[ SECRET POST #3493 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3493 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 22 secrets from Secret Submission Post #499.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Introversion

[herpymcderp]

No, the complex part is that the terms only really apply to styles of social interaction. That's it. They don't ascribe other parts of personality, they don't dictate behaviours, they only describe a preference (or, some would argue it's not a preference but rather an inborn predilection). The other thing you're missing out is the term ambivert, which some psychologists are now using to describe those who have no real social preferences.

The complex bit is where one must necessarily use the words in combination with descriptors of actual behaviour. For example, you can have a social introvert: someone who habitually engages in social activity but has a preference for being alone.

Also adding to the complexity is the problem of online social interaction. Most theories don't count this as social interaction, and hence most questionnaires developed for introversion/extroversion scales didn't use to include it as a measure. If you ask people to re-take the tests including the amount of time they spend interacting socially online, you get very different results.

Then of course there are the theories of interaction-based neurological development... but that's a whole other thing entirely. They generally boil down to the assumption that some base amount of social interaction is necessary to develop and maintain neural health. So really, they're a tiny part of a hugely intricate puzzle.

It's a lot like trying to define sexuality in that way. There are caveats, identifiers, actual behaviours... you get the gist.

Re: Introversion

[diet_poison]

I think there is real validity to the fact that many people use those words in casual usage, outside of academia/psychology offices, with generally accepted definitions, and they can be useful that way