, but now I rarely do. I find that people tend to adopt the labels as fixed identity markers that then constrain their self-understanding. In my view, psychological assessment tools are better used for the purpose of exploration, but in practice I've found that the majority of people have trouble engaging with them in that way.
JA, I am particularly interested in your take on this. while I am fascinated by the psychological (and physiological/brain science/philosophy of mind studies/research/positions) on how we develop our personalities, my results on the MB and various enneagram offerings are decidedly indecisive. Also although I was more likely to be dubbed an introvert in the US Northeast, here in Sweden I am shockingly outgoing as I actually have the brazen desire for small talk with strangers. 🙃 I am also a very physically impacted empathy response that makes the whole charging inquiry very variable for me. This is all a very singular, subjective response I offer but it does inform my skepticism about these type of delineations.
I think that we forget that our definitions of many traits is relative to context. So "extrovert" is relative to the average behavior of the social group. So your "introverted" behavior in the Northeastern US becomes "extroverted" in Sweden.
Also most of us express personality traits to varying degrees in different environments. In my office my "personality" is different from when I am at home. So if I take a personality test I tend to average out my responses across the various personae I have and end up with indecisive results on many of them.
Interestingly, Jung's original conception of extroversion is less people-oriented than any of the usual conceptions. An "attribute-type characterized by concentration of interest on the external object" could describe someone who gets stimulation from viewing art or visiting new places, with or without significant social interactions. It still describes something different from the inward-focused idea of introversion.
I found the last part of this essay interesting. I have long described some people as exothermic (exuding energy) and endothermic (sapping energy). The latter type is challenging in that they absorb any enthusiasm you bring to a conversation but contribute no energy themselves. I also refer to these people as enthusiasm sponges.
Good piece. I always found the energy explanation baffling. I am an extreme introvert but I am not conscious of any change in energy from interacting with people or not. I simply experience a desire for alone time that grows stronger the longer I am deprived of it.
What being an introvert feels like for me is that I am in fact very social, but mostly with my own internal psyche. People assume I am quiet, but I actually have a very active inner monologue or dialogue going on at most times.
People who talk to me without invitation are in fact interrupting me without knowing it, even if I am quiet. And it is disappointing because this external dialogue is often less satisfying than the internal one I had going.
I wonder what moments of solitude feel like for extreme extroverts. Are they in fact draining or do they simply feel under stimulated?
I do know some extroverts who are incredibly drained / exhausted / depressed by being alone. But I cannot speak from experience, as I am more like you.
Fascinating subject! I work with several patients who would be described as extroverted from a personality or emotional standpoint, but find social interaction exhausting and confusing due to the cognitive load of processing social cues/ information. Human beings really are almost infinitely complex!
I very much agree, since I would be one of them; IMO "the personality trait of seeking fulfillment from sources outside the self or in community" doesn't necessarily mean you are the life of the party.
I like socializing, hanging out and chatting with people; I really would prefer to go out with somebody, work on a project with somebody, I never had any public speaking anxiety - I like public speaking; however, being autistic means that I am really, really bad in it! Learning that you can be extroverted and not good at being outgoing helped me, since I stopped trying to fit myself into the introvert box and instead started working on my social skills.
On the other hand my stepmother can easily be a soul of any party, she is really charming, knows all the little interactions and exaggerations - but she really hates hanging out with people. If it's up to her, she will work in garden, or go for a hike alone or with (small) family.
It's not the same as charging/draining either, since, as I am not good in socializing, it usually expends a lot of my energy - but I still love it. So I think there is a nuance could be added to distinguish between trying to "[seek] fulfillment from sources outside" and succeding in it.
Great essay. My current definition of introvert is more based on how much someone expects a social interaction to go badly and thus avoids interacting with strangers, or construes a negative reaction from a neutral interaction. Their brain budgets extra to this “energy drain” and the person feels more in need of a quiet retreat.
Someone who can interpret a neutral interaction as neutral or at least not negative, doesn’t have the same body budget deficit feeling.
And yes the MBTI is the culprit for a lot of things.
This feels like a helpful distinction. The last point about who we are interacting with is a great addition. I would guess that additional factors should be added to the inquiry such as how large a group or gathering is, environmental issues such as light and noise, how well you know the people in a gathering, even time of day. I love breaking out of the either or thinking.
"But the far more important life hack consists in learning to categorize the other people in our life—and avoid those who are detrimental to our well-being." Very true!
I use the terms "fountain" and "drain." Agreed that curating your social circle so you interact primarily with fountains not drains is key. Also helpful to remember that someone who might be a fountain for you might be a drain for someone else.
"Chargers and drainers are not (just) defined by whether they charge by being around people—they’re (also) defined by how wide the circle of those who charge their social battery is."
That's very important. I can't help thinking the most fortunate among us are those who find the society of certain people deeply satisfying but who shun the madding crowd. However, that may be motivated thinking on my part.
"The most likely culprit is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), a personality test that is taken less seriously by academic psychologists, but has found greater popularity in the business world."
Ah yes, the problem with academic theories, methods and definitions that don't often provide utility enough for the real world.
If tree falls in a forest observed by a group of academics, does the sound it makes really matter?
"...the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), a personality test that is taken less seriously by academic psychologists, but has found greater popularity in the business world." <sigh> OK, this has been observed countless times, but, I don't see it here in the Comments to this essay, so, here goes:
MBTI is taken less seriously by academic psychologists because neither Myers nor Briggs was an academic, and Jung, himself, was a professor only for a relatively brief time during his long career. He did not start his career that way, and he did not end his career that way. Regardless of whether we are talking about psychology, or sociology, or economics, etc., etc., etc. - Academia hates for something useful to arise elsewhere. There are relatively few large serious academic studies relating to MBTI, and many fewer still that were NOT constructed such that MBTI was "set up to fail" the "tests" to which it was put.
On the other hand, MBTI has found greater popularity in the business world because it is so damn useful. When one needs to show a return on an actual investment (even an investment only of time - after all, "time is money") one uses what has been shown to provide results. I worked in science/engineering R&D for a Fortune 500 company for over 37 years (I'm now retired for a bit over 3), and was exposed to MBTI, and, later, Big 5. Each time, it was, both, supposed to provide each participant with personal insight, and serve as the jumping-off point for team-building in the context of a large, newly-formed team. I approached MBTI with a sense of extreme skepticism, and was so utterly impressed with it that I took up the study of Jung and his work as a personal hobby that has lasted me now for over 25 years. When I was exposed to Big 5, about 12 years later, I had high hopes - but they were dashed. Far from being something whose insights the work group continued to use indefinitely, it was pretty much forgotten as soon as the results were provided. Far from exposing hidden gifts of other team members, it pretty much cemented folks' preconceptions of who to try to avoid interacting with (and why). Which differed for each person, of course. But it hardly "built team".
Before slamming MBTI, one should familiarize oneself with the "long form" - in which there are subscales of each of the four attribute pairs. There is a lot of extra value in examining one's scores (and one's colleagues') on those subscales. An experienced, well trained, MBTI professional is indispensable here.
As for Extraversion/Introversion, one of the strengths of the MBTI is that folks are often surprised by their designation as "E" or "I", because, yes, it IS all about the energy, rather than the outward behavioral indications. Many of us "I"s are mistaken as "E"s by family, friends, and colleagues, precisely because, living in a society that typically values the expected BEHAVIOR of the E over the I, we've learned to behave adaptively. ...Doesn't mean we're not still drained after giving that first-rate interactive presentation to a large group. For what it's worth, there ARE "I"-valuing cultures in the world (Japan stands out), and there the "mistake it 'cuz he can fake it" behavior runs the reverse way.
I don't think one can deny that while whiteness and maleness (etc.) are considered to be privileges, traits like extraversion and family structure (and of course health and beauty and intelligence) are actually much more exorbitant privileges. Why aren't these usually included in discussions of privilege?
I think the answer's plain: there's no opportunity for political energy to be gained by focusing on those things. Addressing them might make society much more equitable and just (according to the progressive worldview) but those traits aren't linked to demographic groups which can be leveraged and weaponized against tradition and the opposition. So they're completely ignored.
It always seems to me that the whole introvert versus extrovert idea is very artificial: a kind of desire to put human beings into categories.
However crass it may seem, I think terms like 'reserved' or 'outgoing' are actually more useful, but even then they don't apply as absolute measures for any individuals. By way of explanation, a person may be confident, perfectly at ease taking a prominent role, in a business context where they have personal expetise to draw upon, but be less comfortable in social situations. Or vice-versa.
In some situations, we may be outgoing, and in some situations withdrawn. Most of us will be both, and it will depend on the circumstances in which we find ourselves.
Some people are happy to 'think aloud', whilst others are happier to think things through privately before pitching in. The same person will vary in the extent to which they adopt either approach, and there will be factors other than their own personality traits which influence them: how comfortable are they with their surroundings, what do they perceive as the level of risk.
We are too complicated to be categorised so simply.
I find the 'energy' hypothesis unconvincing. Social interaction, however enjoyable or inspiring, ultimately depletes energy. Loneliness and boredom also deplete energy. We recover that energy through rest. The only question is which form of energy depletion - social or in isolation - tires us most quickly.
If you are exploring the idea of social batteries being 'charged' or 'drained' by different situations II recommend the book Interaction Ritual Chains by the sociologist Randall Collins, it explores this idea in considerable depth.
I have a patient to see in a few minutes so have to be brief. I am familiar with the various definitions of introverts and extroverts. My problem with all the labels we use for personality traits or psychological traits is that they are very poor descriptors of an individual's complexity. They are gross simplifications and either imprecise, or precise but only in certain circumstances. As an example of the latter, a person's level of extroversion may be influenced by their stress level, their physical state (say being premenstrual, or fighting off a cold), or whom they are associating with. As a clinician I find all these labels misleading or worse because people tend to adopt them as an identity. In certain contexts a label can be helpful. The social battery (second definition) is useful for me when I have someone who is depressed and needs to engage in activities that are going to energize them and not deplete them. If the depressed person likes being around others, but finds it draining, then advising them to go to parties is going to make them more depleted and more depressed. I need to find activities that are enjoyable and not draining for that person. On the other hand if I am not in a clinical role and am planning a party for a friend, then if the friend enjoys lots of people (first definition of extraversion) then I am going to plan a party with a lot of people and perhaps in a public setting.
Got to run. Interested to hear what others have to day.
Well said. I could not agree more.
I used to use assessment tools with clients, but now I rarely do. I find that people tend to adopt the labels as fixed identity markers that then constrain their self-understanding. In my view, psychological assessment tools are better used for the purpose of exploration, but in practice I've found that the majority of people have trouble engaging with them in that way.
JA, I am particularly interested in your take on this. while I am fascinated by the psychological (and physiological/brain science/philosophy of mind studies/research/positions) on how we develop our personalities, my results on the MB and various enneagram offerings are decidedly indecisive. Also although I was more likely to be dubbed an introvert in the US Northeast, here in Sweden I am shockingly outgoing as I actually have the brazen desire for small talk with strangers. 🙃 I am also a very physically impacted empathy response that makes the whole charging inquiry very variable for me. This is all a very singular, subjective response I offer but it does inform my skepticism about these type of delineations.
I think that we forget that our definitions of many traits is relative to context. So "extrovert" is relative to the average behavior of the social group. So your "introverted" behavior in the Northeastern US becomes "extroverted" in Sweden.
Also most of us express personality traits to varying degrees in different environments. In my office my "personality" is different from when I am at home. So if I take a personality test I tend to average out my responses across the various personae I have and end up with indecisive results on many of them.
KSC. I need some time to reply in a concise and coherent manner. I will do so here by the end of today.
Interestingly, Jung's original conception of extroversion is less people-oriented than any of the usual conceptions. An "attribute-type characterized by concentration of interest on the external object" could describe someone who gets stimulation from viewing art or visiting new places, with or without significant social interactions. It still describes something different from the inward-focused idea of introversion.
I found the last part of this essay interesting. I have long described some people as exothermic (exuding energy) and endothermic (sapping energy). The latter type is challenging in that they absorb any enthusiasm you bring to a conversation but contribute no energy themselves. I also refer to these people as enthusiasm sponges.
Good piece. I always found the energy explanation baffling. I am an extreme introvert but I am not conscious of any change in energy from interacting with people or not. I simply experience a desire for alone time that grows stronger the longer I am deprived of it.
What being an introvert feels like for me is that I am in fact very social, but mostly with my own internal psyche. People assume I am quiet, but I actually have a very active inner monologue or dialogue going on at most times.
People who talk to me without invitation are in fact interrupting me without knowing it, even if I am quiet. And it is disappointing because this external dialogue is often less satisfying than the internal one I had going.
I wonder what moments of solitude feel like for extreme extroverts. Are they in fact draining or do they simply feel under stimulated?
I do know some extroverts who are incredibly drained / exhausted / depressed by being alone. But I cannot speak from experience, as I am more like you.
Fascinating subject! I work with several patients who would be described as extroverted from a personality or emotional standpoint, but find social interaction exhausting and confusing due to the cognitive load of processing social cues/ information. Human beings really are almost infinitely complex!
I very much agree, since I would be one of them; IMO "the personality trait of seeking fulfillment from sources outside the self or in community" doesn't necessarily mean you are the life of the party.
I like socializing, hanging out and chatting with people; I really would prefer to go out with somebody, work on a project with somebody, I never had any public speaking anxiety - I like public speaking; however, being autistic means that I am really, really bad in it! Learning that you can be extroverted and not good at being outgoing helped me, since I stopped trying to fit myself into the introvert box and instead started working on my social skills.
On the other hand my stepmother can easily be a soul of any party, she is really charming, knows all the little interactions and exaggerations - but she really hates hanging out with people. If it's up to her, she will work in garden, or go for a hike alone or with (small) family.
It's not the same as charging/draining either, since, as I am not good in socializing, it usually expends a lot of my energy - but I still love it. So I think there is a nuance could be added to distinguish between trying to "[seek] fulfillment from sources outside" and succeding in it.
Great essay. My current definition of introvert is more based on how much someone expects a social interaction to go badly and thus avoids interacting with strangers, or construes a negative reaction from a neutral interaction. Their brain budgets extra to this “energy drain” and the person feels more in need of a quiet retreat.
Someone who can interpret a neutral interaction as neutral or at least not negative, doesn’t have the same body budget deficit feeling.
And yes the MBTI is the culprit for a lot of things.
This feels like a helpful distinction. The last point about who we are interacting with is a great addition. I would guess that additional factors should be added to the inquiry such as how large a group or gathering is, environmental issues such as light and noise, how well you know the people in a gathering, even time of day. I love breaking out of the either or thinking.
"But the far more important life hack consists in learning to categorize the other people in our life—and avoid those who are detrimental to our well-being." Very true!
I use the terms "fountain" and "drain." Agreed that curating your social circle so you interact primarily with fountains not drains is key. Also helpful to remember that someone who might be a fountain for you might be a drain for someone else.
"Chargers and drainers are not (just) defined by whether they charge by being around people—they’re (also) defined by how wide the circle of those who charge their social battery is."
That's very important. I can't help thinking the most fortunate among us are those who find the society of certain people deeply satisfying but who shun the madding crowd. However, that may be motivated thinking on my part.
The grass is always greener on the otherwise of a personality trait….
Thank you Yascha.
"The most likely culprit is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), a personality test that is taken less seriously by academic psychologists, but has found greater popularity in the business world."
Ah yes, the problem with academic theories, methods and definitions that don't often provide utility enough for the real world.
If tree falls in a forest observed by a group of academics, does the sound it makes really matter?
"...the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), a personality test that is taken less seriously by academic psychologists, but has found greater popularity in the business world." <sigh> OK, this has been observed countless times, but, I don't see it here in the Comments to this essay, so, here goes:
MBTI is taken less seriously by academic psychologists because neither Myers nor Briggs was an academic, and Jung, himself, was a professor only for a relatively brief time during his long career. He did not start his career that way, and he did not end his career that way. Regardless of whether we are talking about psychology, or sociology, or economics, etc., etc., etc. - Academia hates for something useful to arise elsewhere. There are relatively few large serious academic studies relating to MBTI, and many fewer still that were NOT constructed such that MBTI was "set up to fail" the "tests" to which it was put.
On the other hand, MBTI has found greater popularity in the business world because it is so damn useful. When one needs to show a return on an actual investment (even an investment only of time - after all, "time is money") one uses what has been shown to provide results. I worked in science/engineering R&D for a Fortune 500 company for over 37 years (I'm now retired for a bit over 3), and was exposed to MBTI, and, later, Big 5. Each time, it was, both, supposed to provide each participant with personal insight, and serve as the jumping-off point for team-building in the context of a large, newly-formed team. I approached MBTI with a sense of extreme skepticism, and was so utterly impressed with it that I took up the study of Jung and his work as a personal hobby that has lasted me now for over 25 years. When I was exposed to Big 5, about 12 years later, I had high hopes - but they were dashed. Far from being something whose insights the work group continued to use indefinitely, it was pretty much forgotten as soon as the results were provided. Far from exposing hidden gifts of other team members, it pretty much cemented folks' preconceptions of who to try to avoid interacting with (and why). Which differed for each person, of course. But it hardly "built team".
Before slamming MBTI, one should familiarize oneself with the "long form" - in which there are subscales of each of the four attribute pairs. There is a lot of extra value in examining one's scores (and one's colleagues') on those subscales. An experienced, well trained, MBTI professional is indispensable here.
As for Extraversion/Introversion, one of the strengths of the MBTI is that folks are often surprised by their designation as "E" or "I", because, yes, it IS all about the energy, rather than the outward behavioral indications. Many of us "I"s are mistaken as "E"s by family, friends, and colleagues, precisely because, living in a society that typically values the expected BEHAVIOR of the E over the I, we've learned to behave adaptively. ...Doesn't mean we're not still drained after giving that first-rate interactive presentation to a large group. For what it's worth, there ARE "I"-valuing cultures in the world (Japan stands out), and there the "mistake it 'cuz he can fake it" behavior runs the reverse way.
I don't think one can deny that while whiteness and maleness (etc.) are considered to be privileges, traits like extraversion and family structure (and of course health and beauty and intelligence) are actually much more exorbitant privileges. Why aren't these usually included in discussions of privilege?
I think the answer's plain: there's no opportunity for political energy to be gained by focusing on those things. Addressing them might make society much more equitable and just (according to the progressive worldview) but those traits aren't linked to demographic groups which can be leveraged and weaponized against tradition and the opposition. So they're completely ignored.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/privilege-and-its-lack
I think technically it’s spelled extravert, but I’m not sure.
It always seems to me that the whole introvert versus extrovert idea is very artificial: a kind of desire to put human beings into categories.
However crass it may seem, I think terms like 'reserved' or 'outgoing' are actually more useful, but even then they don't apply as absolute measures for any individuals. By way of explanation, a person may be confident, perfectly at ease taking a prominent role, in a business context where they have personal expetise to draw upon, but be less comfortable in social situations. Or vice-versa.
In some situations, we may be outgoing, and in some situations withdrawn. Most of us will be both, and it will depend on the circumstances in which we find ourselves.
Some people are happy to 'think aloud', whilst others are happier to think things through privately before pitching in. The same person will vary in the extent to which they adopt either approach, and there will be factors other than their own personality traits which influence them: how comfortable are they with their surroundings, what do they perceive as the level of risk.
We are too complicated to be categorised so simply.
I find the 'energy' hypothesis unconvincing. Social interaction, however enjoyable or inspiring, ultimately depletes energy. Loneliness and boredom also deplete energy. We recover that energy through rest. The only question is which form of energy depletion - social or in isolation - tires us most quickly.
(Myers Briggs ENTP - for what it's worth!)
If you are exploring the idea of social batteries being 'charged' or 'drained' by different situations II recommend the book Interaction Ritual Chains by the sociologist Randall Collins, it explores this idea in considerable depth.