The Gift of Introversion

If you act to overcome your weakness, 

then your weakness will become your strength! 

- author unknown 

Page 2 of 160

The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. 

Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities 

Achieve Their Full Potential 

Since its founding in 2003, The Advocacy Foundation has become recognized as an effective 

provider of support to those who receive our services, having real impact within the communities 

we serve. We are currently engaged in community and faith-based collaborative initiatives, 

having the overall objective of eradicating all forms of youth violence and correcting injustices 

everywhere. In carrying-out these initiatives, we have adopted the evidence-based strategic 

framework developed and implemented by the Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency 

Prevention (OJJDP). 

The stated objectives are: 

1. Community Mobilization; 

2. Social Intervention; 

3. Provision of Opportunities; 

4. Organizational Change and Development; 

5. Suppression [of illegal activities]. 

Moreover, it is our most fundamental belief that in order to be effective, prevention and 

intervention strategies must be Community Specific, Culturally Relevant, Evidence-Based, and 

Collaborative. The Violence Prevention and Intervention programming we employ in 

implementing this community-enhancing framework include the programs further described 

throughout our publications, programs and special projects both domestically and 

internationally. 

www.TheAdvocacy.Foundation 

ISBN: ......... ../2017 

......... Printed in the USA 

Advocacy Foundation Publishers 

Philadlephia, PA 

(878) 222-0450 | Voice | Data | SMS 



Dedication 

______ 

Every publication in our many series’ is dedicated to everyone, absolutely everyone, who by 

virtue of their calling and by Divine inspiration, direction and guidance, is on the battlefield dayafter-day 

striving to follow God’s will and purpose for their lives. And this is with particular affinity 

for those Spiritual warriors who are being transformed into excellence through daily academic, 

professional, familial, and other challenges. 

We pray that you will bear in mind: 

Matthew 19:26 (NIV) 

Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, 

but with God all things are possible." (Emphasis added) 

To all of us who daily look past our circumstances, and naysayers, to what the Lord says we will 

accomplish: 

Blessings!! 

- The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. 



The Transformative Justice Project 

Eradicating Juvenile Delinquency Requires a Multi-Disciplinary Approach 

The way we accomplish all this is a follows: 

The Juvenile Justice system is incredibly overloaded, and 

Solutions-Based programs are woefully underfunded. Our 

precious children, therefore, particularly young people of 

color, often get the “swift” version of justice whenever they 

come into contact with the law. 

Decisions to build prison facilities are often based on 

elementary school test results, and our country incarcerates 

more of its young than any other nation on earth. So we at 

The Foundation labor to pull our young people out of the 

“school to prison” pipeline, and we then coordinate the efforts 

of the legal, psychological, governmental and educational 

professionals needed to bring an end to delinquency. 

We also educate families, police, local businesses, elected 

officials, clergy, and schools and other stakeholders about 

transforming whole communities, and we labor to change 

their thinking about the causes of delinquency with the goal 

of helping them embrace the idea of restoration for the young 

people in our care who demonstrate repentance for their 

mistakes. 

1. We vigorously advocate for charges reductions, wherever possible, in the adjudicatory (court) 

process, with the ultimate goal of expungement or pardon, in order to maximize the chances for 

our clients to graduate high school and progress into college, military service or the workforce 

without the stigma of a criminal record; 

2. We then enroll each young person into an Evidence-Based, Data-Driven Restorative Justice 

program designed to facilitate their rehabilitation and subsequent reintegration back into the 

community; 

3. While those projects are operating, we conduct a wide variety of ComeUnity-ReEngineering 

seminars and workshops on topics ranging from Juvenile Justice to Parental Rights, to Domestic 

issues to Police friendly contacts, to CBO and FBO accountability and compliance; 

4. Throughout the process, we encourage and maintain frequent personal contact between all 

parties; 

5 Throughout the process we conduct a continuum of events and fundraisers designed to facilitate 

collaboration among professionals and community stakeholders; and finally 


6. 1 We disseminate Quarterly publications, like our e-Advocate series Newsletter and our e-Advocate 

Quarterly electronic Magazine to all regular donors in order to facilitate a lifelong learning process 

on the ever-evolving developments in the Justice system. 

And in addition to the help we provide for our young clients and their families, we also facilitate 

Community Engagement through the Restorative Justice process, thereby balancing the interesrs 

of local businesses, schools, clergy, elected officials, police, and all interested stakeholders. Through 

these efforts, relationships are rebuilt & strengthened, local businesses and communities are enhanced & 

protected from victimization, young careers are developed, and our precious young people are kept out 

of the prison pipeline. 

This is a massive undertaking, and we need all the help and financial support you can give! We plan to 

help 75 young persons per quarter-year (aggregating to a total of 250 per year) in each jurisdiction we 

serve) at an average cost of under $2,500 per client, per year.* 

Thank you in advance for your support! 

* FYI: 

1. The national average cost to taxpayers for minimum-security youth incarceration, is around 

$43,000.00 per child, per year. 

2. The average annual cost to taxpayers for maximun-security youth incarceration is well over 

$148,000.00 per child, per year. 

- (US News and World Report, December 9, 2014); 

3. In every jurisdiction in the nation, the Plea Bargain rate is above 99%. 

The Judicial system engages in a tri-partite balancing task in every single one of these matters, seeking 

to balance Rehabilitative Justice with Community Protection and Judicial Economy, and, although 

the practitioners work very hard to achieve positive outcomes, the scales are nowhere near balanced 

where people of color are involved. 

We must reverse this trend, which is right now working very much against the best interests of our young. 

Our young people do not belong behind bars. 

- Jack Johnson 

1 

In addition to supporting our world-class programming and support services, all regular donors receive our Quarterly e-Newsletter 

(The e-Advocate), as well as The e-Advocate Quarterly Magazine. 


The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. 

Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities 

Achieve Their Full Potential 

…a collection of works on 

The Gift of 

Introversion 

“Turning the Improbable Into the Exceptional” 

Atlanta 

Philadelphia 

______ 

John C Johnson III 

Founder & CEO 

(878) 222-0450 

Voice | Data | SMS 

www.TheAdvocacy.Foundation 



Biblical Authority 

______ 

2 Timothy 1:7 (NIV) 7 For the Spirit God gave us does not make us timid, but gives us 

power, love and self-discipline. 

Joshua 1:9 9 Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid; do 

not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you go.” 

Isaiah 43:1 - Israel’s Only Savior 

1 

But now, this is what the Lord says—he who 

created you, Jacob, he who formed you, Israel: “Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have 

summoned you by name; you are mine. 

Psalm 27:14 14 Wait for the Lord; be strong and take heart and wait for the Lord. 

Romans 8:31 - More Than Conquerors 31 What, then, shall we say in response to 

these things? If God is for us,who can be against us? 

Hebrews 13:6 6 So we say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. 

What can mere mortals do to me?” 

Acts 1:8 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my 

witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” 

1 Peter 3:15 15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an 

answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hopethat you have. But do this with 

gentleness and respect, 



Table of Contents 

…a compilation of works on 

The Gift of 


Biblical Authority 

I. Introduction: Introversion ………………………………….. 15 

II. The Big Five Personality Traits……………………………. 21 

III. Myers-Briggs Indicators……………………………………. 53 

IV. Introversion vs. Extroversion………………………………. 77 

V. Social Anxiety……………………………………………….. 93 

VI. How to Thrive As An Introvert…………………………….. 101 

VII. The Gift of Introversion.…………………………………… 117 

VIII. Famous Introverts…………………………………………. 121 

IX. References…………………………………………………. 127 

______ 

Attachments 

A. Quiet Quiz: Are You An Introvert or An Extrovert? 

B. Introverts vs. Extroverts: Is There an IT Personality? 

C. The Power of Introverts: 9 Best-Loved Stories 

Copyright © 2018 The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 



I. Introduction 


Definition 

1 

Something (such as the retractile proboscis of some worms) that is or 

can be drawn in especially by invagination 

2 

One whose personality is characterized by introversion; especially : a 

reserved or shy person who enjoys spending time alone 

 

His research further shows that about 70% of top executives 

are introverts. 

o 

- Linda Grant 

________ 

What Are Common Introversion Traits? 

Learn about Introvert's Personality Traits 

by Kendra Cherry 

Updated April 30, 2018 

Introversion is one of the major personality traits identified in many theories of 

personality. People who are introverted tend to be inward turning, or focused more on 

internal thoughts, feelings and moods rather than seeking out external stimulation. 

Introversion is generally 

viewed as existing as part of a 

continuum along with extraversion. 

Introversion indicates 

one end of the scale, while 

extraversion 

represents the other end. 

An Overview of the 

Psychology of Introversion 

The terms introversion and 

extraversion 

were popularized through 

the work of Carl Jung and later 

became central parts of other prominent 

theories including the big 5 theory of 

personality. The introversion- 

extraversion dimension is also 

one of the four areas identified by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). 

According to many theories of personality, everyone has some degree of both 

introversion and extraversion. However, people often tend to lean one way or the other. 


Introverts tend to be more quiet, reserved, and introspective. Unlike extroverts who gain 

energy from social interaction, introverts have to expend energy in social situations. 

After attending a party or spending time in a large group of people, introverts often feel 

a need to "recharge" by spending a period of time alone. 

Common Introversion Traits 

Introversion is marked by a number of sub-traits: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very self-aware 

Thoughtful 

Enjoys understanding details 

Interested in self-knowledge and self-understanding 

Tends to keep emotions private 

Quiet and reserved in large groups or around unfamiliar people 

More sociable and gregarious around people they know well 

Learns well through observation 

How Does Introversion Influence Behavior? 

How does introversion impact behavior? 

One important thing to remember is that not all introverts are the same. Some people 

might be very introverted, others only a little, or somewhere in between. 

Some ways that introversion might influence behavior include the following: 

Introverts may have fewer, closer friends. 

Researchers have found that people high in this trait tend to have a smaller group of 

friends. While extroverts generally have a wide circle of friends and acquaintances, 

introverts typically choose their friends much more carefully. Their closest relationships 

tend to be profound and significant. They also prefer to interact with people on a oneon-one 

basis rather than in a large group setting. 

Introverts may be reserved, but it does not mean they are necessarily shy or 

socially anxious. 

It is important to note that introversion does not necessarily equate with shyness. In 

their book, The Development of Shyness and Social Withdrawal, authors Schmidt and 

Buss write, "Sociability refers to the motive, strong or weak, of wanting to be with others, 

whereas shyness refers to behavior when with others, inhibited or uninhibited, as well 

as feelings of tension and discomfort." 

Shyness indicates a fear of people or social situations. 


Introverts, on the other hand, often find interacting with other people draining. However, 

they do appreciate being around people to whom they are close. They find engaging in 

"small talk" tedious, but do enjoy having deep, meaningful conversations. 

Introverts tend to think about things before talking. 

They want to have a full understanding of a concept before they voice an opinion or try 

to offer an explanation. While extroverts typically learn through trial and error, introverts 

learn best through observation. 

Myths and Misconceptions About Introversion 

In an excellent article in Atlantic Monthly, author Jonathan Rauch took on some of the 

common myths and misconceptions about introverts. 

While introverts are often labeled as shy, aloof, and arrogant, Rauch explains that these 

perceptions result from the failure of extroverts to understand how introverts function. 

"Extr[a]verts have little or no grasp of introversion," Rauch suggests. "They assume that 

company, especially their own, is always welcome. They cannot imagine why someone 


would need to be alone; indeed, they often take umbrage at the suggestion. As often as 

I have tried to explain the matter to extr[a]verts, I have never sensed that any of them 

really understood." 

According to estimates, extraverts outnumber introverts by about three to one. Introverts 

often find that other people try to change them or even suggest that there is something 

"wrong" with them. Nothing could be further from the truth. While introverts make up a 

smaller portion of the population, there is no right or wrong personality type. Instead, 

both introverts and extroverts should strive to understand each other's differences and 

similarities. 

As you might imagine, jobs that require a great deal of social interaction usually hold 

little appeal to people high in introversion. On the other hand, careers that involve 

working independently are often a great choice for introverts. For example, an introvert 

might enjoy working as a writer, accountant, computer programmer, graphic designer, 

pharmacist, or artist. 

________ 

So Apparently There Are 4 Kinds of Introversion 

by Melissa Dahl 

Introversion, thanks largely to Susan Cain's 2012 best seller Quiet, is having something 

of a cultural moment. Once a mostly misunderstood personality trait — and often 

considered a behavioral defect when it was considered at all — it's now the subject of 

countless other books and online listicles (and, more recently, parodies of listicles). And 

as more regular, non-scientist types started to talk about introversion, psychologist 

Jonathan Cheek began to notice something: The way many introverts defined the trait 

was different from the way he and most of his academic colleagues did. 

"When you survey a person on the street, asking them to define introversion, what comes 

up as the prototypical characteristics are things like thoughtful or introspective," 

said Cheek, a psychology professor at Wellesley College. And yet neither of these 

things are part of the definition of the trait according to scientific literature. In the bulk of 

the research on personality psychology, introversion is usually defined by what it 

is not: extroversion. If extroverts are assertive and enthusiastic individuals who thrive in 

highly stimulative social environments, then introverts are the opposite. End of list. What 

introverts think about it doesn't really factor in. 

This is actually a problem that was identified at least as early as 1980, when 

one study found that the "scientific" and "common-sense" definitions of introversion 

didn't quite match up. And the more Cheek and his colleagues, including graduate 

students Jennifer Grimes and Courtney Brown, thought about it, and the more selfdescribed 

introverts they interviewed, the less correct this one-size-fits-all definition 

seemed. There's not just one way to be an introvert, Cheek now argues — rather, there 


are four shades of introversion: social, thinking, anxious, and restrained. And many 

introverts are a mix of all four types, rather than demonstrating one type over the others. 

(Scroll to the bottom for a quiz to find out your own type.) 

Taken together, the first letter of the four types spells out STAR, which is what Cheek 

named his model. He designed it by surveying about 500 adults, ranging in age from 18 

to 70, asking them about things like their preference for solitude, or how inclined they 

are to daydream. The uniting principle of all four kinds is, of course, a tendency to turn 

inward rather than outward — but beyond that, it gets more complicated. 

Here's a brief description of each: 

Social: Social introversion is the closest to the commonly held understanding of 

introversion, in that it's a preference for socializing with small groups instead of large 

ones. Or sometimes, it's a preference for no group at all — solitude is often preferable 

for those who score high in social introversion. "They prefer to stay home with a book or 

a computer, or to stick to small gatherings with close friends, as opposed to attending 

large parties with many strangers," Cheek said. But it's different from shyness, in that 

there's no anxiety driving the preference for solitude or small groups. 

Thinking; Thinking introversion is a newer concept. People with high levels of thinking 

introversion don't share the aversion to social events people usually associate with 

introversion. Instead, they're introspective, thoughtful, and self-reflective. "You're 

capable of getting lost in an internal fantasy world," Cheek said. "But it's not in a 

neurotic way, it's in an imaginative and creative way." Think the dreamily imaginative 


Luna Lovegood, not the socially awkward Neville Longbottom, Cheek said, putting it 

into Harry Potter terms I, for one, am deeply familiar with. 

Anxious: Unlike social introverts, anxious introverts may seek out solitude because 

they feel awkward and painfully self-conscious around other people, because they're not 

very confident in their own social skills. But, often, their anxiety doesn't fade when 

they're all alone. This kind of introversion is defined by a tendency to ruminate, to turn 

over and over in their minds the things that might or could or already have gone terribly 

wrong. 

Restrained: Another word for this one is reserved. Restrained introverts sometimes 

seem to operate at a slightly slower pace, preferring to think before they speak or act. 

They also might take a while to get going — they can't, for instance, wake up and 

immediately spring into action. Haruki Murakami's What I Talk About When I Talk About 

Running contains a passage that I think neatly illustrates the restrained introverts, when 

he discusses how it takes his muscles a while to warm up when he starts to run. "When 

I put on my jogging shoes in the morning and set out, my feet are so heavy it feels like 

I'll never get them moving," he writes. He says it's the way his mind works, too: slow to 

get going. Murakami, I would bet, is a restrained introvert. 

So far, Cheek's model of the "four meanings of introversion" is just a working paper. But 

many psychologists I spoke to, such as Scott Barry Kaufman, scientific director of the 

Imagination Institute at UPenn's Positive Psychology Center, think it's an important step 

forward in expanding the meaning of introversion. "I do think it's best to talk about 

different types of introversion rather than lump all of its aspects together under a single 

umbrella," he said. Kaufman has written about Cheek's model for Scientific American, 

and also used it as part of a basis for a new test measuring introversion for the Quiet 

Revolution, a kind of for-introverts/by-introverts website launched earlier this month 

by Quiet author Susan Cain. "Even people who do understand introversion still imagine 

that it's really just about, Would you rather be on your own or with a close friend?" Cain 

told me. "In fact, there's so much more than that." 

Instead of working to correct the public's perception of the word, Cheek is essentially 

seeking to transform the way personality scientists think of the trait, by expanding the 

definition. "Many people do not feel identified or understood just by the 

label introversion as it's used in the culture or by psychologists. It doesn't do the job — it 

helps a little bit, but it just doesn't get you very far," Cheek said. "It turns out to be more 

of a beginning." 


II. The Big Five Personality Traits 

The Big Five personality traits, also known as the five factor model (FFM), is a 

model based on common language descriptors of personality. When factor analysis (a 

statistical technique) is applied to personality survey data, some words used to describe 

aspects of personality are often applied to the same person. For example, someone 

described as conscientious is more likely to be described as "always prepared" rather 

than "messy". This theory is based therefore on the association between words but not 

on neuropsychological experiments. This theory uses descriptors of common language 

and therefore suggests five broad dimensions commonly used to describe the 

human personality and psyche. The five factors have been defined as openness to 

experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism, often 

represented by the acronyms OCEAN or CANOE. Beneath each proposed global 

factor, there are a number of correlated and more specific primary factors. For example, 

extraversion is said to include such related qualities as gregariousness, assertiveness, 

excitement seeking, warmth, activity, and positive emotions. 

That these underlying factors can be found is consistent with the lexical hypothesis: 

personality characteristics that are most important in peoples' lives will eventually 

become a part of their language and, secondly, that more important personality 

characteristics are more likely to be encoded into language as a single word. 

The five factors are: 


Openness to Experience (Inventive/Curious vs. Consistent/Cautious): 

Appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, curiosity, and variety of 

experience. Openness reflects the degree of intellectual curiosity, creativity and a 

preference for novelty and variety a person has. It is also described as the extent 

to which a person is imaginative or independent and depicts a personal 

preference for a variety of activities over a strict routine. High openness can be 

perceived as unpredictability or lack of focus, and more likely to engage in risky 

behaviour or drug taking. Also, individuals that have high openness tend to lean 

towards being artists or writers in regards to being creative and appreciate of the 

significance of the intellectual and artistic pursuits. Moreover, individuals with 

high openness are said to pursue self-actualization specifically by seeking out 

intense, euphoric experiences. Conversely, those with low openness seek to gain 

fulfillment through perseverance and are characterized as pragmatic and datadriven—sometimes 

even perceived to be dogmatic and closed-minded. Some 

disagreement remains about how to interpret and contextualize the openness 

factor. 

[clarification needed] 

 

Conscientiousness (Efficient/Organized vs. Easy-Going/Careless): 

A tendency to be organized and dependable, show self-discipline, act dutifully, 

aim for achievement, and prefer planned rather than spontaneous behavior. High 

conscientiousness is often perceived as stubbornness and obsession. Low 

conscientiousness is associated with flexibility and spontaneity, but can also 

appear as sloppiness and lack of reliability. 

 

Extraversion (Outgoing/Energetic vs. Solitary/Reserved): 

Energy, positive emotions, surgency, assertiveness, sociability and the tendency 

to seek stimulation in the company of others, and talkativeness. High 

extraversion is often perceived as attention-seeking and domineering. Low 

extraversion causes a reserved, reflective personality, which can be perceived as 

aloof or self-absorbed. Extroverted people tend to be more dominant in social 

settings, opposed to introverted people who may act more shy and reserved in 

this setting. 

 

Agreeableness (Friendly/Compassionate vs. Challenging/Detached): 

A tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather 

than suspicious and antagonistic towards others. It is also a measure of one's 

trusting and helpful nature, and whether a person is generally well-tempered or 

not. High agreeableness is often seen as naive or submissive. Low 

agreeableness personalities are often competitive or challenging people, which 

can be seen as argumentative or untrustworthy. [6] 

 

Neuroticism (Sensitive/Nervous vs. Secure/Confident): 


Neuroticism identifies certain people who are more prone to psychological 

stress. The tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such 

as anger, anxiety, depression, and vulnerability. Neuroticism also refers to the 

degree of emotional stability and impulse control and is sometimes referred to by 

its low pole, "emotional stability". A high stability manifests itself as a stable and 

calm personality, but can be seen as uninspiring and unconcerned. A low stability 

expresses as a reactive and excitable personality, often very dynamic individuals, 

but they can be perceived as unstable or insecure. It has also been researched 

that individuals with higher levels of tested neuroticism tend to have worse 

psychological well being. 

People who do not exhibit a clear tendency 

specific characteristics chosen from the abovementioned 

related pairs in all five dimensions are 

considered adaptable, moderate and 

towards 

reasonable personalities, but can be perceived as unprincipled, inscrutable and 

calculating. 

Overview 

The Big Five personality traits was the model to comprehend the relationship between 

personality and academic behaviors. This model was defined by several independent 

sets of researchers. These researchers began by studying relationships between a 

large number of known personality traits. They reduced the lists of these traits 

(arbitrarily) by 5–10 fold and then used factor analysis to group the remaining traits 

(using data mostly based upon people's estimations, in self-report questionnaire and 

peer ratings) in order to find the underlying factors of personality. 

The initial model was advanced by Ernest Tupes and Raymond Christal in 1961, but 

failed to reach an academic audience until the 1980s. In 1990, J.M. Digman advanced 

his five-factor model of personality, which Lewis Goldberg extended to the highest level 


of organization. These five overarching domains have been found to contain and 

subsume most known personality traits and are assumed to represent the basic 

structure behind all personality traits. 

At least four sets of researchers have worked independently for decades on this 

problem and have identified generally the same five factors: Tupes and Christal were 

first, followed by Goldberg at the Oregon Research Institute, Cattell at the University of 

Illinois, and Costa and McCrae at the National Institutes of Health. These four sets of 

researchers used somewhat different methods in finding the five traits, and thus each 

set of five factors has somewhat different names and definitions. However, all have 

been found to be highly inter-correlated and factor-analytically aligned. Studies indicate 

that the Big Five traits are not nearly as powerful in predicting and explaining actual 

behavior as are the more numerous facets or primary traits. 

Each of the Big Five personality traits contains two separate, but correlated, aspects 

reflecting a level of personality below the broad domains but above the many facet 

scales that are also part of the Big Five. The aspects are labeled as follows: Volatility 

and Withdrawal for Neuroticism; Enthusiasm and Assertiveness for Extraversion; 

Intellect and Openness for Openness to Experience; Industriousness and Orderliness 

for Conscientiousness; and Compassion and Politeness for Agreeableness. 

Openness to Experience 

Descriptions of The Particular Personality Traits 

Openness is a general appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, 

imagination, curiosity, and variety of experience. People who are open to experience 

are intellectually curious, open to emotion, sensitive to beauty and willing to try new 

things. They tend to be, when compared to closed people, more creative and more 

aware of their feelings. They are also more likely to hold unconventional beliefs. 

A particular individual, however, may have a high overall openness score and be 

interested in learning and exploring new cultures but have no great interest in art or 

poetry. 

Sample Items 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have excellent ideas. 

I am quick to understand things. 

I use difficult words. 

I am full of ideas. 

I am not interested in abstractions. (reversed) 

I do not have a good imagination. (reversed) 

I have difficulty understanding abstract ideas. (reversed) 

Conscientiousness 


Conscientiousness is a tendency to display self-discipline, act dutifully, and strive for 

achievement against measures or outside expectations. It is related to the way in which 

people control, regulate, and direct their impulses. High scores on conscientiousness 

indicate a preference for planned rather than spontaneous behavior. The average level 

of conscientiousness rises among young adults and then declines among older adults. 

Sample Items 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am always prepared. 

I pay attention to details. 

I get chores done right away. 

I like order. 

I follow a schedule. 

I am exacting in my work. 

I leave my belongings around. (reversed) 

I make a mess of things. (reversed) 

I often forget to put things back in their proper place. (reversed) 

I shirk my duties. (reversed) 

Extraversion 

Extraversion is characterized by breadth of activities (as opposed to 

depth), surgency from external activity/situations, and energy creation from external 


means. The trait is marked by pronounced engagement with the external world. 

Extraverts enjoy interacting with people, and are often perceived as full of energy. They 

tend to be enthusiastic, action-oriented individuals. They possess high group visibility, 

like to talk, and assert themselves. 

Introverts have lower social engagement and energy levels than extraverts. They tend 

to seem quiet, low-key, deliberate, and less involved in the social world. Their lack of 

social involvement should not be interpreted as shyness or depression; instead they are 

more independent of their social world than extraverts. Introverts need less stimulation 

than extraverts and more time alone. This does not mean that they are unfriendly or 

antisocial; rather, they are reserved in social situations. 

Generally, people are a combination of extraversion and introversion, with personality 

psychologist Eysenck suggesting that these traits are connected somehow to our 

central nervous system 

Sample Items 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am the life of the party. 

I don't mind being the center of attention. 

I feel comfortable around people. 

I start conversations. 

I talk to a lot of different people at parties. 

I don't talk a lot. (reversed) 

I think a lot before I speak or act. (reversed) 

I don't like to draw attention to myself. (reversed) 

I am quiet around strangers. (reversed) 

I have no intention of talking in large crowds. (reversed) 

Agreeableness 

The agreeableness trait reflects individual differences in general concern for social 

harmony. Agreeable individuals value getting along with others. They are generally 

considerate, kind, generous, trusting and trustworthy, helpful, and willing to compromise 

their interests with others. Agreeable people also have an optimistic view of human 

nature. 

Disagreeable individuals place self-interest above getting along with others. They are 

generally unconcerned with others' well-being, and are less likely to extend themselves 

for other people. Sometimes their skepticism about others' motives causes them to be 

suspicious, unfriendly, and uncooperative. 

Because agreeableness is a social trait, research has shown that one's agreeableness 

positively correlates with the quality of relationships with one's team members. 

Agreeableness also positively predicts transformational leadership skills. In a study 

conducted among 169 participants in leadership positions in a variety of professions, 


individuals were asked to take a personality test and have two evaluations completed by 

directly supervised subordinates. Leaders with high levels of agreeableness were more 

likely to be considered transformational rather than transactional. Although the 

relationship was not strong, (r=0.32, β=0.28, p

Neuroticism 

Neuroticism is the tendency to experience negative emotions, such as anger, anxiety, or 

depression. It is sometimes called emotional instability, or is reversed and referred to as 

emotional stability. According to Eysenck's (1967) theory of personality, neuroticism is 

interlinked with low tolerance for stress or aversive stimuli. Neuroticism is a classic 

temperament trait that has been studied in temperament research for decades, before it 

was adapted by the FFM. Since main properties of temperament traits are stability in life 

time and its neurophysiological basis, the FFM researchers used these properties of 

Neuroticism to support their model. Those who score high in neuroticism are 

emotionally reactive and vulnerable to stress, they also tend to be flippant in the way 

they express emotion. They are more likely to interpret ordinary situations as 

threatening, and minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. Their negative emotional 

reactions tend to persist for unusually long periods of time, which means they are often 

in a bad mood. For instance, neuroticism is connected to a pessimistic approach toward 

work, confidence that work impedes personal relationships, and apparent anxiety linked 

with work. Furthermore, those who score high on neuroticism may display more skinconductance 

reactivity than those who score low on neuroticism. These problems in 

emotional regulation can diminish the ability of a person scoring high on neuroticism to 

think clearly, make decisions, and cope effectively with stress. Lacking contentment in 

one's life achievements can correlate with high neuroticism scores and increase one's 

likelihood of falling into clinical depression. Moreover, individuals high in neuroticism 

tend to experience more negative life events, but neuroticism also changes in response 

to positive and negative life experiences. 

At the other end of the scale, individuals who score low in neuroticism are less easily 

upset and are less emotionally reactive. They tend to be calm, emotionally stable, and 

free from persistent negative feelings. Freedom from negative feelings does not mean 

that low-scorers experience a lot of positive feelings. 

Neuroticism is similar but not identical to being neurotic in the Freudian sense 

(i.e., neurosis.) Some psychologists prefer to call neuroticism by the term emotional 

instability to differentiate it from the term neurotic in a career test. 

Sample items 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I get irritated easily. 

I get stressed out easily. 

I get upset easily. 

I have frequent mood swings. 

I worry about things. 

I am much more anxious than most people. 

I am relaxed most of the time. (reversed) 

I seldom feel blue. (reversed) 

History 


Early Trait Research 

In 1884, Sir Francis Galton was the first person who is known to have investigated the 

hypothesis that it is possible to derive a comprehensive taxonomy of human personality 

traits by sampling language: the lexical hypothesis. In 1936, Gordon Allport and S. 

Odbert put Sir Francis Galton's hypothesis into practice by extracting 4,504 adjectives 

which they believed were descriptive of observable and relatively permanent traits from 

the dictionaries at that time. In 1940, Raymond Cattell retained the adjectives, and 

eliminated synonyms to reduce the total to 171. He constructed a self-report instrument 

for the clusters of personality traits he found from the adjectives, which he called 

the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Based on a subset of only 20 of the 36 

dimensions that Cattell had originally discovered, Ernest Tupes and Raymond Christal 

claimed to have found just five broad factors which they labeled: "surgency", 

"agreeableness", "dependability", "emotional stability", and "culture". Warren Norman 

subsequently relabeled "dependability" as "conscientiousness". 

Hiatus in Research 

For the next two decades, the changing zeitgeist made publication of personality 

research difficult. In his 1968 book Personality and Assessment, Walter 


Mischel asserted that personality instruments could not predict behavior with 

a correlation of more than 0.3. Social psychologists like Mischel argued that attitudes 

and behavior were not stable, but varied with the situation. Predicting behavior from 

personality instruments was claimed to be impossible. However, it has subsequently 

been demonstrated empirically that the magnitude of the predictive correlations with 

real-life criteria can increase significantly under stressful emotional conditions (as 

opposed to the typical administration of personality measures under neutral emotional 

conditions), thereby accounting for a significantly greater proportion of the predictive 

variance. 

In addition, emerging methodologies challenged this point of view during the 1980s. 

Instead of trying to predict single instances of behavior, which was unreliable, 

researchers found that they could predict patterns of behavior by aggregating large 

numbers of observations. As a result, correlations between personality and behavior 

increased substantially, and it was clear that "personality" did in fact exist. Personality 

and social psychologists now generally agree that both personal and situational 

variables are needed to account for human behavior. Trait theories became justified, 

and there was a resurgence of interest in this area. In the 1980s, Lewis Goldberg 

started his own lexical project, emphasizing five broad factors once again. He later 

coined the term "Big Five" as a label for the factors. 

Renewed Attention 

In a 1980 symposium in Honolulu, four prominent researchers, Lewis Goldberg, Naomi 

Takemoto-Chock, Andrew Comrey, and John M. Digman, reviewed the available 

personality instruments of the day. This event was followed by widespread acceptance 

of the five-factor model among personality researchers during the 1980s. Peter 

Saville and his team included the five-factor "Pentagon" model with the original OPQ in 

1984. Pentagon was closely followed by the NEO five-factor personality inventory, 

published by Costa and McCrae in 1985. However, the methodology employed in 

constructing the NEO instrument has been subjected to critical scrutiny (see section 

below). 

Temperament vs. Personality 

Biological and Developmental Factors 

There are debates between researchers of temperament and researchers 

of personality as to whether or not biologically-based differences define a concept of 

temperament or a part of personality. The presence of such differences in pre-cultural 

individuals (such as animals or young infants) suggests that they belong to 

temperament since personality is a socio-cultural concept. For this reason 

developmental psychologists generally interpret individual differences in children as an 

expression of temperament rather than personality. Some researchers argue that 

temperaments and personality traits are age-specific manifestations of virtually the 

same latent qualities. Some believe that early childhood temperaments may become 


adolescent and adult personality traits as individuals' basic genetic characteristics 

actively, reactively, and passively interact with their changing environments. 

Researchers of adult temperament point out that, similarly to sex, age and mental 

illness, temperament is based on biochemical systems whereas personality is a product 

of socialization of an individual possessing these four types of features. Temperament 

interacts with social-cultural factors, but still cannot be controlled or easily changed by 

these factors. Therefore, it is suggested that temperament should be kept as an 

independent concept for further studies and not be conflated with personality. Moreover, 

temperament refers to dynamical features of behaviour (energetic, tempo, sensitivity 

and emotionality-related), whereas personality is to be considered a psycho-social 

construct comprising the content characteristics of human behavior (such as values, 

attitudes, habits, preferences, personal history, self-image). Temperament researchers 

point out that the lack of attention to extant temperament research by the developers of 

the Big Five model lead to an overlap between its dimensions and dimensions 

described in multiple temperament models much earlier. 

For example, neuroticism reflects the traditional temperament dimension of 

emotionality, extraversion the temperament dimension of "energy" or "activity", and 

openness to experience the temperament dimension of sensation-seeking. 


Heritability 

Personality research conducted on twin subjects suggests that both heritable and 

environmental factors contribute to the Big Five personality traits. 

Genetically informative research, including twin studies, suggest that heritability and 

environmental factors both influence all five factors to the same degree. Among four 

recent twin studies, the mean percentage for heritability was calculated for each 

personality and it was concluded that heritability influenced the five factors broadly. The 

self-report measures were as follows: openness to experience was estimated to have a 

57% genetic influence, extraversion 54%, conscientiousness 49%, neuroticism 48%, 

and agreeableness 42%. 

Non-Humans 

The Big 5 personality traits can be seen in chimpanzees. 

The Big Five personality traits have been assessed in some non-human species but 

methodology is debatable. In one series of studies, human ratings 

of chimpanzees using the Hominoid Personality Questionnaire, revealed factors of 

extraversion, conscientiousness and agreeableness – as well as an additional factor of 

dominance – across hundreds of chimpanzees in zoological parks, a large naturalistic 

sanctuary, and a research laboratory. Neuroticism and openness factors were found in 

an original zoo sample, but were not replicated in a new zoo sample or in other settings 

(perhaps reflecting the design of the CPQ). A study review found that markers for the 

three dimensions extraversion, neuroticism, and agreeableness were found most 

consistently across different species, followed by openness; only chimpanzees showed 

markers for conscientious behavior. 

Development During Childhood and Adolescence 

Research on the Big Five, and personality in general, has focused primarily on 

individual differences in adulthood, rather than in childhood and adolescence, and often 

include temperament traits. Recently, there has been growing recognition of the need to 

study child and adolescent personality trait development in order to understand how 

traits develop and change throughout the lifespan. 

Recent studies have begun to explore the developmental origins and trajectories of the 

Big Five among children and adolescents, especially those that relate to 

temperament. Many researchers have sought to distinguish between personality and 

temperament. Temperament often refers to early behavioral and affective 

characteristics that are thought to be driven primarily by genes. Models of temperament 

often include four trait dimensions: surgency/ sociability, negative emotionality, 

persistence/effortful control, and activity level. Some of these differences in 

temperament are evident at, if not before, birth. For example, both parents and 

researchers recognize that some newborn infants are peaceful and easily soothed while 


others are comparatively fussy and hard to calm. Unlike temperament, however, many 

researchers view the development of personality as gradually occurring throughout 

childhood. Contrary to some researchers who question whether children have stable 

personality traits, Big Five or otherwise, most researchers contend that there are 

significant psychological differences between children that are associated with relatively 

stable, distinct, and salient behavior patterns. 

The structure, manifestations, and development of the Big Five in childhood and 

adolescence has been studied using a variety of methods, including parent- and 

teacher-ratings, preadolescent and adolescent self- and peer-ratings, and observations 

of parent-child interactions. Results from these studies support the relative stability of 

personality traits across the human lifespan, at least from preschool age through 

adulthood. More specifically, research suggests that four of the Big Five –namely 

Extraversion, Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness- reliably describe 

personality differences in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. However, some 

evidence suggests that Openness may not be a fundamental, stable part of childhood 

personality. Although some researchers have found that Openness in children and 

adolescents relates to attributes such as creativity, curiosity, imagination, and 

intellect, many researchers have failed to find distinct individual differences in Openness 

in childhood and early adolescence. Potentially, Openness may (a) manifest in unique, 

currently unknown ways in childhood or (b) may only manifest as children develop 

socially and cognitively. Other studies have found evidence for all of the Big Five traits 

in childhood and adolescence as well as two other child-specific traits: Irritability and 

Activity. Despite these specific differences, the majority of findings suggest that 

personality traits –particularly Extraversion, Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, and 


Agreeableness- are evident in childhood and adolescence and are associated with 

distinct social-emotional patterns of behavior that are largely consistent with adult 

manifestations of those same personality traits. Some researchers have proposed the 

youth personality trait is best described by six trait dimensions: neuroticism, 

extroversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and 

activity. Despite some preliminary evidence for this “Little Six” model, research in this 

area has been delayed by a lack of available measures. 

Previous research has found evidence that most adults become more agreeable, 

conscientious, and less neurotic as they age. This has been referred to as 

the maturation effect. Many researchers have sought to investigate how trends in adult 

personality development compare to trends in youth personality development. Two main 

population-level indices have been important in this area of research: rank-order 

consistency and mean-level consistency. Rank-order consistency indicates the relative 

placement of individuals within a group. Mean-level consistency indicates whether 

groups increase or decrease on certain traits throughout the lifetime. 

Findings from these studies indicate that, consistent with adult personality trends, youth 

personality becomes increasingly more stable in terms of rank-order throughout 

childhood. Unlike adult personality research, which indicates that people become 

agreeable, conscientious, and emotionally stable with age, some findings in youth 

personality research have indicated that mean-levels of agreeableness, 

conscientiousness, and openness to experience decline from late childhood to late 

adolescence. The disruption hypothesis, which proposes that biological, social, and 

psychological changes experienced during youth result in temporary dips in maturity, 

has been proposed to explain these findings. 

Extraversion/Positive Emotionality 

In Big Five studies, extraversion has been associated with surgency. Children with high 

Extraversion are energetic, talkative, social, and dominant with children and adults; 

whereas, children with low Extraversion tend to be quiet, calm, inhibited, and 

submissive to other children and adults. Individual differences in Extraversion first 

manifest in infancy as varying levels of positive emotionality. These differences in turn 

predict social and physical activity during later childhood and may represent, or be 

associated with, the behavioral activation system. In children, Extraversion/Positive 

Emotionality includes four sub-traits: three traits that are similar to the previously 

described traits of temperament – activity, sociability, shyness, and the trait 

of dominance. 

 

Activity: Similarly to findings in temperament research, children with high activity 

tend to have high energy levels and more intense and frequent motor activity 

compared to their peers. Salient differences in activity reliably manifest in 

infancy, persist through adolescence, and fade as motor activity decreases in 

adulthood or potentially develops into talkativeness. 


Dominance: Children with high dominance tend to influence the behavior of 

others, particularly their peers, to obtain desirable rewards or outcomes. Such 

children are generally skilled at organizing activities and games and deceiving 

others by controlling their nonverbal behavior. 

Shyness: Children with high shyness are generally socially withdrawn, nervous, 

and inhibited around strangers. In time, such children may become fearful even 

around "known others", especially if their peers reject them. Similar pattern was 

described in temperament longitudinal studies of shyness 

Sociability: Children with high sociability generally prefer to be with others rather 

than alone. During middle childhood, the distinction between low sociability and 

high shyness becomes more pronounced, particularly as children gain greater 

control over how and where they spend their time. 

Development 

Throughout 

Adulthood 

Many studies 

of longitudinal data, 

which correlate 

people's test scores 

over time, and crosssectional 

data, which 

compare personality 

levels across different 

age groups, show a 

high degree of stability 

in personality traits 

during adulthood, 

especially Neuroticism 

trait that is often 

regarded as a 

temperament 

trait similarly to 

longitudinal research 

in temperament for the 

same traits. It is 

shown that the 

personality stabilizes 

for working-age 

individuals within about four years after starting working. There is also little evidence 

that adverse life events can have any significant impact on the personality of 

individuals. More recent research and meta-analyses of previous studies, however, 

indicate that change occurs in all five traits at various points in the lifespan. The new 


esearch shows evidence for a maturation effect. On average, levels of agreeableness 

and conscientiousness typically increase with time, whereas extraversion, neuroticism, 

and openness tend to decrease. Research has also demonstrated that changes in Big 

Five personality traits depend on the individual's current stage of development. For 

example, levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness demonstrate a negative trend 

during childhood and early adolescence before trending upwards during late 

adolescence and into adulthood. In addition to these group effects, there are individual 

differences: different people demonstrate unique patterns of change at all stages of life. 

In addition, some research (Fleeson, 2001) suggests that the Big Five should not be 

conceived of as dichotomies (such as extraversion vs. introversion) but as continua. 

Each individual has the capacity to move along each dimension as circumstances 

(social or temporal) change. He is or she is therefore not simply on one end of each trait 

dichotomy but is a blend of both, exhibiting some characteristics more often than others: 

Research regarding personality with growing age has suggested that as individuals 

enter their elder years (79–86), those with lower IQ see a raise in extraversion, but a 

decline in conscientiousness and physical well being. 

Research by Cobb-Clark and Schurer indicates that personality traits are generally 

stable among adult workers. The research done on personality also mirrors previous 

results on locus of control. 

Gender Differences 

Group Differences 

Cross-cultural research has shown some patterns of gender differences on responses 

to the NEO-PI-R and the Big Five Inventory. For example, women consistently report 

higher Neuroticism, Agreeableness, warmth (an extraversion facet) and openness to 

feelings, and men often report higher assertiveness (a facet of extraversion) and 

openness to ideas as assessed by the NEO-PI-R. 

A study of gender differences in 55 nations using the Big Five Inventory found that 

women tended to be somewhat higher than men in neuroticism, extraversion, 

agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The difference in neuroticism was the most 

prominent and consistent, with significant differences found in 49 of the 55 nations 

surveyed. Gender differences in personality traits are largest in prosperous, healthy, 

and more gender-egalitarian cultures. A plausible explanation for this is that acts by 

women in individualistic, egalitarian countries are more likely to be attributed to their 

personality, rather than being attributed to ascribed gender roles within collectivist, 

traditional countries. Differences in the magnitude of sex differences between more or 

less developed world regions were due to differences between men, not women, in 

these respective regions. That is, men in highly developed world regions were less 

neurotic, extraverted, conscientious and agreeable compared to men in less developed 

world regions. Women, on the other hand tended not to differ in personality traits across 


egions. The most simple explanation for this gender data is that women remain 

relatively resource-poor, regardless of the circumstances of males within a first-world 

country. However, the authors of this study speculated that resource-poor environments 

(that is, 

countries with 

low 

levels of 

development) 

may inhibit the 

development of gender 

differences, 

whereas 

resource- 

rich 

environments 

facilitate 

them. This may be because 

males require more resources than females 

in order to reach their full developmental potential. 

The authors also argued that due to different 

evolutionary pressures, men may 

have evolved to be 

more risk taking and 

socially dominant, whereas women 

evolved to be more cautious and 

nurturing. Ancient hunter-gatherer 

societies may have been more 

egalitarian than later agriculturally oriented societies. 

Hence, the development of gender inequalities may have 

acted to constrain the development of gender 

differences in personality that originally evolved in huntergatherer 

societies. As modern societies have become more 

egalitarian, again, it may be that 

innate sex differences are no longer 

constrained and hence manifest more fully than in 

less-developed cultures. Currently, this hypothesis 

remains untested, as gender differences in modern societies have not been compared 

with those in hunter-gatherer societies. 

Birth-Order Differences 

Frank Sulloway argues that firstborns are more conscientious, more socially dominant, 

less agreeable, and less open to new ideas compared to laterborns. Large-scale studies 


using random samples and self-report personality tests, however, have found milder 

effects than Sulloway claimed, or no significant effects of birth order on personality. 

In 2002, the journal of psychology posted a Big Five Personality Trait Difference; 

Researchers explored relationship between the five factor model and the Universal- 

Diverse Orientation (UDO) in councillor trainees. (Thompson, R., Brossart, D., and 

Mivielle, A., 2002) UDO is known as one social attitude that produces a strong 

awareness and/or acceptance towards the similaralities and difference among 

individuals. (Miville, M., Romas, J., Johnson, J., and Lon, R. 2002) 

The study has shown the councillor trainees that are more open to the idea of creative 

expressions among individuals are more likely to work with a diverse group of clients, 

and feel comfortable in their role. (Thompson, R. et al. 2002) 

Cultural Differences 

The Big Five have been pursued in a variety of languages and cultures, such as 

German, Chinese, Indian, etc. For example, Thompson has claimed to find the Big Five 

structure across several cultures using an international English language scale. 

Cheung, van de Vijver, and Leong (2011) suggest, however, that the Openness factor is 

particularly unsupported in Asian countries and that a different fifth factor is identified. 

Recent work has found relationships between Geert Hofstede's cultural factors, 

Individualism, Power Distance, Masculinity, and Uncertainty Avoidance, with the 

average Big Five scores in a country. For instance, the degree to which a country 

values individualism correlates with its average extraversion, whereas people living in 

cultures which are accepting of large inequalities in their power structures tend to score 

somewhat higher on conscientiousness. 

Personality differences around the world might even have contributed to the emergence 

of different political systems. A recent study has found that countries’ average 

personality trait levels are correlated with their political systems: countries with higher 

average trait Openness tended to have more democratic institutions, an association that 

held even after factoring out other relevant influences such as economic development. 

Attempts to replicate the Big Five in other countries with local dictionaries have 

succeeded in some countries but not in others. Apparently, for instance, Hungarians do 

not appear to have a single agreeableness factor. 

Other researchers have found evidence for agreeableness but not for other factors. It is 

important to recognize that individual differences in traits are relevant in a specific 

cultural context, and that the traits do not have their effects outside of that context 


Relationships 

Personality Disorders 

As of 2002, there were over fifty published studies relating the FFM to personality 

disorders. Since that time, quite a number of additional studies have expanded on this 

research base and provided further empirical support for understanding the DSM 

personality disorders in terms of the FFM domains. 

In her review of the personality 

disorder literature published in 

2007, Lee Anna Clark asserted that "the 

five-factor model of personality is widely 

accepted as representing the 

higher-order structure of both normal and 

abnormal personality traits". However, other 

researches disagree that this model is 

widely accepted (see the section 

Critique below) and suggest that it 

simply replicates early temperament 

research. Noticeably, FFM publications 

never compare their findings to 

temperament models even though temperament 

and mental 

disorders (especially 

personality disorders) are thought to be based on the 

same neurotransmitter imbalances, just to varying degrees. 

The five-factor model was claimed to significantly predict all ten personality disorder 

symptoms and outperform the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) in 

the prediction of borderline, avoidant, and dependent personality disorder 

symptoms. However, most predictions related to an increase in Neuroticism and a 

decrease in Agreeableness, and therefore did not differentiate between the disorders 

very well. 

Common Mental Disorders 

Average deviation of five factor personality profile of heroin users from the population 

mean. N stands for Neuroticism, E for Extraversion, O for Openness to experience, A 

for Agreeableness and C for Conscientiousness. 

Converging evidence from several nationally representative studies has established 

three classes of mental disorders which are especially common in the general 

population: Depressive disorders (e.g., major depressive disorder(MDD), dysthymic 

disorder), anxiety disorders (e.g., generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), post-traumatic 

stress disorder (PTSD), panic disorder, agoraphobia, specific phobia, and social 

phobia), [145] and substance use disorders (SUDs). 


These common mental disorders (CMDs) have been empirically linked to the Big Five 

personality traits, neuroticism in particular. Numerous studies have found that having 

high scores of neuroticism significantly increases one's risk for developing a CMD. A 

large-scale meta-analysis (n > 75,000) examining the relationship between all of the Big 

Five personality traits and CMDs found that low conscientiousness yielded consistently 

strong effects for each CMD examined (i.e., MDD, dysthymic disorder, GAD, PTSD, 

panic disorder, agoraphobia, social phobia, specific phobia, and SUD). This finding 

parallels research on physical health, which has established that conscientiousness is 

the strongest personality predictor of mortality and is highly correlated with making poor 

health choices. In regards to the other personality domains, the meta-analysis found 

that all CMDs examined were defined by high neuroticism, most exhibited low 

extraversion, only SUD was linked to agreeableness (negatively), and no disorders 

were associated with Openness. A meta-analysis of 59 longitudinal studies showed that 

high neuroticism predicted the development of anxiety, depression, substance abuse, 

psychosis, schizophrenia, and non-specific mental distress, also after adjustment for 

baseline symptoms and psychiatric history. 

The Personality-Psychopathology Models 

Five major models have been posed to explain the nature of the relationship between 

personality and mental illness. There is currently no single "best model", as each of 

them has received at least some empirical support. It is also important to note that these 

models are not mutually exclusive – more than one may be operating for a particular 

individual and various mental disorders may be explained by different models. 

 

 

 

 

The Vulnerability/Risk Model: According to this model, personality contributes 

to the onset or etiology of various common mental disorders. In other words, preexisting 

personality traits either cause the development of CMDs directly or 

enhance the impact of causal risk factors. There is strong support for neuroticism 

being a robust vulnerability factor. 

The Pathoplasty Model: This model proposes that premorbid personality traits 

impact the expression, course, severity, and/or treatment response of a mental 

disorder. An example of this relationship would be a heightened likelihood of 

committing suicide for a depressed individual who also has low levels of 

constraint. 

The Common Cause Model: According to the common cause model, 

personality traits are predictive of CMDs because personality and 

psychopathology have shared genetic and environmental determinants which 

result in non-causal associations between the two constructs. 

The Spectrum Model: This model proposes that associations between 

personality and psychopathology are found because these two constructs both 

occupy a single domain or spectrum and psychopathology is simply a display of 

the extremes of normal personality function. Support for this model is provided by 


an issue of criterion overlap. For instance, two of the primary facet scales of 

neuroticism in the NEO-PI-R are "depression" and "anxiety". Thus the fact that 

diagnostic criteria for depression, anxiety, and neuroticism assess the same 

content increases the correlations between these domains. 

 

The Scar Model: According to the scar model, episodes of a mental disorder 

'scar' an individual's personality, changing it in significant ways from premorbid 

functioning. An example of a scar effect would be a decrease in openness to 

experience following an episode of PTSD. 

Health 

Being highly conscientious may add as much as five years to one's life. The Big Five 

personality traits also predict positive health outcomes. In an elderly Japanese 

sample, conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness were related to lower risk of 

mortality. 

Academic Achievement 

Education 

Personality plays an important role that affects academic achievement. A study 

conducted with 308 undergraduates who completed the Five Factor Inventory 

Processes and offered their GPA suggested that conscientiousness and agreeableness 

have a positive relationship with all types of learning styles (synthesis analysis, 


methodical study, fact retention, and elaborative processing), whereas neuroticism has 

an inverse relationship with them all. Moreover, extraversion and openness were 

proportional to elaborative processing. The Big Five personality traits accounted for 

14% of the variance in GPA, suggesting that personality traits make some contributions 

to academic performance. Furthermore, reflective learning styles (synthesis-analysis 

and elaborative processing) were able to mediate the relationship between openness 

and GPA. These results indicate that intellectual curiousness has significant 

enhancement in academic performance if students can combine their scholarly interest 

with thoughtful information processing. 

A recent study of Israeli high-school students found that those in the gifted program 

systematically scored higher on openness and lower on neuroticism than those not in 

the gifted program. While not a measure of the Big Five, gifted students also reported 

less state anxiety than students not in the gifted program. Specific Big Five personality 

traits predict learning styles in addition to academic success. 

 

 

GPA and exam performance are both predicted by conscientiousness 

neuroticism is negatively related to academic success 

openness predicts utilizing synthesis-analysis and elaborative-processing 

learning styles 

neuroticism negatively correlates with learning styles in general 

 

openness and extraversion both predict all four learning styles. 

Studies conducted on college students have concluded that hope, which is linked to 

agreeableness, has a positive effect on psychological well being. Individuals high in 

neurotic tendencies are less likely to display hopeful tendencies and are negatively 

associated with well-being. Personality can sometimes be flexible and measuring the 

big five personality for individuals as they enter certain stages of life may predict their 

educational identity. Recent studies have suggested the likelihood of an individual's 

personality affecting their educational identity. 

Learning Styles 

Learning styles have been described as "enduring ways of thinking and processing 

information". 

Although there is no evidence that personality determines thinking styles, they may be 

intertwined in ways that link thinking styles to the Big Five personality traits. There is no 

general consensus on the number or specifications of particular learning styles, but 

there have been many different proposals. 

Smeck, Ribicj, and Ramanaih (1997) defined four types of learning styles: 


synthesis analysis 

methodical study 

fact retention 

elaborative processing 

When all four facets are implicated within the classroom, they will each likely improve 

academic achievement. This model asserts that students develop either agentic/shallow 

processing or reflective/deep processing. Deep processors are more often than not 

found to be more conscientious, intellectually open, and extraverted when compared to 

shallow processors. Deep processing is associated with appropriate study methods 

(methodical study) and a stronger ability to analyze information (synthesis analysis), 

whereas shallow processors prefer structured fact retention learning styles and are 

better suited for elaborative processing. The main functions of these four specific 

learning styles are as follows: 

Name 

Synthesis Analysis: 

Function 

processing information, forming 

categories, and organizing them into 

hierarchies. This is the only one of 

the learning styles that has explained 

a significant impact on academic 

performance. 

Methodical Study: 

methodical behavior while completing 

academic assignments 

Fact Retention: 

focusing on the actual result instead 

of understanding the logic behind 

something 

Elaborative Processing: 

connecting and applying new ideas to 

existing knowledge 

Openness has been linked to learning styles that often lead to academic success and 

higher grades like synthesis analysis and methodical study. Because conscientiousness 

and openness have been shown to predict all four learning styles, it suggests that 

individuals who possess characteristics like discipline, determination, and curiosity are 

more likely to engage in all of the above learning styles. 

According to the research carried out by Komarraju, Karau, Schmeck & Avdic (2011), 

conscientiousness and agreeableness are positively related with all four learning styles, 

whereas neuroticism was negatively related with those four. Furthermore, extraversion 

and openness were only positively related to elaborative processing, and openness 

itself correlated with higher academic achievement. 


Besides openness, all Big Five personality traits helped predict the educational identity 

of students. Based on these findings, scientists are beginning to see that there might be 

a large influence of the Big Five traits on academic motivation that then leads to 

predicting a student's academic performance. 

Some authors suggested that Big Five personality traits combined with learning styles 

can help predict some variations in the academic performance and the academic 

motivation of an individual which can then influence their academic achievements. This 

may be seen because individual differences in personality represent stable approaches 

to information processing. For instance, conscientiousness has consistently emerged as 

a stable predictor of success in exam performance, largely because conscientious 

students experience fewer study delays. The reason conscientiousness shows a 

positive association with the four learning styles is because students with high levels of 

conscientiousness develop focused learning strategies and appear to be more 

disciplined and achievement-oriented. 

The Association for Psychological Science (APS), however, recently commissioned a 

report whose conclusion indicates that no significant evidence exists to make the 

conclusion that learning-style assessments should be included in the education system. 

The APS also suggested in their report that all existing learning styles have not been 

exhausted and that there could exist learning styles that have the potential to be worthy 

of being included in educational practices. Thus it is premature, at best, to conclude that 

the evidence linking the Big Five to "learning styles", or "learning styles" to learning 

itself, is valid. 

Work Success 

Controversy exists as to whether or not the Big 5 personality traits are correlated with 

success in the workplace. 

Within organizational communication, personality is taken into account of how a person 

carries themselves in the workplace. The five factor personality theory encompasses 

five different personalities which are as follows: openness, conscientiousness, 

extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Openness is being original and having 

imagination. Conscientiousness is being goal oriented with a willingness to achieve. 

Extraversion is being sociable and being an emotionally positive person. Agreeableness 

is being able to adapt and as a leader make necessary accommodations. The last 

personality trait was neuroticism which is usually when a leader tends to be negative 

emotionally and having a need for stability. 

It is believed that the Big Five traits are predictors of future performance outcomes. Job 

outcome measures include job and training proficiency and personnel data. However, 

research demonstrating such prediction has been criticized, in part because of the 

apparently low correlation coefficients characterizing the relationship between 

personality and job performance. In a 2007 article co-authored by six current or former 

editors of psychological journals, Dr. Kevin Murphy, Professor of Psychology at 


Pennsylvania State University and Editor of the Journal of Applied Psychology (1996– 

2002), states: 

The problem with personality tests is ... that the validity of personality measures as 

predictors of job performance is often disappointingly low. The argument for using 

personality tests to predict performance does not strike me as convincing in the first 

place. 

Such criticisms were put forward by Walter Mischel, whose publication caused a twodecades' 

long crisis in personality psychometrics. However, later work demonstrated (1) 

that the correlations obtained by psychometric personality researchers were actually 

very respectable by comparative standards, and (2) that the economic value of even 

incremental increases in prediction accuracy was exceptionally large, given the vast 

difference in performance by those who occupy complex job positions. 

There have been studies that link national innovation to openness to experience and 

conscientiousness. Those who express these traits have showed leadership and 

beneficial ideas towards the country of origin. 

Some businesses, organizations, and interviewers assess individuals based on the Big 

Five personality traits. Research has suggested that individuals who are considered 

leaders typically exhibit lower amounts of neurotic traits, maintain higher levels of 

openness (envisioning success), balanced levels of conscientiousness (well-organized), 

and balanced levels of extraversion (outgoing, but not excessive). Further studies have 

linked professional burnout to neuroticism, and extraversion to enduring positive work 

experience. When it comes to making money, research has suggested that those who 

are high in agreeableness (especially men) are not as successful in accumulating 

income. 


Some research suggests that vocational outcomes are correlated to Big Five personality 

traits. Conscientiousness predicts job performance in general. In addition, research has 

demonstrated that Agreeableness is negatively related to salary. Those high 

in Agreeablenessmake less, on average, than those low in the same 

trait. Neuroticism is also negatively related to salary 

while Conscientiousness and Extraversion are positive predictors of 

salary. [184] Occupational self-efficacy has also been shown to be positively correlated 

with conscientiousness and negatively correlated with neuroticism. Significant predictors 

of career-advancement goals are: extraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness. 

Research designed to investigate the individual effects of Big Five personality traits on 

work performance via worker completed surveys and supervisor ratings of work 

performance has implicated individual traits in several different work roles 

performances. A "work role" is defined as the responsibilities an individual has while 

they are working. Nine work roles have been identified, which can be classified in three 

broader categories: proficiency (the ability of a worker to effectively perform their work 

duties), adaptivity (a workers ability to change working strategies in response to 

changing work environments), and proactivity (extent to which a worker will 

spontaneously put forth effort to change the work environment). These three categories 

of behavior can then be directed towards three different levels: either the individual, 

team, or organizational level leading to the nine different work role performance 

possibilities. 

 

 

 

 

 

Openness is positively related to proactivity at the individual and the 

organizational levels and is negatively related to team and organizational 

proficiency. These effects were found to be completely independent of one 

another. 

Agreeableness is negatively related to individual task proactivity. 

Extraversion is negatively related to individual task proficiency. 

Conscientiousness is positively related to all forms of work role performance. 

Neuroticism is negatively related to all forms of work role performance. 

Two theories have been integrated in an attempt to account for these differences in 

work role performance. Trait activation theory posits that within a person trait levels 

predict future behavior, that trait levels differ between people, and that work-related 

cues activate traits which leads to work relevant behaviors. Role theory suggests that 

role senders provide cues to elicit desired behaviors. In this context, role senders (i.e.: 

supervisors, managers, et cetera) provide workers with cues for expected behaviors, 

which in turn activates personality traits and work relevant behaviors. In essence, 

expectations of the role sender lead to different behavioral outcomes depending on the 

trait levels of individual workers and because people differ in trait levels, responses to 

these cues will not be universal. 


Romantic Relationships 

The Big Five model of personality was used for attempts to predict satisfaction in 

romantic relationships, relationship quality in dating, engaged, and married couples. 

Dating couples 

Self-reported relationship quality is negatively related to partnerreported 

neuroticism and positively related to both self and partnerreported 

conscientiousness 

Engaged couples 

 

 

 

 

Self-reported relationship quality was higher among those high in partnerreported 

openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness. 

Self-reported relationship quality was higher among those high in selfreported 

extraversion and agreeableness. 

Self-reported relationship quality is negatively related to both self and partnerreported 

neuroticism 

Observers rated the relationship quality higher if the participating partner's selfreported 

extraversion was high 


Married couples 

 

 

High self-reported neuroticism, extraversion, and agreeableness are related to 

high levels of self-reported relationship quality 

Partner-reported agreeableness is related to observed relationship quality. 

These reports are, however, rare and not conclusive. 

Limitation of The Predictive Power of Personality Traits 

The predictive effects of the Big Five personality traits relate mostly to social functioning 

and rules-driven behavior and are not very specific for prediction of particular aspects of 

behavior. For example, it was noted that high neuroticism precedes the development of 

all common mental disorders., and this trait does not even always attributed to 

personality by temperament researchers. Further evidence is required to fully uncover 

the nature and differences between personality traits, temperament and life outcomes. 

Social and contextual parameters also play a role in outcomes and the interaction 

between the two is not yet fully understood. 

Several measures of the Big Five exist: 

Measurements 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) 

NEO-PI-R 

The Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) and the Five Item Personality 

Inventory (FIPI) are very abbreviated rating forms of the Big Five personality 

traits. 

Self-descriptive sentence questionnaires 

Lexical questionnaires 

Self-report questionnaires 

Relative-scored Big 5 measure 

The most frequently used measures of the Big Five comprise either items that are selfdescriptive 

sentences or, in the case of lexical measures, items that are single 

adjectives. Due to the length of sentence-based and some lexical measures, short 

forms have been developed and validated for use in applied research settings where 

questionnaire space and respondent time are limited, such as the 40-item 

balanced International English Big-Five Mini-Markers or a very brief (10 item) measure 

of the Big Five domains. Research has suggested that some methodologies in 

administering personality tests are inadequate in length and provide insufficient detail to 

truly evaluate personality. Usually, longer, more detailed questions will give a more 

accurate portrayal of personality. The five factor structure has been replicated in peer 

reports. However, many of the substantive findings rely on self-reports. 


Much of the evidence on the measures of the Big 5 relies on self-report questionnaires, 

which makes self-report bias and falsification of responses difficult to deal with and 

account for. It has been argued that the Big Five tests do not create an accurate 

personality profile because the responses given on these tests are not true in all 

cases. For example, questionnaires are answered by potential employees who might 

choose answers that paint them in the best light. 

Research suggests that a relative-scored Big Five measure in which respondents had to 

make repeated choices between equally desirable personality descriptors may be a 

potential alternative to traditional Big Five measures in accurately assessing personality 

traits, especially when lying or biased responding is present. When compared with a 

traditional Big Five measure for its ability to predict GPA and creative achievement 

under both normal and "fake good"-bias response conditions, the relative-scored 

measure significantly and consistently predicted these outcomes under both conditions; 

however, the Likert questionnaire lost its predictive ability in the faking condition. Thus, 

the relative-scored measure proved to be less affected by biased responding than the 

Likert measure of the Big Five. 

Andrew H. Schwartz analyzed 700 million words, phrases, and topic instances collected 

from the Facebook messages of 75,000 volunteers, who also took standard personality 

tests, and found striking variations in language with personality, gender, and age. 

Critique 

The proposed Big Five model has been subjected to considerable critical scrutiny and 

defense for the model. 


Subsequent critical replies by Jack Block at the University of California Berkeley 

followed. It has been argued that there are limitations to the scope of the Big Five model 

as an explanatory or predictive theory. It has also been argued that measures of the Big 

Five account for only 56% of the normal personality trait sphere alone (not even 

considering the abnormal personality trait sphere). Also, the static Big Five is not theorydriven, 

it is merely a statistically-driven investigation of certain descriptors that tend to 

cluster together often based on less than optimal factor analytic procedures. Measures 

of the Big Five constructs appear to show some consistency in interviews, selfdescriptions 

and observations, and this static five-factor structure seems to be found 

across a wide range of participants of different ages and cultures. However, while 

genotypic temperament trait dimensions might appear across different cultures, the 

phenotypic expression of personality traits differs profoundly across different cultures as 

a function of the different socio-cultural conditioning and experiential learning that takes 

place within different cultural settings. 

Moreover, the fact that the Big Five model was based on lexical hypothesis, (i.e. on the 

verbal descriptors of individual differences) indicated strong methodological flaws in this 

model, especially related to its main factors, Extraversion and Neuroticism. First, there 

is a natural pro-social bias of language in people's verbal evaluations. After all, 

language is an invention of group dynamics that was developed to facilitate 

socialization, the exchange of information and to synchronize group activity. This social 

function of language therefore creates a sociability bias in verbal descriptors of human 

behaviour: there are more words related to social than physical or even mental aspects 

of behavior. The sheer number of such descriptors will cause them to group into a 

largest factor in any language, and such grouping has nothing to do with the way that 

core systems of individual differences are set up. Second, there is also a negativity bias 

in emotionality (i.e. most emotions have negative affectivity), and there are more words 

in language to describe negative rather than positive emotions. Such asymmetry in 

emotional valence creates another bias in language. Experiments using the lexical 

hypothesis approach indeed demonstrated that the use of lexical material skews the 

resulting dimensionality according to a sociability bias of language and a negativity bias 

of emotionality, grouping all evaluations around these two dimensions. This means that 

the two largest dimensions in the Big Five model might be just an artifact of the lexical 

approach that this model employed. 

Limited Scope 

One common criticism is that the Big Five does not explain all of human personality. 

Some psychologists have dissented from the model precisely because they feel it 

neglects other domains of personality, such 

as religiosity, manipulativeness/machiavellianism, honesty, 

sexiness/seductiveness, thriftiness, conservativeness, masculinity/femininity, snobbishn 

ess/egotism, sense of humour, and risk-taking/thrill-seeking. [214][215] Dan P. 

McAdams has called the Big Five a "psychology of the stranger", because they refer to 


traits that are relatively easy to observe in a stranger; other aspects of personality that 

are more privately held or more context-dependent are excluded from the Big Five. 

In many studies, the five factors are not fully orthogonal to one another; that is, the five 

factors are not independent. Orthogonality is viewed as desirable by some researchers 

because it minimizes redundancy between the dimensions. This is particularly important 

when the goal of a study is to provide a comprehensive description of personality with 

as few variables as possible. 

Methodological Issues 

Factor analysis, the statistical method used to identify the dimensional structure of 

observed variables, lacks a universally recognized basis for choosing among solutions 

with different numbers of factors. A five factor solution depends on some degree of 

interpretation by the analyst. A larger number of factors may underlie these five factors. 

This has led to disputes about the "true" number of factors. Big Five proponents have 

responded that although other solutions may be viable in a single dataset, only the five 

factor structure consistently replicates across different studies. 

Moreover, the factor analysis that this model is based on is a linear method incapable of 

capturing nonlinear, feedback and contingent relationships between core systems of 

individual differences. 

Theoretical Status 

A frequent criticism is that the Big Five is not based on any underlying theory; it is 

merely an empirical finding that certain descriptors cluster together under factor 


analysis. Although this does not mean that these five factors do not exist, the underlying 

causes behind them are unknown. 

Jack Block's final published work before his death in January 2010 drew together his 

lifetime perspective on the five-factor model. 

He summarized his critique of the model in terms of: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the atheoretical nature of the five-factors. 

their "cloudy" measurement. 

the model's inappropriateness for studying early childhood. 

the use of factor analysis as the exclusive paradigm for conceptualizing 

personality. 

the continuing non-consensual understandings of the five-factors. 

the existence of unrecognized but successful efforts to specify aspects of 

character not subsumed by the five-factors. 

He went on to suggest that repeatedly observed higher order factors hierarchically 

above the proclaimed Big Five personality traits may promise deeper biological 

understanding of the origins and implications of these superfactors. 

Evidence for Six Factors, Rather Than Five 

It has been noted that even though early lexical studies in the English language 

indicated five large groups of personality traits, more recent, and more comprehensive, 

cross-language studies have provided evidence for six large groups rather than 

five. These six groups forms the basis of the HEXACO model of personality structure. 

Based on these findings it has been suggested that the Big Five system should be 

replaced by HEXACO, or revised to better align with lexical evidence. 


III. Myers-Briggs Indicators 

The Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is an introspective self-report questionnaire 

with the purpose of indicating differing psychological preferences in how people 

perceive the world around them and make decisions. 

The MBTI was constructed by Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs 

Myers. It is based on the conceptual theory proposed by Carl Jung, who had speculated 

that humans experience the world using four principal psychological functions – 

sensation, intuition, feeling, and thinking – and that one of these four functions is 

dominant for a person most of the time. 

The MBTI was constructed for normal populations and emphasizes the value of 

naturally occurring differences. "The underlying assumption of the MBTI is that we all 

have specific preferences in the way we construe our experiences, and these 

preferences underlie our interests, needs, values, and motivation." 

Although popular in the business sector, the MBTI exhibits significant psychometric 

deficiencies, notably including poor validity (i.e. not measuring what it purports to 

measure, not having predictive power or not having items that can be generalized), 

poor reliability (giving different results for the same person on different occasions), 

measuring categories that are not independent (some dichotomous traits have been 

noted to correlate with each other), and not being comprehensive (due to 

missing neuroticism). The four scales used in the MBTI have some correlation with four 

of the Big Five personality traits, which are a more commonly accepted framework. 


History 

Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myersextrapolated their MBTI theory from Carl 

Jung's writings in his book Psychological Types. 

Katharine Cook Briggs began her research into personality in 1917. Upon meeting her 

future son-in-law, she observed marked differences between his personality and that of 

other family members. Briggs embarked on a project of reading biographies, and 

subsequently developed a typology wherein she proposed four temperaments: 

meditative (or thoughtful), spontaneous, executive, and social. 

After the English translation of Jung's book Psychological Types was published in 1923 

(first published in German in 1921), she recognized that Jung's theory was similar to, 

but went far beyond, her own. Briggs's four types were later identified as corresponding 

to the IXXXs, EXXPs, EXTJs and EXFJs. Her first publications were two articles 

describing Jung's theory, in the journal New Republic in 1926 ("Meet Yourself Using the 

Personality Paint Box") and 1928 ("Up From Barbarism"). After extensively studying the 

work of Jung, they extended their interest in human behavior into efforts to turn the 

theory of psychological types to practical use. 

Briggs's daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers, joined her mother's typological research and 

progressively took it over entirely. Myers graduated first in her class from Swarthmore 

College in 1919 and wrote a mystery novel, Murder Yet to Come, using typological 

ideas in 1929, which won the National Detective Murder Mystery Contest that year. 

However, neither Myers nor Briggs was formally educated in the discipline of 

psychology, and both were self-taught in the field of psychometric testing. Myers 

therefore apprenticed herself to Edward N. Hay, who was then personnel manager for a 

large Philadelphia bank and went on to start one of the first successful personnel 

consulting firms in the United States. From Hay, Myers learned rudimentary test 

construction, scoring, validation, and statistical methods. 

Briggs and Myers began creating the indicator during World War II in the belief that a 

knowledge of personality preferences would help women entering the industrial 

workforce for the first time to identify the sort of war-time jobs that would be the "most 

comfortable and effective" for them. The Briggs Myers Type Indicator Handbook was 

published in 1944. The indicator changed its name to "Myers–Briggs Type Indicator" in 

1956. Myers' work attracted the attention of Henry Chauncey, head of the Educational 

Testing Service. Under these auspices, the first MBTI Manual was published in 1962. 

The MBTI received further support from Donald W. MacKinnon, head of the Institute of 

Personality and Social Research at the University of California, Berkeley; W. Harold 

Grant, a professor at Michigan State University and Auburn University; and Mary H. 

McCaulley of the University of Florida. The publication of the MBTI was transferred to 

Consulting Psychologists Press in 1975, and the Center for Applications of 

Psychological Type was founded as a research laboratory. 


After Myers' death in May 1980, Mary McCaulley updated the MBTI Manual and the 

second edition was published in 1985. The third edition appeared in 1998. 

Origins of The Theory 

Jung's theory of psychological types was not based on controlled scientific studies, but 

instead on clinical observation, introspection, and anecdote—methods regarded as 

inconclusive in the modern field of scientific psychology. 

Jung's typology theories postulated a sequence of four cognitive functions (thinking, 

feeling, sensation, and intuition), each having one of two polar orientations (extraversion 

or introversion), giving a total of eight dominant functions. The MBTI is based on these 

eight hypothetical functions, although with some differences in expression from Jung's 

model (see Differences from Jung below). 

While the Jungian model offers empirical evidence for the first three dichotomies, 

whether the Briggs had evidence for the J-P preference is unclear. 


Differences from Jung 

Structured vs. Projective Personality Assessment 

The MBTI takes what is called a "structured" approach to personality assessment. The 

responses to items are considered "closed" as they are interpreted according to the 

theory of the test constructers in scoring. This is contrary to the "projective" approach to 

personality assessment advocated by psychodynamic theorists such as Carl Jung. 

Indeed, Jung was a proponent of the "word association" test, one of the measures with 

a "projective" approach. This approach uses "open-ended" responses that need to be 

interpreted in the context of the "whole" person, and not according to the preconceived 

theory and concept of the test constructers. It reveals how the unconscious dispositions, 

such as hidden emotions and internal conflicts, influence behaviour. Supporters of the 

"projective" approach to personality assessment are critical of the "structured" approach 

because defense mechanisms may distort responses to the closed items on structured 

tests and biases from the constructers may affect result intepretation. 

Judging vs. Perception 

The most notable addition of Myers and Briggs ideas to Jung's original thought is their 

concept that a given type's fourth letter (J or P) indicates a person's most preferred 

extraverted function, which is the dominant function for extraverted types and the 

auxiliary function for introverted types. 

Orientation of The Tertiary Function 

Jung theorized that the dominant function acts alone in its preferred world: exterior for 

extraverts and interior for introverts. The remaining three functions, he suggested, 

operate together in the opposite orientation. If the dominant cognitive function is 

introverted the other functions are extraverted and vice versa. The 

MBTI Manual summarizes Jung's work of balance in psychological type as follows: 

"There are several references in Jung's writing to the three remaining functions having 

an opposite attitudinal character. For example, in writing about introverts with thinking 

dominant ... Jung commented that the counterbalancing functions have an extraverted 

character." However, many MBTI practitioners hold that the tertiary function is oriented 

in the same direction as the dominant function. Using the INTP type as an example, the 

orientation would be as follows: 

 

 

 

 

Dominant introverted thinking 

Auxiliary extraverted intuition 

Tertiary introverted sensing 

Inferior extraverted feeling 

Concepts 


The MBTI Manual states that the indicator "is designed to implement a theory; therefore, 

the theory must be understood to understand the MBTI". Fundamental to the MBTI is 

the theory of psychological type as originally developed by Carl Jung. Jung proposed 

the existence of two dichotomous pairs of cognitive functions: 

 

 

The "rational" (judging) functions: thinking and feeling 

The "irrational" (perceiving) functions: sensation and intuition 

Jung believed that for every person, each of the functions is expressed primarily in 

either an introverted or extraverted form. Based on Jung's original concepts, Briggs and 

Myers developed their own theory of psychological type, 

described below, on which 

the MBTI is based. However, 

although 

psychologist Hans 

Eysenck called the MBTI a moderately 

successful 

quantification of Jung's 

original principles as outlined 

in Psychological Types, he also said, 

"[The MBTI] creates 16 

personality types which 

are said to be similar to Jung's theoretical 

concepts. I have always 

found difficulties with 

this identification, which 

omits one half of Jung's 

theory (he had 32 types, by 

asserting that for every 

conscious combination of traits there was an 

opposite unconscious one). Obviously, the latter half of 

his theory does not admit of questionnaire measurement, 

but to leave it out and pretend that the scales measure Jungian concepts is hardly fair to 

Jung." In any event, both models remain hypothetical, with no controlled scientific 

studies supporting either Jung's original concept of type or the Myers–Briggs variation. 

Type 

Jung's typological model regards psychological type as similar to left or 

right handedness: people are either born with, or develop, certain preferred ways of 

perceiving and deciding. The MBTI sorts some of these psychological differences into 

four opposite pairs, or "dichotomies", with a resulting 16 possible psychological types. 

None of these types is "better" or "worse"; however, Briggs and Myers theorized that 

people innately "prefer" one overall combination of type differences. In the same way 

that writing with the left hand is difficult for a right-hander, so people tend to find using 

their opposite psychological preferences more difficult, though they can become more 

proficient (and therefore behaviorally flexible) with practice and development. 

The 16 types are typically referred to by an abbreviation of four letters—the initial letters 

of each of their four type preferences (except in the case of intuition, which uses the 

abbreviation "N" to distinguish it from introversion). For instance: 


ESTJ: extraversion (E), sensing (S), thinking (T), judgment (J) 

INFP: introversion (I), intuition (N), feeling (F), perception (P) 

These abbreviations are applied to all 16 types. 

Four Dichotomies 

Carl Jung 

Subjective Objective 

Perception Intuition/Sensing Introversion/Extraversion 1 

Judging Feeling/Thinking Introversion/Extraversion 2 

Myers–Briggs 

Subjective Objective 

Deductive Intuition/Sensing Introversion/Extraversion 

Inductive Feeling/Thinking Perception/Judging 

The terms used for each dichotomy have specific technical meanings relating to the 

MBTI, which differ from their everyday usage. For example, people who prefer judgment 

over perception are not necessarily more "judgmental" or less "perceptive", nor does the 

MBTI instrument measure aptitude; it simply indicates for one preference over 

another. Someone reporting a high score for extraversion over introversion cannot be 

correctly described as more extraverted: they simply have a clear preference. 

Point scores on each of the dichotomies can vary considerably from person to person, 

even among those with the same type. However, Isabel Myers considered the direction 

of the preference (for example, E vs. I) to be more important than the degree of the 

preference (for example, very clear vs. slight). The expression of a person's 

psychological type is more than the sum of the four individual preferences. The 

preferences interact through type dynamics and type development. 

Attitudes: Extraversion/Introversion 

Myers–Briggs literature uses the terms extraversion and introversion as Jung first used 

them. Extraversion means literally outward-turning and introversion, inwardturning. 

These specific definitions differ somewhat from the popular usage of the words. 

Extraversion is the spelling used in MBTI publications. 

The preferences for extraversion and introversion are often called "attitudes". Briggs 

and Myers recognized that each of the cognitive functions can operate in the external 

world of behavior, action, people, and things ("extraverted attitude") or the internal world 

of ideas and reflection ("introverted attitude"). The MBTI assessment sorts for an overall 

preference for one or the other. 

People who prefer extraversion draw energy from action: they tend to act, then reflect, 

then act further. If they are inactive, their motivation tends to decline. To rebuild their 


energy, extraverts need breaks from time spent in reflection. Conversely, those who 

prefer introversion "expend" energy through action: they prefer to reflect, then act, then 

reflect again. To rebuild their energy, introverts need quiet time alone, away from 

activity. 

An extravert's flow is directed outward toward people and objects, whereas the 

introvert's is directed inward toward concepts and ideas. Contrasting characteristics 

between extraverted and introverted people include: 

 

 

 

 

Extraverted are action-oriented, while introverted are thought-oriented. 

Extraverted seek breadth of knowledge and influence, while introverted seek 

depth of knowledge and influence. 

Extraverted often prefer more frequent interaction, while introverted prefer more 

substantial interaction. 

Extraverted recharge and get their energy from spending time with people, while 

introverted recharge and get their energy from spending time alone; they 

consume their energy through the opposite process. 

Functions: Sensing/Intuition and Thinking/Feeling 

Jung identified two pairs of psychological functions: 

 

Two perceiving functions: sensation (usually called sensing in MBTI writings) 

and intuition 


Two judging functions: thinking and feeling 

According to Jung's typology model, each person uses one of these four functions more 

dominantly and proficiently than the other three; however, all four functions are used at 

different times depending on the circumstances. 

Sensing and intuition are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. They 

describe how new information is understood and interpreted. People who prefer sensing 

are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible, and concrete: that is, 

information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches, 

which seem to come "out of nowhere". They prefer to look for details and facts. For 

them, the meaning is in the data. On the other hand, those who prefer intuition tend to 

trust information that is less dependent upon the senses, that can be associated with 

other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or 

pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. For them, the meaning is in 

the underlying theory and principles which are manifested in the data. 

Thinking and feeling are the decision-making (judging) functions. The thinking and 

feeling functions are both used to make rational decisions, based on the data received 

from their information-gathering functions (sensing or intuition). Those who prefer 

thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision 

by what seems reasonable, logical, causal, consistent, and matching a given set of 

rules. Those who prefer feeling tend to come to decisions by associating or empathizing 

with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on 

balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people 

involved. Thinkers usually have trouble interacting with people who are inconsistent or 

illogical, and tend to give very direct feedback to others. They are concerned with the 

truth and view it as more important. 

As noted already, people who prefer thinking do not necessarily, in the everyday sense, 

"think better" than their feeling counterparts, in the common sense; the opposite 

preference is considered an equally rational way of coming to decisions (and, in any 

case, the MBTI assessment is a measure of preference, not ability). Similarly, those 

who prefer feeling do not necessarily have "better" emotional reactions than their 

thinking counterparts. In many cases, however, people who use thinking functions as 

either dominant or auxiliary tend to have more underdeveloped feeling functions, and 

often have more trouble with regulating and making healthy and productive decisions 

based on their feelings. 

Dominant Function 

A diagram depicting the cognitive functions of each type: A type's background color 

represents its dominant function and its text color represents its auxiliary function. 

According to Jung, people use all four cognitive functions. However, one function is 

generally used in a more conscious and confident way. This dominant function is 


supported by the secondary (auxiliary) function, and to a lesser degree the tertiary 

function. The fourth and least conscious function is always the opposite of the dominant 

function. Myers called this inferior function the "shadow". 

The four functions operate in conjunction with the attitudes (extraversion and 

introversion). Each function is used in either an extraverted or introverted way. A person 

whose dominant function is extraverted intuition, for example, uses intuition very 

differently from someone whose dominant function is introverted intuition. 

Lifestyle Preferences: Judging/Perception 

Myers and Briggs added another dimension to Jung's typological model by identifying 

that people also have a preference for using either the judging function (thinking or 

feeling) or their perceiving function (sensing or intuition) when relating to the outside 

world (extraversion). 

Myers and Briggs held that types with a preference for judging show the world their 

preferred judging function (thinking or feeling). So, TJ types tend to appear to the world 

as logical and FJ types as empathetic. According to Myers, judging types like to "have 

matters settled". 


Those types who prefer perception show the world their preferred perceiving function 

(sensing or intuition). So, SP types tend to appear to the world as concrete and NP 

types as abstract. According to Myers, perceptive types prefer to "keep decisions open". 

For extraverts, the J or P indicates their dominant function; for introverts, the J or P 

indicates their auxiliary function. Introverts tend to show their dominant function 

outwardly only in matters "important to their inner worlds". For example: 

Because the ENTJ type is extraverted, the J indicates that the dominant function is the 

preferred judging function (extraverted thinking). The ENTJ type introverts the auxiliary 

perceiving function (introverted intuition). The tertiary function is sensing and the inferior 

function is introverted feeling. 

Because the INTJ type is introverted, however, the J instead indicates that the auxiliary 

function is the preferred judging function (extraverted thinking). The INTJ type introverts 

the dominant perceiving function (introverted intuition). The tertiary function is feeling and 

the inferior function is extraverted sensing. 

Format and Administration 

The current North American English version of the MBTI Step I includes 93 forcedchoice 

questions (88 are in the European English version). "Forced-choice" means that 

a person has to choose only one of two possible answers to each question. The choices 

are a mixture of word pairs and short statements. Choices are not literal opposites, but 

chosen to reflect opposite preferences on the same dichotomy. Participants may skip 

questions if they feel they are unable to choose. 

Using psychometric techniques, such as item response theory, the MBTI will then be 

scored and will attempt to identify the preference, and clarity of preference, in each 

dichotomy. After taking the MBTI, participants are usually asked to complete a "Best Fit" 

exercise (see below) and then given a readout of their Reported Type, which will usually 

include a bar graph and number (Preference Clarity Index) to show how clear they were 

about each preference when they completed the questionnaire. 

During the early development of the MBTI, thousands of items were used. Most were 

eventually discarded because they did not have high "midpoint discrimination", meaning 

the results of that one item did not, on average, move an individual score away from the 

midpoint. Using only items with high midpoint discrimination allows the MBTI to have 

fewer items on it, but still provide as much statistical information as other instruments 

with many more items with lower midpoint discrimination. 

Additional Formats 

Isabel Myers had noted that people of any given type shared differences, as well as 

similarities. At the time of her death, she was developing a more in-depth method of 

measuring how people express and experience their individual type pattern. 


In 1987, an advanced scoring system was developed for the MBTI. From this was 

developed the Type Differentiation Indicator (Saunders, 1989) which is a scoring system 

for the longer MBTI, Form J, which includes the 290 items written by Myers that had 

survived her previous item analyses. It yields 20 subscales (five under each of the four 

dichotomous preference scales), plus seven additional subscales for a new "Comfort- 

Discomfort" factor (which purportedly corresponds to the missing factor of neuroticism). 

This factor's scales indicate a sense of overall comfort and confidence versus 

discomfort and anxiety. They also load onto one of the four type dimensions: guardedoptimistic 

(also T/F), defiant-compliant (also T/F), carefree-worried (also T/F), decisiveambivalent 

(also J/P), intrepid-inhibited (Also E/I), leader-follower (Also E/I), and 

proactive-distractible (also J/P) 

Also included is a composite of these called "strain". There are also scales for typescale 

consistency and comfort-scale consistency. Reliability of 23 of the 27 TDI 

subscales is greater than 0.50, "an acceptable result given the brevity of the subscales" 

(Saunders, 1989). 

In 1989, a scoring system was developed for only the 20 subscales for the original four 

dichotomies. This was initially known as "Form K" or the "Expanded Analysis Report". 

This tool is now called the "MBTI Step II". 

Form J or the TDI included the items (derived from Myers' and McCaulley's earlier work) 

necessary to score what became known as "Step III". (The 1998 MBTI Manual reported 

that the two instruments were one and the same) It was developed in a joint project 

involving the following organizations: CPP, the publisher of the whole family of MBTI 

works; CAPT (Center for Applications of Psychological Type), which holds all of Myers' 


and McCaulley's original work; and the MBTI Trust, headed by Katharine and Peter 

Myers. Step III was advertised as addressing type development and the use of 

perception and judgment by respondents. 

Translations Into Other Languages 

The MBTI has been successfully translated and adapted into over 20 

languages, including reviews by subject-matter experts fluent in the native language, 

and statistical analysis to check that the questions still measure the same psychological 

concepts as the original US English questionnaire. 

Precepts and Ethics 

These precepts are generally used in the ethical administration of the MBTI: 

Type Not Trait 

The MBTI sorts for type; it does not indicate the strength of ability. It allows the clarity of 

a preference to be ascertained (Bill clearly prefers introversion), but not the strength of 

preference (Jane strongly prefers extraversion) or degree of aptitude (Harry is good at 

thinking). In this sense, it differs from trait-based tools such as 16PF. Type preferences 

are polar opposites: a precept of MBTI is that people fundamentally prefer one thing 

over the other, not a bit of both. 

Own Best Judge 

People are considered the best judge of their own type. While the MBTI provides a 

Reported Type, this is considered only an indication of their probable overall Type. A 

Best Fit Process is usually used to allow respondents to develop their understanding of 

the four dichotomies, to form their own hypothesis as to their overall Type, and to 

compare this against the Reported Type. In more than 20% of cases, the hypothesis 

and the Reported Type differ in one or more dichotomies. Using the clarity of each 

preference, any potential for bias in the report, and often, a comparison of two or more 

whole Types may then help respondents determine their own Best Fit. 

No Right or Wrong 

No preference or total type is considered better or worse than another. They are all 

'Gifts Differing', as emphasized by the title of Isabel Briggs Myers' book on this subject. 

Voluntary 

Compelling anyone to take the MBTI is considered unethical. It should always be taken 

voluntarily. 

Confidentiality 


The result of the MBTI Reported and Best Fit type are confidential between the 

individual and administrator, and ethically, not for disclosure without permission. 

Not for Selection 

The results of the assessment should not be used to "label, evaluate, or limit the 

respondent in any way" (emphasis original). Since all types are valuable, and the MBTI 

measures preferences rather than aptitude, the MBTI is not considered a proper 

instrument for purposes of employment selection. Many professions contain highly 

competent individuals of different types with complementary preferences. 

Importance of Proper Feedback 

People should always be given detailed feedback from a trained administrator and an 

opportunity to undertake a Best Fit exercise to check against their Reported Type. This 

feedback can be given in person, by telephone or electronically. 

Type dynamics and development: 

The Sixteen Types 

US Population Breakdown 

The table organizing the sixteen types was 

created by Isabel Myers (an INFP person). 

ISTJ 

11–14% 

ISTP 

4–6% 

ESTP 

4–5% 

ESTJ 

8–12% 

ISFJ 

9–14% 

ISFP 

5–9% 

ESFP 

4–9% 

ESFJ 

9–13% 

INFJ 

1–3% 

INFP 

4–5% 

ENFP 

6–8% 

ENFJ 

2–5% 

INTJ 

2–4% 

INTP 

3–5% 

ENTP 

2–5% 

ENTJ 

2–5% 

Estimated percentages of the 16 types 

in the United States population. 

The interaction of two, three, or four preferences is known as "type dynamics". Although 

type dynamics has received little or no empirical support to substantiate its viability as 

a scientific theory, Myers and Briggs asserted that for each of the 16 four-preference 

types, one function is the most dominant and is likely to be evident earliest in life. A 

secondary or auxiliary function typically becomes more evident (differentiated) during 

teenaged years and provides balance to the dominant. In normal development, 

individuals tend to become more fluent with a third, tertiary function during mid-life, 

while the fourth, inferior function remains least consciously developed. The inferior 


function is often considered to be more associated with the unconscious, being most 

evident in situations such as high stress (sometimes referred to as being "in the grip" of 

the inferior function). 

However, the use of type dynamics is disputed: in the conclusion of various studies on 

the subject of type dynamics, James H. Reynierse writes, "Type dynamics has 

persistent logical problems and is fundamentally based on a series of category 

mistakes; it provides, at best, a limited and incomplete account of type related 

phenomena"; and "type dynamics relies on anecdotal evidence, fails most efficacy tests, 

and does not fit the empirical facts". His studies gave the clear result that the 

descriptions and workings of type dynamics do not fit the real behavior of people. He 

suggests getting completely rid of type dynamics, because it does not help, but hinders 

understanding of personality. The presumed order of functions 1 to 4 did only occur in 

one out of 540 test results. 

The sequence of differentiation of dominant, auxiliary, and tertiary functions through life 

is termed type development. This is an idealized sequence that may be disrupted by 

major life events. 

The dynamic sequence of functions and their attitudes can be determined in the 

following way: 

 

 

 

 

 

The overall lifestyle preference (J-P) determines whether the judging (T-F) or 

perceiving (S-N) preference is most evident in the outside world; i.e., which 

function has an extraverted attitude 

The attitude preference (E-I) determines whether the extraverted function is 

dominant or auxiliary 

For those with an overall preference for extraversion, the function with 

the extraverted attitude will be the dominant function. For example, for an ESTJ 

type the dominant function is the judging function, thinking, and this is 

experienced with an extraverted attitude. This is notated as a dominant Te. For 

an ESTP, the dominant function is the perceiving function, sensing, notated as a 

dominant Se. 

The auxiliary function for extraverts is the secondary preference of the judging or 

perceiving functions, and it is experienced with an introverted attitude: for 

example, the auxiliary function for ESTJ is introverted sensing (Si) and the 

auxiliary for ESTP is introverted thinking (Ti). 

For those with an overall preference for introversion, the function with the 

extraverted attitude is the auxiliary; the dominant is the other function in the main 

four letter preference. So the dominant function for ISTJ is introverted sensing 

(Si) with the auxiliary (supporting) function being extraverted thinking (Te). 


The tertiary function is the opposite preference from the auxiliary. For example, if 

the Auxiliary is thinking then the Tertiary would be feeling. The attitude of the 

tertiary is the subject of some debate and therefore is not normally indicated; i.e. 

if the auxiliary was Te then the tertiary would be F (not Fe or Fi) 

The inferior function is the opposite preference and attitude from the Dominant, 

so for an ESTJ with dominant Te the inferior would be Fi. 

Note that for extraverts, the dominant function is the one most evident in the external 

world. For introverts, however, it is the auxiliary function that is most evident externally, 

as their dominant function relates to the interior world. 

Some examples of whole types may clarify this further. Taking the ESTJ example 

above: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extraverted function is a judging function (T-F) because of the overall J 

preference 

Extraverted function is dominant because of overall E preference 

Dominant function is therefore extraverted thinking (Te) 

Auxiliary function is the preferred perceiving function: introverted sensing (Si) 

Tertiary function is the opposite of the Auxiliary: intuition (N) 

Inferior function is the opposite of the Dominant: introverted feeling (Fi) 


The dynamics of the ESTJ are found in the primary combination of extraverted thinking 

as their dominant function and introverted sensing as their auxiliary function: the 

dominant tendency of ESTJs to order their environment, to set clear boundaries, to 

clarify roles and timetables, and to direct the activities around them is supported by their 

facility for using past experience in an ordered and systematic way to help organize 

themselves and others. For instance, ESTJs may enjoy planning trips for groups of 

people to achieve some goal or to perform some culturally uplifting function. Because of 

their ease in directing others and their facility in managing their own time, they engage 

all the resources at their disposal to achieve their goals. However, under prolonged 

stress or sudden trauma, ESTJs may overuse their extraverted thinking function and fall 

into the grip of their inferior function, introverted feeling. Although the ESTJ can seem 

insensitive to the feelings of others in their normal activities, under tremendous stress, 

they can suddenly express feelings of being unappreciated or wounded by insensitivity. 

Looking at the diametrically opposite four-letter type, INFP: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extraverted function is a perceiving function (S-N) because of the P preference 

Introverted function is dominant because of the I preference 

Dominant function is therefore introverted feeling (Fi) 

Auxiliary function is extraverted intuition (Ne) 

Tertiary function is the opposite of the Auxiliary: sensing (S) 

Inferior function is the opposite of the Dominant: extraverted thinking (Te) 

The dynamics of the INFP rest on the fundamental correspondence of introverted 

feeling and extraverted intuition. The dominant tendency of the INFP is toward building 

a rich internal framework of values and toward championing human rights. They often 

devote themselves behind the scenes to causes such as civil rights or saving the 

environment. Since they tend to avoid the limelight, postpone decisions, and maintain a 

reserved posture, they are rarely found in executive-director-type positions of the 

organizations that serve those causes. 

Normally, the INFP dislikes being "in charge" of things. When not under stress, the 

INFP radiates a pleasant and sympathetic demeanor, but under extreme stress, they 

can suddenly become rigid and directive, exerting their extraverted thinking erratically. 

Every type, and its opposite, is the expression of these interactions, which give each 

type its unique, recognizable signature. 

Cognitive Learning Styles 

The test is scored by evaluating each answer in terms of what it reveals about the taker. 

Each question is relevant to one of the following cognitive learning styles. Each is not a 

polar opposite, but a gradual continuum. 


Extraversion/Introversion 

The extraverted types learn best by talking and interacting with others. By interacting 

with the physical world, extraverts can process and make sense of new information. The 

introverted types prefer quiet reflection and privacy. Information processing occurs for 

introverts as they explore ideas and concepts internally. 

Sensing/Intuition 

The second continuum reflects what people focus their attentions on. Sensing types 

enjoy a learning environment in which the material is presented in a detailed and 

sequential manner. Sensing types often attend to what is occurring in the present, and 

can move to the abstract after they have established a concrete experience. Intuitive 

types prefer a learning atmosphere in which an emphasis is placed on meaning and 

associations. Insight is valued higher than careful observation, and pattern recognition 

occurs naturally for intuitive types. 

Thinking/Feeling 

The third continuum reflects a person's decision preferences. Thinking types desire 

objective truth and logical principles and are natural at deductive reasoning. Feeling 

types place an emphasis on issues and causes that can be personalized while they 

consider other people's motives. 


Judging/Perceiving 

The fourth continuum reflects how a person regards complexity. Judging types will 

thrive when information is organized and structured, and they will be motivated to 

complete assignments in order to gain closure. Perceiving types will flourish in a flexible 

learning environment in which they are stimulated by new and exciting ideas. Judging 

types like to be on time, while perceiving types may be late and/or procrastinate. 

Correlations with other instruments 

Keirsey Temperaments 

David W. Keirsey mapped four "temperaments" to the existing Myers–Briggs system 

groupings: SP, SJ, NF and NT; this often results in confusion of the two theories. 

However, the Keirsey Temperament Sorter is not directly associated with the official 

Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. 

Big Five 

McCrae and Costa based their Five Factor Model (FFM) on Goldberg's Big Five 

theory. McCrae and Costa present correlations between the MBTI scales and the 

currently popular Big Five personality constructs measured, for example, by the NEO- 

PI-R. The five purported personality constructs have been labeled: extraversion, 

openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism (emotional instability), 

although there is not universal agreement on the Big Five theory and the related Five- 

Factor Model (FFM). The following study is based on the results from 267 men followed 

as part of a longitudinal study of aging. (Similar results were obtained with 201 women.) 

These results suggest that the four MBTI scales can be incorporated within the Big 

Five personality trait constructs, but that the MBTI lacks a measure for emotional 

stability dimension of the Big Five (though the TDI, discussed above, has addressed 

that dimension). Emotional stability (or neuroticism) is a predictor of depression and 

anxiety disorders. These correlations refer to the second letter shown, i.e., the table 

shows that I and P have negative correlations with extraversion and conscientiousness, 

respectively, while F and N have positive correlations with agreeableness and 

openness, respectively. 

These findings led McCrae and Costa to conclude that, "correlational analyses showed 

that the four MBTI indices did measure aspects of four of the five major dimensions of 

normal personality. The five-factor model provides an alternative basis for interpreting 

MBTI findings within a broader, more commonly shared conceptual framework." 

However, "there was no support for the view that the MBTI measures truly dichotomous 

preferences or qualitatively distinct types, instead, the instrument measures four 

relatively independent dimensions." 


Personality Disorders 

One study found personality disorders as described by the DSM overall to correlate 

modestly with I, N, T, and P, although the associations varied significantly by disorder. 

The only two disorders with significant correlations of all four MBTI dimensions 

were schizotypal(INTP) and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (ISTJ). 

Criticism 

The validity (statistical validity and test validity) of the MBTI as a psychometric 

instrument has been the subject of much criticism. 

It has been estimated that between a third and a half of the published material on the 

MBTI has been produced for the special conferences of the Center for the Application of 

Psychological Type (which provide the training in the MBTI, and are funded by sales of 

the MBTI) or as papers in the Journal of Psychological Type (which is edited and 

supported by Myers–Briggs advocates and by sales of the indicator). It has been argued 

that this reflects a lack of critical scrutiny. Many of the studies that endorse MBTI are 

methodologically weak or unscientific. A 1996 review by Gardner and Martinko 

concluded: "It is clear that efforts to detect simplistic linkages between type preferences 

and managerial effectiveness have been disappointing. Indeed, given the mixed quality 

of research and the inconsistent findings, no definitive conclusion regarding these 

relationships can be drawn." 


Psychometric specialist Robert Hogan wrote: "Most personality psychologists regard the 

MBTI as little more than an elaborate Chinese fortune cookie ..." 

No Evidence for Dichotomies 

As described in the § Four dichotomies section, Isabel Myers considered the direction of 

the preference (for example, E vs. I) to be more important than the degree of the 

preference. Statistically, this would mean that scores on each MBTI scale would show 

a bimodal distribution with most people scoring near the ends of the scales, thus 

dividing people into either, e.g., an extroverted or an introverted psychological type. 

However, most studies have found that scores on the individual scales were actually 

distributed in a centrally peaked manner, similar to a normal distribution, indicating that 

the majority of people were actually in the middle of the scale and were thus neither 

clearly introverted nor extroverted. Most personality traits do show a normal distribution 

of scores from low to high, with about 15% of people at the low end, about 15% at the 

high end and the majority of people in the middle ranges. But in order for the MBTI to be 

scored, a cut-off line is used at the middle of each scale and all those scoring below the 

line are classified as a low type and those scoring above the line are given the opposite 

type. Thus, psychometric assessment research fails to support the concept of type, but 

rather shows that most people lie near the middle of a continuous 

curve. [9][38][46][47][48] "Although we do not conclude that the absence of bimodality 

necessarily proves that the MBTI developers' theory-based assumption of categorical 

"types" of personality is invalid, the absence of empirical bimodality in IRTbased 

research of MBTI scores does indeed remove a potentially powerful line of 

evidence that was previously available to "type" advocates to cite in defense of their 

position." 

Validity and Utility 

The content of the MBTI scales is problematic. In 1991, a National Academy of 

Sciences committee reviewed data from MBTI research studies and concluded that only 

the I-E scale has high correlations with comparable scales of other instruments and low 

correlations with instruments designed to assess different concepts, showing strong 

validity. In contrast, the S-N and T-F scales show relatively weak validity. The 1991 

review committee concluded at the time there was "not sufficient, well-designed 

research to justify the use of the MBTI in career counseling programs". This study 

based its measurement of validity on "criterion-related validity (i.e., does the MBTI 

predict specific outcomes related to interpersonal relations or career success/job 

performance?)." There is insufficient evidence to make claims about utility, particularly 

of the four letter type derived from a person's responses to the MBTI items. 

Lack of Objectivity 

The accuracy of the MBTI depends on honest self-reporting. Unlike some personality 

questionnaires, such as the 16PF Questionnaire, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality 


Inventory, or the Personality Assessment Inventory, the MBTI does not use validity 

scales to assess exaggerated or socially desirable responses. As a result, individuals 

motivated to do so can fake their responses, and one study found that the MBTI 

judgment/perception dimension correlates weakly with the Eysenck Personality 

Questionnaire lie scale. If respondents "fear they have something to lose, they may 

answer as they assume they should." However, the MBTI ethical guidelines state, "It is 

unethical and in many cases illegal to require job applicants to take the Indicator if the 

results will be used to screen out applicants." The intent of the MBTI is to provide "a 

framework for understanding individual differences, and ... a dynamic model of 

individual development". 

Terminology 

The terminology of the MBTI has been criticized as being very "vague and general", so 

as to allow any kind of behavior to fit any personality type, which may result in the Forer 

effect, where people give a high rating to a positive description that supposedly applies 

specifically to them. Others argue that while the MBTI type descriptions are brief, they 

are also distinctive and precise. Some theorists, such as David Keirsey, have expanded 

on the MBTI descriptions, providing even greater detail. For instance, Keirsey's 

descriptions of his four temperaments, which he correlated with the sixteen MBTI 

personality types, show how the temperaments differ in terms of language use, 

intellectual orientation, educational and vocational interests, social orientation, selfimage, 

personal values, social roles, and characteristic hand gestures. 

Factor Analysis 

Researchers have reported that the JP and the SN scales correlate with one 

another. One factor-analytic study based on (N=1291) college-aged students found six 


different factors instead of the four purported dimensions, thereby raising doubts as to 

the construct validity of the MBTI. 

Correlates 

According to Hans Eysenck: "The main dimension in the MBTI is called E-I, or 

extraversion-introversion; this is mostly a sociability scale, correlating quite well with the 

MMPI social introversion scale (negatively) and the Eysenck Extraversion scale 

(positively). Unfortunately, the scale also has a loading on neuroticism, which correlates 

with the introverted end. Thus introversion correlates roughly (i.e. averaging values for 

males and females) -.44 with dominance, -.24 with aggression, +.37 with abasement, 

+.46 with counselling readiness, -.52 with self-confidence, -.36 with personal 

adjustment, and -.45 with empathy. The failure of the scale to disentangle Introversion 

and Neuroticism (there is no scale for neurotic and other psychopathological attributes 

in the MBTI) is its worst feature, only equalled by the failure to use factor analysis in 

order to test the arrangement of items in the scale." 

Reliability 

The test-retest reliability of the MBTI tends to be low. Large numbers of people 

(between 39% and 76% of respondents) obtain different type classifications when 

retaking the indicator after only five weeks. 

In Fortune Magazine (May 15, 2013), an article titled "Have we all been duped by the 

Myers-Briggs Test" stated: 

The interesting – and somewhat alarming – fact about the MBTI is that, despite its 

popularity, it has been subject to sustained criticism by professional psychologists for 

over three decades. One problem is that it displays what statisticians call low "test-retest 

reliability." So if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's around a 50% 

chance that you will fall into a different personality category compared to the first time you 

took the test. 

A second criticism is that the MBTI mistakenly assumes that personality falls into 

mutually exclusive categories. ... The consequence is that the scores of two people 

labelled "introverted" and "extroverted" may be almost exactly the same, but they could 

be placed into different categories since they fall on either side of an imaginary dividing 

line 

Within each dichotomy scale, as measured on Form G, about 83% of categorizations 

remain the same when people are retested within nine months and around 75% when 

retested after nine months. About 50% of people re-administered the MBTI within nine 

months remain the same overall type and 36% the same type after more than nine 

months. For Form M (the most current form of the MBTI instrument), the 

MBTI Manual reports that these scores are higher (p. 163, Table 8.6). 


In one study, when people were asked to compare their preferred type to that assigned 

by the MBTI assessment, only half of people chose the same profile. 

It has been argued that criticisms regarding the MBTI mostly come down to questions 

regarding the validity of its origins, not questions regarding the validity of the MBTI's 

usefulness. Others argue that the MBTI can be a reliable measurement of personality; it 

just so happens that "like all measures, the MBTI yields scores that are dependent on 

sample characteristics and testing conditions". 

Utility 

Isabel Myers claimed 

that the proportion of different 

personality types varied by choice of 

career or course of 

study. However, 

researchers examining the 

proportions of each type within 

varying 

professions 

report that the proportion 

of MBTI types within each 

occupation is 

close to that 

within a random 

sample of the 

population. Some 

researchers 

have expressed reservations 

about the relevance of type to job 

satisfaction, as well as 

concerns about the 

potential misuse of the instrument in labeling 

people. 

CPP became the exclusive publisher of the MBTI in 1975. They call it "the world's most 

widely used personality assessment", with as many as two million assessments 

administered annually. CPP and other proponents state that the indicator meets or 

exceeds the reliability of other psychological instruments and cite reports of individual 

behavior. 

Although meta-analysis claim support for validity and reliability, studies suggest that the 

MBTI "lacks convincing validity data" and that it is pseudoscience. 

The MBTI has poor predictive validity of employees' job performance ratings. As noted 

above under Precepts and ethics, the MBTI measures preferences, not ability. The use 

of the MBTI as a predictor of job success is expressly discouraged in the Manual. It is 

argued that the MBTI continues to be popular because many people lack psychometric 

sophistication, it is not difficult to understand, and there are many supporting books, 

websites and other sources which are readily available to the general public. 



IV. Introversion vs. Extroversion 

The trait of Extraversion–Introversion is a central dimension of human 

personality theories. The terms introversion and extraversion were popularized by Carl 

Jung, although both the popular understanding and psychological usage differ from his 

original intent. Extraversion tends to be manifested in outgoing, talkative, energetic 

behavior, whereas introversion is manifested in more reserved and solitary 

behavior. Virtually all comprehensive models of personality include these concepts in 

various forms. Examples include the Big Five model, Jung's analytical psychology, Hans 

Eysenck's three-factor model, Raymond Cattell's 16 personality factors, the Minnesota 

Multiphasic Personality Inventory, and the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. 

Extraversion and introversion are typically viewed as a single continuum, so to be high 

in one necessitates being low in the other. Carl Jung and the developers of the Myers– 

Briggs Type Indicator 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 characterized by orientation in life through subjective psychic contents" 

(focus on one's inner psychic activity) and extraversion as "an attitude type 

characterized by concentration of interest on the external object" (focus on the outside 

world). 


Varieties 

Extraversion 

Extraversion (also spelled as extroversion) is the state of primarily obtaining gratification 

from outside oneself. Extraverts tend to enjoy human interactions and to 

be enthusiastic, talkative, assertive, and gregarious. Extraverts are energized and thrive 

off being around other people. 

They take pleasure in activities that involve large social gatherings, such as parties, 

community activities, public demonstrations, and business or political groups. 

They also tend to work well in groups. An extraverted person is likely to enjoy time 

spent with people and find less reward in time spent alone. They tend to be energized 

when around other people, and they are more prone to boredom when they are by 

themselves. 


Introversion is the state of being predominantly interested in one's own mental 

self. Introverts are typically perceived as more reserved or reflective. Some popular 

psychologists have characterized introverts as people whose energy tends to expand 

through reflection and dwindle during interaction. 

This is similar to Jung's view, although he focused on mental energy rather than 

physical energy. Few modern conceptions make this distinction. 

Introverts often take pleasure in solitary activities such as reading, writing, using 

computers, hiking and fishing. The archetypal artist, writer, sculptor, scientist, engineer, 

composer and inventor are all highly introverted. An introvert is likely to enjoy time spent 

alone and find less reward in time spent with large groups of people, though they may 

enjoy interactions with close friends. 

Trust is usually an issue of significance: a virtue of utmost importance to introverts is 

choosing a worthy companion. They prefer to concentrate on a single activity at a time 

and like to observe situations before they participate, especially observed in developing 

children and adolescents. 

They are more analytical before speaking. Introverts are easily overwhelmed by too 

much stimulation from social gatherings and engagement, introversion having even 

been defined by some in terms of a preference for a quiet, more minimally stimulating 

external environment. 


Mistaking introversion for shyness is a common error. Introversion is a preference, while 

shyness stems from distress. Introverts prefer solitary to social activities, but do not 

necessarily fear social encounters like shy people do. Susan Cain argues that modern 

Western culture misjudges the capabilities of introverted people, leading to a waste of 

talent, energy and happiness. Cain describes how society is biased against introverts, 

and that, with people being taught from childhood that to be sociable is to be happy, 

introversion is now considered "somewhere between a disappointment and 

pathology". In contrast, Cain says that introversion is not a "second-class" trait but that 

both introverts and extraverts enrich society, with examples including the introverts J. K. 

Rowling, Avicii, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Seuss, W. B. 

Yeats, Steven Spielberg and Larry Page. 

Ambiversion 

Although many people view being introverted or extraverted as mutually exclusive, most 

contemporary trait theories measure levels of extraversion-introversion as part of a 

single, continuous dimension of personality, with some scores near one end, and others 

near the half-way mark. Ambiversion is falling more or less directly in the middle. An 


ambivert is moderately comfortable with groups and social interaction, but also relishes 

time alone, away from a crowd. 

Relative Prevalence 

Susan Cain's 2012 book Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop 

Talking reports that studies indicate 33–50% of the American population are 

introverts. Particular subpopulations have higher prevalence, with a 6000-subject MBTIbased 

survey indicating that 60% of attorneys, and 90% of intellectual 

property attorneys, are introverts. 

Measurement 

The extent of extraversion and introversion is most commonly assessed through selfreport 

measures, although peer-reports and third-party observation can also be used. 

Self-report measures are either lexical or based on statements. The type of measure 

is determined by an assessment of psychometric properties and the time and space 

constraints of the research being undertaken. 

Lexical Measures use individual adjectives that reflect extravert and introvert traits, 

such as outgoing, talkative, reserved and quiet. Words representing introversion are 

reverse coded to create composite measures of extraversion/introversion running on a 

continuum. Goldberg (1992) developed a 20-word measure as part of his 100-word Big 

Five markers. Saucier (1994) developed a briefer 8-word measure as part of his 40- 

word mini-markers. However, the psychometric properties of Saucier's original minimarkers 

have been found suboptimal with samples outside of North America. As a 

result, a systematically revised measure was developed to have superior psychometric 

properties, the International English Mini-Markers. The International English Mini- 

Markers has good internal consistency reliabilities and other validity for assessing 

extraversion/introversion and other five factor personality dimensions, both within and, 

especially, without American populations. Internal consistency reliability of the 

Extraversion measure for native English-speakers is reported as .92, that for non-native 

English-speakers is .85. 

Statement Measures tend to comprise more words, and hence consume more 

research instrument space, than lexical measures. Respondents are asked the extent to 

which they, for example, Talk to a lot of different people at parties or Often feel 

uncomfortable around others. While some statement-based measures of 

extraversion/introversion have similarly acceptable psychometric properties in North 

American populations to lexical measures, their generally emic development makes 

them less suited to use in other populations. For example, statements asking about 

talkativeness in parties are hard to answer meaningfully by those who do not attend 

parties, as Americans are assumed to do. Moreover, the sometimes colloquial North 

American language of statements makes them less suited to use outside America. For 

instance, statements like Keep in the background and Know how to captivate 


people are sometimes hard for non-native English-speakers to understand except in a 

literal sense. 

Eysenck's Theory 

Hans Eysenck described extraversion-introversion as the degree to which a person is 

outgoing and interactive with other people. These behavioral differences are presumed 

to be the result of underlying differences in brain physiology. Eysenck combined cortical 

inhibition and excitation with the ascending reticular activation system (ARAS), a 

pathway located in the brainstem. Extraverts seek excitement and social activity in an 

effort to heighten their arousal level, whereas introverts tend to avoid social situations in 

an effort to keep such arousal to a minimum. Eysenck designated extraversion as one 

of three major traits in his P-E-N model of personality, which also 

includes psychoticism and neuroticism. 

Eysenck originally suggested that extraversion was a combination of two major 

tendencies, impulsiveness and sociability. He later added several other more specific 

traits, namely liveliness, activity level, and excitability. These traits are further linked in 

his personality hierarchy to even more specific habitual responses, such as partying on 

the weekend. 

Eysenck compared this trait to the four temperaments of ancient medicine, with choleric 

and sanguine temperaments equating to extraversion, and melancholic and phlegmatic 

temperaments equating to introversion. 


Biological Factors 

The relative importance of nature versus environment in determining the level of 

extraversion is controversial and the focus of many studies. Twin studies have found a 

genetic component of 39% to 58%. In terms of the environmental component, the 

shared family environment appears to be far less important than individual 

environmental factors that are not shared between siblings. 

Eysenck proposed that extraversion was caused by variability in cortical arousal. He 

hypothesized that introverts are characterized by higher levels of activity than extraverts 

and so are chronically more cortically aroused than extraverts. That extraverts require 

more external stimulation than introverts has been interpreted as evidence for this 

hypothesis. Other evidence of the "stimulation" hypothesis is that introverts salivate 

more than extraverts in response to a drop of lemon juice. This is due to increased 

activity in their reticular activating system, which responds to stimuli like food or social 

contact. 

Extraversion has been linked to higher sensitivity of the mesolimbic dopamine system to 

potentially rewarding stimuli. This in part explains the high levels of positive affect found 

in extraverts, since they will more intensely feel the excitement of a potential reward. 

One consequence of this is that extraverts can more easily learn the contingencies for 

positive reinforcement, since the reward itself is experienced as greater. 

One study found that introverts have more blood flow in the frontal lobes of their brain 

and the anterior or frontal thalamus, which are areas dealing with internal processing, 

such as planning and problem solving. Extraverts have more blood flow in the anterior 

cingulate gyrus, temporal lobes, and posterior thalamus, which are involved in sensory 

and emotional experience. This study and other research indicates that introversionextraversion 

is related to individual differences in brain function. A study on regional 

brain volume found a positive correlation between introversion and grey matter volume 

in the right prefrontal cortex and right temporoparietal junction, as well as a positive 

correlation between introversion and total white matter volume. 

Extraversion has also been linked to physiological factors such as respiration, through 

its association with surgency. 

Behavior 

Extraverts and introverts have a variety of behavioral differences. According to one 

study, extraverts tend to wear more decorative clothing, whereas introverts prefer 

practical, comfortable clothes. Extraverts are more likely to prefer more upbeat, 

conventional, and energetic music than introverts. Personality also influences how 

people arrange their work areas. In general, extraverts decorate their offices more, keep 

their doors open, keep extra chairs nearby, and are more likely to put dishes of candy 

on their desks. These are attempts to invite co-workers and encourage interaction. 


Introverts, in contrast, decorate less and tend to arrange their workspace to discourage 

social interaction. 

Despite these differences, a meta-analysis of 15 experience sampling studies has 

suggested that there is a great deal of overlap in the way that extraverts and introverts 

behave. In these studies, participants used mobile devices to report how extraverted 

(e.g., bold, talkative, assertive, outgoing) they were acting at multiple times during their 

daily lives. Fleeson and Gallagher (2009) found that extraverts regularly behave in an 

introverted way, and introverts regularly behave in an extraverted way. Indeed, there 

was more within-person variability than between-person variability in extraverted 

behaviors. The key feature that distinguishes extraverts and introverts was that 

extraverts tend to act moderately extraverted about 5–10% more often than introverts. 

From this perspective, extraverts and introverts are not "fundamentally different". 

Rather, an "extravert" is just someone who acts more extraverted more often, 

suggesting that extraversion is more about 

what one "does" than 

what one "has". 

Additionally, a study by Lippa (1978) found 

evidence for the extent to which individuals 

present themselves in 

a different way. This is 

called expressive behavior, and it is 

dependent upon the 

individuals' motivation 

and ability to control that behavior. 

Lippa (1978) examined 68 students 

who were asked to role-play by 

pretending to teach a math class. 

The students' level of extraversion and 

introversion were rated based on their 

external/expressive 

behaviors such as stride 

length, graphic 

expansiveness, 

the 

percentage of time they spent 

talking, the amount of time they spent making eye contact, and the total time of each 

teaching session. This study found that actual introverts were perceived and judged as 

having more extraverted-looking expressive behaviors because they were higher in 

terms of their self-monitoring. This means that the introverts consciously put more effort 

into presenting a more extraverted, and rather socially desirable, version of themselves. 

Thus, individuals are able to regulate and modify behavior based on their environmental 

situations. 

Humans are complex and unique, and because introversion-extraversion varies along a 

continuum, individuals may have a mixture of both orientations. A person who acts 

introverted in one situation may act extraverted in another, and people can learn to act 

in "counter-dispositional" ways in certain situations. For example, Brian Little's free trait 

theory suggests that people can take on "Free Traits", behaving in ways that may not be 


their "first nature", but can strategically advance projects that are important to them. 

Together, this presents an optimistic view of what extraversion is. Rather than being 

fixed and stable, individuals vary in their extraverted behaviors across different 

moments, and can choose to act extraverted to advance important personal projects or 

even increase their happiness, as mentioned above. 

Implications 

Acknowledging that introversion and extraversion are normal variants of behavior can 

help in self-acceptance and understanding of others. For example, an extravert can 

accept his/her introverted partner's need for space, while an introvert can acknowledge 

his/her extraverted partner's need for social interaction. 

Researchers have found a correlation between extraversion and self-reported 

happiness. That is, more extraverted people tend to report higher levels of happiness 

than introverts. Other research has shown that being instructed to act in an extraverted 

manner leads to increases in positive affect, even for people who are trait-level 

introverts. 

This does not mean that introverts are unhappy. Extraverts simply report experiencing 

more positive emotions, whereas introverts tend to be closer to neutral. This may be 

because extraversion is socially preferable in contemporary Western culture and thus 

introverts feel less desirable. In addition to the research on happiness, other studies 

have found that extraverts tend to report higher levels of self-esteem than 

introverts. Others suggest that such results reflect socio-cultural bias in the survey 

itself. Dr. David Meyers has claimed that happiness is a matter of possessing three 

traits: self-esteem, optimism, and extraversion. Meyers bases his conclusions on 

studies that report extraverts to be happier; these findings have been questioned in light 

of the fact that the "happiness" prompts given to the studies' subjects, such as "I like to 

be with others" and "I'm fun to be with," only measure happiness among 

extraverts. Also, according to Carl Jung, introverts acknowledge more readily their 

psychological needs and problems, whereas extraverts tend to be oblivious to them 

because they focus more on the outer world. 

Although extraversion is perceived as socially desirable in Western culture, it is not 

always an advantage. For example, extraverted youths are more likely to engage in 

antisocial or delinquent behavior. In line with this, emerging evidence suggest that the 

trait of extraversion may also be related to that of psychopathy. Conversely, while 

introversion is perceived as less socially desirable, it is strongly associated with positive 

traits such as intelligence and "giftedness." For many years, researchers have found 

that introverts tend to be more successful in academic environments, which extraverts 

may find boring. 

Research shows that behavioral immune system, the psychological processes that infer 

infection risk from perceptual cues and respond to these perceptual cues through the 

activation of aversive emotions, may influence gregariousness. Although extraversion is 


associated with many positive outcomes like higher levels of happiness, those 

extraverted people are also likely to be exposed to interpersonally transmitted infectious 

disease as they tend to contact more people. When individuals are more vulnerable to 

infection, the cost of being social will be relatively greater. Therefore, people are less 

extraversive when they feel vulnerable and vice versa. 

Although neither introversion nor extraversion is pathological, psychotherapists can take 

temperament into account when treating clients. Clients may respond better to different 

types of treatment depending on where they fall on the introversion-extraversion 

spectrum. Teachers can also consider temperament when dealing with their pupils, for 

example acknowledging that introverted children need more encouragement to speak in 

class while extraverted children may grow restless during long periods of quiet study. 

Regional Variation 

Some claim that Americans live in an "extraverted society" that rewards extravert 

behavior and rejects introversion. This is because the US is currently a culture of 

external personality, whereas in some other cultures people are valued for their "inner 

selves and their moral rectitude". Other cultures, such as Japan and regions 

where Orthodox Christianity, Buddhism, Sufism etc. prevail, prize introversion. These 

cultural differences predict individuals' happiness in that people who score higher in 

extraversion are happier, on average, in particularly extraverted cultures and vice versa. 

Researchers have found that people who live on islands tend to be less extraverted 

(more introverted) than those living on the mainland, and that people whose ancestors 

had inhabited the island for twenty generations tend to be less extraverted than more 


ecent arrivals. Furthermore, people who emigrate from islands to the mainland tend to 

be more extraverted than people that stay on islands, and those that immigrate to 

islands. 

In the United States, researchers have found that people living in the midwestern states 

of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois score 

higher than the U.S. average on extraversion. Utah and the southeastern states 

of Florida and Georgia also score high on this personality trait. The most introverted 

states in the United States are Maryland, New 

Hampshire, Alaska, Washington, Oregon and Vermont. People who live in the 

northwestern states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are also relatively introverted. [56] 

Extraversion, Introversion, and Happiness 

As earlier stated, extraverts are often found to have higher levels of happiness 

and positive affect than introverts. An influential review article concluded that 

personality, specifically extraversion and emotional stability, was the best predictor of 

subjective well-being. As examples, Argyle and Lu (1990) found that the trait of 

extraversion, as measured by Extraversion Scale of the Eysenck Personality 

Questionnaire (EPQ), was positively and significantly correlated with happiness, as 

measured by the Oxford Happiness Inventory. Using the same happiness and 

extraversion scales, Hills and Argyle (2001) found that happiness was again 

significantly correlated with extraversion. Also, the study by Emmons 

and Diener (1986) showed that extraversion correlates positively and significantly 

with positive affect but not with negative affect. Similar results were found in a 

large longitudinal study by Diener, Sandvik, Pavot, and Fujita (1992), which assessed 

14,407 participants from 100 areas of continental United States. Using the abbreviated 

General Well-Being Schedule, which tapped positive and negative affects, 

and Costa and McCrae's (1986) short version of the NEO's Extraversion scale, the 

authors reported that extraverts experienced greater well-being at two points in time, 

during which data were collected: first between 1971 and 1975, and later between 1981 

and 1984. Furthermore, Larsen and Ketelaar (1991) showed that extraverts respond 

more to positive affect than to negative affect, since they exhibit more positive-affect 

reactivity to the positive-affect induction, yet they do not react more negatively to the 

negative-affect induction. 

Instrumental View 

The instrumental view proposes that personality traits give rise to conditions and 

actions, which have affective consequences, and thus generate individual differences in 

emotionality. 

Personality Trait As A Cause of Higher Sociability 

According to the instrumental view, one explanation for greater subjective wellbeing 

among extraverts could be that extraversion helps in the creation of life 


circumstances, which promote high levels of positive affect. Specifically, the personality 

trait of extraversion is seen as a facilitator of more social interactions, since the low 

cortical arousal among extraverts results in them seeking more social situations in order 

to increase their arousal. 

Social Activity Hypothesis 

According to the social activity hypothesis, more frequent participation in social 

situations creates more frequent, and higher levels, of positive affect. Therefore, it is 

believed that since extraverts are characterized as more sociable than introverts, they 

also possess higher levels of positive affect brought on by social 

interactions. Specifically, the results of Furnham and Brewin's study (1990) suggest that 

extraverts enjoy and participate more in social activities than introverts, and as a result 

extraverts report higher level of happiness. Also, in the study of Argyle and Lu 

(1990) extraverts were found to be less likely to avoid participation in noisy social 

activities, and to be more likely to participate in social activities such as: party games, 

jokes, or going to the cinema. Similar results were reported by Diener, Larsen, and 

Emmons (1984) who found that extraverts seek social situations more often than 

introverts, especially when engaging in recreational activities. 

However, a variety of findings contradict the claims of the social activity hypothesis. 

Firstly, it was found that extraverts were happier than introverts even when alone. 

Specifically, extraverts tend to be happier regardless of whether they live alone or with 

others, or whether they live in a vibrant city or quiet rural environment. Similarly, a study 

by Diener, Sandvik, Pavot, and Fujita (1992) showed that although extraverts chose 

social jobs relatively more frequently (51%) than nonsocial jobs compared to introverts 

(38%), they were happier than introverts regardless of whether their occupations had 

social or nonsocial character. Secondly, it was found that extraverts only sometimes 

reported greater amounts of social activity than introverts, but in general extraverts and 

introverts do not differ in the quantity of their socialization. Similar finding was reported 

by Srivastava, Angelo, and Vallereux (2008), who found that extraverts and introverts 

both enjoy participating in social interactions, but extraverts participate socially more. 

Thirdly, studies have shown that both extraverts and introverts participate in social 


elations, but that the quality of this participation differs. The more frequent social 

participation among extraverts could be explained by the fact that extraverts know more 

people, but those people are not necessarily their close friends, whereas introverts, 

when participating in social interactions, are more selective and have only few close 

friends with whom they have special relationships. 

Social Attention Theory 

Yet another explanation of the high correlation between extraversion and happiness 

comes from the study by Ashton, Lee, and Paunonen (2002). They suggested that the 

core element of extraversion is a tendency to behave in ways that attract, hold, and 

enjoy social attention, and not reward sensitivity. They claimed that one of the 

fundamental qualities of social attention is its potential of being rewarding. Therefore, if 

a person shows positive emotions of enthusiasm, energy, and excitement, that person 

is seen favorably by others and he or she gains others' attention. This favorable reaction 

from others likely encourages extraverts to engage in further extraverted 

behavior. Ashton, Lee, and Paunonen's (2002) study showed that their measure of 

social attention, the Social Attention Scale, was much more highly correlated with 

extraversion than were measures of reward sensitivity. 

Temperamental View 

Temperamental view is based on the notion that there is a direct link between 

people's personality traits and their sensitivity to positive and negative affects. 

Affective Reactivity Model 

The affective reactivity model states that the strength of a person's reactions to affectrelevant 

events are caused by people's differences in affect. This model is based on 

the reinforcement sensitivity theory by Jeffrey Alan Gray, which states that people with 

stronger behavioral activation system (BAS) are high in reward responsiveness and are 

predisposed to the personality trait of extraversion, while people with a stronger 

behavioral inhibition system (BIS) are lower in reward responsiveness and are more 

predisposed to personality trait of neuroticism and introversion. Therefore, extraverts 

are seen as having a temperamental predisposition to positive affect since 

positive mood induction has a greater effect on them than on introverts, thus extraverts 

are more prone to react to pleasant effects. For example, Gable, Reis, and Elliot 

(2000). found in two consecutive studies that people with more sensitive BIS reported 

higher levels of average negative affect, while people with more sensitive BAS reported 

higher levels of positive affect. Also Zelenski and Larsen (1999) found that people with 

more sensitive BAS reported more positive emotions during the positive mood 

induction, while people with more sensitive BIS reported more negative emotions during 

the negative mood induction. 

Social Reactivity Theory 


The social reactivity theory alleges that all humans, whether they like it or not, are 

required to participate in social situations. Since extraverts prefer engaging in social 

interactions more than introverts, they also derive more positive affect from such 

situations than introverts do. The support for this theory comes from work of Brian R. 

Little, who popularized concept of "restorative niches". Little claimed that life often 

requires people to participate in social situations, and since acting social is out of 

character for introverts, it was shown to harm their well-being. Therefore, one way to 

preserve introverts' well-being is for them to recharge as often as possible in places 

where they can return to their true selves—places Little calls "restorative niches". 

However, it was also found that extraverts did not respond stronger to social situations 

than introverts, nor did they report bigger boosts of positive affect during such 

interactions. 

Affective Regulation 

Another possible explanation for 

more happiness among extraverts 

comes from the 

fact that extraverts 

are able to better 

regulate 

their affective 

states. This means 

that in ambiguous 

situations 

(situations where positive and 

negative moods are introduced and 

mixed in similar 

proportions) 

extraverts show a 

slower decrease of 

positive affect, and, as a result, 

they maintained a more positive 

affect balance than 

introverts. Extraverts may also choose activities that facilitate happiness (e.g., recalling 

pleasant vs. unpleasant memories) more than introverts when anticipating difficult tasks. 

The Set-Point Model a.k.a. Affect-Level Model 

According to the set-point model, levels of positive and negative affects are more or less 

fixed within each individual, hence, after a positive or negative event, people's moods 

tend to go back to the pre-set level. According to the set-point model, extraverts 

experience more happiness because their pre-set level of positive affect is set higher 

than the pre-set point of positive affect in introverts, therefore extraverts require less 

positive reinforcement in order to feel happy. 


Pleasure-Arousal Relation 

A study by Peter Kuppens (2008) showed that extraverts and introverts engage in 

different behaviors when feeling pleasant, which may explain underestimation of the 

frequency and intensity of happiness exhibited by introverts. Specifically, Kuppens 

(2008) found that arousal and pleasantness are positively correlated for extraverts, 

which means that pleasant feelings are more likely to be accompanied by high arousal 

for extraverts. On the other hand, arousal and pleasantness are 

negatively correlated for introverts, resulting in introverts exhibiting low arousal when 

feeling pleasant. In other words, if everything is going well in an extravert's life, which is 

a source of pleasant feelings, extraverts see such situation as an opportunity to engage 

in active behavior and goal pursuit, which brings about an active, aroused pleasant 

state. When everything is going well for introverts, they see it as an opportunity to let 

down their guard, resulting in them feeling relaxed and content. 

Complications to The Extraversion-Happiness Correlation 

Though extraversion has consistently been shown to have a strong correlation with 

happiness and well-being, these findings are complicated by the presence of other 

personality traits that act as strong indicators of happiness. 

Neuroticism and Extraversion 

In multiple studies, neuroticism has been shown to have an equal, if not larger, impact 

on happiness and subjective well-being than extraversion. One study classified school 

children into four categories based on their scores in assessments of extraversion and 

emotional stability (neuroticism). The results showed no significant difference between 

the happiness levels of stable introverts and stable extraverts, while unstable extraverts 

and introverts both demonstrated significantly less happiness than their counterparts. In 

this study, neuroticism appeared to be the more salient factor for overall well-being. 

Likewise, in later studies, researchers used assessment scales to test for categories 

such as self-esteem and life-goal orientation, which they had positively correlated with 

happiness. Participants’ responses to these scales suggested that neuroticism actually 

had a larger impact than extraversion in measures of well-being. 

Other Big 5 Factors and Extraversion 

Though extraversion and neuroticism seem to have the largest effect on personal 

happiness, other Big 5 personality factors have also been shown to correlate with 

happiness and subjective well-being. For example, one study showed that 

conscientiousness and agreeableness correlated about 0.20 with subjective wellbeing. 

While the effect of these traits was not as strong as extraversion or neuroticism, it 

is clear that they still have some impact on happiness outcomes. 


Similarly, interactions between extraversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness have 

demonstrated significant impacts on subjective-well being. In one study, researchers 

used three scale to assess subjective well-being. They found that extraversion only 

served as a predictor for one assessment, in conjunction with neuroticism, while the 

other two assessment outcomes were better predicted by conscientiousness and 

neuroticism. In addition to the importance of including other factors in happiness 

assessments, this study also demonstrates the manner in which an operational 

definition of well-being changes whether extraversion emerges as a salient predictive 

factor. 

Other Contributing Personality Factors 

There is also evidence that other non-trait elements of personality may correlate with 

happiness. For instance, one study demonstrated that various features of one's goals, 

such as progress towards important goals or conflicts between them, can affect both 

emotional and cognitive well-being. Several other researchers have also suggested 

that, at least in more individualistic cultures, having a coherent sense of one's 

personality (and acting in a way that conforms to that self-concept) is positively related 

to well-being. Thus, focusing solely on extraversion—or even extraversion and 


neuroticism—is likely to provide an incomplete picture of the relationship between 

happiness and personality. 

Culture 

In addition, one’s culture may also influence happiness and overall subjective wellbeing. 

The overall level of happiness fluctuates from culture to culture, as does 

preferred expression of happiness. Comparing various international surveys across 

countries reveals that different nations, and different ethnic groups within nations, 

exhibit differences in average life satisfaction. 

For example, one researcher found that between 1958 and 1987, Japanese life 

satisfaction fluctuated around 6 on a 10-point scale, while Denmark’s fluctuated around 

8. Comparing ethnic groups within the United States, another study found that 

European Americans reported being “significantly happier” with their lives than Asian 

Americans. 

Researchers have hypothesized a number of factors that could be responsible for these 

differences between countries, including national differences in overall income levels, 

self-serving biases and self-enhancement, and approach and avoidance 

orientations. Taken together, these findings suggest that while extraversion-introversion 

does have a strong correlation with happiness, it does not stand alone as a sole 

predictor of subjective well-being, and that other factors must be accounted for when 

trying to determine the correlates of happiness. 


V. Social Anxiety 

and The Difference Between Introversion 

and Social Anxiety 

Social Anxiety can be defined as nervousness in social situations. Some 

disorders associated with the social anxiety spectrum include anxiety disorders, mood 

disorders, autism, eating disorders, and substance use disorders. Individuals higher in 

social anxiety avert their gazes, show fewer facial expressions, and show difficulty with 

initiating and maintaining conversation. Trait social anxiety, the stable tendency to 

experience this nervousness, can be distinguished from state anxiety, the momentary 

response to a particular social stimulus. Nearly 90% of individuals report feeling a form 

of social anxiety (e.g. shyness) at some point in their lives. Half of the individuals with 

any social fears meet criteria for social anxiety disorder. The function of social anxiety is 

to increase arousal and attention to social interactions, inhibit unwanted social behavior, 

and motivate preparation for social situations such as performance situations. 

Child Development 

Stages 

Some feelings of anxiety in social situations is normal and necessary for effective social 

functioning and developmental growth. Cognitive advances and increased pressures in 


late childhood and early adolescence result in repeated social anxiety. Adolescents 

have identified their most common anxieties as focused on relationships with peers to 

whom they are attracted, peer rejection, public speaking, blushing, selfconsciousness, 

freaking out, and past behavior. Most adolescents progress through 

their fears and meet the developmental demands placed on them. More and more 

children are being diagnosed with social anxiety, and this can lead to problems with 

education if not closely monitored. Part of social anxiety is fear of being criticized by 

others, and in children, social anxiety causes extreme distress over everyday activities 

such as playing with other kids, reading in class, or speaking to adults. On the other 

hand, some children with social anxiety will act out because of their fear. The problem 

with identifying social anxiety disorder in children is that it can be difficult to determine 

the difference between social anxiety and basic shyness. 

Adults 

It can be easier to identify social anxiety within adults because they tend to shy away 

from any social situation and keep to themselves. Common adult forms of social anxiety 

include performance anxiety, public speaking anxiety, stage fright, and timidness. All of 

these may also assume clinical forms, i.e., become anxiety disorders (see below). 

Criteria that distinguish between clinical and nonclinical forms of social anxiety include 

the intensity and level of behavioral and psychosomatic disruption (discomfort) in 

addition to the anticipatory nature of the fear. Social anxieties may also be classified 

according to the broadness of triggering social situations. For example, fear of eating in 

public has a very narrow situational scope (eating in public), while shyness may have a 

wide scope (a person may be shy of doing many things in various circumstances). The 

clinical (disorder) forms are also divided into general social phobia (i.e., social anxiety 

disorder) and specific social phobia. 

Disorder 

Social anxiety disorder (SAD), also known as social phobia, is an anxiety 

disorder characterized by a significant amount of fear in one or more social situations 

causing considerable distress and impaired ability to function in at least some parts of 

daily life. These fears can be triggered by perceived or actual scrutiny from others. 

Physical symptoms often include excessive blushing, excess 

sweating, trembling, palpitations, and nausea. Stammering may be present, along with 

rapid speech. Panic attacks can also occur under intense fear and discomfort. Some 

sufferers may use alcohol or other drugs to reduce fears and inhibitions at social events. 

It is common for sufferers of social phobia to self-medicate in this fashion, especially if 

they are undiagnosed, untreated, or both; this can lead to alcoholism, eating 

disorders or other kinds of substance abuse. SAD is sometimes referred to as an 

"illness of lost opportunities" where "individuals make major life choices to 

accommodate their illness". According to ICD-10 guidelines, the main diagnostic criteria 

of social anxiety disorder are fear of being the focus of attention, or fear of behaving in a 


way that will be embarrassing or humiliating, avoidance and anxiety 

symptoms. Standardized rating scales can be used to screen for social anxiety disorder 

and measure the severity of anxiety. 

The first line treatment for social anxiety disorder is cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) 

with medications recommended only in those who are not interested in therapy. CBT is 

effective in treating social phobia, whether delivered individually or in a group 

setting. The cognitive and behavioral components seek to change thought patterns and 

physical reactions to anxiety-inducing situations. The attention given to social anxiety 

disorder has significantly increased since 1999 with the approval and marketing of 

drugs for its treatment. Prescribed medications include several classes 

of antidepressants: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotoninnorepinephrine 

reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and monoamine oxidase 

inhibitors (MAOIs). Other commonly used medications include beta 

blockers and benzodiazepines. It is the most common anxiety disorder with up to 10% 

of people being affected at some point in their life. 

Signs and Symptoms 

Blushing is a physiological response unique to humans and is a hallmark physiological 

response associated with social anxiety. Blushing is the involuntary reddening of the 

face, neck, and chest in reaction to evaluation or social attention. Blushing occurs not 

only in response to feelings of embarrassment but also other socially-oriented emotions 

such as shame, guilt, shyness, and pride. Individuals high in social anxiety perceive 

themselves as blushing more than those who are low in social anxiety. Three types of 

blushing can be measured: self-perceived blushing (how much the individual believes 

he or she is blushing), physiological blushing (blushing as measured by physiological 

indices), and observed blushing (blushing observed by others). Social anxiety is 

strongly associated with self-perceived blushing, weakly associated with blushing as 

measured by physiological indices such as temperature and blood flow to the cheeks 

and forehead, and moderately associated with observed blushing. The relationship 

between physiological blushing and self-perceived blushing is small among those high 

in social anxiety, indicating that individuals with high social anxiety may overestimate 


their blushing. That social anxiety is associated most strongly with self-perceived 

blushing is also important for cognitive models of blushing and social anxiety, indicating 

that socially anxious individuals use both internal cues and other types of information to 

draw conclusions about how they are coming across. 

Attention Bias 

Individuals who tend to experience more social anxiety turn their attention away from 

threatening social information and toward themselves, prohibiting them from challenging 

negative expectations about others and maintaining high levels of social anxiety. A 

socially anxious individual perceives rejection from a conversational partner, turns his or 

her attention away, and never learns that the individual is actually 

welcoming. Individuals who are high in social anxiety tend to show increased initial 

attention toward negative social cues such as threatening faces followed by attention 

away from these social cues, indicating a pattern of hypervigilance followed by 

avoidance. Attention in social anxiety has been measured using the dot-probe 

paradigm, which presents two faces next to one another. One face has an emotional 

expression and the other has a neutral expression, and when the faces disappear, a 

probe appears in the location of one of the faces. This creates a congruent condition in 

which the probe appears in the same location as the emotional face, and an 

incongruent condition. Participants respond to the probe by pressing a button and 

differences in reaction times reveal attentional biases. This task has revealed mixed 

results, with some studies finding no differences between socially anxious individuals 

and controls, some studies finding avoidance of all faces, and others finding vigilance 

toward threat faces. There is some evidence that vigilance toward threat faces can be 

detected during short but not longer exposures to faces, indicating a possible initial 

hypervigilance followed by avoidance. The Face-in-the-crowd task shows that 

individuals with social anxiety are faster at detecting an angry face in a predominantly 

neutral or positive crowd or slower at detecting happy faces than a nonanxious 

person. Results overall using this task are mixed and this task may not be able to detect 

hypervigilance toward angry faces in social anxiety. 

Focus on the self has been associated with increased social anxiety and negative 

affect, however there are two types of self-focus: In public self focus, one shows 

concern for the impact of one's own actions on others and their impressions. This type 

of self-focus predicts greater social anxiety. Other more private forms of selfconsciousness 

(e.g., egocentric goals) are associated with other types of negative 

affect. 

Basic science research suggests that cognitive biases can be modified. Attention bias 

modification training has been shown to temporarily impact social anxiety. 

Measures 

Trait social anxiety is most commonly measured by self-report. This method possesses 

limitations, however subjective responses are the most reliable indicator of a subjective 


state. Other measures of social anxiety include diagnostic interviews, clinicianadministered 

instruments, and behavioral assessments. No single trait social anxiety 

self-report measure shows all psychometric properties including different kinds 

of validity (content validity, criterion validity, construct validity), reliability and internal 

consistency. The SIAS along with the SIAS-6A and -6B are rated as the best. These 

measures include: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fear of Negative Evaluation (FNE) and Brief form (BFNE) 

Fear Questionnaire Social Phobic Subscale (FQSP) 

Interaction Anxiousness Scale (IAS) 

Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale-Self Report (LSAS-SR) 

Older Adult Social-Evaluative Situations (OASES) 

Social Avoidance and Distress (SAD) 

Self-Consciousness Scale (SCC) 

Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS) and brief form (SIAS-6A and -6B) 

Social Interaction Phobia Scale (SIPS) 

Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory (SPAI) and brief form (SPAI-23) 

Situational Social Avoidance (SSA) 

________ 


The Difference Between Social Anxiety and Introversion 

In 4 Comics 

Loving Alone Time Is Different from A Mental Health Condition. 

by Lindsay Holmes and Eva Hill 

Huffington Post April 25, 2018 

Introversion and social anxiety are often conflated, whether it’s in people’s minds or in 

memes on the internet. Here’s the reality: Preferring alone time is not the same as living 

with a mental health condition. 

Introversion (the characteristic of preferring alone time) is a personality trait. Social 

anxiety (a phobia of being watched or judged by others) is a mental health condition, 

and it affects an estimated 15 million Americans. Of course, you can be an introvert and 

also have social anxiety. But the misperception that the two are one and the same does 

a disservice to those who fall under each category. 

These easy-to-understand illustrations depict the differences between social anxiety 

and introversion, according to experts and research. 

Take a look: 

1. Introverts Get Drained from Big Parties. People Living with Social Anxiety 

Often Fear Them. 

The thought of social interaction can be paralyzing for someone living with a 

social anxiety disorder, according to Victor Schwartz, the chief medical officer of 

the Jed Foundation, a suicide prevention organization. 

“Introversion is a character style. The person may not like or may take time to 

warm up in social settings and might experience some manageable anxiety in 

social settings,” he said. “The person with social anxiety has more severe and 

acute anxiety when faced with or even thinking about social situations, and this 

will very likely cause functional limits.” This includes a fear or an avoidance of 

parties or other group settings, he added. 

2. An Introvert Could Be Born with The Trait. Social Anxiety Can Develop Based 

On a Person’s Environment. 

Social anxiety can manifest as a product of a person’s environment, according to 

clinical psychologist Ellen Hendriksen. For example, it can develop after bullying 

or some early form of social rejection. However, introversion is more of a 

characteristic that’s ingrained in a person from the start. 


“Introversion is a trait, meaning it’s part of your inborn personality,” she wrote in a 

post republished on Scientific American. “But with social anxiety, while you may 

carry a predisposition toward it, you didn’t come out of the womb with it. Likely, a 

lot of learning went into its development.” 

3. An Introvert May Enjoy Downtime Before Going Somewhere with A Crowd. 

Someone Living with Social Anxiety May Have A Panic Attack. 

Introverts use their downtime before or after social engagements as a moment to 

recharge, as they gain or replenish their energy from being alone rather than 

from being around others. For those with social anxiety, anticipating a large 

gathering might cause extreme fear, panic or stress. 

“Symptoms of social anxiety are the same as symptoms of anxiety in general. 

What differs is the setting or context,” Schwartz explained. Those can include 

“feelings of tension, jitteriness, difficulty sitting still or concentrating and physical 

symptoms like tightness in throat or chest, heart beating fast, sweaty palms and 

fluttery stomach.” 


4. Introverts Don’t Necessarily Dislike Public Speaking; They Just Hate the Small 

Talk That Follows. People Living with Social Anxiety Worry They’re Being Judged 

By A Crowd. 

When it comes to public speaking or presentations, introverts loathe the 

meaningless talk after the event but may not hate the address itself. For those 

living with social anxiety, standing in front of a group is the problem. 

Perfectionism is a side effect of the condition, and those dealing with it are often 

afraid they’ll mess up or say the wrong thing. 

“There are often thoughts about people disapproving or likely making fun of the 

person with anxiety,” Schwartz said. “People often expect they will be 

embarrassed or ashamed by something they will say or do — ‘My voice sounds 

funny’ or ‘I feel inarticulate’ or something like that.” 

Bottom line: Inaccurate stereotypes can lead to wrongful stigma ― no matter if a person 

identifies as an introvert, someone with social anxiety or both. 


VI. How to Thrive 

as an Introvert 

by IntrovertDear.com 

Introverts can be successful in any walk of life. 

There are introverts who are famous actors and politicians. There are introvert CEOs, 

pop stars, authors, and engineers. And introverts, like everyone, can find happiness in 

love, in family, in spirituality or in learning — or in whatever gives them purpose. 

What’s different about introverts is what we have to do to tap into our talents and thrive: 

We have to work with our introversion rather than fight against it. 

That might mean turning down social invites. It might mean focusing on the friends you 

value most instead of trying to be everything to everyone. It might mean finding a way to 

get more solitude at work — especially in an open office. 

And, most important, it might mean trusting your instinct about what you really need to 

be happy. Once you do that, you will stop feeling worn out or uncertain — and you’ll 

start seeing your genius come through. 

________ 


What Is an Introvert? Definition & Guide to Introversion 

Introvert Definition: 

The definition of an introvert is someone who prefers calm, minimally stimulating 

environments. Introverts tend to feel drained after socializing and regain their energy by 

spending time alone. This is largely because introverts’ brains respond to dopamine 

differently than extroverts’ brains. In other words, if you’re an introvert, you were likely 

born that way. 

How Do I Know if I’m an Introvert? 

 

 

Have you always felt different? 

Do you enjoy spending time alone? 

Do you ever feel like you’re the only person who doesn’t need to talk, talk, talk — 

or be around people all the time? 

If so, you might be an introvert. 

Being an introvert is perfectly normal. Despite what your peers, teachers, and even 

parents may have told you, being an introvert doesn’t mean there’s something wrong 

with you—and it’s not even that uncommon. Studies suggest that 30 to 50 percent of 

the U.S. population are introverts. That’s one out of every two or three people you 

know. 

The result? Even if you’re not an introvert yourself, you likely work with, are married to, 

or are friends with an introvert. Most people know more introverts than they think. 

Right now, there’s an introvert revolution going on. Slowly, our extroverted world is 

learning to understand and accept the introvert’s way. But in order to do that, we first 

need to better understand what introversion is — and what it’s not… 

What Does It Mean to Be an Introvert? 

The most common definition of an introvert is someone who gets drained by socializing 

and recharges by being alone. But there’s so much more to introversion than that. 

Everyone is born with an innate temperament — a way that you gain energy and prefer 

to interact with the world. Introversion and extroversion are temperaments. Whether 

you’re an introvert or extrovert is largely determined by your genes — meaning you 

were probably born that way. 

However, we’re also shaped by our life experiences. If your quiet, thoughtful ways were 

encouraged by your parents, teachers, and others, you probably grew up feeling 

confident in who you are. But, like many introverts, if you were teased, bullied, or told to 


“come out of your shell,” you may have developed social anxiety or felt like you had to 

pretend to be someone you’re not. 

The good news is it’s not too late to work on the things that hold you back. 

Of course, not all introverts are the same. Some introverts will need only a little bit of 

alone time to recharge and can handle a fair amount of social time before feeling 

drained. Others drain quickly and prefer to spend very long periods alone. It’s different 

for each person, and many introverts are somewhere in the middle. 

Sooner or later, however, all introverts will 

experience the dreaded “introvert 

hangover,” which is the feeling of being 

completely wiped out from too much 

“people time” or stimulation. This can mean 

feeling fatigued, unable to concentrate, or 

even grouchy. It’s as if your brain has used 

up all its mental energy and just doesn’t 

haven’t any left. (And, in fact, that’s exactly 

what has happened.) 

The result is that most introverts share 

certain characteristics: 

 

 

We’d rather stay home most nights 

than go out to one social event after 

another. 

We enjoy quiet, solitary activities like 

reading, writing, gaming, gardening, 

or drawing. 

 

 

 

We’ll usually choose the company of a few close friends over a wild party. 

We do our best work alone. 

Many of us will avoid small talk or other unnecessary social interactions. 

Are Introverts Shy? 

Some introverts are and some aren’t. This is probably the single most misunderstood 

thing about being an introvert. 

The truth is that being shy and being an introvert are two totally different traits: 


Being shy means you get very nervous and self-conscious in social situations. 

Both introverts and extroverts can have this trait — not all natural-born extroverts 

run around chatting with strangers! 

Being introverted means socializing wears you out. You might not be nervous 

or shy at all. In fact, many introverts enjoy socializing (as long as it’s 

meaningful!). And some even get misidentified as ambiverts or extroverts. But 

since it will eventually tire you out, you probably avoid extra social time when you 

can. 

Compare social stamina to running. If extroverts are marathon runners, introverts are 

sprinters. That doesn’t mean that introverts don’t like running (er, social time). It just 

means we have to conserve our energy. 

5 Myths About Introverts 

Unfortunately, many people don’t fully understand what it means to be an introvert. 

They equate introversion with shyness, depression, or social anxiety. When introverts 

go quiet, we are wrongly accused of being stuck up, angry, or disinterested. And when 

we spend time alone, we are often accused of being antisocial or selfish. 

For most introverts, these misconceptions couldn’t be further from the truth. Here’s the 

truth behind the five worst stereotypes: 

1. Introverts are not necessarily socially awkward. Just like shyness, social 

awkwardness is a separate trait from introversion. Many introverts can actually 

be quite charismatic in social situations. (In fact, introverts account for 60 percent 

of all lawyers, a profession that requires quite a bit of confidence speaking in 

front of others.) 

2. Introverts don’t hate people. An introvert’s lack of chitchat is often 

misinterpreted. People take it as a sign that we don’t like others. The truth is the 

opposite. Introverts often avoid small talk because we consider it to be 

inauthentic. We crave a more meaningful connection with the people we talk to. 

3. Introverts aren’t rude. Yes, if an introvert is completely out of social energy, we 

might start getting a little crabby or simply zone out. But we’re not trying to be 

rude — and we’ll be a lot more friendly if you give us some time to recharge 

alone. 

4. Introverts don’t need be “fixed.” Being an introvert is part of who we are, and it 

can be a source of brilliance. We are at our best when we embrace our nature 

and use it as a source of strength. 

5. Introverts don’t (usually) wish we were extroverted. Sure, sometimes 

introverts envy an extrovert’s ability to think quickly or fit naturally into a social 


situation. But we also take great delight in our inner world and our alone time. 

Introverts have many strengths that don’t come naturally to extroverts, and we 

wouldn’t trade them for the world. 

13 Signs You Are an Introvert 

Every introvert is unique, but there are some signs you’re an introvert that are pretty 

telling. Here are 13 signs that you might be an introvert: 

1. You enjoy spending time alone 

Most introverts enjoy social time too, but all introverts enjoy the solitude of 

spending time alone. If alone time feels refreshing, peaceful, and helps you 

recharge, you’re probably an introvert. 

2. Certain types of socializing drain you 

It’s possible that not all social settings affect you the same way. But with new 

people, large crowds, or in noisy environments, you probably get wiped out fast. 

Stay out too long and you may even crash — a.k.a. the “introvert hangover.” 

3. You do your best work alone 


Introverts rarely work well in crowded environments. The more secluded you are, 

the more likely you are to focus deeply and produce great work. You may feel 

more creative, focused, or productive, or you may simply be able to do more in a 

shorter time. It doesn’t mean you can’t work on teams, but you like to retreat 

somewhere quiet once the collaborating is done. In an open office, noisecanceling 

headphones are your friend. 

4. You’d rather hang out with a few close friends than a large group of people 

It’s a myth that introverts don’t like to socialize. Sitting with a few close friends, 

you may enjoy chatting all night, and you may even “seem” like an extrovert. For 

whatever reason, these types of interactions don’t drain you the way others do. 

But once you get to a party or large group setting, you know it’s only a matter of 

time before you feel wiped. 

5. You have a vivid, rich inner world… 

You might spend a lot of time pondering, and even dreaming. Or, you might just 

prefer to think things through before you act. Not every introvert is a dreamer or 

creative, but almost all have an entire inner world that they find just as 

comfortable as the world around them 

6. …and you’re often “in your head” 

Sometimes, you get caught daydreaming, or you get flak from coworkers who are 

quicker to act with less planning. You might even have been told to “get your 

head out of the clouds” — or you may simply tend to zone out during a 

conversation and pursue your own thoughts. It’s not that the word around you 

isn’t interesting. It’s just that what you’re imagining or thinking about is 

even more interesting. 

7. You prefer to stay out of the spotlight 

There are exceptions to this, but many introverts prefer not to speak up in large 

group settings — and would rather hand off speaking roles to someone else. Of 

course, many introverts are creatives and performers, and some even love 

getting on stage. Others are business leaders who speak in front of teams or 

audiences all the time. Introverts are fully capable of learning and mastering 

these skills, but if your natural inclination is to avoid group participation, you may 

be an introvert. 

8. You can “network,” but you feel like you’re faking it 

If you hate small talk, and you also hate having to talk to strangers, then 

networking is just about the least comfortable thing you can do — and that’s 


exactly how most introverts feel. That doesn’t mean you can’t do it when it’s 

necessary for work or business, but if given a choice, you’d schedule your next 

networking event for sometime in 2089. 

9. You don’t always know what to say 

Instead, you routinely find yourself thinking of the right response after the 

conversation is over. This is normal: many introverts struggle with word retrieval 

(the ability to choose the right words on the fly). 

10. You’re better at writing your thoughts than speaking them 

You may or may not be a natural novelist, but if writing something is more 

comfortable than saying it in person, it’s a strong sign you’re an introvert. 

Introverts take time to think about what we want to say, and while that can slow 

down a live conversation, it makes for very clear and expressive writing. 

11. You dive deep, both in your relationships and interests 

What exactly do you do with that alone time you like to have? It’s time for selfreflection, 

of course! You might spend it thinking about your life, the people you 

love, your career, or the “big questions” in life. Or, you might spend it reading, 

researching, or creating art. All of these things give you a tendency to go deeper 

than others into the topics and pursuits that interest you. (Of course, you also 

spend some of that time just relaxing and recharging.) 


12. You seek meaning 

When you’re the type of person who thinks deeply about your world, it’s hard to 

settle for shallow relationships, shallow goals, or shallow conversation. If you 

seek a sense of meaning in your job and your relationships, and prefer 

meaningful conversation over small talk, it could be a sign you are an introvert. 

13. You feel out of place in an “extroverted” society 

Extroverts often don’t notice it, but our society assumes that people should be 

chatty, social and quick to speak up — pretty much all the time. Did you feel 

pressure to talk more even at a young age? Did you always feel out of place, or 

even wonder if there was something wrong with you for not being more social? 

This single factor may be the biggest sign you’re an introvert. 

These are just some of the signs of an introvert, and not every introvert will match all of 

them. But if you — or someone you love — matches most of them, it’s a pretty strong 

sign. Want even more? Check out 21 Undeniable Signs You’re an Introvert. 

There’s No Such Thing as a Pure Introvert 

No two introverts are exactly alike. What’s true for one introvert may be be quite 

different for another. Each introvert has a different level of tolerance for socializing and 

other types of stimulation. 

Above all, there is no such thing as a pure introvert or extrovert. “Such a man would be 

in the lunatic asylum,” the famous psychotherapist Carl Jung once noted. Introversion 

and extroversion are on a spectrum, meaning, they are not all-or-nothing traits. 

Everyone acts introverted at times and extroverted at other times. It’s all about what 

your preference — in general — tends to be. 

If you’re not sure whether you’re more of an introvert or more of an extrovert, you can 

take the introvert quiz and find out. 

Can an Introvert Become an Extrovert? 

There are two answers to this: 

1. No, introverts cannot become extroverts. 

2. Why would we want to? 

Why we can’t: The research is clear that introverts express their temperament from a 

young age. In fact, one study by psychologist Jerome Kagan found that it’s possible to 

predict which babies will grow up to be introverted based on their reaction to stimuli at 


just four months old. In other words, if you have an introverted nature, you’re likely to be 

that way from birth and remain that way throughout your life. 

Why we don’t want to: This speaks to a deeper truth about introverts. There are plenty 

of introverts out there who wish they could be more outgoing, but this isn’t the same 

thing as becoming an extrovert. Introverts, like everyone, can practice their social skills 

and become more capable in social situations. But it won’t change the fact that those 

interactions drain us. 

But, if you’re hoping to become more social, there’s good news: 

 

 

There is definitely such a thing as an outgoing or “extroverted” introvert… 

…and introverts can learn social skills and get good at them with practice. 

There are lots of charming introverts out there, from major stars like Lady Gaga, Audrey 

Hepburn and Johnny Depp to many of the warm, friendly and charismatic introverts 

we’ve met thanks to the Introvert, Dear community. For most of us, becoming 

comfortable in social situations has simply been a matter of practice—even if it seemed 

impossible once. 


Remember: your quiet nature is part of who you are—and it’s a good thing. Introverts 

who embrace their nature tend to flourish. 

They are happier, have better relationships, do better work, and enjoy life because their 

minds are well-rested and their energy level is high. The best thing you can do if you’re 

an introvert is not try to change it, but to take the alone time you need and let your vast 

inner world work for you. 

________ 

Introverts Don’t Hate People, 

They Hate Shallow Socializing 

I like to make jokes about how much I hate people. As an introvert, it’s easy to do. The 

stereotype of the misanthropic introvert is backed by countless Facebook memes and 

pop culture references: Think of the animated character Daria with her oversized 

glasses and a book in her hand or that catchy quote from Charles Bukowski, “I don’t 

hate people, I just feel better when they aren’t around.” 

These memes and quotes exist for a reason. They are funny and relatable, but they can 

also serve as a coping mechanism for those who need an excuse to hide behind. It’s 

the whole “I’m too school for cool” persona. It’s easy for me to say I spent the majority of 

the party playing with the host’s cat because the people there weren’t half as interesting 

as the books I have at home. It’s harder to admit that getting past the barrier of small 

talk ranges from somewhat daunting to downright terrifying. So I oversimplify and say I 

don’t like people, when what I actually dislike are the surface-level interactions of most 

social gatherings. 

We’ve all been to those parties where the sole purpose of the event is for everyone to 

break into small groups where they talk about sports, the weather, or where the host’s 

second cousin got her hair done. It’s moments like these where it suddenly becomes 

very important to find out if there’s a pet you can play with, or when all else fails, 

perhaps a large potted plant to hide behind. If there’s a drink to be fetched or a bowl of 

chips to be refilled, this task will instantly become the sole purpose of my existence, 

because literally anything is better than small talk. 

However, despite appearances, I don’t hate people. I just hate shallow socializing. 

And therein lies the problem that has kept thousands of introverts awake until all hours 

of the night. Because being an introvert doesn’t mean that you want to be alone all the 

time. But unfortunately, in order to meet people to share your inner world with, it’s 

necessary to go out and socialize. In order to get to those coveted discussions about life 

goals, creative passions, and the existence of the universe, you sometimes have to start 

with some small talk, no matter how painful it might be. 

Sometimes an Introvert Has to Go Out to Appreciate Staying In 


I view socializing much like I view other aspects of my life that I know are good for me in 

the long run, but really aren’t very enjoyable in the moment. Do I really want to go to the 

gym when I could just go home and watch Netflix? No. Do I really want a salad for lunch 

when I could have a hamburger? No. Do I really want to go to a party when I could curl 

up in bed with a book and a cup of tea? It’s a no-brainer. However, to reap the rewards, 

you sometimes have to put in the work. 

It’s all about balance. Just like I might treat myself to a piece of chocolate cake as a 

reward for all those days I spent at the gym last week, I’ll spend a quiet Saturday night 

at home because I know I already put in a night of socializing and interacting with 

people outside of my comfort zone on Friday. 

The reward of staying in is so much sweeter when it’s saved as its own unique event to 

look forward to. Whereas, staying home with a book feels a whole lot less special when 

you are doing it for the tenth night in a row. Sometimes you have to go out to fully 

appreciate staying in, and vice versa. 


I never would’ve met some of my closest friends if I chose to stay home and read all the 

time. Those relationships I have now were worth the anxiety and apprehension I felt 

upon venturing out of my comfort zone to establish them. Unfortunately, creating those 

kinds of relationships is rare, because socializing doesn’t always have tangible rewards. 

Sometimes I leave an event feeling drained and wishing that I had never left the house. 

Other times, I might feel that it went okay, but I know the surface-level conversations I 

held all evening probably won’t lead to any life-altering friendships. But that’s okay, 

because not every conversation or every evening out has to be life-altering. 

For an Introvert, Socializing Isn’t Just a Way to Pass the Time 

As an introvert, it’s my natural tendency to always want every interaction to be about 

establishing a deep connection, but that can put too much pressure on the average 

casual conversation. Sometimes it’s just about staying in practice with my (albeit limited) 

people skills until the day when someone suddenly wants to talk about their dreams and 

goals and all the things that makes them tick. It’s impossible to know where a 

conversation will lead unless you try. 

I’m aware of just how ridiculous my socializing philosophy will sound to extroverts. To 

them, socializing itself is the end goal. My extroverted friends are always looking for 

something to do on the weekend, during the holidays, and even on work nights. They 

pursue socializing for the in-the-moment excitement that it brings. For me, attempting to 

socialize is a long-term goal, one that I carefully craft and balance so I don’t get 

mentally or emotionally overwhelmed. 

“Going out” is rarely exciting for me in the moment. But I always have hope when 

attending a party or trying a new networking event that I will make a friend who is also 

dying for a quiet cup of coffee while chatting about life, or who wants to take a trip to the 

beach just so we can lay side by side and read in complete silence. 

When I socialize, I’m not looking for a way to just pass the time. I already have a full list 

of hobbies and interests and not enough hours in the day to enjoy them all. But I am 

always looking for a new person with whom I can share my passions and my world. 

Sometimes meeting that one new person can be worth the agony of socializing. I like to 

think I’m the kind of person worth socializing for, and I know I’m not the only one of my 

kind. 

So, my fellow introverts, please occasionally put down your books, go out, and search 

for the people who make socializing worth it — because I’m out there looking for you. 

________ 


12 Things Introverts Absolutely Need 

to Be Happy 

Introverts have unique needs that are different from those of extroverts. We’re not 

always looking for the next party, and we may be just as happy staying home. So what 

does it take to avoid feeling exhausted and drained? Here are 12 things that just about 

every introvert needs to be happy. 

What an Introvert Needs to 

Be Happy 

1. Time to Wind Down After 

a Busy Day 

An absolute must. Due to 

biological wiring, introverts 

are sensitive to stimulation 

and process information 

deeply. Time to unwind 

allows them to fully 

comprehend the events of a 

busy day — and lower their 

stimulation level to one that’s 

more comfortable and 

sustainable. 

2. Meaningful Conversation 

Introverts can’t survive on a 

diet of small talk alone. “How 

was your day?” or “How ’bout this weather?” won’t be enough. Introverts tend to 

dive deep, both in their interests and relationships. They need something more: 

What’s one new thing you’ve learned lately? How are you a different person 

today than you were 10 years ago? Does God exist? Of course, not every 

conversation has to be deep. Sometimes introverts really do just want to know 

what you did this weekend. But occasionally, to feed their minds and souls, they 

need those wide-awake-at-midnight-can’t-stop-talking kind of moments. 

3. Comfortable Silences 

On the flip side, introverts need people in their lives who are content with quiet. 

People who can sit in the same room with them, not talking, each doing their own 

thing. People who will not nervously jump to fill a pause in the conversation, but 

will let thoughts linger, waiting until each idea has been fully digested. Trust 

introverts when they say that silence can be beautiful. 


4. Space To Dive Deep Into Their Hobbies and Interests 

17th century horror novels. Celtic mythology. Restoring old cars. Gardening, 

painting, cooking, or writing. If it’s out there, introverts are doing it. Having the 

time and space to dive deep into their interests is recharging. But it’s about more 

than just doing the thing. It’s about slowing down and entering a state of flow — 

which may come naturally for introverts. Bonus: They end up becoming experts 

in their areas of interest. 

5. A Quiet, Calm Space That’s All Theirs 

Admittedly, this is something I don’t have right now. But the dream is real: A 

room to be alone in. A room to arrange however I’d like. A room with a door that 

closes out the world, even just for a little while. For introverts, having a space 

that’s all theirs makes an incredible difference in terms of their energy levels. 

Being alone — truly alone, without fear of intrusion or interruption — is freeing 

and invigorating on a nearly spiritual level. 

6. Time To Think Before Responding 

There’s hardly anything more stressful than an impatient boss or spouse 

standing before you demanding an answer right now. For extroverts, it’s usually 

easy to spout something off. But not so for introverts, who may rely more on 

long-term memory than working memory (for extroverts, it’s the opposite). 

Usually, a few (pressure-free) beats is all an introvert needs to reach into their 

memory and pull out just the right words they want. Give them that time. It will be 

worth it, I promise. 

7. Friends Who Understand That Sometimes They Will Stay Home. 

Introverts won’t attend every party or get-together. They do enjoy some 

socializing, but it’s all about dosage. Too much, and their sensitive systems will 

have them begging for their beds. They need friends who understand that 

sometimes they just can’t “people” anymore today. These friends know that once 

introverts have had downtime, they’ll be up for another (laid-back) adventure. 

8. A Deeper Purpose To Their Work 

Many introverts want a job that is more than just a paycheck. Sure, they need to 

pay their bills, but they want their 9-to-5 efforts to feel worthwhile, too. They want 

to know that they’re helping others. That they’re making at least some small 

difference in the grand scheme of things. If introverts are just punching in and 

punching out, doing routine work that doesn’t seem to fit a wider goal, life will feel 

hollow. 


9. Permission To Not Explain Sometimes 

There are times when they just have no words. They may be feeling something 

strongly, but they can’t describe it. Or they need to be alone right now, but don’t 

have the energy to provide a lengthy explanation. When an introvert says, “I don’t 

want to talk about it,” or simply, “This is what I need,” let that suffice. After some 

time to process, they will likely come back to you with more words. 

10. Time And Space To Work Uninterrupted 

It’s no secret that introverts do their best work alone. Unfortunately, our offices 

and classrooms are not geared toward quiet reflection. As a result, you may find 

introverts sneaking away to the abandoned corners of the office building. Or 

coming early or staying late. Or begging to stay in the classroom — where it’s 

quiet and empty — during recess. To all teachers, supervisors, and parents — 

give introverts the quiet space they need to think. You may find that you get 

higher quality work in return. 

11. Their Tribe 

Rarely the ones for chasing popularity, introverts usually have just a few close 

friends — and they prefer it that way. However, note that the key word is “close.” 

For introverts, friendship isn’t about just occupying the same space, doing the 

same activity. Nor is it about trading gossip. It’s about finding a kindred spirit, 

someone who will peek into the introvert’s inner world — and reveal theirs in 

return. 


12. Time To Slow Down 

Breathe. Take it all in. Just be. Repeat. 


VII. The Gift of Introversion 

by IntrovertDear.com 

Many introverts grow up feeling out of place. We live in a fast, noisy world that sees 

chattiness as a virtue. Many introverts worry from a young age that something is wrong 

with them. 

But being an introvert is a gift. 

The world has a need for people who go deeper, think before they act, and look at 

things in new ways. 

The world has 

place 

for 

a 

people 

who 

value 

meaningful 

relationships over 

meaningless small talk. 

And the world is ready for thoughtful, contemplative people who bring calm and 

wisdom to a room. 

These are traits that introverts offer. And, precisely because the world has so many 

extroverts, when you step into these traits and own them, you will find that people 

appreciate you — and value you. 

Why? Well, we’re not all the same, but depending on the introvert, introverts are… 

There is an old saying that the person who says the least is also the wisest. 

Introverts aren’t born any wiser than anyone else, but we do have an advantage. We 

are built to do the kind of contemplation that turns into great insight over time. 

________ 


The Gifts of Introversion 

by Adam McHugh 

I have been writing about introversion for 10 years now. That’s a surprising number of 

words about being quiet. It seems that a lot of introverts are finding their words these 

days. With so many of us taking up our keyboards in recent defense of our disposition, I 

would wager that there are more words dripping with introversion than ever before. 

While I, of course, celebrate that, I am troubled when introversion conversations drift in 

a particular direction, and that is in pointing out what we are not. I cringe when I see 

links to articles with titles such as “Why Introverts Hate Small Talk” or worse: “I Am an 

Introvert, Leave Me Alone!” 

My concern is that we are giving the world the impression that ours is an orientation 

defined by what we lack. We aren’t gregarious, excitable, or charismatic. We dislike 

crowds and loud stimulation. We have less energy. Sometimes it’s even implied that we 

don’t like other people. It seems that extroversion gets to be defined by what it is, but 

introversion is too often defined by what it isn’t. 

I know the confusions circling about the introverted temperament in an extroverted 

society, and I understand why we introverts can feel defensive about our social 

patterns. But our temperament is now part of a broader cultural dialogue, and my hope 

is that we can move away from a defensive posture into a more constructive one. Now 

that we know that up to half of the population falls on the introverted side of the 

spectrum, we no longer have to fight like we are backed into a corner. 

I think it’s time to shift the conversation by celebrating the positive side of introversion. 

The more I have settled into my introversion over the past few years, the more I have 

come to appreciate its gifts. At this point, I wouldn’t want to be any other way. 

Introverts bring a bounty of gifts to the table: 

 

 

Introverts bring a sense of calm. Far from communicating a standoffish 

posture, we attract people because they feel more at peace in our presence. We 

have a peacefulness that can help defuse difficult situations, and we show the 

value of quiet restraint in tense conversations. Our non-reactionary responses 

help us—and others—in crisis situations. 

Introverts help others slow down. There is one introverted mentor I know who 

is a magnet for younger anxious employees because they seem to breathe more 

deeply and slowly around him. Have you ever noticed that people actually 

breathe differently around you? We can show others that our intrinsic value is not 

in how much we accomplish or how busy we are. 


Introverts are loyal friends. No quote from my book, Introverts in the Church, 

has resonated quite like the one I wrote about introverts and friendship: 

“Introverts treasure the relationships they have stretched so much to make.” It 

may take us a while to warm up to people, but once we’re in, we’re in. We will 

prioritize you, and we won’t easily give up our friendship because of conflict or 

changing life circumstances. 

 

 

Introverts see things. I have often thought that if someone were to write me into 

a novel, I wouldn’t be the protagonist or any other central character; I would be 

the narrator. Those of us who like to sit on the sidelines and observe others often 

see more than those in the center of the action. We notice group dynamics and 

individual behaviors that others might miss, which is a reason introverts make 

excellent therapists. 

Introverts are compassionate. When you have an inward orientation, you go 

deep into yourself, and you can see both the good and the bad, the light and the 

dark. Honest self-reflection, usually borne out of solitude, helps us to extend 


compassion and forgiveness to others because we know their struggles and 

inner contradictions. 

 

 

Introverts are funny. I know a lot of introverts, myself included, who spend a fair 

amount of time sitting quietly, thinking of funny things to say. We are often the 

people in the group who don’t lead the conversation but who interject pithy lines 

from time to time. Our timing isn’t always great, but when it is, people laugh. 

Introverts are creative. Creativity often seems to come from a deep connection 

with our inner world. Underneath the surface are sparks of imagination, waiting to 

ignite. Because we do our best work in solitude, creative introverts may be less 

reliant on established norms and more able to see and hear new things. 

Finally, introverts listen. I saved this one for last because I believe listening to be an 

exquisite gift and one that our world is desperate for. We all long to be heard—truly 

listened to without being judged for what we say or how we think and without being 

treated as a mere interruption in another person’s story. There is much more to listening 

than not speaking, but not speaking is certainly a good start. 


VIII. Famous Introverts 

23 of the Most Amazingly Successful 

Introverts in History 

There are a lot of misconceptions regarding introverts. Here are some of the most 

successful introverts in history and how you can emulate their success. 

by John Rampton 

There are a lot of misconceptions regarding introverts. Some look at those they 

consider to be introverted and toss out all kinds of hyperbole, such as, “they are so shy 

they would not being able to deliver a speech in a public,” or “she is so shy and 

introverted -- she does not like people all.” 

However, these prejudicial overstatements rarely hold water. After all, introverts have 

been responsible for some of the greatest achievements in history, as well as being 

some of the most successful business and political leaders in the world. 

Here are 23 of the most successful introverts in history: 

1. Albert Einstein 

As one of the world's most recognized and revered physicists, Einstein has often been 

quoted as saying, “The monotony and solitude of a quiet life stimulates the creative 

mind.” Einstein received the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1921 and is best remembered 

for developing the theory of relativity. 


2. Rosa Parks 

Parks became one of the most historically important figures in 1955 after refusing to 

give her seat up for a white man. In the introduction of her book Quiet: The Power Of 

Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking, Susan Cain states: 

I had always imagined Rosa Parks as a stately woman with a bold temperament, 

someone who could easily stand up to a busload of glowering passengers. But when she 

died in 2005 at the age of 92, the flood of obituaries recalled her as soft-spoken, sweet, 

and small in stature. They said she was ‘timid and shy’ but had ‘the courage of a lion.’ 

They were full of phrases like ‘radical humility’ and ‘quiet fortitude.’ 

3. Bill Gates 

The founder of Microsoft, philanthropist, and world's richest person, was 

once asked how to succeed in a predominantly extroverted world. 

“Well, I think introverts can do quite well. If you're clever you can learn to get the benefits 

of being an introvert, which might be, say, being willing to go off for a few days and think 

about a tough problem, read everything you can, push yourself very hard to think out on 

the edge of that area. Then, if you come up with something, if you want to hire people, 

get them excited, build a company around that idea, you better learn what extroverts do, 

you better hire some extroverts (like Steve Ballmer I would claim as an extrovert) and tap 

into both sets of skills in order to have a company that thrives both in deep thinking and 

building teams and going out into the world to sell those ideas.” 

4. Steven Spielberg 

Even one of the most successful, wealthiest, and influential personalities in Hollywood is 

an introvert. Director and producer Steven Spielberg has admitted as much and says he 

would prefer to spend time getting lost into movies. 

5. Sir Isaac Newton 

One of the most important figures in science, his Principia formulated the laws of motion 

and universal gravitation. Isaac Newton was known to be "a deeply introverted 

character and fiercely protective of his privacy." 

6. Eleanor Roosevelt 

Though she a shy and retiring individual, Eleanor Roosevelt "was a woman who gave 

348 press conferences as First Lady, was a United Nations delegate, a human rights 

activist, a teacher, and a lecturer who averaged 150 speaking engagements a year 

throughout the 1950s." 

7. Mark Zuckerberg 

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg told The New York Times in 2010 that Zuckerberg, the 

founder and CEO of the social network site, "is shy and introverted and he often does 


not seem very warm to people who don't know him, but he is warm." She added, "He 

really cares about the people who work here." 

8. Larry Page 

The co-founder of Google, Page became the search engine's CEO in 2011. Many 

believed that Page was an odd choice for CEO because he's "personally reserved, 

unabashedly geeky, and said to be introverted." 

9. Al Gore 

The former vice president, presidential candidate, and author of An Inconvenient 

Truth is another public figure who found success despite being an introvert. 

10. Marissa Mayer 

The current Yahoo! CEO may be well-known, but Mayer still believes in quiet leadership 

and has admitted that, "I'm just geeky and shy and I like to code…" 

11. Abraham Lincoln 

The introverted leadership skills of the 16th U.S. president have been studied often by 

researchers and educators because of his "geekiness," dignity, and quietness. 


12. JK Rowling 

The creator of Harry Potter came up with the idea of her most famous character while 

traveling from Manchester to London. Rowling recalls, "I had been writing almost 

continuously since the age of 6 but I had never been so excited about an idea before. 

To my immense frustration, I didn’t have a pen that worked, and I was too shy to ask 

anybody if I could borrow one... " 

13. Warren Buffett 

Known as the Oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffett is known as one of the most successful 

introverts and businessmen in the world. According to Buffett, when he started out, he 

had the "intellect for business," but he felt he had to enroll in Dale Carnegie's, "How to 

Win Friends and Influence People" course of seminars, because he didn't have a 

business persona. 

14. Mahatma Gandhi 

Known for being the master of nonviolent resistance, Gandhi once said, “In a gentle 

way, you can shake the world.” 

15. Hillary Clinton 

The former First Lady, Secretary of State, and current presidential candidate isn't an 

extrovert like her husband Bill. This might be why some people believe that Clinton isn't 

that warm of a person. 

16. Michael Jordan 

His Airness is one of the greatest basketball players of all-time. He also happens to be 

one of the greatest introvert athletes. 

17. Charles Darwin 

The renowned scientists and author of The Origin of Species was a quiet type who 

enjoyed solitude. 

18. Meryl Streep 

Like many actors and actresses, Meryl Streep is a known introvert. However, Streep is 

a three-time Academy Award winner who is known for her preparation in becoming 

every character she has portrayed. 


19. Elon Musk 

The founder of PayPal, Space X, and Tesla has been open about how he went from an 

"introverted engineer" to being the next Steve Jobs. 

20. Dr. Seuss 

Arguably one of the greatest children's book authors of all-time wrote his stories alone, 

and according to Susan Cain, "was afraid of meeting the kids who read his books for 

fear they would be disappointed at how quiet he was." 

21. Frederic Chopin 

This world-renowned and inspirational composer was so introverted that he gave only 

about 30 public performances in his lifetime. Instead, he played for small groups of 

friends and made a living by selling his compositions and teaching piano. Chopin’s most 

quiet and troubled times have become known as his most productive composition 

periods. 

22. Steve Wozniak 

The Apple co-founder described his creative process in his book iWoz as follows: 

“I'm going to give you some advice that might be hard to take. 

That advice is: Work alone. Not on a committee. Not on a team.” 


23. Barack Obama 

The current president of the United States made history in 2008 by becoming the first 

African-American elected into the office. He's also a known introvert. In fact, columnist 

David Brooks stated in the The New York Times, "Being led by Barack Obama is like 

being trumpeted into battle by Miles Davis. He makes you want to sit down and 

discern." 

Here’s to all the other introverts in the world! 


IX. References 

1. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-introversion-2795995 

2. http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/06/apparently-there-are-four-kinds-ofintroversion.html 

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion 

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anxiety 

5. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/difference-social-anxietyintroversion_us_5adf5e6de4b07560f3961226 

6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits 

7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator 

8. https://introvertdear.com/what-is-an-introvert-definition/ 

9. https://www.quietrev.com/the-gifts-of-introversion/ 

10. https://www.inc.com/john-rampton/23-amazingly-successful-introverts-throughouthistory.html 

11. 

http://www.sbschools.org/parents_students/partnerships/parent_academy/docs/SBPA_2 

015-03-19_Quiet_Quiz.pdf 

12. https://lajudicialcollege.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Introverts-Paper.pdf 

13. https://www.quietrev.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/QR_ebookMay8-2015.pdf 

14. https://www.inc.com/john-rampton/23-amazingly-successful-introverts-throughouthistory.html 


Notes 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 


Notes 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 



Attachment A 

Quiet Quiz: 

Are You An Introvert or An Extrovert? 


Quiet Quiz: Are You an Introvert or an Extrovert? 

This is an informal 12 question quiz, adapted from Quiet by Susan Cain, based on characteristics of introversion commonly 

accepted by contemporary researchers. 

1. I prefer one-on-one conversations to group activities. 

True 

False 

2. I often prefer to express myself in writing. 

True 

False 

3. I enjoy solitude. 

True 

False 

4. I seem to care about wealth, fame, and status less than my peers. 

True 

False 

5. People tell me that I'm a good listener. 

True 

False 

6. I'm not a big risk-taker. 

True 

False 

7. I enjoy work that allows me to "dive in" with few interruptions. 

True 

False 

8. I like to celebrate birthdays on a small scale, with only one or two close friends or family 

members. 

True 

False 

9. People describe me as "soft-spoken" or "mellow." 

True 

False 

10. I prefer not to show or discuss my work with others until it's finished. 

True 

False 

11. I tend to think before I speak. 

True 

False 

12. I often let calls go through to voice-mail. 

True 

False 

Turn to the back to see what your score means

Congratulations - you have completed the Quiet Quiz: Are You an Introvert or an Extrovert? 

Your personality profile: I. (I = Introvert. E = Extrovert) 

Your Personality Profile: 

I = Introvert. If you answered the majority of the questions 

true, you're probably an introvert. Given the choice, you'll devote 

your social energy to the people you care about most, preferring a glass 

of wine with a close friend to a party full of strangers. You think before 

you speak, and relish solitude. You feel energized when focusing deeply 

on a subject or activity that really interests you. You have an active 

inner life, and are at your best when you tap into its riches. 

E/I = Ambivert. If you answered the questions evenly, true 

and false, you're probably an ambivert - meaning that you fall 

smack in the middle of the introvert-extrovert spectrum. In many 

ways, ambiverts have the best of both worlds, able to tap into either 

pole as needed. 

E = Extrovert. If you answered the majority of the questions 

false, you’re probably an extrovert. You relish social life, and are 

energized by interacting with friends and strangers alike. You are 

assertive, go-getting, and able to seize the day. You're great at thinking 

on your feet, and are relatively comfortable with conflict. You are 

actively engaged in the world around you, and are at your best when 

you tap into its energy. 

Why does it matter where you fall on the introvert-extrovert spectrum? Because introversion and extroversion are at the heart of 

human nature. And when you make life choices that are congruent with your temperament, you unleash vast stores of energy. 

Conversely, when you spend too much time battling your own nature, the opposite happens—you deplete yourself. Too many 

people live lives that don't suit them—introverts with frenetic social schedules, extroverts with jobs that require them to sit in 

front of their computers for hours at a stretch. We all have to do things that don't come naturally—some of the time. But it 

shouldn't be all the time. It shouldn't even be most of the time. 

(Remember, though, that no one is all introvert or all extrovert. Introverts attend wild parties, and extroverts 

curl up with their favorite books. As the psychologist Carl Jung put it, "There is no such thing as a pure 

extrovert or a pure introvert. Such a man would be in the lunatic asylum.")


Attachment B 

Introverts vs. Extroverts: 

Is There an IT Personality 


Introverts vs. Extroverts 

IS THERE AN 

IT 

PERSONALITY? 

New report blends research and testimonials from 465 

IT professionals with existing opinion on introversion 

in the workplace. This aims to shed some light on the 

complex mix of personalities that make up the modern 

world of IT.


IDG Connect 

Introduction 

Back in the 1950s the sales force at IBM would gather each morning for a hearty sing-song. This began with “Ever 

Onward”, the company mantra, and was followed by an even more vigorous performance of “Selling IBM” to the 

tune of “Singing in the Rain” – a piece which built up to the climactic close: “We’re always in trim, we work with a 

vim. We’re selling, just selling IBM.” After that, the team would head off to their desks to begin their sales calls. 

To some people the mere description of this early-morning ritual would be enough to strike terror into their 

hearts, and the event itself would leave them feeling so physically drained, they’d need a little lie down 

afterwards. Yet for others, this would sound like an excellent plan and a fantastic place to work all round – and by 

9.30am they’d be bursting with enthusiasm and energy to do their jobs. 

Your personal reaction will partly come down to 

whatever it is you have to do all day. However, it will 

also be part and parcel of your innate personality 

type. And if you’re an introvert, chances are you 

would prefer to avoid the sing-along session. 

“ 

IDG 

Why enter a career in IT unless you are 

an ‘introverted’ geek with no social 

skills? 

Connect 

Many people choose their jobs based on their personal preferences. If you can’t stand children you’re not likely 

to become a primary school teacher. Yet it is not as cut and dried as many think and, as we all know, it is common 

to make incorrect assumptions about people, based on what they do. Who would believe anyone would become 

a TV presenter unless they were an over-confident narcissist? And why enter a career in IT unless you are an 

‘introverted’ geek with no social skills? 

Through this short report we discuss what introversion really means in practice, how prevalent it is across IT and 

how this ties into the bigger, ever-changing, IT and business landscape. This document includes new research 

drawn from a global pool of 465 IT professionals, first-person testimonials from respondents, along with a range 

of in-depth interviews with industry experts and introverted leaders. 

What is an Introvert? 

“I soon discovered there is no all-purpose definition of introversion or extroversion,” wrote Susan Cain, author 

of the ground-breaking work of non-fiction, ‘Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking’. 

“There are almost as many definitions of introvert and extrovert as there are personality psychologists, who 

spend a great deal of time arguing over which meaning is more accurate,” she continued. This said, she did find 

some clear points of agreement amongst this fragmented community: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Introverts and extroverts differ in the level of outside stimulation they need - introverts tend to 

become drained by too much external interaction while extroverts thrive on it 

Introverts tend to work differently from extroverts - these tackle tasks quickly while introverts tend to 

work more slowly and deliberately 

Introverts may have strong social skills but they listen more than they talk and often feel they express 

themselves better in writing than in conversation - many dislike conflict 

2


IDG Connect 

“The word introversion is not a synonym for hermit or misanthrope,” stressed Cain. “Introverts can be these 

things but most are perfectly friendly. Nor are introverts necessarily shy. Shyness is the fear of social humiliation 

or disapproval, while introversion is a preference for environments that are not over-stimulating. Shyness is 

inherently painful; introversion is not.” 

There are certainly a lot of misconceptions about introversion. And Cain argues that this group of people, which 

makes up a third to half of the corporate US depending on where you get your statistics, has also been ignored in 

most workplaces. 

Yet for IT professionals this negative, incorrect view of introversion goes one step further. Despite being the 

greatest enabler of our age, the whole profession has been coloured by the notion that it is exclusively populated 

by nerds and geeks with zero social skills. This has nothing to do with real-life introversion, but it can have an 

impact on the people IT attracts, especially girls [2013 research PDF]. And many argue this could actively hinder 

innovation. 

As one survey respondent put it: “One of the biggest disservices to our industry is the cultural stereotype of 

the super-introverted, socially maladjusted techie nerd. In fact, all kinds of people succeed, but, because of the 

public misconceptions, too many brilliant, outgoing people - especially women - never even consider enrolling in 

a computing college. It’s a loss for all...” 

What Does Our Research Show About Introversion in IT? 

There is one problem with the the direct split between introverts and extroverts - it leaves no room for the 

middle way: ambiverts. This is briefly acknowledged in Cain’s book, but then quickly skirted over. With this 

in mind, and in order to gain the most accurate gauge of what percentage of our audience actively identified 

themselves as introverts, we also included an ambiverts option in the questionnaire. 

Interestingly, just over half (53%) of 465 professionals we surveyed said they were introverts, 24% said they were 

ambiverts, 20% said they were extroverts, while 3% didn’t know. This certainly does seem to suggest a slightly 

higher level of introversion than average. This is by no means a negative thing, it simply correlates with a lot of 

the core work that IT professionals have to do. 

What personality type are you? 

53% 

INTROVERT 

24% 

AMBIVERT 

20% 

EXTROVERT 

IDG Connect research 

3


IDG Connect 

There was also a clear personal preference towards introverts amongst the introvert community, possibly 

because it has tended to be undervalued. 

Shawn Eadens, a Senior Management Consultant, concurred with this point: “There is a big difference between 

perception and performance for introverts in the workplace and society in general. The introvert is significantly 

undervalued and underappreciated for their multi-faceted contributions.” 

John Perry, a Senior Server Engineer and IT Architect at City of Mesa, Arizona, added: “We don't market ourselves 

well. [Although] if we are accomplished in what we do, our ideas, products or others sell us.” 

In fact, our survey showed that 49% of introverts profiled believe that introverts are better suited to a career in 

IT. Whilst only 24% of ambiverts and 22% of extroverts thought introverts were better suited. Obviously, there 

are a range of skill-sets involved in any IT career, but this does suggest a quiet confidence for introverts amongst 

other introverts, which is not necessarily shared by others. 

Are some personality types better suited to careers in tech? 

Introverts 

Ambiverts 

Extroverts 

4% 

introverts think 

extroverts are better 

suited to careers in the 

tech industry 

49% 


introverts are better 

suited to careers in 

the tech industry 

13% 

ambiverts think 



tech industry 

24% 





23% 

extroverts think 



tech industry 

22% 





47% 


neither are better 



63% 





55% 





IDG Connect research 

Sarah Cain argued strongly for the importance of introverts in a variety of functions and cited numerous studies 

which showed the propensity for these individuals to perform highly concentrated analytical work. Our survey 

respondents weighed into this subject from a variety of angles: 

“I think there is too much value placed on extroversion,” wrote one respondent. “People who speak loudly and 

confidently don't necessarily have the best ideas, and those who struggle to speak up or articulate their ideas 

don't necessarily have bad ideas or no ideas. I think it's unfortunately a natural response to side with someone 

who is comfortable speaking up, because they're able to give you information; it's something that introverts must 

cope with if they are to find happiness in their work.” 

4


IDG Connect 

Another disagreed: “In my opinion, there is a critical shortage of extroverts. Too many professionals rest solely on 

their technical prowess, and simply feel no need to improve their ability to interact effectively with others.” 

One extrovert wrote: “I've had to work against perceptions like ‘Why aren't you just getting down to it?’ I've also 

had to deal with a perception that, being a little ‘noisier’ than an ‘I’ [introvert] with the same job, I am more high 

maintenance.” 

Another offered a more middle view: “I believe 

the issue is that introverts are more likely to 

put in long hours in R&D, while extroverts are 

more likely to have holistic understandings of 

the business and market. Having one or the 

other fails to address the true synergy that 

comes from having IT align with the business.” 

The main aim of psychological profiling 

techniques is so people can understand 

themselves in order to overcome their natural “weaknesses, not to pigeonhole them. 

IDG Connect 

Perhaps the whole issue of introversion and extroversion has been blown out of all proportion then? After all, 

the main aim of psychological profiling techniques is so people can understand themselves in order to overcome 

their natural weaknesses, not to pigeonhole them. Yet this is precisely why introversion has come to play such a 

core role in professionals’ conception of themselves - it is integral to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. 

What is the MBTI Indicator? 

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, or MBTI, is based on the writings of Carl Jung. It is currently used by 89 of 

the Fortune 100 companies and is probably the most common personality test out there. It has also proved so 

ludicrously popular that a range of t-shirts, mugs and other memorabilia are available to interested parties. 

The flip side, of course, is it has received a lot of criticism. This has ranged from the way it is used by businesses 

to hire and categorise people, through to scepticism on the scientific validity of the test itself. One of the chief 

censures levelled at it is that many of those profiled emerge as a different ‘type’ the second time they take the 

test. 

For those not au fait: MBTI is based on four scales. These (loosely) cover: how you interact with the world 

(Introversion/Extroversion); how you take in information (Sensing/Intuition); how you make decisions (Thinking/ 

Feeling); and how you organise yourself (Judging/Perceiving). 

This makes a certain amount of sense if you study the underlying idea. But part of the issue with the test 

(especially simple online versions) is that multiple choice questions often give rise to a range of silly, erroneous 

conclusions. For example: “Do you feel involved when watching TV soaps?” might indicate more of an inclination 

towards liking this type of television, than any innate tendency to sympathise with fellow human beings. 

Cherie Haynie, a leadership consultant for the publisher of the Myers-Briggs Indicator tool CPP who helps 

professionals use the tool ethically, is keen to stress that it should only be used with a registered practitioner. 

Otherwise the results will be inaccurate and could prove unhelpful. 

5


IDG Connect 

However, if people do want to look into this further on their own, books like Do What You Are provide numerous 

practical examples of each of the four states and helps readers to analyse themselves on a sliding scale. This is 

still not entirely foolproof but makes considerably more sense than the tick box online approach. 

It also serves to highlight the point that any personality test is definitely more relevant as an internal measure 

than an external monitor. Whichever way you’re assessed however, some of the four functions are far harder to 

pinpoint than others and some have been more widely discredited. The most respected part of all is actually the 

Introversion/Extroversion element. 

Explanation of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator 

Extroversion 

Preference tells us 

where people get 

their energy 


Prefers interaction with others. 

Tend to be action oriented. 

Learn by teaching others. 

Sensing 

Rely on senses. Detail 

oriented. Prefer organised, 

linear & structured approach. 

Perceives by 

directly observing 

reality or through 

impressions of 

imagining 

possibilities 

Intuition 

Seeks out patterns & 

relationships. They trust 

hunches. 

Thinking 

Decide impersonally based 

on logic & principle. They 

have clear goals and 

objectives. 

How to make 

decisions either 

through logic or 

by using fairness 

and human 

values 

Feeling 

Decide by focusing on 

human values and needs. 

Values empathy. 

Judging 

Decisive and self starters. 

Focus on completing the 

task. They plan their work 

& work their plan. 

Indicates how the 

learner views the 

world, either a 

structured values 

environment or 

spontaneous 

environment 

Perceiving 

6


IDG Connect 

What is the Bigger Picture on Introverts in IT? 

Cherie Haynie provided IDG Connect with an extensive 

dataset on MBTI types from CPP based on 19,632 

IT employees and 465 IT executives along with a 

comparison of non-retail sales managers to give some 

perspective. From these, the two most frequently 

occurring types amongst IT employees emerge as ISTJ 

(19.4%) and ESTJ (13.6%). 

This is interesting because, although the focus for IT 

professionals is usually on introversion, this extremely 

large dataset reveals, in fact, only 54.5% (hardly more 

than half, but still more than double the volume of 

sales managers) are profiled as introverts. And a very 

significant number come out as ESTJ. 

This is even truer amongst the smaller (465) sample 

of IT executives, where only 50.4% are profiled as 

introverts: fewer (IT employees, 17.2%) are ISTJ and 

more are ESTJ (14.2%) than the employees. Although 

the really marked difference amongst IT leaders is the 

prevalence of INTP at 10.3%, compared to 7.9% of the 

IT Employees: 

Summary of the 16 Myers-Briggs 

Personalities 

These are cut down descriptions taken 

directly from the Myers & Briggs 

Foundation 

ISTJ 

Quiet, serious, earn success by thoroughness and 

dependability. Practical, matter-of-fact, realistic, 

and responsible. 

ISFJ 

Quiet, friendly, responsible, and conscientious. 

Committed and steady in meeting their obligations. 

INFJ 

Seek meaning and connection in ideas, 

relationships, and material possessions. Want 

to understand what motivates people and are 

insightful about others. 

INTJ 

Have original minds and great drive for 

implementing their ideas and achieving their goals. 

Quickly see patterns in external events and develop 

long-range explanatory perspectives. 

SENSING 

INTUITION 

Thinking Feeling Feeling Thinking 

ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ 

19.4% 4.7% 2.0% 6.5% 

ISTP ISFP INFP INTP 

7.7% 2.6% 3.7% 7.9% 

ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP 

5.8% 2.6% 4.6% 7.0% 

ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ 

13.6% 4.1% 2.1% 5.7% 

N= 19,632 IT employees from CPP data 

= Top 3 

Judging Perceiving Perceiving Judging 

INTROVERISON EXTROVERISON 

ISTP 

Tolerant and flexible, quiet observers until a 

problem appears, then act quickly to find workable 

solutions. Analyse what makes things work and 

readily get through large amounts of data to isolate 

the core of practical problems. 

ISFP 

Quiet, friendly, sensitive, and kind. Enjoy the 

present moment, what’s going on around them. 

Like to have their own space and to work within 

their own time frame. 

INFP 

Idealistic, loyal to their values and to people who 

are important to them. Want an external life that 

is congruent with their values. Curious, quick to 

see possibilities, can be catalysts for implementing 

ideas. 

INTP 

Seek to develop logical explanations for everything 

that interests them. Theoretical and abstract, 

interested more in ideas than in social interaction. 

7


IDG Connect 

IT Executives: 

SENSING 

INTUITION 



17.2% 3.2% 2.2% 7.3% 


5.4% 1.1% 3.7% 10.3% 


4.3% 1.9% 3.2% 11.6% 


14.2% 4.1% 1.5% 8.8% 



ESTP 

Flexible and tolerant, they take a pragmatic 

approach focused on immediate results. Theories 

and conceptual explanations bore them – they 

want to act energetically to solve the problem. 

ESFP 

Outgoing, friendly, and accepting. Exuberant 

lovers of life, people, and material comforts. Enjoy 

working with others to make things happen. 

ENFP 

Warmly enthusiastic and imaginative. See life as 

full of possibilities. Make connections between 

events and information very quickly, and 

confidently proceed based on the patterns they 

see. 

N= 465 IT executives from CPP data 

= Top 3 

ENTP 

Quick, ingenious, stimulating, alert, and outspoken. 

Resourceful in solving new and challenging 

problems. 

Non-retail sales managers: 

ESTJ 

Practical, realistic, matter-of-fact. Decisive, quickly 

move to implement decisions. Organise projects 

and people to get things done, focus on getting 

results in the most efficient way possible. 

SENSING 

INTUITION 



9.5% 2.1% 1.2% 2.6% 


3.0% 1.2% 1.5% 3.0% 


8.2% 3.3% 7.0% 10.3% 


24.6% 6.8% 4.6% 11.1% 



ESFJ 

Warmhearted, conscientious, and cooperative. 

Want harmony in their environment, work with 

determination to establish it. 

ENFJ 

Warm, empathetic, responsive, and responsible. 

Highly attuned to the emotions, needs, and 

motivations of others. 

ENTJ 

Frank, decisive, assume leadership readily. Quickly 

see illogical and inefficient procedures and policies, 

develop and implement comprehensive systems to 

solve organisational problems. 

N= 6,284 non-retail sales managers from CPP data 

= Top 3 

8


IDG Connect 

general IT workforce. 

This tallies with the views of one of our survey respondents who suggested: “It is less about ‘I’ and ‘E’ (Myers- 

Briggs) than about Thinking versus Feeling (T & F) and Intuition versus Sensing (N & S). A blend of people with 

different temperaments within any one team/department is likely to be the most successful as each brings 

different approaches and different strengths to the group.” 

Slightly contradictory research from Professor Joe Peppard 

at the European School of Management and Technology in 

Berlin found that 85% of CIOs are introverts and 70% fall 

into the Myers Briggs personality type ISTJ. Although CIOs 

are never specifically isolated in the CPP studies as all IT 

executive functions are covered. 

To put it bluntly, ISTJ translates 

to the classic ‘geek’ image of 

a highly analytical individual 

“with poor people skills. 

IDG Connect 

What is clear from all this is that a higher than average proportion of individuals are profiled as ISTJ in IT. The true 

level of these is hard to accurately gauge, as executive and employee roles differ so much across the spectrum. 

The real significance is also hard to quantify as these innate traits display themselves differently in different 

people. Yet it does show something about the types of people the profession tends to attract. 

What Might All this Mean for Leadership? 

To put it bluntly, ISTJ translates to the classic ‘geek’ image of a highly analytical individual with poor people 

skills. It breaks down to ‘I’ for Introversion over Extroversion, ‘S’ for Sensing over Intuiting – which relates to 

more literal methods of acquiring information – ‘T’ for Thinking over Feeling – which suggests a more analytical 

approach to decision making – and ‘J’ for Judging over Perceiving – which indicates a preference towards 

processes and time keeping. (See ‘Explanation’ on page 6) 

“ 

What we have found 

more recently is that the 

stereotype of the technical 

person being a geek is 

starting to break down. 

Cherie Haynie, CPP 

Professor Joe Peppard told Computerworld in April that these 

individuals can be great at their jobs but are not necessarily 

equipped for leadership. “ISTJs have a strong sense of responsibility 

and great loyalty to the organisations and relationships in their 

lives. They rely upon knowledge and experience to guide them 

and pay attention to immediate and practical organisational needs. 

Generally preferring to work alone, they can be relied upon to fulfil 

commitments as stated and on time.” 

He continued: “They would be described as practical, pragmatic and sensible, but could also be seen as 

detached, inflexible and overly serious. They strive for perfection and can be poor at delegation. They have a 

tendency to get bogged down in the detail and failing to see the ‘wood from the trees’.” 

Haynie of CPP was keen to point out, however, that whilst there has always been a traditional preference towards 

introversion and “concrete information” amongst people who go into IT careers, things are beginning to change. 

“What we have found more recently is that the stereotype of the technical person being a geek is starting to 

break down. There is such a broad range of expertise and talents needed [in IT] outside that closed door of 

computer programming. There needs to be a range [of people] who can be visionary, look into the future, stay on 

top of trends and be very collaborative with other organisational leaders. It is not the IT of 20 years ago.” 

9


IDG Connect 

“The leaders in IT roles today are responsible for helping others to grow and develop [and] it is not just the 

computer skills that were [previously] required of them.” You could argue that leadership skills are the same, 

irrespective of industry. 

“ 

scales 

One of the core ways in which 

Myers-Briggs is misunderstood, is 

that it doesn’t take into account 

of the indifferent attributes. 

IDG Connect 

Haynie feels the biggest differentiator amongst leaders 

is how self-aware they are. “It is not just knowing 

what your Myers-Briggs type is,” she explained. 

“That information by itself, is not very useful. We’re 

responsible for our [own] professional lives. Anyone can 

be a successful leader, if they are aware of what they 

need to develop.” 

One of the core ways in which Myers-Briggs is misunderstood, is that it doesn’t take into account scales of the 

indifferent attributes, for example, introversion. “Myers-Briggs just shows what you were born with,” added 

Haynie “it doesn’t show you how much you use it, or show it.” If you have two people and one appears to be 

a hardcore introvert while the other appears to be slightly introverted, according to the theory, they were 

probably born with the same predisposition. The extent they display this characteristic actually comes down to 

environment. 

Do INTJs Make the Best IT Leaders? 

Fascinatingly, in the process of researching introvert IT leaders, all those who stepped forward to talk to us were 

profiled as INTJs although these only count for 7.3% of CPP’s executive data set. Maybe this comes down to the 

characteristics of this personality type? These individuals certainly identify strongly with their type and have 

formed numerous networking groups on LinkedIn. Conversely, there is only one subgroup for ISTJs and this has 

17 members. 

Senior Management Consultant Shawn Eadens believes that 

the N over S has stood him in good stead over the years. 

“Personally, I have been able to achieve results that ISTJs have 

not because of utilising a keen sense of being Intuitive versus 

Sensing. This means knowing instead of just Sensing. Knowing 

is more internal and Sensing is more external when it comes to 

decision-making. I have also found that knowing is much more 

accurate than Sensing or Feeling, which is more inaccurate 

based on an individual’s emotional state.” 

“ 

Personally, I have been able to 

achieve results that ISTJs have 

not because of utilising a keen 

sense of being Intuitive versus 

Sensing. 

Shawn Eadens, Senior Management 

Consultant 

“Being an INTJ in an IT leadership position has been beneficial,” Senior Server Engineer and IT Architect John 

Perry told us. “This is due to the fact that we are pre-wired to create efficient organisations and systems just by 

our very nature.” 

Paul Aydelott, who has an IT career spanning 30 years and is owner of eZ Info Management, agreed his INTJ 

personality has been an “asset”. “I was one of four people - plus a host of contractors - selected to create a 

software development team for 3,000 offices distributed across the US. Given that we and our agency were 

especially naive about the nature of the positions, I think my particular insights were invaluable for our survival.” 

10


IDG Connect 

Obviously, this testimonial evidence does not prove that INTJs make better IT leaders. Yet it does reveal an 

increased level of confidence from this group. Whilst CPP’s research also highlights a slightly higher volume of 

INTJs (7.3%), if not overwhelmingly so, amongst the IT executive dataset. 

Do Perceptions Hold Introverts Back? 

“Many decisions are made in the world based on the appearance, exterior, or the personality of extroverts,” 

suggested Eadens. “In my experience, introverts have been highly productive and results-oriented but may need 

improvements in relationship building. I have been very successful in leadership roles over the last 30 years in 

Business, Ministry, and Sports, but have commonly been misunderstood due to erroneous perceptions that are 

accepted as social norms.” 

In my experience, introverts have been highly productive and results-oriented but may 

need improvements in relationship building. 

“Shawn Eadens, Senior Management Consultant 

The problem for many introverts may ultimately come down to the fact that they can be very private people. This 

is never going to be as easy for others to cope with as ‘an open book’. “If you do experience our feelings,” said 

Perry [in specific reference to his INTJ personality], “it is only because we have experienced something extremely 

profound or someone has really ticked us off by being insanely stupid. We set our own internal standards and 

don’t need recognition for our egos.” 

“There are many kinds of leadership,” suggested Aydelott, and ultimately it all comes down to balance. “Different 

approaches apply at different points in the lifecycle of an organisation. There is no one personality style that 

works best, but a style that recognises and uses the best of all styles makes the best leader. Myers-Briggs does 

not define that flexing, robust style within the 16 types.” 

“I think the greatest misunderstanding is we try to over interpret those letters so it becomes stereotypical,” 

agreed Haynie. “My job is to educate HR professionals who use this as a leadership or professional development 

tool. You can’t know everything there is to know about a person based on those four letters. It is one part of who 

you are, it is the part you were born with, but there are so many things that are involved with developing your 

personality that the MBTI type is just one piece of the puzzle.” 

“ Cherie 

If you have a preference for INTJ, ISTJ, that is still just one part of your personality. 

We can learn and develop the skills we choose. That is who we are. 

Haynie, CPP 

Haynie feels this is why it can easily become dangerous: “It is not something that just anyone should get their 

hands on because they’re not understanding it correctly. For example, if an organisation was using Myers-Briggs 

for selection or recruitment we say it is absolutely unethical. There are other tools for selection. But Myers-Briggs 

was only ever designed for development.” 

“If you have a preference for INTJ, ISTJ, that is still just one part of your personality,” she concluded. “We can 

learn and develop the skills we choose. That is who we are.” 

11


IDG Connect 

Is There An IT Personality? 

If you mention any job - analyst, deep-sea diver, salesman, marketer, TV presenter - an image will instantly 

pop into your head, and to a limited extent, it will be correct. Yet once you dig beneath the surface of these 

individuals, you will find there is a lot more going on than the one-dimensional picture suggested by that job. In 

fact, it is worth remarking upon when someone is a totally typical version of their profession. 

There are many misconceptions about IT. One of the principal of these is that it is uncreative. “The popular myth 

of technology being inhabited by hyper-analytical geeks and badly dressed nerds is probably partially why the 

notion of technology being ‘non-creative’ has persisted,” suggested Stephen Bedford, CEO of cloud software 

company, Cognisec. 

The nature of IT work does mean, however, there is a clear, natural preference towards introversion amongst 

IT professionals and a high volume who profile as Myer-Briggs type ISTJ. Yet this is not as pronounced as many 

might assume. And most crucially this does not make all them all sad loners with no social skills. 

Introverts are simply more easily drained by external 

stimulation than others. This means they tend to prefer 

one-to-one meetings over large groups and usually favour 

focusing on one task at a time. Yet it is hardly surprising 

that some people choose these conditions – they are often 

necessary for more detail-orientated or creative functions. 

There is no typical IT personality, 

but there are different ways 

of working and engaging with “others. 

IDG Connect 

There is no typical IT personality, but there are different ways of working and engaging with others. And today, as 

the role of IT develops, IT leaders are increasingly required to move outside the narrow remit of IT in order to sell 

the benefits of their department into the wider business. This could prove a double-edged sword, but it is worth 

remembering that you don’t have to be extroverted to sell, although you may need to be introverted to spend 12 

hours doggedly pursuing one single detail-orientated development task. 

The very fact that IT is becoming so critical to all walks of life could provide a serious opportunity for individuals 

who can both master the technicalities of IT and communicate that information to the wider business. There is 

nothing to say any personality-type can do this less well – only that different aspects of the task will prove harder 

than others to each individual involved. 

About IDG Connect 

IDG Connect is the demand generation division of International Data Group (IDG), the world’s largest technology 

media company. Established in 2006, it utilises access to 38 million business decision makers’ details to unite 

technology marketers with relevant targets from 137 countries around the world. Committed to engaging a 

disparate global IT audience with truly localised messaging, IDG Connect also publishes market specific thought 

leadership papers on behalf of its clients, and produces research for B2B marketers worldwide. 

12


Attachment C 

The Power of Introverts 

9 Best-Loved Stories 


THE 

POWER 

OF 

INTROVERTS 

9 Best-Loved Stories 

by Susan Cain

CONTENTS PAGE 

Introduction 1 

Manifesto 2 

Quiz: Are You an Introvert or an Extrovert ? 4 

Are You Shy, Introverted, Both or Night (and Why Does It Matter) ? 7 

How to Overcome the Fear of ‘Putting Yourself Out There’ 12 

When Does Socializing Make You Happier ? 18 

How Do Teachers Feel about Their Quiet Students ? 24 

How to Parent Sensitive (Orchid) Children 28 

Public Speaking for Introverts 32 

How Your Personality Matures with Time 34 

Conclusion 37

INTRODUCTION 

Dear Friends, 

If you’ve seen my TED talk, you know that I had a grandfather, that my 

grandfather had an apartment, and that this apartment was my favorite 

place in the world when I was growing up — because it was filled with 

his gentle spirit and because it was filled with books. 

Of all those books, I remember the ones my grandfather loved best — 

the essay collections. He appreciated the discursive, personal, 

sustained exploration of a single idea. He especially loved a 

British essayist named G.K. Chesterton. 

“Oh, Chesterton!” he would exclaim. “Mamele (Yiddish for 

“ little mother” — one of his favorite terms of endearment), 

his essays are so wonderful, you have no idea.” 

I thought of my grandfather and his love of the essay as we put 

together this collection of blog posts for you. They’re not worthy 

of Chesterton, of course, and they’re not exactly essays (though 

that’s a form I plan to experiment with in the months to come), 

but they ’re something close to that genre — each a limited yet 

directed exploration of a single idea. 

I hope you like them; I hope they enhance your life in some modest way; 

and I’d love to hear what you think. 

Thank you! 

THE POWER OF INTROVERTS | 1

MANIFESTO 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

There’s a word for “ people who are in their heads 

too much”: thinkers. 

Our culture rightly admires risk-takers, but we need 

our “heed-takers” more than ever. 

Solitude is a catalyst for innovation. 

Texting is popular because in an overly extroverted society, 

everyone craves asynchronous, non-F2F communication. 

We teach kids in group classrooms not because this is the 

best way to learn but because it’s cost-efficient, and what 

else would we do with the children while all the grown-ups 

are at work? If your child prefers to work autonomously 

and socialize one-on-one, there’s nothing wrong with her; 

she just happens not to fit the model. 

The next generation of quiet kids can and should be raised 

to know their own strengths. 

Sometimes it helps to be a pretend-extrovert. 

There’s always time to be quiet later. 


8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

But in the long run, staying true to your temperament is 

the key to finding work you love and work that matters. 

Everyone shines, given the right lighting. For some, 

it’s a Broadway spotlight; for others, a lamplit desk. 

Rule of thumb for networking events: one genuine new 

relationship is worth a fistful of business cards. 

It’s OK to cross the street to avoid making small talk. 

“Quiet leadership” is not an oxymoron. 

The universal longing for heaven is not about immortality 

so much as the wish for a world in which everyone is 

always kind. 

If the task of the first half of life is to put yourself out 

there, the task of the second half is to make sense of 

where you’ve been. 

Love is essential, gregariousness is optional. 

“ In a gentle way, you can shake the world.” – Gandhi 


QUIZ: ARE YOU 

AN INTROVERT OR 

AN EXTROVERT? 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

I prefer one-on-one conversations to group activities. 

I often prefer to express myself in writing. 

I enjoy solitude. 

I seem to care about wealth, fame, and status less 

than my peers. 

I dislike small talk, but I enjoy talking in-depth about topics 

that matter to me. 

People tell me that I’m a good listener. 

I’m not a big risk-taker. 

I enjoy work that allows me to “dive in” with few interruptions. 

I like to celebrate birthdays on a small scale, with only one or 

two close friends or family members. 

People describe me as “soft-spoken” or “mellow.” 


11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

I prefer not to show or discuss my work with others 

until it’s finished. 

I dislike conflict. 

I do my best work on my own. 

I tend to think before I speak. 

I feel drained after being out and about, even if 

I’ve enjoyed myself. 

I often let calls go through to voice-mail. 

If I had to choose, I’d prefer a weekend with absolutely 

nothing to do to one with things too many scheduled. 

I don’t enjoy multi-tasking. 

I can concentrate easily. 

In classroom situations, I prefer lectures to seminars. 


The more often you answered True, the more introverted you 

probably are. Lots of Falses suggests you’re an extrovert. If you 

had a roughly equal number of Trues and Falses, then you may 

be an “ambivert” — yes, there really is such a word. 

Why does it matter where you fall on the introvert-extrovert 

spectrum? Because introversion and extroversion are at the 

heart of human nature — 

one scientist refers to them 

as “the north and south of 

temperament.” 

And when you make life choices that are congruent with 

your temperament, you unleash vast stores of energy. 

Conversely, when you spend too much time battling your own 

nature, the opposite happens: you deplete yourself. I’ve met too 

many people living lives that didn’t suit them — introverts with 

frenetic social schedules and extroverts with jobs that required 

them to sit in front of their computers for hours at a stretch. 

We all have to do things that don’t come naturally... some of 

the time. But it shouldn’t be all the time. It shouldn’t even be 

most of the time. 


ARE YOU SHY, INTROVERTED, 

BOTH, OR NEITHER 

(& WHY DOES IT MATTER)? 

Bill Gates is quiet and bookish, but apparently unfazed by 

others’ opinions of him: he’s an introvert, but not shy. 

Barbara Streisand has an outgoing, larger than life personality, 

who also battles with a paralyzing case of stage fright: 

she’s a shy extrovert. 

Shyness and introversion are not the same thing. Shyness is the 

fear of negative judgment, and introversion is a preference for 

quiet, minimally stimulating environments. Some psychologists 

map the two tendencies on vertical and horizontal axes, with 

the introvert-extrovert spectrum on the horizontal axis and the 

anxious-stable spectrum on the vertical. 

With this model, you end up with four quadrants of personality 

types: calm extroverts, anxious (or impulsive) extroverts, calm 

introverts, and anxious introverts. 


Interestingly, this view of human nature is echoed in ancient 

Greece. The physicians Hippocrates and Galen famously 

proposed that our temperaments — and destinies — were a 

function of bodily fluids. Extra blood made people sanguine 

(calmly extroverted), yellow bile made them choleric 

(impulsively extroverted), phlegm made them phlegmatic 

(calmly introverted), and black bile made them melancholic 

(anxiously introverted). 

But if shyness and introversion 

are so different, why do we 

often link them, especially in 

the popular media? 

The most important answer is that there’s a shared bias in our 

society against both traits. The mental state of a shy extrovert 

sitting quietly in a business meeting may be very different 

from that of a calm introvert — the shy person is afraid to 

speak up, while the introvert is simply overstimulated — 

but to the outside world, the two appear to be the same, and 

neither type is welcome. Studies show that we rank fast and 

frequent talkers as more competent, likable, and even smarter 

than slow ones. 


Galen aside, poets and philosophers throughout history, 

like John Milton and Arthur Schopenhauer, have associated 

shyness with introversion. As the anthropologist 

C.A. Valentine once wrote, 

“ Western cultural traditions include a conception of 

individual variability which appears to be old, widespread, 

and persistent. In popular form this is the familiar notion of 

the man of action, practical man, realist, or sociable person 

as opposed to the thinker, dreamer, idealist, or shy individual. 

The most widely used labels associated with this tradition are 

the type designations extrovert and introvert.” 

Were these sages flat out wrong? No. Psychologists have found 

that shyness and introversion do overlap (meaning that many 

shy people are introverted, and vice versa), though they debate 

to what degree. There are several reasons for this overlap. For one 

thing, some people are born with “high-reactive” temperaments 

that predispose them to both shyness and introversion. Also, 

a shy person may become more introverted over time; since 

social life is painful, she is motivated to discover the pleasures 

of solitude and other minimally social environments. And an 

introvert may become shy after continually receiving the 

message that there’s something wrong with him. 


But shyness and introversion don’t overlap completely, or 

even predominantly. Some time ago, I published an op-ed in 

The New York Times on the value of these two characteristics. 

It touched a chord in a readership hungry for this message, and 

I received over a thousand heartfelt notes of thanks. 

But some letter writers felt that the article conflated 

introversion with shyness and, as such, had misrepresented 

them. Though I did make a clear distinction in the piece 

between the two, these writers were correct that I moved 

on quickly, perhaps too quickly, to other subjects. I did this 

because of space constraints — if I had tried to explain 

everything I just outlined above (and even this post only 

scratches the surface of a highly complex topic), I would 

never have gotten to the real point: the importance of 

shyness and introversion in a society that disdains them. 

Still, I understand why non-anxious introverts feel frustrated 

when people treat them as if they’re shy. It’s inherently 

annoying to be misunderstood, to be told that you’re something 

that you’re not. Anyone who has walked down the street deep 

in thought and been instructed by a stranger to smile — as if 

he were depressed, rather than mentally engaged — knows 

how maddening this is. 


Also, shyness implies submissiveness. And in a competitive 

culture that reveres alpha dogs, one-downmanship is probably 

the most damning trait of all. 

Yet this is where the shy and the introverted, for all their 

differences, have something profound in common. Neither type 

is perceived by society as alpha, and this gives both types the 

vision to see how alpha status is overrated and how our reverence 

for it blinds us to things that are good, smart, and wise. 

For very different reasons, shy and introverted people might 

choose to spend their days in behind-the-scenes or “passive” 

pursuits like inventing, studying, or holding the hands of the dying. 

These are not alpha roles, but the people who play them are role 

models all the same. 


HOW TO OVERCOME THE 

FEAR OF ‘PUTTING YOURSELF 

OUT THERE’. 

In researching my book, QUIET: The Power of Introverts in a World 

That Can’t Stop Talking, I met a scientist performing groundbreaking 

work on social anxiety disorder. A charming, articulate man, he confided 

to me that his interest in the field came from his own struggles with 

shyness. But he asked me not to use his name in my book. “Not everyone 

is as comfortable as you are exposing their true feelings,” he said. 

“To which I could only say ha” 

I am not a natural self-discloser at all. It took me 30 years to realize my 

childhood dream of becoming a writer, partly because I was afraid to 

write about personal things — yet these were the subjects I was drawn to. 

Eventually, my drive to write grew stronger than my fear, and I’ve never 

looked back. I still envy friends who write about topics like science or 

politics. They can show up at dinner parties without everyone 

announcing: “Here comes the introvert!” 


But you get used to it. And really, it’s a small price to pay 

for the freedom to say what you think. 

I tell you all this because I hear often from people who 

burst with ideas but decline to share them because they 

dislike the spotlight. Maybe you fear others judging you 

and your work. Or you’re uncomfortable with self -promotion. 

Or perhaps you’re afraid of failure, or of success. 

So many fears, so many ideas worth sharing. What to do? 

Here are seven ideas to help you power through these 

disabling emotions. 

1. Know that you’re in good company. 

People have always had to put themselves out there. We tend to 

think that in the good old days, no one had to self-promote the 

way we do today. True — but if they wanted to share, or lead, 

or create, they had to go public with their thoughts too. 

And this has always been scary. Darwin waited THIRTY-FOUR 

years to publish his idea that humans evolved from monkeys. 

Scholars call this “Darwin’s Delay,” and many believe it was 

due to his fear that others would judge his heretical theory. 


2. When it comes to social media, 

think self-expression, not self-promotion. 

Blogging and tweeting, if practiced properly, feel more like a 

creative project than an exercise in self-disclosure even though, 

of course, they are both. They also don’t require the in-person 

social multitasking that many people find so exhausting. 

3. Coffee will deliver you from self-doubt. 

It gets you excited about new ideas and helps you ignore the 

chorus of judgers inside your head. It propels your thinking and 

helps you make connections between seemingly unrelated things. 

Hence, the saying that “a mathematician is a device for turning 

coffee into theorems.” 

4. Train yourself to associate idea 

generation with pleasure. 

I usually work at a cozy café table and indulge in a chocolate 

muffin. I would probably be five pounds lighter without this 

habit, but I don’t care. By now, I so associate writing and idea 

generation with pleasure that I love it even when I don’t have 

a café table handy. 


5. Work alone (or “alone together”— 

for example, sitting by yourself in a coffee 

shop or library). 

There’s a lot of nonsense floating around these days about 

how creativity is a fundamentally social act. Ignore this. 

Yes, creativity is social in the sense that we all stand on the 

shoulders of those who came before us; yes, we must share and 

advance ideas (that’s the whole point of this article); and yes, 

collaboration is a powerful and beautiful thing (think Lennon 

and McCartney, or the Madonna and child). 

But for many people, the creative thinking process is a solo act. 

One of my all- time favorite quotes comes from William Whyte’s 

The Organization Man: 

“ The most misguided attempt at false collectivization is 

the current attempt to see the group as a creative vehicle… 

People very rarely think in groups; they talk together, they 

exchange information, they adjudicate, they make 

compromises. But they do not think; they do not create.” 


6. Work at night when your cortisol levels are lower. 

When I was a child at summer camp, I noticed a strange pattern. 

I was horribly homesick first thing in the morning, often waking 

up with a stomach ache. But as the day wore on, the homesickness 

faded. By nighttime, I was carefree and having a grand time. 

Each night, I was sure I’d wake up the next morning 

feeling just as strong. But the homesickness always came 

back. Back then, I couldn’t explain this pattern, but I 

can now. Cortisol is a stress hormone, and it peaks 

in the morning and steadily dissipates through out 

the day. For some of us, these peaks and falls are 

especially pronounced. 

So while you probably think most clearly first 

thing in the morning, you may be at your least 

inhibited at night. I’ve noticed that interesting 

turns of phrase and associative leaps come to 

me much more easily in the evening hours. Indeed, 

creativity researchers believe that a relaxed brain, 

a brain that is not in the grip of anxiety or blocked by 

other psychological barriers, is a more creative brain. 


7. Strengthen your backbone 

and, therefore, your confidence 

in small steps. 

Get in the habit of asking yourself where 

you stand on various questions. When you 

have firm opinions or a strong sense of 

right or wrong on a given question, savor 

the feeling. It doesn’t matter what kind 

of question — it can be how to organize 

the dishwasher. 

The point is to get used to the feeling 

of having a center and operating from it. 

Then, produce more consequential 

ideas from this same place. You’ll still 

have doubts, of course: “Does it make 

sense? Will people agree ?” That’s normal. 

But you need to have confidence about 

the underlying purpose of your undertaking. 


WHEN DOES SOCIALIZING 

MAKE YOU HAPPIER? 

You’re standing at the checkout line at the grocery store, 

pondering tomorrow’s to-do list. The cashier greets you with 

a grin. You’re not in the mood to chit-chat, but out of politeness 

you do anyway — and feel curiously happy afterwards. 

A big smile plays across your face as you leave the store. 

What just happened? 

A famous study answers this question. Researcher William 

Fleeson and his colleagues tracked a group of people, every 

three hours for two weeks, recording how they ’d been acting 

and feeling during each chunk of time. They found that those 

who’d acted “ talkative ” and “assertive” — even if they were 

introverts — were more likely to report feeling positive 

emotions such as excitement and enthusiasm. 


EVERYONE FEELS HAPPIER 

WHEN THEY SOCIALIZE, 

CONCLUDED 

THE RESEARCHERS — 

INTROVERTS INCLUDED. 

So should introverts force themselves to attend parties even 

when they’d rather stay home and read? That’s what people 

often take these findings to mean. 

But this is too glib an interpretation. 

Here’s why. 

Sure, socializing makes us feel good. Sometimes it’s worth it 

to push ourselves. We’re all social animals; on some level, 

love really is all you need. 


But if the spike of happiness introverts 

get following that nice exchange with the 

grocery clerk is real, so are the feelings of 

exhaustion and over-stimulation that 

come with too much socializing. 

Tolerance for stimulation is one of the biggest differences 

between introverts and extroverts. Extroverts simply need more 

stimulation — social and otherwise — than introverts do. Research 

suggests that acting falsely extroverted can lead to stress, burnout, 

and cardiovascular disease. 

All of this seems to leave introverts in a tight spot: socializing 

makes us happy — but also over-stimulated and even anxious. 

This inner conflict sounds like a huge pain — a reason to curse 

the gods for having made you an introvert. 

But it can also be a great gift. 


Many introverts find ways to spend 

their time that are deeply fulfilling — 

and socially connected — 

but where there is no conflict. 

Here are five of these ways: 

1. Read: Marcel Proust once said that reading is “that fruitful 

miracle of a communication in the midst of solitude.” Books 

transcend time and place. They don’t even require reader and 

writer to be alive at the same time. Studies also suggest that 

reading fiction increases empathy and social skills. 

2. Enter a state of “flow” by doing work or a hobby that 

you love. Flow is the transcendent state of being, identified by 

influential psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. You’re in flow 

when you feel totally engaged in an activity — whether longdistance 

swimming, song-writing, or ocean sailing. In a state of 

flow, you’re neither bored nor anxious, and you don’t question 

your own adequacy. Hours pass without your noticing. In flow, 

says Csikszentmihalyi, “a person could work around the clock 

for days on end, for no better reason than to keep on working.” 


Flow is my five-year old playing with his Lego set, sometimes 

accompanied by his best friend, sometimes not — time seems 

to float by as he lies contentedly on his stomach, watching 

the wheels go ‘round. Flow is my 84- year-old father, 

a former medical school professor, sitting at his desk 

for hours reading medical journals. 

When I was a kid and saw my father come home 

from a long day at work only to crack open those 

forbidding - looking papers, I worried that he 

worked too hard. Now I know that he was 

spending time the way he loved. 

People in flow don’t tend to wear the broad 

smiles of enthusiasm that Fleeson’s research 

focused on. When you watch them in action, 

the words “joy ” and “excitement” don’t come to 

mind. But the words “engagement,” “absorption,” 

and “curiosity ” do. 


3. Keep an informal quota system of how many times per 

week/month/ year you plan to go out to social events — 

and how often you get to stay home. This way, you don’t feel 

guilty about declining those party invitations. When you do go 

out, hopefully you’ll have a good time and make a new friend you 

wouldn’t have met in your lamplit living room. The right party 

can be a delicious experience. But when you don’t enjoy yourself, 

you’re less likely to drive yourself crazy thinking you should’ve 

stayed in. Your night was what it was, and that’s fine. 

4. Have meaningful conversations. Pleasant chit-chat with the 

grocery clerk notwithstanding, research suggests that the happiest 

people have twice as many substantive conversations, and engage 

in much less small talk, than the unhappiest. (The researchers 

were surprised by their findings, but if you’re an introvert, 

you’re probably not!) 

5. Shower time and affection on people you know and love 

— people whose company is so dear and comfortable that you 

feel neither over-stimulated nor anxious in their presence. If you 

don’t cast your social net too wide, you’re more likely to cast it 

deep — which your friends and family will appreciate. 

Yes, love is all you need. But love takes many forms. 


HOW DO TEACHERS FEEL 

ABOUT THEIR 

QUIET STUDENTS? 

Did you catch the news story about Natalie Munro, the high school 

English teacher from Pennsylvania who blogged her true feelings about 

her students? Apparently failing to comprehend the public nature of the 

Internet, she mused about the nasty things she wished she could write 

on her students’ report cards. 

It was an abuse of trust and a blinkered use of the blogging medium. 

But that’s not what I want to focus on; others have already covered 

that very effectively. 


I want to talk about 

Munro’s view of quiet and shy 

students. Here, according to one of her 

blog entries (since removed), is what she 

wished she could put on their report cards: 

“A kid that has no personality.” 

“She just sits there emotionless for an entire 

90 minutes, staring into the abyss, never 

volunteering to speak or do anything.” 

“Shy isn’t cute in 11th grade; it’s annoying. 

Must learn to advocate for himself instead 

of having Mommy do it.” 

Munro seemed to have no understanding of how poor a fit the 

typical American high school can be for introverts — like an 

all-day cocktail party without any alcohol. She believed that these 

kids should suck it up and act like everyone else. And she was right, 

to a certain extent; we all need to fake it a little, extroverts too. 

I’ve met many introverted kids who are thriving and happy, and most 

of them have learned how to adopt an extroverted persona when need be. 


But consider this question: 

Why do so many high-functioning people look back at 

high school as the worst time of their lives — and why 

do we accept this as normal? 

As adults, we (hopefully) get to choose the careers, spouses, 

and social circles that suit us. Bill Gates and Bill Clinton 

thrive in very different work environments. But for 

schoolchildren, it’s one size fits all — and the size on offer 

is usually extra-extroverted. 

One saving grace are the teachers who understand this — 

the teachers who connect with the kid in the back row 

thinking amazing thoughts that he’s uncomfortable sharing 

aloud with 25 classmates. I’ve spent a lot of time touring 

schools and observing classrooms, and I’ve met some great and 

sensitive teachers along the way. If you read through Munro’s 

blog, she’s clearly a Piece of Work — not representative of your 

typical teacher. 

I also know how hard it is for teachers when students 

are reluctant to participate in class. Once I taught two 

back-to-back negotiation seminars — a Wednesday night 

class and a Thursday night class. The Wednesday night class 

discussions were always lively and animated. But in the Thursday 

night class, the participants stared at me as if I had two heads 

and wanted me to do all the talking. 


This made my job so much harder and — on a 

day- to-day basis — less fulfilling. Some of those 

students wrote me letters when the class was 

done, expressing how deeply they’d enjoyed it. 

I was surprised each and every time; 

I’d assumed they hadn’t liked the class at all. 

So I have tremendous respect for teachers 

who work gracefully with their “ Thursday 

night” students. 

But I’m afraid that they are the exceptions; 

research suggests that the majority of our 

teachers believe that the “ ideal student” 

is an extrovert. Which is extraordinary, when 

you consider how many of our greatest thinkers 

were introverts. Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, 

George Orwell, Steven Spielberg, Larry Page, 

J.K. Rowling: none of them would have made 

“ ideal students.” 

If I had one wish, it would be to reverse the stigma 

against introversion for children so that the next 

generation doesn’t grow up with the secret self-loathing 

that plagues so many introverted grown-ups today. 


HOW TO PARENT SENSITIVE 

(ORCHID) CHILDREN 

Not that long ago, I fervently recommended 

this groundbreaking Atlantic magazine article, in which 

author David Dobbs explains a bold new theory of genetics — 

that “most of us have genes that make us as hardy as 

dandelions: able to take root and survive almost anywhere. 

A few of us, however, are more like the orchid: fragile and 

fickle, but capable of blooming spectacularly if given 

greenhouse care.” Many introverted children appear to 

have orchid genes. 

In response to the article, one thoughtful reader 

asked this question: 

“How do we as sensitive people raise children who 

are sensitive to become orchids, without becoming 

hypervigilant about controlling every experience they 

encounter to ensure they are getting the love and 

support they need ? I could see it leading to perfectionism 

and harsh self judgement with regard to parenting skills.” 


For those who missed it, Dobbs (author of the original article) 

posted his own answer to the question. 

Here it is: 

“The data supporting the idea that more sensitive, 

“ vulnerable” people do worse than others do in bad 

conditions but *better* in good conditions is based mainly 

on studies of adverse conditions — and show repeatedly 

that the mere LACK of bad, really trying conditions is 

enough to let orchids fare better than others do. 

In other words, they tend to thrive under even ‘pretty good’ 

conditions, and don’t require extraordinary care; 

you needn’t build the best, most carefully climatecontrolled 

greenhouse ever made; a safe but stimulating 

environment will likely serve splendidly. 

For parenting, this means doing the right thing most 

of the time, not all the time, and providing a good 

environment, not necessarily a great one, to make the 

most of a child’s high responsiveness to experience. 

If that’s the case, then super-parenting isn’t needed. 

Bettelheim’s “good enough parenting” will do just fine. 


I would add, regarding how to parent sensitive children, 

that if you’ve guarded against the most harsh experiences 

that can affect a child, it probably makes more sense to 

focus on providing lots of small, positive things than on 

being hypervigilant about protecting the child from 

every bump, insult, or troubling challenge. And anxious 

hypervigilance sends a message that the world is 

perhaps too dangerous to handle. 

Small expressions of support and confidence and 

reassurance send the message that though the world 

can bring trouble, we’re almost always up for it, and will 

recover from all but — and sometimes even those too — 

the most serious setbacks or injuries or insults. I think the 

psychotherapeutic notion of ‘mirroring’ is handy to think of 

here. It’s the idea of reflecting to the child an attitude about 

how the world works. (It has another meaning too, reflecting 

an image of the child, but I’m concerned with this other.) 

What’s good mirroring? Best example offered to me 

was, Your house burns down. All is lost, but no one hurt. 

Your stuff’s gone. You’re out sitting on the curb with 

the family watching the firefighters douse the last of 

the steaming rubble. And instead of freaking out, 

You put your arm around the kid and say, ‘It’s okay.’ 

Because it will [be].” 


I love this advice. But I want to answer one more question you 

might be wondering about: What if your child is subject to 

harsh, really harsh, experiences outside your control? 

I asked this question of Jay Belsky, a leading proponent of 

orchid theory, a psychology professor, and child care expert at 

the University of London. Using divorce as an example, he told 

me that even orchid children can withstand some adversity if 

it’s managed properly. Orchid kids will be disrupted more than 

others by divorce, he told me. “If the parents squabble a lot, 

and put their kid in the middle, then watch out — this is the 

kid who will succumb.” But if the divorcing parents get along, 

if they provide their child with the other psychological 

nutrients he needs, then even an orchid child can do just fine. 

Indeed, the parents of high-reactive children are very lucky, 

Belsky told me. “The time and effort they invest will actually 

make a difference. Instead of seeing these kids as vulnerable to 

adversity, parents should see them as malleable — for worse, 

but also for better.” 


PUBLIC SPEAKING 

FOR INTROVERTS 

I have a really complicated relationship 

to public speaking. The mere prospect 

of giving a lecture used to make me want 

to throw up. Literally. Once during law 

school, I got so nervous that I had to 

bolt for the restroom on the way to 

class. (I can’t believe I’m admitting 

this to the entire blogosphere.) 

But I’ve come a long way since 

then. These days, much to my 

own astonishment, I have a career 

as a professional public speaker! 

It took me a while to get there. 

When I first started, I struggled 

a lot with following question: 

If public speaking requires brio 

and dynamism, and if I am naturally 

soft-spoken, then how can I be an 

effective speaker — and still be 

my authentic self ? 


So I tried to look for examples of low-key yet masterful speakers — 

and found the author Malcolm Gladwell. He dazzles sold-out crowds 

of London theatregoers, but if you watch him in action, for example 

here, he’s clearly an introvert, with a very calm and cerebral style. 

So I think he’s a great role model for people like me. 

Then I came across this fascinating interview with Gladwell. 

“Speaking is not an act of extroversion,” he says. “People think it is. 

It has nothing to do with extroversion. It’s a performance, and many 

performers are hugely introverted.” 

He goes on to say that when he speaks, he’s simply inhabiting a role, 

“a storytelling role that I don’t inhabit when I’m not on the stage. 

I’m not the chatty one at the dinner table or at parties. I don’t actually 

go to that many parties.” 

Gladwell is also known to prepare every single word of his talk 

beforehand — every single word — even though they appear 

spontaneous. I think this is liberating — that it’s okay to pretend a little 

when you’re on stage. Who cares if you’re not a natural storyteller ? 

You can craft your stories beforehand, practice them, and share them — 

for the brief moment that the spotlight is on you. Then you can step off 

stage and go right back to being yourself. 

But in the meantime, you had the chance to change a whole audience 

full of hearts and minds. And there’s nothing more authentic than that. 


HOW YOUR PERSONALITY 

MATURES WITH TIME 

Readers often ask me: 

“Is it possible for my personality to change over time? 

I seem to be getting more introverted as I get older.” 

I’ve asked myself the same question. I was always an introvert, 

but my social needs used to be much more intense than they 

are today. When I was in high school, I talked on the phone 

five hours a night. In college, I thought briefly of becoming a 

professor but decided I couldn’t handle the amount of solitary 

time researching and writing would require. Today, in contrast, 

I’m horrible at returning friends’ phone calls because I dislike 

talking on the phone, and researching and writing are among 

my favorite activities. 

On the extroverted side of the equation, we have my husband 

as Exhibit A. In many ways he is very, very extroverted. For 

example, I hardly ever address him by his real name. Instead I 

call him Gonzo, the nickname I gave him years ago in honor of 

the journalist Hunter S. Thompson’s “gonzo” style of throwing 

himself into the stories he reported on. 


My Gonzo is the same way — he throws himself with great 

passion and charisma into just about everything he does, 

including parenting and husbanding. It’s impossible for 

Gonzo to be in the room without feeling the warmth of 

his presence. And I gather that when he was a very 

young man, he threw himself into his social life with 

similar energy. Today Gonzo is still the same person — 

no one would ever call him an introvert — but 

his attentions are directed in a decidedly more 

interior direction. 

But all of this is anecdotal. According to 

research psychology, the answer to the 

question of whether personalities change 

over time is no, and yes. 

Studies show that the personality of a 70-yearold 

can be predicted with remarkable accuracy 

from early adulthood on. Despite the variety of 

situations that we experience in a lifetime — all of 

them influencing who we are and how we grow — 

our core traits tend to remain constant. It’s not that 

our personalities don’t evolve — for example, many 

introverts report feeling more socially confident and 

graceful as they mature — but we tend to stick to 

predictable patterns. 


If you were the tenth most introverted person in your high school 

class, your behavior may fluctuate over time, but you’ll probably 

still find yourself ranked around tenth at your fiftieth reunion. 

But, at that class reunion, you’ll also notice that many of your 

classmates will be more introverted than you remember them 

in high school: quieter, more self-contained, less in need of 

excitement. They will also more emotionally stable, agreeable, and 

conscientious. All of these traits grow more pronounced with age, 

as if personalities are a kind of fine wine that mellows with age. 

Psychologists call this process “intrinsic maturation,” and they’ve 

found these same patterns of personality development in countries 

as diverse as Germany, the UK, Spain, the Czech Republic, and Turkey. 

Also in chimps and monkeys. 

This makes evolutionary sense. High levels of extroversion probably 

help with mating, which is why most of us are at our most sociable 

during our teenage and young adult years. But when it comes to keeping 

marriages stable and raising children, having a restless desire to hit 

every party in town may be less useful than the urge to stay home and 

love the one you’re with. Also, a certain degree of introspection may 

help us age with equanimity. If the task of the first half of life is to 

put yourself out there, the task of the second half is to make sense 

of where you’ve been. 


THANKS SO MUCH 

FOR READING THIS 

COLLECTION! 

For more from Susan Cain 

and the Quiet Revolution, 

visit QuietRev.com





The e-Advocate Quarterly 


Issue Title Quarterly 

Vol. I 2015 The Fundamentals 

I 

The ComeUnity ReEngineering 

Project Initiative 

Q-1 2015 

II The Adolescent Law Group Q-2 2015 

III 

Landmark Cases in US 

Juvenile Justice (PA) 

Q-3 2015 

IV The First Amendment Project Q-4 2015 

Vol. II 2016 Strategic Development 

V The Fourth Amendment Project Q-1 2016 

VI 


Juvenile Justice (NJ) 

Q-2 2016 

VII Youth Court Q-3 2016 

VIII 

The Economic Consequences of Legal 

Decision-Making 

Q-4 2016 

Vol. III 2017 Sustainability 

IX The Sixth Amendment Project Q-1 2017 

X 

The Theological Foundations of 

US Law & Government 

Q-2 2017 

XI The Eighth Amendment Project Q-3 2017 

XII 

The EB-5 Investor 

Immigration Project* 

Q-4 2017 

Vol. IV 2018 Collaboration 

XIII Strategic Planning Q-1 2018 

XIV 

The Juvenile Justice 

Legislative Reform Initiative 

Q-2 2018 

XV The Advocacy Foundation Coalition Q-3 2018 


XVI 

for Drug-Free Communities 


Juvenile Justice (GA) 

Q-4 2018 



Vol. V 2019 Organizational Development 

XVII The Board of Directors Q-1 2019 

XVIII The Inner Circle Q-2 2019 

XIX Staff & Management Q-3 2019 

XX Succession Planning Q-4 2019 

XXI The Budget* Bonus #1 

XXII Data-Driven Resource Allocation* Bonus #2 

Vol. VI 2020 Missions 

XXIII Critical Thinking Q-1 2020 

XXIV 

The Advocacy Foundation 

Endowments Initiative Project 

Q-2 2020 

XXV International Labor Relations Q-3 2020 

XXVI Immigration Q-4 2020 

Vol. VII 2021 Community Engagement 

XXVII 

The 21 st Century Charter Schools 

Initiative 

Q-1 2021 

XXVIII The All-Sports Ministry @ ... Q-2 2021 

XXIX Lobbying for Nonprofits Q-3 2021 

XXX 

XXXI 

Advocacy Foundation Missions - 

Domestic 

Advocacy Foundation Missions - 

International 

Q-4 2021 

Bonus 


Vol. VIII 

2022 ComeUnity ReEngineering 

XXXII 

The Creative & Fine Arts Ministry 

@ The Foundation 

Q-1 2022 

XXXIII The Advisory Council & Committees Q-2 2022 

XXXIV 

The Theological Origins 

of Contemporary Judicial Process 

Q-3 2022 

XXXV The Second Chance Ministry @ ... Q-4 2022 

Vol. IX 2023 Legal Reformation 

XXXVI The Fifth Amendment Project Q-1 2023 

XXXVII The Judicial Re-Engineering Initiative Q-2 2023 

XXXVIII 

The Inner-Cities Strategic 

Revitalization Initiative 

Q-3 2023 

XXXVIX Habeas Corpus Q-4 2023 

Vol. X 2024 ComeUnity Development 

XXXVX 

The Inner-City Strategic 

Revitalization Plan 

Q-1 2024 

XXXVXI The Mentoring Initiative Q-2 2024 

XXXVXII The Violence Prevention Framework Q-3 2024 

XXXVXIII The Fatherhood Initiative Q-4 2024 

Vol. XI 2025 Public Interest 

XXXVXIV Public Interest Law Q-1 2025 

L (50) Spiritual Resource Development Q-2 2025 


LI 

Nonprofit Confidentiality 

In The Age of Big Data 

Q-3 2025 

LII Interpreting The Facts Q-4 2025 

Vol. XII 2026 Poverty In America 

LIII 

American Poverty 

In The New Millennium 

Q-1 2026 

LIV Outcome-Based Thinking Q-2 2026 

LV Transformational Social Leadership Q-3 2026 

LVI The Cycle of Poverty Q-4 2026 

Vol. XIII 2027 Raising Awareness 

LVII ReEngineering Juvenile Justice Q-1 2027 

LVIII Corporations Q-2 2027 

LVIX The Prison Industrial Complex Q-3 2027 

LX Restoration of Rights Q-4 2027 

Vol. XIV 2028 Culturally Relevant Programming 

LXI Community Culture Q-1 2028 

LXII Corporate Culture Q-2 2028 

LXIII Strategic Cultural Planning Q-3 2028 

LXIV 

The Cross-Sector/ Coordinated 

Service Approach to Delinquency 

Prevention 

Q-4 2028 


Vol. XV 2029 Inner-Cities Revitalization 

LXIV 

LXV 

LXVI 

Part I – Strategic Housing 

Revitalization 

(The Twenty Percent Profit Margin) 

Part II – Jobs Training, Educational 

Redevelopment 

and Economic Empowerment 

Part III - Financial Literacy 

and Sustainability 

Q-1 2029 

Q-2 2029 

Q-3 2029 

LXVII Part IV – Solutions for Homelessness Q-4 2029 

LXVIII 

The Strategic Home Mortgage 

Initiative 

Bonus 

Vol. XVI 2030 Sustainability 

LXVIII Social Program Sustainability Q-1 2030 

LXIX 

The Advocacy Foundation 

Endowments Initiative 

Q-2 2030 

LXX Capital Gains Q-3 2030 

LXXI Sustainability Investments Q-4 2030 

Vol. XVII 2031 The Justice Series 

LXXII Distributive Justice Q-1 2031 

LXXIII Retributive Justice Q-2 2031 

LXXIV Procedural Justice Q-3 2031 

LXXV (75) Restorative Justice Q-4 2031 

LXXVI Unjust Legal Reasoning Bonus 


Vol. XVIII 2032 Public Policy 

LXXVII Public Interest Law Q-1 2032 

LXXVIII Reforming Public Policy Q-2 2032 

LXXVIX ... Q-3 2032 

LXXVX ... Q-4 2032 


The e-Advocate Monthly Review 

2018 

Transformational Problem Solving January 2018 

The Advocacy Foundation February 2018 

Opioid Initiative 

Native-American Youth March 2018 

In the Juvenile Justice System 

Barriers to Reducing Confinement April 2018 

Latino and Hispanic Youth May 2018 


Social Entrepreneurship June 2018 

African-American Youth July 2018 


Gang Deconstruction August 2018 

Social Impact Investing September 2018 

Opportunity Youth: October 2018 

Disenfranchised Young People 

The Economic Impact of Social November 2018 

of Social Programs Development 

Gun Control December 2018 

2019 

The U.S. Stock Market January 2019 

Prison-Based Gerrymandering February 2019 

Literacy-Based Prison Construction March 2019 

Children of Incarcerated Parents April 2019 

African-American Youth in The May 2019 

Juvenile Justice System 


Racial Profiling June 2019 

Mass Collaboration July 2019 

Concentrated Poverty August 2019 

De-Industrialization September 2019 

Overcoming Dyslexia October 2019 

Overcoming Attention Deficit November 2019 

The Gift of Adversity December 2019 

2020 

The Gift of Hypersensitivity January 2020 

The Gift of Introspection February 2020 

The Gift of Introversion March 2020 


The e-Advocate Quarterly 

Special Editions 

Crowdfunding Winter-Spring 2017 

Social Media for Nonprofits October 2017 

Mass Media for Nonprofits November 2017 

The Opioid Crisis in America: January 2018 

Issues in Pain Management 

The Opioid Crisis in America: February 2018 

The Drug Culture in the U.S. 

The Opioid Crisis in America: March 2018 

Drug Abuse Among Veterans 

The Opioid Crisis in America: April 2018 

Drug Abuse Among America’s 

Teens 

The Opioid Crisis in America: May 2018 

Alcoholism 


The e-Advocate Journal 

of Theological Jurisprudence 

Vol. I - 2017 

The Theological Origins of Contemporary Judicial Process 

Scriptural Application to The Model Criminal Code 

Scriptural Application for Tort Reform 

Scriptural Application to Juvenile Justice Reformation 

Vol. II - 2018 

Scriptural Application for The Canons of Ethics 

Scriptural Application to Contracts Reform 

& The Uniform Commercial Code 

Scriptural Application to The Law of Property 

Scriptural Application to The Law of Evidence 


Legal Missions International 



Vol. I 2015 

I 

II 

God’s Will and The 21 st Century 

Democratic Process 

The Community 

Engagement Strategy 

Q-1 2015 

Q-2 2015 

III Foreign Policy Q-3 2015 

IV 

Public Interest Law 

in The New Millennium 

Q-4 2015 

Vol. II 2016 

V Ethiopia Q-1 2016 

VI Zimbabwe Q-2 2016 

VII Jamaica Q-3 2016 

VIII Brazil Q-4 2016 

Vol. III 2017 

IX India Q-1 2017 

X Suriname Q-2 2017 

XI The Caribbean Q-3 2017 

XII United States/ Estados Unidos Q-4 2017 

Vol. IV 2018 

XIII Cuba Q-1 2018 

XIV Guinea Q-2 2018 

XV Indonesia Q-3 2018 

XVI Sri Lanka Q-4 2018 


Vol. V 2019 

XVII Russia Q-1 2019 

XVIII Australia Q-2 2019 

XIV South Korea Q-3 2019 

XV Puerto Rico Q-4 2019 


Vol. VI 2020 

XVI Trinidad & Tobago Q-1 2020 

XVII Egypt Q-2 2020 

XVIII Sierra Leone Q-3 2020 

XIX South Africa Q-4 2020 

XX Israel Bonus 

Vol. VII 2021 

XXI Haiti Q-1 2021 

XXII Peru Q-2 2021 

XXIII Costa Rica Q-3 2021 

XXIV China Q-4 2021 

XXV Japan Bonus 

Vol VIII 2022 

XXVI Chile Q-1 2022 


The e-Advocate Juvenile Justice Report 

______ 

Vol. I – Juvenile Delinquency in The US 

Vol. II. – The Prison Industrial Complex 

Vol. III – Restorative/ Transformative Justice 

Vol. IV – The Sixth Amendment Right to The Effective Assistance of Counsel 

Vol. V – The Theological Foundations of Juvenile Justice 

Vol. VI – Collaborating to Eradicate Juvenile Delinquency 


The e-Advocate Newsletter 

Genesis of The Problem 

Family Structure 

Societal Influences 

Evidence-Based Programming 

Strengthening Assets v. Eliminating Deficits 

2012 - Juvenile Delinquency in The US 

Introduction/Ideology/Key Values 

Philosophy/Application & Practice 

Expungement & Pardons 

Pardons & Clemency 

Examples/Best Practices 

2013 - Restorative Justice in The US 

2014 - The Prison Industrial Complex 

25% of the World's Inmates Are In the US 

The Economics of Prison Enterprise 

The Federal Bureau of Prisons 

The After-Effects of Incarceration/Individual/Societal 

The Fourth Amendment Project 

The Sixth Amendment Project 

The Eighth Amendment Project 

The Adolescent Law Group 

2015 - US Constitutional Issues In The New Millennium 


2018 - The Theological Law Firm Academy 

The Theological Foundations of US Law & Government 

The Economic Consequences of Legal Decision-Making 

The Juvenile Justice Legislative Reform Initiative 

The EB-5 International Investors Initiative 

2017 - Organizational Development 

The Board of Directors 

The Inner Circle 

Staff & Management 

Succession Planning 

Bonus #1 The Budget 

Bonus #2 Data-Driven Resource Allocation 

2018 - Sustainability 

The Data-Driven Resource Allocation Process 

The Quality Assurance Initiative 

The Advocacy Foundation Endowments Initiative 

The Community Engagement Strategy 

2019 - Collaboration 

Critical Thinking for Transformative Justice 

International Labor Relations 

Immigration 

God's Will & The 21st Century Democratic Process 

The Community Engagement Strategy 

The 21st Century Charter Schools Initiative 

2020 - Community Engagement 


Extras 

The Nonprofit Advisors Group Newsletters 

The 501(c)(3) Acquisition Process 

The Board of Directors 

The Gladiator Mentality 

Strategic Planning 

Fundraising 

501(c)(3) Reinstatements 

The Collaborative US/ International Newsletters 

How You Think Is Everything 

The Reciprocal Nature of Business Relationships 

Accelerate Your Professional Development 

The Competitive Nature of Grant Writing 

Assessing The Risks 



About The Author 

John C (Jack) Johnson III 

Founder & CEO 

Jack was educated at Temple University, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Rutgers 

Law School, in Camden, New Jersey. In 1999, he moved to Atlanta, Georgia to pursue 

greater opportunities to provide Advocacy and Preventive Programmatic services for atrisk/ 

at-promise young persons, their families, and Justice Professionals embedded in the 

Juvenile Justice process in order to help facilitate its transcendence into the 21 st Century. 

There, along with a small group of community and faith-based professionals, “The Advocacy Foundation, Inc." was conceived 

and developed over roughly a thirteen year period, originally chartered as a Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Educational 

Support Services organization consisting of Mentoring, Tutoring, Counseling, Character Development, Community Change 

Management, Practitioner Re-Education & Training, and a host of related components. 

The Foundation’s Overarching Mission is “To help Individuals, Organizations, & Communities Achieve Their Full Potential”, by 

implementing a wide array of evidence-based proactive multi-disciplinary "Restorative & Transformative Justice" programs & 

projects currently throughout the northeast, southeast, and western international-waters regions, providing prevention and support 

services to at-risk/ at-promise youth, to young adults, to their families, and to Social Service, Justice and Mental 

Health professionals” everywhere. The Foundation has since relocated its headquarters to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and been 

expanded to include a three-tier mission. 

In addition to his work with the Foundation, Jack also served as an Adjunct Professor of Law & Business at National-Louis 

University of Atlanta (where he taught Political Science, Business & Legal Ethics, Labor & Employment Relations, and Critical 

Thinking courses to undergraduate and graduate level students). Jack has also served as Board President for a host of wellestablished 

and up & coming nonprofit organizations throughout the region, including “Visions Unlimited Community 

Development Systems, Inc.”, a multi-million dollar, award-winning, Violence Prevention and Gang Intervention Social Service 

organization in Atlanta, as well as Vice-Chair of the Georgia/ Metropolitan Atlanta Violence Prevention Partnership, a state-wide 

300 organizational member, violence prevention group led by the Morehouse School of Medicine, Emory University and The 

Original, Atlanta-Based, Martin Luther King Center. 

Attorney Johnson’s prior accomplishments include a wide-array of Professional Legal practice areas, including Private Firm, 

Corporate and Government postings, just about all of which yielded significant professional awards & accolades, the history and 

chronology of which are available for review online. Throughout his career, Jack has served a wide variety of for-profit 

corporations, law firms, and nonprofit organizations as Board Chairman, Secretary, Associate, and General Counsel since 1990. 

www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org 

Clayton County Youth Services Partnership, Inc. – Chair; Georgia Violence Prevention Partnership, Inc – Vice Chair; Fayette 

County NAACP - Legal Redress Committee Chairman; Clayton County Fatherhood Initiative Partnership – Principal 

Investigator; Morehouse School of Medicine School of Community Health Feasibility Study - Steering Committee; Atlanta 

Violence Prevention Capacity Building Project – Project Partner; Clayton County Minister’s Conference, President 2006-2007; 

Liberty In Life Ministries, Inc. – Board Secretary; Young Adults Talk, Inc. – Board of Directors; ROYAL, Inc - Board of 

Directors; Temple University Alumni Association; Rutgers Law School Alumni Association; Sertoma International; Our 

Common Welfare Board of Directors – President)2003-2005; River’s Edge Elementary School PTA (Co-President); Summerhill 

Community Ministries; Outstanding Young Men of America; Employee of the Year; Academic All-American - Basketball; 

Church Trustee. 


www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org

The Gift of Introversion

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?