<p>The author <a href="http://www.katiealbee.com/blog/2015/3/2/the-importance-of-utilizing-extroverts-and-introverts-in-team-meetings" rel="nofollow">here claims</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A great leader knows that making room for both extroverts and introverts to share their thoughts could be the key to whether or not their next project succeeds or fails. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>This <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion" rel="nofollow">document purports</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Carl Jung and the authors of the Myers–Briggs provide a different perspective and suggest that everyone has both an extraverted side and an introverted side, with one being more dominant than the other. Rather than focusing on interpersonal behavior, however, Jung defined introversion as an "attitude-type characterised by orientation in life through subjective psychic contents" (focus on one's inner psychic activity); and extraversion as "an attitude type characterised by concentration of interest on the external object" (the outside world)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9206257" rel="nofollow">commentator writes</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The distinction between introvert and extrovert is shallow psychology. They are sometimes used condescendingly by angsty individuals at either side of the imaginary spectrum. The truth isn't even that most people fall somewhere in between. There is no gray area, because these matters are not black and white. Their use leads to generalization and over-simplification of delicate subject matter. Introvert vs. extrovert is <em>always</em> a sledgehammer where a scalpel is required.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>My question is: <strong>What is the evidence to suggest that the introvert/extrovert distinction is a shallow distinction?</strong></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-18T09:03:40.317Z
Please clarify what constitutes evidence for a shallow distinction.
Christian Hummeluhr
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-18T22:58:05.757Z
A model based on a study that shows there are other factors involved in the observation where people categorise the evidence as a black and white distinction between 'introvert' and 'extrovert'.
hawkeye
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-19T07:55:33.270Z
The introvert-extrovert dichotomy spans an amount of theories and measures too large to cover on SE. Any meaningful answer to this question would require a literature review and meta-analysis. It can be answered if you narrow your question down to a specific measure.

The problem may simply be that, as used in the original article, introvert-extrovert is actually shallow psychology in the sense that the author doesn't seem to understand what those words cover.
Christian Hummeluhr
<introversion><extraversion>
What is the evidence to suggest that the introvert/extrovert distinction is a shallow distinction?
hawkeye
# What is the evidence to suggest that the introvert/extrovert distinction is a shallow distinction?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-03-16)

The author [here claims](http://www.katiealbee.com/blog/2015/3/2/the-importance-of-utilizing-extroverts-and-introverts-in-team-meetings):

> A great leader knows that making room for both extroverts and introverts to share their thoughts could be the key to whether or not their next project succeeds or fails.

This [document purports](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion):

> Carl Jung and the authors of the Myers–Briggs provide a different perspective and suggest that everyone has both an extraverted side and an introverted side, with one being more dominant than the other. Rather than focusing on interpersonal behavior, however, Jung defined introversion as an "attitude-type characterised by orientation in life through subjective psychic contents" (focus on one's inner psychic activity); and extraversion as "an attitude type characterised by concentration of interest on the external object" (the outside world)

The [commentator writes](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9206257):

> The distinction between introvert and extrovert is shallow psychology. They are sometimes used condescendingly by angsty individuals at either side of the imaginary spectrum. The truth isn't even that most people fall somewhere in between. There is no gray area, because these matters are not black and white. Their use leads to generalization and over-simplification of delicate subject matter. Introvert vs. extrovert is *always* a sledgehammer where a scalpel is required.

My question is: **What is the evidence to suggest that the introvert/extrovert distinction is a shallow distinction?**

**Tags:** introversion, extraversion

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Please clarify what constitutes evidence for a shallow distinction.  
> **username_0**: A model based on a study that shows there are other factors involved in the observation where people categorise the evidence as a black and white distinction between 'introvert' and 'extrovert'.  
> **username_1**: The introvert-extrovert dichotomy spans an amount of theories and measures too large to cover on SE. Any meaningful answer to this question would require a literature review and meta-analysis. It can be answered if you narrow your question down to a specific measure.  The problem may simply be that, as used in the original article, introvert-extrovert is actually shallow psychology in the sense that the author doesn't seem to understand what those words cover.  

---

## 0 answers

