Felt like a child at Christmas when I saw this come through. Your writing is SUCH a treat. And everything you say here is just so... correct? I’m nodding along without a single thing to add; glad to my core that someone - especially someone so eloquent and introspective - as you has said all of this. Thank you; this is a truly fantastic piece.
i was already SO EXCITED for this one when i saw your note about your essay on 'gen z not wanting to party' (i'm assuming this is the essay that note was referring to) and you did not disappoint! i found myself pretty much annotating this essay as i went along because there were so many great points and i loved how you approached it from some combination of academic and personal experience.
"But how do we live if we can’t sum up ourselves and our patterns of behaviour in one word?" - I think there's so much to be said about the modern age's obsession with labels, microlabels, trend, aesthetics, etc. etc. in place of identity and I think this one line captures that entire idea so succinctly.
"If you want human connection, sometimes you have to start by talking about the weather."
"And I think the sensitivity to people’s need for time alone, time to rest, and aversion to stereotypical funfunfun type fun is a good thing." - I really love how your essay takes the time to address both sides and find a middle ground; I think your writing is extremely empathetic in that sense.
I love that you added your perspective to the discussion around 'kids ain't partying anymore.' I've always felt like 'introvert' is a flat term.. yet I feel forced to choose between the red pill (extroversion) and the blue pill (introversion) and stick to it for the rest of my life. Very important discussion and such a lovely essay
I appreciate how you challenge the binary labels and emphasize the fluidity of our social needs. Your insights on the allure of staying in and the impact of social media resonate deeply, reminding us of the importance of genuine connections.
Love this - the whole introvert vs extrovert thing drives me crazy. People get such a sense of belonging from defining themselves by certain things (myself included) but it’s so overly simplistic. I’ve been to countless management training sessions where they want you to define yourself as one or the other, and also your team members…inevitably get scowled at when I suggest it might actually be harmful to make sweeping generalisations on how individuals might behave, think or feel based on a binary. Thank you for this - really well put
i have always felt that these terms are incredibly flat (these, and many other of the tags we use to categorize ourselves) and you put it in the perfect words, thank you for articulating what i have been thinking and trying to explain every time i am asked and i say i am an "introvert" who loves to party? or an "extrovert" who can be shy? i love how you frame it in this article and i will surely share it!
I am deeply introverted but I feel this write uo gets me in a way that we still want to live outside of instagram stories, and want to go out to experience many things even if we choose to do it on our own!
i agree with the idea of artists being associated with introverts but actually going out to something that may not be in your field of art can revitalise you creatively. I’m a painter but love going to live music and dancing, it makes me write and draw easily the next day
Perhaps if you understood what you are talking about, this might be a more salient article but who cares about proper research when you can ride the coattails of public opinion.
Adam, you posted something to this effect previously, that was critical but marginally less rude, and deleted it. I’m not sure if you wanted to workshop the comment to ensure I was upset? Either way, I was awarded a high level degree and essay prizes for studying this exact topic and beyond, qualifying me to explore these topics in even more academic detail than I have here. I was lucky enough to learn from and be assessed by the contemporaries of the people who developed these theories. My research is more than proper.
I reposted it, because it was sheepish to delete it and a friend brought it up, and so I felt guided. Was it rude, or was it factual? In my experience in such dialogues there is no good way to state that someone's fundamental premise is so tainted by credentialism, group-think and the like, that it rather undoes the whole tapestry. I put very little stock in academic detail. In fact, the word academic is used to suggest not of practical use. A Freudian slip perhaps? Suffice to say Big 5 is favoured because it works at scale and all the rabid empiricists can pat themselves on the back they have the certainty of science at their back. Never mind that Jung was a genius and his work on psychological type far outstrips the efforts of modern psychology which is replete with issues, and also (as in the case of your article) suffers from biases that cannot be readily identified. Such as your bias to preclude the individual and defer to 'the established thought' doctrine and every one gets a participation trophy. Suffice to say one can be an introvert and on a scale of introversion/extroversion, and one can also be an extrovert and on said scale at various degrees. The brain operates on a paradigm of neurochemical activation sequences in higher-order function, energetic priorities, and executive function versus adaptive function. Your article glosses over all of this and throws some Wikipedia-tier logic and Tumblr-grade humour (don't mention MBTI to me) to justify its points. You're directionally correct, as are most channellers of the public milieu, but your facts and logic is misapplied, lightweight and insufficient for the subject at hand. That said I'm not trying to be critical per se, it's just who else is going to tell you? You'll get the same 'you go girl' nonsense like every other lowercase letter abuser out here. Degrees mean nothing. First principles are everything. Also Adam and Eve... I guess the universe has a sense of humour. I will add that I like the post, because as I said directionally it feels right. It's just your why is out of kilter. Which is a shame because you're onto something, so perhaps that prompted my comment. Your value appraisal is much sturdier than your rationalisations, and inherent to the value appraisal is the seed of truth that doesn't require the forced objective referencing to modern psychology. You also posted about this I see, which suggests a need for consensus as the internal logic is questioning, so on some level you believe I am right otherwise you would be content in not addressing it further.
As you say I wrote with a specific tone for a specific audience, and it would appear that wasn’t you, since the things you used to correct me *were* the point of the piece, and the ways you refer to my writing style don’t quite apply. I think your issue might be with styles of writing you see on Substack and beyond that you find irritating, and I somewhat matched that? As I say, I’m not sure what the point of a comment saying ‘you don’t know what you’re talking about’ is beyond you feeling a bit of satisfaction. But you got to expand on your point eventually, maybe that was fulfilled. I’m glad you found my piece engaging.
I'm not trying to correct you. I act on intuition, and with a name like 'Angelic Dissent' perhaps you understand the idea of Temperance. Balancing of energy. That is what prompted my response. A lot of established thinking is constraining, potentially psychically damaging and runs hand in hand with a mental health crisis. And if I could shed light on that, all the better. This area is my wheelhouse, and I daresay you are more educated than me and much more appraised of studies and the latest research, I don't want to leave a sense of resignation here. There's something significant in the fact I deleted it, left it and then my friend brought it back up. There's an opportunity to learn, even connect.
My piece directly contradicted the rigidity of the labels because; as you say, established thinking can be constraining and psychically damaging. The people who’ve replied have described feeling good about identifying less with specific identities like introvert and extrovert, which have been used beyond their original intentions for pop psychologists to sell books and magazines. They’ve talked about doing what feels right to them in the moment based on how they feel in that moment, as I discussed in my piece. I think your point is that my evidence is incorrect, when my evidence is the theories themselves, and my sphere of application is whatever extent to which readers feel it resonates and is useful for them to be fulfilled, less restricted, and in tune with their needs and wants.
No, it is not that. It is statements like "The reality is that people who are truly introverted or extroverted are rare. Really rare. Pretty much everyone else sits in between". It fails to make a distinction between the psychometric appraisal (measured on degree of extroversion) and the psychic priority of the brain. It's a bias that obviates the other half of the equation. One must integrate both the individual heuristics and the collective metrics to receive a balanced worldview. I have never seen a corporation use Big 5 to evaluate their teams because ultimately it's not individually-applicable, whereas I have seen MBTI many times in various guises (usually in a superficial profile manner). This is no accident, these penny-pinching firms aren't being profligate. That's what I noticed. That said, I agree and I do not like labels at all, especialy when they lead to identities. The inference of what you have mentioned I have no issue with, it just lacks balance, it's weighted towards what is the consensus. I admire your approach to your writing, and I have a similar aim. Take from it what is resonant, but if you are only parroting the consensus to form some of your basic assumptions, then you're misleading people. And then, you are a victim of the very constraining thoughts you are trying to expose, they're just on a deeper level than you are recognising. Truth needs to be built from the ground up, wherever possible, not fed to us on the back of extortionate loans.
Felt like a child at Christmas when I saw this come through. Your writing is SUCH a treat. And everything you say here is just so... correct? I’m nodding along without a single thing to add; glad to my core that someone - especially someone so eloquent and introspective - as you has said all of this. Thank you; this is a truly fantastic piece.
this comment moved me so much ❤️ I can’t thank you enough
i was already SO EXCITED for this one when i saw your note about your essay on 'gen z not wanting to party' (i'm assuming this is the essay that note was referring to) and you did not disappoint! i found myself pretty much annotating this essay as i went along because there were so many great points and i loved how you approached it from some combination of academic and personal experience.
"But how do we live if we can’t sum up ourselves and our patterns of behaviour in one word?" - I think there's so much to be said about the modern age's obsession with labels, microlabels, trend, aesthetics, etc. etc. in place of identity and I think this one line captures that entire idea so succinctly.
"If you want human connection, sometimes you have to start by talking about the weather."
"And I think the sensitivity to people’s need for time alone, time to rest, and aversion to stereotypical funfunfun type fun is a good thing." - I really love how your essay takes the time to address both sides and find a middle ground; I think your writing is extremely empathetic in that sense.
❤️❤️❤️ honoured to receive such a thoughtful comment!! thank you so so much for reading and sharing your thoughts
so well said, i have so many quotes put down from this piece. i will find myself reading this article from time to time. ty for your wisdom
I love that you added your perspective to the discussion around 'kids ain't partying anymore.' I've always felt like 'introvert' is a flat term.. yet I feel forced to choose between the red pill (extroversion) and the blue pill (introversion) and stick to it for the rest of my life. Very important discussion and such a lovely essay
yes this is what it always feels like!! glad it resonated
I appreciate how you challenge the binary labels and emphasize the fluidity of our social needs. Your insights on the allure of staying in and the impact of social media resonate deeply, reminding us of the importance of genuine connections.
I have so many thoughts but I'll be here forever I just need you to know how GOOD this essay was. amazing points made, beautifully written
wow thank you so so much!!
felt like a cup of hot cocoa
thank you :)
Amazing article, thank you for sharing <3
Love this - the whole introvert vs extrovert thing drives me crazy. People get such a sense of belonging from defining themselves by certain things (myself included) but it’s so overly simplistic. I’ve been to countless management training sessions where they want you to define yourself as one or the other, and also your team members…inevitably get scowled at when I suggest it might actually be harmful to make sweeping generalisations on how individuals might behave, think or feel based on a binary. Thank you for this - really well put
thank you!!
i have always felt that these terms are incredibly flat (these, and many other of the tags we use to categorize ourselves) and you put it in the perfect words, thank you for articulating what i have been thinking and trying to explain every time i am asked and i say i am an "introvert" who loves to party? or an "extrovert" who can be shy? i love how you frame it in this article and i will surely share it!
this was so so so good
thank you ❤️❤️
1. I love this
2. I think your French 75 bit is funny
haha thank you!! finally!!
I am deeply introverted but I feel this write uo gets me in a way that we still want to live outside of instagram stories, and want to go out to experience many things even if we choose to do it on our own!
do you know the model of camera? I love the photo you attatched!
the digital camera is a Samsung L100 and she’s sooo beautiful (+ the photo of the digital camera is on an instax wide Polaroid I think) :))
i agree with the idea of artists being associated with introverts but actually going out to something that may not be in your field of art can revitalise you creatively. I’m a painter but love going to live music and dancing, it makes me write and draw easily the next day
What's an artist without inspiration!
Digital cameras are the best!! And kind of elude introvert / extrovert binaries in a sense, the in-between of phone and analog. Loved this piece.
Perhaps if you understood what you are talking about, this might be a more salient article but who cares about proper research when you can ride the coattails of public opinion.
Adam, you posted something to this effect previously, that was critical but marginally less rude, and deleted it. I’m not sure if you wanted to workshop the comment to ensure I was upset? Either way, I was awarded a high level degree and essay prizes for studying this exact topic and beyond, qualifying me to explore these topics in even more academic detail than I have here. I was lucky enough to learn from and be assessed by the contemporaries of the people who developed these theories. My research is more than proper.
I reposted it, because it was sheepish to delete it and a friend brought it up, and so I felt guided. Was it rude, or was it factual? In my experience in such dialogues there is no good way to state that someone's fundamental premise is so tainted by credentialism, group-think and the like, that it rather undoes the whole tapestry. I put very little stock in academic detail. In fact, the word academic is used to suggest not of practical use. A Freudian slip perhaps? Suffice to say Big 5 is favoured because it works at scale and all the rabid empiricists can pat themselves on the back they have the certainty of science at their back. Never mind that Jung was a genius and his work on psychological type far outstrips the efforts of modern psychology which is replete with issues, and also (as in the case of your article) suffers from biases that cannot be readily identified. Such as your bias to preclude the individual and defer to 'the established thought' doctrine and every one gets a participation trophy. Suffice to say one can be an introvert and on a scale of introversion/extroversion, and one can also be an extrovert and on said scale at various degrees. The brain operates on a paradigm of neurochemical activation sequences in higher-order function, energetic priorities, and executive function versus adaptive function. Your article glosses over all of this and throws some Wikipedia-tier logic and Tumblr-grade humour (don't mention MBTI to me) to justify its points. You're directionally correct, as are most channellers of the public milieu, but your facts and logic is misapplied, lightweight and insufficient for the subject at hand. That said I'm not trying to be critical per se, it's just who else is going to tell you? You'll get the same 'you go girl' nonsense like every other lowercase letter abuser out here. Degrees mean nothing. First principles are everything. Also Adam and Eve... I guess the universe has a sense of humour. I will add that I like the post, because as I said directionally it feels right. It's just your why is out of kilter. Which is a shame because you're onto something, so perhaps that prompted my comment. Your value appraisal is much sturdier than your rationalisations, and inherent to the value appraisal is the seed of truth that doesn't require the forced objective referencing to modern psychology. You also posted about this I see, which suggests a need for consensus as the internal logic is questioning, so on some level you believe I am right otherwise you would be content in not addressing it further.
As you say I wrote with a specific tone for a specific audience, and it would appear that wasn’t you, since the things you used to correct me *were* the point of the piece, and the ways you refer to my writing style don’t quite apply. I think your issue might be with styles of writing you see on Substack and beyond that you find irritating, and I somewhat matched that? As I say, I’m not sure what the point of a comment saying ‘you don’t know what you’re talking about’ is beyond you feeling a bit of satisfaction. But you got to expand on your point eventually, maybe that was fulfilled. I’m glad you found my piece engaging.
I'm not trying to correct you. I act on intuition, and with a name like 'Angelic Dissent' perhaps you understand the idea of Temperance. Balancing of energy. That is what prompted my response. A lot of established thinking is constraining, potentially psychically damaging and runs hand in hand with a mental health crisis. And if I could shed light on that, all the better. This area is my wheelhouse, and I daresay you are more educated than me and much more appraised of studies and the latest research, I don't want to leave a sense of resignation here. There's something significant in the fact I deleted it, left it and then my friend brought it back up. There's an opportunity to learn, even connect.
My piece directly contradicted the rigidity of the labels because; as you say, established thinking can be constraining and psychically damaging. The people who’ve replied have described feeling good about identifying less with specific identities like introvert and extrovert, which have been used beyond their original intentions for pop psychologists to sell books and magazines. They’ve talked about doing what feels right to them in the moment based on how they feel in that moment, as I discussed in my piece. I think your point is that my evidence is incorrect, when my evidence is the theories themselves, and my sphere of application is whatever extent to which readers feel it resonates and is useful for them to be fulfilled, less restricted, and in tune with their needs and wants.
No, it is not that. It is statements like "The reality is that people who are truly introverted or extroverted are rare. Really rare. Pretty much everyone else sits in between". It fails to make a distinction between the psychometric appraisal (measured on degree of extroversion) and the psychic priority of the brain. It's a bias that obviates the other half of the equation. One must integrate both the individual heuristics and the collective metrics to receive a balanced worldview. I have never seen a corporation use Big 5 to evaluate their teams because ultimately it's not individually-applicable, whereas I have seen MBTI many times in various guises (usually in a superficial profile manner). This is no accident, these penny-pinching firms aren't being profligate. That's what I noticed. That said, I agree and I do not like labels at all, especialy when they lead to identities. The inference of what you have mentioned I have no issue with, it just lacks balance, it's weighted towards what is the consensus. I admire your approach to your writing, and I have a similar aim. Take from it what is resonant, but if you are only parroting the consensus to form some of your basic assumptions, then you're misleading people. And then, you are a victim of the very constraining thoughts you are trying to expose, they're just on a deeper level than you are recognising. Truth needs to be built from the ground up, wherever possible, not fed to us on the back of extortionate loans.