Introvert and extrovert are outdated terms as meaningless as Freudian oral and anal types, or the word hysteria.
More modern view, which should be a blend of Minsky's models of "agencies" in the brain, and neuro-anatomic findings that a brain consists of multitude of highly specialized areas (which could have its deficits) and the notion that genetic predispositions could be compensated in some extent by environmental conditioning and cognitive re-training, should suggest meaninglessness of such articles.
Graphing two meaningless categories orthogonality instead of on a single line is a nice trick, and it seems like there is a new information to be read from it, but it is just a trick - replacing one vastly oversimplified generalization with seemingly more correct one, which, in fact, as meaningless as previous one.
>"Introvert and extrovert are outdated terms as meaningless as Freudian oral and anal types"
That's not completely true. For one thing, there are a lot of studies that have found correlations between introversion/extroversion (especially as defined by the Big 5 personality model) and behavior. That alone says that the term is not "meaningless." Just check any research journal for the keywords "introvert OR extrover big 5."
Here's what seems to be happening: The tests are measuring attributes that tend to go together, but do not always go together. Either you are typically outspoken in large groups you don't know well, or your are typically reserved in such groups. That's one attribute. Either you are typically drained by social interaction, or it typically invigorates you. That's another. These two attributes are correlated closely enough that research finds results, but there are probably exceptions.
Personality researchers will be the first to admit that personality is complex. One of the problems in research is that the more complex your model becomes, the harder it is to test and validate. We continue to use overly-simplistic models because they are validated by research that tells us we're measuring something; no one is claiming we're measuring it completely or perfectly.
I also happen to think the author's model is overly-simplistic, but that he's correctly identified the problem.
They may be meaningless to you, but these words are still in active use today -- maybe not in research circles but in the general population -- and do have a specific meaning for many people. The popular use and meaning of these words does shape how people think of themselves, as the author explained. Therefore, it's still a helpful issue to address for a lot of those people.
Agreed that is helpful to address. However, the article talks about an 'or' model or an 'and' model, completely failing to take into account the actual model that people use — that you either gain or lose energy from social interactions, what I shall term the 'bullshit' model of human interaction. This article fails to address those that believe that, but does help to remove the dichotomy for those that believe in the superficial shyness/outgoing nature of introversion vs extroversion.
Actually I think it's quite meaningful, due to its recognition of introversion and extroversion as more of agencies which aren't mutually exclusive.
Anecdotally, I identify with this much more closely than other analyses. So much so that this is a perspective altering epiphany-class insight. Really good stuff.
I expected the majority of readers would respond by defending the model they were used to and attack alternatives, never considering that their model would wither equally or more from such an attack. The standard model most people have has no basis, it's just commonly held.
Thank you for your comment. The perspective change came to me over years of personal effort, observation, and finding so little basis in the Or view. It's gratifying to see someone describe it as you did. I hope it helps.
Introvert/extrovert/oral/anal/hysteric aren't meaningless in any sense of the word. They describe specific and intelligible concepts that are now irreversibly ingrained in cultural discourse. Whether you like it or not, they do and will continue to mean something for a very long time.
I suspect you meant to make claims about plausibility or truth within scientific discourse rather than about the meanings of words.
More modern view, which should be a blend of Minsky's models of "agencies" in the brain, and neuro-anatomic findings that a brain consists of multitude of highly specialized areas (which could have its deficits) and the notion that genetic predispositions could be compensated in some extent by environmental conditioning and cognitive re-training, should suggest meaninglessness of such articles.
Graphing two meaningless categories orthogonality instead of on a single line is a nice trick, and it seems like there is a new information to be read from it, but it is just a trick - replacing one vastly oversimplified generalization with seemingly more correct one, which, in fact, as meaningless as previous one.