That test has a lot of limitations, because various questions involved scenarios where none of the choices matched what I would do. However, this was my result: [SIZE=5]You are more of a public introvert and private extrovert[/SIZE] Within your circle of family and friends, you are completely at ease and it’s often you who takes the lead to organise outings, dinners, vacations, etc. However, as soon as you are in a public or professional setting you become rather inhibited. You don’t feel in tune with what you would qualify as agitation, rivalry or vainglory and this can sometimes appear to others as a kind of hidden criticism or a lack of ambition. In fact, your pragmatic temperament helps you successfully manage problems as and when they arise. You aren’t the kind to calculate your every move and plan every inch of your life, and you find the sphere of family and friends to be much more gratifying to the professional sphere. You are more expressive in emotional, sensorial and human terms and at home your organisation skills and capacity to oil the family wheels work well and many of your family and friends appreciate your qualities and skills. At first glance, people find it hard to understand how you could be so comfortable organising your private life and then seem to lose the better part of your self-confidence when you’re in public. Maybe it’s a question of rhythm? If you feel comfortable in your domestic rhythm it’s perhaps because it works more on a short-term basis (day, week or more rarely a month). On the contrary, the rhythm of professional life seems less concrete and more distant as the professional agenda works more to quarterly or annual plans, that you have no control over. Is this the source of your lessened motivation? You can’t control all the cards so you have to adapt and, in fact, that doesn’t interest you at all? If this difference between work and home life doesn’t bother you, then carry on. However, if you feel frustrated by this imbalance, it could be useful to look into the deeper reasons (either on your own or with someone else) that keep you less focused on professional ambition. For instance, such reasons could be: a lack of thanks and recognition, a fear of not being up to the mark… It’s up to you to find out. Here's my response: "Ambition" means different things to different people. In the sense of drive, motivation, and an abhorrence of being idle, I am extremely ambitious. My days of mowing 6 acres with a little 19" Toro Whirlwind lawn mower are something that I look back on with MUCH fondness. That's why my present scoliosis, degenerative disc disease, onset of spinal stenosis, and need to apply for SSI are so damned frustrating. I don't want it ! But 'ambition' in the sense of aggressively steamrolling over everyone in your path to go as high as you can and then dictating down from the top? NEVER. If I had the opportunity to replace one of those types at the top, I would. But I would not take a dump at the top of the ladder and let it fall on anyone below. You can lead without being a ruthless bastard. You have to be careful that kindness is not mistaken for being weakness, but that's where sound judgment comes in. And that begins by genuinely placing the good of everyone ahead of your own personal desires and making that stick with yourself. No falling into the lures of power, fame, fortune, sex, heightened stimulation, nothing. No self-serving crap of any kind. EVER. You have an obligation to your people who are depending upon you. There are no unimportant subordinates. Either you are a conscientious person who has only the best of intentions for your people, or you are a self-important egotist. There is nothing in between. And it takes constant self-analysis to make certain that nothing self-serving filters in. A stranger is not going to sit you down on a couch and be able to go as thoroughly through your mind as you can. A 'trusted' inner circle of advisors can be helpful to point out things that you might be unaware of or too close to, but always keep that little bit of healthy wariness. You know your own mind; you are not inside any of theirs. Inhibition? Lack of self-confidence? No. The one other thing that I would add is that even at the top of any organization, a leader has to acknowledge the fact that there will always be factors in play at times that are beyond anyone's control. In those instances all you can do is your best, with the best of intentions. When an ego is too determined to force something that simply can't be forced, it's a recipe for disaster. A calculated risk is one thing; blind bullheadedness is quite another.
me too Cool test but with many questions I wisehd for a 5th option since neither of the 4 offered ones fit. Rather than seeking or evading conflicts I always try to talk with my opponent and find a compromise with which both of us can be happy. Yep, that's the problem with stereotypes: the brain switches to automatic and hardly ever questions them. As much as we try to keep neutral, we keep falling for stereotypes. It's a bit like a wasp that having barely escaped from drowning in your drink promptly falls back into it the instant it dried itself off. I agree that in many cases (possibly not all, but surely a lot of them) fear is a big and important component in becoming an introvert. If you have no safe place to go to, no person you trust, you go the only way that's left open: you pull back into yourself. While indubitably it's the safest place to be, inevitably one comes to the point where one wonders: is that really all life has to offer? And then one has to make the choice whether to lower shields or not.
Here I would like to be careful because I think it is important for understanding introversion. I'm not trying to be nitpicky, but this point relates directly to the original poster's concern as follows: "If this is just who he is and he will be very happy as an introvert, wonderful. All I want for my children is their health and happiness." I would reword your statement to say fear is (or at least can be for many) a component of "being" and introvert, not "becoming" an introvert. The act of becoming an introvert is not based on fear. It is based on the way our brains work. Any fears such as shyness or "not fitting in" etc. are a byproduct of how we see the world and interact with it, and often involves the feedback we receive from our peers. This is an important distinction because if fear makes one become an introvert, then a parent should try to prevent it. But, if fear is a byproduct of "who one is", then a parent should not try to change one's nature, but should try to help with any negative things like fear because all (or at least most) parents want their children to be healthy and happy. By the way fear is not unique to introversion. All people, including extroverts, have it. But, the typical fears might be different between extroverts and introverts and those in between. A parent should always be concerned about helping children deal with fears.
Introversion *can* be very much a strength, when it ties to independence and self-reliance. Just as, on the other side, extroversion *can* be a weakness if a lot of the motivation involves a need to impress others and 'be the life of the party'. When I was born, my mother was 40 and my father was 48. I had 4 older half-brothers from my mother's first marriage, but by the time I was 6 they were all grown up and gone from home. We lived out in the country and none of the nearby neighbors had children. My parents were both very controlling and restrictive. In some ways, it was almost like a prisoner-of-war situation. Basically, there was no pleasing them. I also encountered a lot of similar personality types among peers, teachers, members of the community, etc. The small town was not very diverse. For a long time, I was endlessly self-critical and attempting to improve myself. One day, at some point in my teens, I came to the understanding that the problem was not with me. The problem was with them. There will always be someone who will find fault, because so much of it is based upon irrational personal bias. That realization made me feel a lot better and I was very determined not to act like any of the negative ones whom I saw around me. I stick with being myself and I feel no need to put on a facade in order to try to impress people. I am content with life and I maintain a hopeful and positive outlook, no matter what comes along. Health problems are frustrating, but that frustration doesn't run deep.
that was in fact my point. I just didn't manage to phrase it so clearly. The situation gets very difficult if - like in my case - the parents not only don't prevent it but are actually the ones that cause the fear in the first place. It takes a lifetime to iron these emotional crinkles out again.
I wouldn't refer to it as educational. I would call it experiential. However, in my case it's hereditary, in part. My personality strongly favored my mom (introvert), while my sister's personality strongly favored my dad (extrovert). What I can say is that the bullying aspect was a huge and negative influence. As a very quiet, shy kid, I was bullied pretty severely. As a result, I retreated inward probably as a defense mechanism. I didn't realize it at the time of course. I only came to this conclusion many years later when I started to come out of my shell. My dad always used to tell me that I should punch a bully right in the nose. However, due to my lack of self confidence, I was completely incapable of doing that until my junior year of high school and when I did it, it worked beautifully . Although, it wasn't as dramatic as literally decking someone. The point is, I stood up to the bully and it worked. My daughter is much like me but my wife and I made it a point to get her involved in social activities from a young age. Girl Scouts and Cheerleading has helped to make her more outgoing than I could ever have been at that age. I really don't want her to experience the bullying that I had to endure.
Back in the 1930s, my father was actually bullied by a male teacher....until he hauled off and broke the guy's nose. My father was very controlling, but he did tell me that if I ever needed to take care of business, he would back up whatever I needed to do. As a peaceful person by nature, you try to ignore a lot. But, there are those personality types that insist on being relentless and that don't understand anything except fear of physical pain. What they also don't understand is that 'still waters run deep' and they might not have any idea of what they are messing with or what might result. I had two instances of needing to settle matters in a physical way. One in school and one on the bus. Problem is, the bullying on the bus included words so vile that when it built up to the intolerable level I was so angry that I 'blacked out'. When I 'came back' the bully was crawling underneath one of the seats in an attempt to get away because I was beating the hell out of him. He didn't have to go to the hospital, but it was a near thing. That was more scary for me than it was for him. I am so glad it didn't go any farther. We had a substitute driver that day. When our regular one came back, she smoothed things over with administration, because she knew the back story and she knew that guy was devious and wouldn't say things that could easily be overheard. I never had any more problems with him.
Marilyn Monroe said, "I restore myself when I'm alone." So even a huge star can be an introvert. It isn't always easy to tell who are the introverts or extroverts. Being an introvert doesn't have to hold you back, either.
This part is... interesting. "There was one added twist to this study. I used a set of polar adjectives that were related to "left" and "right" by the Maori of New Zealand to see if we had similar conceptions to what they have. The scale appears below. "right" light - - - - - - - dark curved - - - - - - - straight high - - - - - - - low female - - - - - - - male sacred - - - - - - - profane heterosexual - - - - - - - homosexual mysterious - - - - - - - commonplace unclean - - - - - - - clean correct - - - - - - - incorrect bad - - - - - - - good beautiful - - - - - - - ugly limp - - - - - - - erect strong - - - - - - - weak Sure enough, just like the Maori, the older children and college students tended to say that the Left was bad, dark, profane, female, unclean, curved, limp, homosexual, weak, mysterious, low, ugly, and incorrect, while the right was judged as just the opposite -- good, light, sacred, male, clean, straight, erect, heterosexual, strong, commonplace, high, beautiful, and correct. This suggests there is a pan-human meaning to the Left and the Right." It was an interesting read and yes, it was really more politics than personality. Though it does offer some practical background as to culture and foundations and why we may have our own modes of thought. Not entirely comfortable with the generalised reference to the Maori. When I was living in New Zealand it was hard to identify what qualified to be a race such as Maori. Is it having any amount of lineage or is it owning the culture? Most Maori in appearance at least, I knew were actually of mixed heritage and identified as New Zealanders. I stress that my experience is not an authority. My mother recently took a DNA test and it confirmed she had one tenth Maori. She and myself could legitimately claim being Maori but I'm not sure if our thinking modes are any different than other non Maori identifying Kiwis but yet I do believe our cultures have a National flavour. I just don't think politics is explained by race, eg Mum is very Left and I am mid to Right. Anyway, curious read, Tricky Dickie (if not a little OT ).
Hardly surprising really, I did a quick search and it looks like Introverts just nose it as the most common type (in the US at least) https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/how-frequent-is-my-type.htm So whilst it might be said we live in an "extrovert" world the numbers seem to indicate that (in some areas) we are actually an introverted world. It just the extroverts are louder so it makes it seem that way. Though of course the data is a few years old so might not be true today, but quick question which gender do you think is most likely to be an Introvert and which an Extrovert? https://www.slayerment.com/mbti-gender
And that's what Trek is all about. People are fiercely arguing about Discovery....but they have to think to do it. That right there demonstrates the show's success.
that left is considered bad throughout humanity may have to do with the fact that the vast majority of humans are righthanded. Contrary, btw, to dogs, cats and horses who are mostly lefthanded. With birds it differs - some species are lefties, some righties. And as I have found out myself (which very well might one day get me the ignobel price), roughly 95% of male gammarids (tiny freshwater amphipods) are lefthanded. Atm I am watching insects for their prefered hands. Well, even introvert biologists need a hobby But returning to Trek: have you noticed that rather a lot of characters in Trek are introverts? Worf, for example. The classical strong, silent type who is inhibited by previous bad experiences and therefore holds back extremely. Spock constantly wrestles with his feelings but hardly ever lets anyone know. Odo never indulges in private contact with the crew. He's always on duty where he can use his work as a shield, or he's in his bucket. Kes is friendly and gentle but also more on the introvert side of the spectrum (especially compared to Neelix). I'm not very familiar with the newer spinoffs but from what little I've seen I'd say that both T'Pol and Hoshi seem to have at least a tendency to being introverts.
Which other characters might lean more towards being Introverts Scotty Picard Dr. Crusher As for the Extroverts O'Brien Jadzia Dax Riker Wes Crusher Paris Sulu Janeway