Friday, March 27, 2015

Where Am I In My Project and Presentation?


I may not have a comprehensive idea yet about how my presentation will be structured, but I do have the general idea.  ("Sad Smiley Face Clip Art")


This past week, I have struggled to find any free time to devote to my presentation.  I still have a general idea for what the structure of my presentation will be, as described before, but I have not yet come up with a concrete outline to explain the holistic direction of it.  Hopefully, I will find some time this weekend to work on the presentation.  However, beginning Monday, I plan to begin a full-on effort to complete my presentation in the quickest manner and then start the process of revision.

As described before, Dr. Signorella, another expert helping me with my project, is a professor of psychology at Pennsylvania State University.  ("Pennsylvania State University - Greater Allegheny")


Despite the current lack of substantial progress in my presentation, I have begun work on other aspects of my project, specifically the personality test that I am designing.  After meeting with Dr. Signorella on this past Monday, I am nearly ready to post the personality test online (I am still currently in the drafting stages).  During our meeting, Dr. Signorella reviewed the criteria that I had included in my draft and suggested how exactly to structure it.  Some of this advice included suggestions that I make the criteria as simple as possible, that I attempt to evaluate respondents on two different axes (optimum level of arousal and shyness/stimulation vs. sociability), and that I give my participants five to seven possible responses per statement (including neutral or neither agree nor disagree).   I plan to take her advice into account and revise my personality test accordingly, as well as reverse-score the test (a method in test scoring in which half of the questions is geared toward one end of the spectrum, introversion, and the other half is geared toward the other end, extraversion).  By the end, I hope to have produced a valid and reliable personality test for the public that tests an individual's level of introversion/extraversion and can communicate it back to them.  In this process, I also plan to evaluate the test's level of validity and reliability by distributing it to individuals whose personalities I almost definitely know.  Additionally, I would like to, if possible, test to see if there is any substantial level of correlation between stimulation and sociability, as it would be enlightening to discover just how exactly some of us are wired.


("Scouters' Library of Clipart and Resources")


In the coming weeks, I have committed to dedicating myself to this project.  I hope that this presentation will open the eyes of individuals in the community and help them to understand and respect both introverts and extraverts.  This adventure has proved quite interesting and formidable, and I plan to finish it out until the end.



Works Cited:
"Pennsylvania State University - Greater Allegheny."  FindTheBest.   FindTheBest.com, n.d.  Web.  27 Mar. 2015.
"Sad Smiley Face Clip Art."  Funny Pictures.  Pics & Photos, n.d.  Web.  27 Mar. 2015.
"Scouters' Library of Clipart and Resources."  U.S. Scouting Service Project.  U.S. Scouting Service Project, Inc. Websites, n.d.  Web.  27 Mar. 2015.

Friday, March 20, 2015

Progress Report on My Presentation


 My time is almost up.  ("Deadline for Filing")

Near the middle of April, my presentation on the behavioral differences between introverts and extroverts is due.  Currently, I have not found the opportunity yet to actually begin working on my presentation, but I do have a general idea for how I would like to structure it.  For the beginning of my presentation, I want to address the myths surrounding introversion and extraversion and ask my audience to reevaluate their current beliefs about the two groups.  Following this, I plan to explain the theorized causes behind the differences between introverts and extroverts as well as the perspectives through which researchers attempt to identify an individual as an introvert or an extrovert.  This part of my presentation will include topics such as the biological perspective on extraversion, the trait-based perspective on extraversion, and the correlation and interaction between genotype and environment in respect to an individual's behavior(s) and trait(s).  After detailing what introverts and extroverts are, the final part of my presentation will be dedicated to the social implications and real-life applications of introversion and extraversion.  Not only will I attempt to describe how introverts and extroverts can adjust to a world that may not always be ideal for their given dispositions and how these groups can actually accommodate for each other, but I also plan on highlighting the strengths and benefits that individuals in the respective groups have/retain.  I feel as if my project will mean nothing if we can only learn to understand ourselves without applying this newfound knowledge to improve our lives and overall self-concepts.


Sometimes, individuals have to reevaluate their beliefs about a subject.  (Miss O)

An additional part of my presentation will be focused on the personality test that I am composing.  The survey that I created in January is all but dead in the water, mostly because I never really marketed it and encouraged others to respond to it.  In the coming month, I plan on pushing to get more participants in my survey, from which I may include my findings in my presentation, but this success is not guaranteed.  However, while researching introversion and extraversion over the past five months, I noticed that most personality tests that address this/these subject(s) make the mistake of regarding shyness as a synonym for introversion.  As explained previously, introverts can be shy individuals, and individuals who are introverts may share similar common behaviors with individuals who are shy, but the true definition of an introvert is an individual who typically has a lower capacity for arousal relative to extroverts.  I feel that such personality tests are misinformative, and, moreover, that they display the fact that society really does not know the true meaning of the terms introversion and extraversion, which we then inadvertently describe incorrectly to other individuals as well.  Therefore, because of my connections through my father, I have scheduled a meeting with Dr. Margaret Signorella, a professor of psychology at Pennsylvania State University, for Monday, March 23, where I plan on presenting her with my ideas for a self-designed personality test specifically focused on introversion and extraversion.  I hope that she may be able to review my draft and give me the needed advice so that I may shortly after publish a valid, accurate test of an individual's level of extraversion (or lack thereof) online.  My plan is to accompany this personality test with an explanation of the true dimensions of introversion and extraversion, and my overall goal is to get my message out about the subject and have a resource that will improve other individuals' understandings of it.  In doing so, I feel that my mission to somehow contribute to society through this project will be accomplished.


(Carlson)

My work on my presentation should begin very soon.  Unfortunately, however, this also signals that my work on this blog should end very soon.  I continue to look forward to uncovering more mysteries about the introvert-extrovert divide in the coming month.



Works Cited:
Carlson, Chris.  "Personality Tests - All Hype or the Answer?"  PipelineDeals.  Pipeline Deals, 24 Feb. 2015.  Web.  20 Mar. 2015.
"Deadline for Filing."  Padgett Business Services.  Hudson Valley Tax Pros, n.d.  Web.  20 Mar. 2015.
Miss O.  "A Different Perspective."  Meet Miss O.  The Theme Foundry, n.d.  Web.  20 Mar. 2015.

Friday, March 13, 2015

Is Introversion A Beneficial Trait? (Could Introversion Be Viewed As Evolutionary?)


  1. (Michaela)


    The textbook definition of natural selection is "the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring."  Similarly, the evolutionary approach to psychology is defined as "an approach in the social and natural sciences that examines psychological structure from a modern evolutionary perspective, seeking to identify which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations - that is the functional products of natural selection (or sexual selection)."  In other words, evolutionary psychologists seek to identify and define certain human traits as evolutionary adaptations that contribute to the survival of the individual.  The individual that survives longer (or presents favorable qualities to a mate) also produces more offspring, and because many traits are hereditary, if a trait is evolutionary, its frequency in the population thereby increases.  Two such traits that evolutionary psychologists have attempted to identify as evolutionary are extraversion (this is actually the correct spelling of the term) and introversion.  From our own experiences , the fact that extraversion is an evolutionary trait is no surprise.  The more extroverted that an individual is, the more willing they are to expose themselves to experiences where they can attain success.  Our society favors extraversion (so individuals who are extroverted are more likely to fall into favor with others), and it even appears to be a favorable trait in sexual selection.  If this is the case, however, why are there still introverts?  Humanity has lived on the face of the Earth for thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of years, yet a trait that would otherwise seem harmful to the individual's success in surviving and reproducing (introversion) is still present at large in the population.  One may argue that natural selection is always changing, which thereby allows for introversion's presence in the gene pool; however, even if natural selection is constantly changing, it must still favor introversion at times for the trait to still exist.  The best explanation for introversion's presence is that it may also be an evolutionary trait, in that some situations will favor extroverts, but others will favor introverts; this phenomenon is known as stabilizing selection, in which natural selection favors two traits on opposite ends of the spectrum (somewhat over those in between...sorry, ambiverts).

    <a href=“http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307352145/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=gregooscicen-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0307352145”>Crown, 2012, 323 pages.</a>

    Cain's book, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking  (Suttie)


    In a world where extroverts seem to be thriving, how can introverts succeed, and more importantly, how can introversion be seen as beneficial, rather than an obstacle?   Psychologist and author Susan Cain seems to have the answers to this and more.  After looking at her article in The New York Times, titled "Shyness: Evolutionary Tactic?,"  at a summary/review for her book, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking, and an interview that she had with magazine Mind Matters, titled "The Power of Introverts: A Manifesto for Quiet Brilliance," an individual begins to realize the underlying benefits of introversion for survival and reproduction.  First and foremost, introversion is beneficial/evolutionary in that introverts are less likely to expose themselves to dangerous situations than extroverts, who are more likely to take risks (both rewarding and unnecessary).  The explanation of this idea begins with a description of a study in which David Sloan Wilson, an evolutionary biologist, observed and analyzed the behaviors of pumpkinseed sunfish.  Wilson noted that there were two different groups in the population of sunfish that he observed: there were the "rover" fish, who were more extroverted and thereby took less caution into swimming by his traps, and there were also the "sitter" fish, who observed/contemplated the situation before even attempting to explore the scene.  In this case, introversion would have been an evolutionary trait in that the introvert ("sitter") fish had a lesser likelihood of getting caught than the extrovert ("roamer") fish.  Similarly, introvert humans usually take more time to analyze and evaluate a situation than extrovert humans do, which can sometimes mean the difference between life and death.  Whereas introverts are less likely to reap the rewards of risk-taking because they are less likely to take risks, they are also less likely to encounter potential harm.  According to Daniel Nettle, an evolutionary psychologist, "extroverts are more likely than introverts to be hospitalized as a result of an injury, have affairs (men), and change relationships (women).  One study of bus drivers even found that accidents are more likely to occur when extroverts are at the  wheel."  Likewise, in a study not mentioned by Cain but found online, introverts are unsurprisingly less likely than extroverts to initiate confrontation and violence.  Thus, as explained, introverts, at times, have better chances of survival than extroverts, because they often spend more time to evaluate and analyze risk before acting/exploring a potentially dangerous situation.  Another element to one's survival, however, is their level of success; in mankind's token economy, individuals have to exhibit some level of success in order to attain the means for their survival (an individual must succeed at their job so that they may be paid, and they then use this money to pay for their needs, such as food, clothing, etc.).  According to Cain, recent studies by groups of scientists at various universities have used functional M.R.I. technology to establish a link between introvertive personality and increased activity in brain regions that make associations between different information areas.  Introverts have been found, while observing, analyzing, and evaluating, to digest information thoroughly, stay on task, and work accurately, earning disproportionate number of National Merit Scholarship finalist positions and Phi Beta Kappa keys.  This academic success is thought to imply future success in the workplace and beyond.  What is particularly surprising about this phenomenon, however, is that the studies analyzing it have found that the individuals identified as introverts through Myers-Briggs personality type indicators actually do not have significantly higher IQ scores than individuals identified as extroverts.  A similar study, conducted by psychologists Eric Rolfhus and Philip Ackerman, "tested 141 college students’ knowledge of 20 different subjects, from art to astronomy to statistics, and found that the introverts knew more than the extroverts about 19 subjects."  So as to address the difference in levels of knowledge and academic success between introverts and extroverts, but the lack thereof concerning IQ scores, researchers have concluded that because extroverts spend more time socializing, they also spend less time on learning.  The key to success, however, suggests not only intelligence but also creativity.  To make a contribution, an individual must not only learn, comprehend, and apply the research and knowledge of other individuals, but s/he must also create their own research and develop their own ideas.  Society seems to have a stereotype that introverts may be "more intelligent," but extroverts are "more creative"; fortunately, this is not the case.  In fact, psychologist Gregory Feist has found that many of the most creative people in a range of fields are introverts who are comfortable working in solitary conditions in which they can focus attention inward.  Some of the world's most wildly successful individuals, including J.K. Rowling, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Albert Einstein, and Steve Wozniak, are/were considered introverts, yet few would likely challenge that they are/were not creative.  Therefore, introverts do not necessarily have to be intelligent, but because they may have an increased capacity for creativity and observation, they have just as good of a, if not a better, chance as extroverts for success.  An idea not directly mentioned by Cain at any point, however, is the advantage of inversion in sexual selection.  Success in survival means next to nothing if a trait does not ensure success of reproduction.  In other words, an introverts may have the greatest rate of survival (greater than both extroverts and ambiverts), but if they do not mate, there are no means for passing the trait on.  Interestingly enough, perception also actually leads to introversion's status as an evolutionary trait.  When looking for a mate/partner, individuals claim to be looking for someone else with whom they can be loyal and enjoy life with (and this often is the main criteria), but most also, whether knowingly or inadvertently, also look for someone who has favorable traits.  Because introverts have a reputation for being intelligent (even though they might not necessarily have higher IQ scores than extroverts), and thereby a reputation for greater chances of success, they appear more marketable.  Furthermore, the element of mystery present in introverts can intrigue potential mates/partners.  Thus, introversion appears favorable even in sexual selection.
     


    All of the wildly successful individuals in this graphic from throughout history are introverts (Kaufman).


    Extraversion may  have some evolutionary benefits, although introversion, as explained, demonstrates some as well.  At times, natural selection favors both traits, whereas at other times, it only favors one of them.  Introversion is often seen as a hurdle to the individual, but it may actually serve as an aid to their success, if not their survival.  As introverts continue to survive and reproduce, this trait will continue to be carried down through the generations to their descendants.  In whole, introversion is a beneficial evolutionary trait that shapes the behavior(s) of individuals and contributes to genetic diversity.



    Additionally, I have included the links to the articles and the interview that I read during my research while writing this blog post.  Please feel free to read them and explore the hidden world of the evolutionary trait known as introversion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/opinion/sunday/26shyness.html?pagewanted=all

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_benefits_of_introversion

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-power-of-introverts/

http://www.socialsciences.ucsb.edu/news/410-102313

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2013/08/27/are-the-brains-of-introverts-and-extroverts-actually-different/



Please also feel free to participate in my survey concerning the behavioral differences between introverts and extroverts, and also make sure to share it with others as well.  I thank you in advance.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/62238YL






Works Cited:

"Anthropologist Studies the Evolutionary Benefit of Human Personality Traits."  University of California, Santa Barbara, Social Sciences.  The Regents of the University of California, 23 Oct. 2013.  Web.  13 Mar. 2015.

Cain, Susan.  "Shyness: Evolutionary Tactic?"  The New York Times.  The New York Times Company, 25 Jun. 2011.  Web.  13 Mar. 2015.

Cook, Gareth.  "The Power of Introverts: A Manifesto for Quiet Brilliance."  Scientific American.  Nature America, Inc., 24 Jan. 2012.  Web.  13 Mar. 2015.

Kaufman, Scott Barry.  "What Kind of Introvert Are You?"  Scientific American.  Nature America, Inc., 29 Sept. 2014.  Web.  13 Mar. 2015.

Michaela.  "How to Spot an Introvert."  Introvert Spring.  Michaela of Introvert Spring, 20 Sept. 2013.  Web.  13 Mar. 2015.

Suttie, Jill.  "The Benefits of Introversion."  The Greater Good Science Center.  The University of Berkeley, California, 5 May 2012.  Web.  13 Mar. 2015.

Thomas, Ben.  "Are the Brains of Introverts and Extroverts Actually Different?"  Discover Magazine.  Kalmach Publishing Company, 27 Aug. 2013.  Web.  13 Mar. 2015.

Friday, March 6, 2015

Looking at Introverts and Extroverts Through the Eyes of Psychologists

 

("The Science of Psychology: An Appreciative View")


(King)

How do accredited psychologists explain the concepts of introversion and extraversion and the behavioral differences between individuals who identify with the two important groups?  Do all psychologists view this idea/these ideas in the same way?  Recently in psychology class, we have been reviewing personality and the varying views used to both explain and identify it.  Within the chapter that we have been reading, our book has mentioned extraversion (and, by extent, introversion) and the different explanations that multiple psychologists have had regarding the classification(s).  I feel that it would be helpful if I explained these varying ideas for the sake of my own project so that my audience (also known as you...you are reading this, right?) can understand that the causes behind extraversion and introversion are not always cut-and-dry, but that the majority of them also seem to make sense, even though some may contradict with one another.  For today's post, I will be using material from The Science of Psychology, Second Edition, written by Laura A. King and published in 2011.  Some of what I write today may conflict with my past posts; the information that I generally use for my material is that which is accepted by and large, but there are still other theories regarding and methods to measuring extraversion/introversion.
 

Warren T. (W.T.) Norman  ("Warren T. Norman")


One approach to personality is the trait perspective approach, in which the researcher simply means to uncover the individual's varying qualities and thereby assign them a ranking as to the quality that they retain for each trait.  The greatest example of a measure that this approach uses is the Five-Factor Model of Personality, derived from the work of W.T. Norman in 1963, who actually worked off of the research of Gordon Allport and H.S. Odbert from 1936.  In their approach to personality, Allport and Odbert employed the lexical approach, an approach considered a subcategory of the trait perspective approach.  Allport and Odbert "sat down with two big unabridged dictionaries and pulled out all the words that could be used to describe a person," thereby using the lexical approach to personality.  While quite simple, this approach is also time-consuming, as it would take forever to list all of the qualities that could be used to describe a specific individual.  Thus, when reanalyzing Allport's and Odbert's research, Norman found that almost all of an individual's qualities that could be used to describe their personality can be organized into five categories, which he called the big five factors.  These five factors, thought to describe the main dimensions of personality, include neurotocism (emotional instability), extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (which can form the acronym OCEAN).  When personality tests are made to assess these five qualities in an individual, their results are often measured as to whether they are low, moderate, or high for a certain trait.  As mentioned before, extraversion is used as a category, consisting of multiple other traits within.  According to the trait perspective approach, an individual is either high in extraversion (making them an extrovert), moderate in extraversion (making them an ambivert), or low in extraversion (making them an introvert).  What is particularly interesting about this approach's view of extraversion (and thereby introversion) is the criteria that it bases its measurements on, those being "social or retiring," "fun-loving or somber," "energetic or reserved," etc.  It is true that some extroverts may be social, fun-loving, and energetic, and that some introverts may be retiring, somber, and reserved, and even moreso that individuals from these two groups may appear to have these qualities, but this is not always necessarily true.  Even though I would be classified as an introvert, my level of energy depends on my mood, my sociableness depends on both my energy and those who around me, and my level of seriousness depends on how much I believe the situation calls for.  The book actually lists such phenomena as one of the criticisms about this approach, it that it makes generalizations and sometimes fails to address the person-situation controversy.  The example that the textbook uses is that an individual may be rated as introverted among new people but very extroverted with friends and family.  Moreover, this approach addresses extraversion/introversion in the reverse manner that I have; according to the trait perspective approach, an individual is extroverted or introverted because of their various traits, which define which groups they identify with, while I have been addressing the idea that individuals have certain qualities because they are introverted or extroverted.  Furthermore, some of the criteria used to rate one's level of extraversion (or lack thereof) seems a bit biased or stereotypical.  However, I am not accusing this approach of being incorrect, nor I am implying that my research has been incorrect; rather, I am simply introducing a new view of personality (and extraversion) while showing some of its flaws.  No personality theory is without criticism, meaning that there is no perfect approach to personality that has no flaws.
 

Hans Eysenck  ("Psychologist Hans J. Eysenck")


Another approach to personality is the biological perspective approach, which I believe I could personally agree most with (but this does not necessitate this approach is "correct").  According to the biological perspective approach, an individual is an introvert or an extrovert because of the way that their brain is designed.  However, even within this approach there is conflict, as different experts have attempted to explain the reasons behind one's introversion/extroversion and, by extent, their underlying behaviors and qualities.  The two most well-known theories in regard to the biological perspective approach to personality are the reticular activation system (RAS) theory, proposed by Hans Eysenck in 1967, and the reinforcement sensitivity theory, proposed by Jeffrey Gray in 1987.  According to Eysenck's RAS theory, the reticular activation system, an area located in the brain stem that plays a role in wakefulness and arousal, of introverts and extroverts differs with respect to the baseline level of arousal.  Even though this is the theory that I often use the most in my explanations of introverts and extroverts, it still has its flaws.  Once again, according to Eysenck's theory, extroverts have to be particularly outgoing, sociable, and dominant, whereas introverts have to be particularly quiet, reserved, and passive, which seems to assume just a little too much in regard to the personality/personalities of individuals.  However, Eysenck's theory does also note that introverts are often above their optimal level of arousal and therefore keep distractions to a minimum, while extroverts are usually below their optimal level of arousal and therefore "seek out distraction."  Some of the behaviors identified as "introvert activities" (being alone, reading quietly, etc.) and "extrovert activities" (spending time with friends, listening to loud music, etc.) are debatable, but it does appear that individuals of these certain groups do show a tendency to prefer such activities.  According to Gray's reinforcement sensitivity theory, on the other hand, an individual's level of extraversion (or lack thereof) depends on the strength of their behavioral activation system (BAS) and behavioral inhibition system (BIS).  Gray theorizes that a strong BAS, which supposedly underlies high extraversion, causes the individual to be sensitive to environmental reward, thereby leading their emotions to be more positive and for them to seek positive consequences/rewards for their actions.  By effect, an individual high on extraversion is thought to take more risks as a result, because they want to attain more rewards.  Conversely, Gray also theorizes that a strong BIS, which supposedly underlies low extraversion/high introversion or neuroticism (emotional instability), causes the individual to be sensitive to environmental punishment, thereby leading their emotions to be more negative and for them to avoid negative consequences/punishments.  Like Eysenck's theory, Gray's theory seems to have warrant.  Moreover, neurotransmitters, a subject that I have touched upon before, have been implicated in personality in ways that fit Gray's model.  According to some researchers, individuals with a strong BAS show higher levels of dopamine, which encourages behavior(s) and keeps an individual happier.  On the other hand, individuals with a strong BIS seem to show higher levels of serotonin, which generally discourages behavior(s) and keeps an individual more somber or down.  Overall, from my research, my findings would likely support the biological perspective approach the most, and particularly they would agree with Eysenck's approach, although I do also find that Gray's theory has some warrant.
 

Jeffrey Gray  ("Jeffrey Gray Book Award")


As stated before, neither the trait perspective approach nor the biological perspective approach to psychology are necessarily incorrect.  In fact, it is quite possible that these two approaches may both be correct in their own right, but that one (the trait perspective approach) should be more geared towards identifying whether an individual is an introvert or an extrovert while another (the biological perspective approach) should be more geared towards identifying why an individual is an introvert or an extrovert.  Furthermore, both Eysenck's theory and Gray's theory may be correct; this just means that neither of their theories is the end-all-be-all of personality psychology.  Despite some apparent flaws in all of the theories explained, they all present interesting perspectives and explanations about introverts and extroverts, and they should all be respected in their own right.


As a side note, I will continue to keep my survey concerning the behavioral differences between introverts and extroverts posted for the next couple of weeks (probably until about the end of March or middle of April).  I ask that if you have not participated in my survey yet that you would please do so soon, and that you would please encourage others to participate in it as well.  In order to reach my survey, just click on the link below, and I thank you in advance.



Works Cited:
"Jeffrey Gray Book Award."  History of Psychology Centre.  The British Psychological Society, n.d.  Web.  6 Mar. 2015.
King, Laura A.  The Science of Psychology, Second Edition.  New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011.  Print.
"Psychologist Hans J. Eysenck."  Introduction to Psychology.  Shaanxi Normal University, 25 Apr. 2011.  Web.  6 Mar. 2015.
"The Science of Psychology: An Appreciative View."  McGraw-Hill Higher Education.  The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2011.  Web.  6 Mar. 2015.
"Warren T. Norman."  The Millennium Project.  The University of Michigan, 2011.  Web.  6 Mar. 2015.