(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).
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment