As an introvert, it's really annoying when I'm talking to someone else and tell them something, only to be told I'm wrong, with no arguments or data whatsoever.

If I wasn't certain, I wouldn't be talking about it in the first place.

With these types of convos you can go usually one of two ways:

1. Re-iterate your points, counter points, data, etc. 2. Acknowledge their point, assume it to be true and ask questions to clarify their point by digging further into the details

In my exp, method 1 generally does not lead to much. Method 2 will either give YOU a new perspective on things OR the other person will back off once they hit rock bottom and think twice before bringing up nonsensical points with you.

It is MUCH MUCH harder going down path 2 as it requires you to put YOUR point/perspective aside for a while and empathize with their view. But being able to cross-question people like this is an incredibly useful skill worth developing.

As an introvert, you are inherently more curious. Use that to your advantage.

#2 is basic practical conversation -- i.e. put your damn ego aside and actually interact with the person in front of you.

Granted this can become exhausting with people who socialize without any care for those around them; but this is basic soft skills 101 lesson... 3.

One great piece of advice that I heard is "it takes two to miscommunicate". Communication is fundamentally two-way, and if there is miscommunication happening, either you or the other person needs to figure out how to communicate better and close the gap. If they're not doing that, then you need to step up.

Like you say, sometimes that can be exhausting if you're dealing with a particularly bad communicator. You don't want to be the one doing all the work, all the time. On the other hand, if communication needs to happen, then you need to figure out a way to get that communication to happen otherwise you're going to really struggle.

I don't think the Socratic method is basic, but it sure is practical.

Option 2 has high risk of making enemies. People don’t like to be shown that they are idiots even if true.

There is a reason Socratic method is used primarily in a class room setting

You don't have to make them look like an idiot. It's simply a matter of asking why they believe what they do. Maybe they ha r some kind of personal experience or education you're not aware of.

Might be more complicated than introvert/extrovert, probably has some spectrum as well, but a lot of people talk just to talk and not to exchange information and that doesn't work well when they are trying to talk to someone that talks to exchange information. I'm pretty introverted if someone is talking about nothing, but get me in a room with people who actually know what they're talking about and I open right up. People who know something about a topic are so interesting and talking with them is super refreshing because you are able to learn stuff and challenge your existing knowledge and what not.

You can be right about a specific and wrong about its role in the big picture/abstraction. Left brain dominance if a thing.

Also the flip side that a lot of people miss:

You can be right about the big picture/abstraction and wrong about a specific. Just because you argued or proved part of an argument wrong doesn't make the whole thing wrong.

It sounds like you told them they were wrong first!

I think this frequently happens because people aren't making the same assumptions. Ask about assumptions so you find out why two people who are both probably reasonable apparently have such a hard point of disagreement. It's very possible you agree on more than you think.

I find that extroverts try to get in "slam dunks" that attempt to shake your logic with zingy type of folk knowledge. "Well nobody knows nothing anyways" etc. Or they will confidently repeat what they hear on the news with the expectation that if nobody corrects them they are right.

I have some techniques that I utilize when dealing with people who are vague and hand wavy usually pointing out some barely relevant counter example that supposedly debases your point and proves them right. These conversations typically come up in scientific or health related fields.

1. Remind them that the world is not black and white. Just because an argument has a counter example or isn't 100% for certain a known fact doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to make our models of the world more consistent and move towards being less wrong.

2. Just because one person says something doesn't make it so. There is a spectrum of authority. In a particular field, yes laypeople like youtubers can be right sometimes and people in high authority can be wrong sometimes, that doesn't mean that a layperson's opinion is equally valid to a professional in all circumstances in that field

While this article uses the term "concrete" for introverts and abstract for extraverts, in my experience extraverts are looking for much more "binary" views of the world that they can quickly memorize, express, impress and move on. Introverts are a bit more "rational" and lean towards consistency between arguments as they speak less and thus the views they express are a bit more constructed as opposed to regurgitated.

I feel exactly the same. And it is obvious to myself, but I have realized that I must let other people know this, since many people are much less stringent in handling certainty, confidence etc. A gross oversimplification: some people seem to throw confident statements of facts around just to see what sticks.

Regarding introversion and fear of social consequences, I am definitely introverted but have been told that I speak my opinion too much sometimes, so I cannot agree that introversion is related to fear of making statements other may object to. In my case at least.

Actually you're wrong, you don't find that annoying.

Best technique I learned for this is to get good at remembering the points you made clearly, then counter-attacking using specifics, "oh so on [point X], what have you found to be the case?".

Basically you're trying to force them into positions where they reveal they don't know what they're talking about.

They'll then commonly start trying to squirm out of it by talking around the topic or using dishonest techniques. Each time you do, you just make sure to softly bring attention to the fact, in your very next response, that they haven't addressed your previous point, and the importance of it. You never let them sidestep or squirm away for a split second.

Their game is to go vague and talk shit, yours is to keep asking for details and pointing out why they're needed, revealing to others that they're a "fake it til you make it" idiot, until they either back off or others do something about them.

Doesn't work though if they're in a clear position of power over you, as this behavior is indicative either of stupidity or narcissism, and in which case you nod your head, and save your energy for breaking out.

It seems like you're assuming that the other party's goal is to deceive, bullshit, bluster, etc.

Is it possible that in some cases they're talking in good faith, but using an approach to communicate or collaboration that you misunderstand?

I'm talking about the case I replied to, where one side explains something, and the other rejects it without reason - that's an absence of communication and collaboration. And no, usually the other party's goal is to reject change that comes from someone other than them, due to ego, arrogance, anxiety, apathy, laziness, etc.

Or that they're misunderstanding (something about the topic, or the communication about it).

The approach to communication is deception and bullshit

Hypothesis:

Introverts are more afraid of social consequences when they say something that somebody else might criticize (loudly) as wrong, hence

- they speak less

- they are more precise when speaking

- they are more tired after social situations

- they are less interesting to small talk with because they leave little room to engage (which could be done by expressing, e.g., preferences, ideas, hypotheses, jokes, ...)

Another hypothesis:

Extroverts made the experience in their life that at a certain point more confidence begets less criticism begets more confidence.

Anyone has thoughts on this?

As an introvert, I dispute this hypothesis. I don't live in a state of fear. That's not the way it works. I simply don't feel the urge to talk as much.

The way I would put it, which may explain the phenomenon discussed in the linked article, is that introverts talk for a purpose, whereas for extraverts, talking is the purpose.

I was thinking, maybe extraverts speak to more people or a broader audience, so they frequently/necessarily speak more in generalities.

+1. When I talk it is to add value or present a different view, or making a prediction of how something will likely turn out and why.

It's not about fear at all. In fact, because of what I say, it is often the opposite of fear.

As a fellow introvert, this is succinctly put.

Another hypothesis: being extravert means getting energised by interactions with others; being introvert means that costs energy. (Most people will have experienced both, at different times.)

This is why I don't think that being introvert is caused by fear, nor that courage cause extraverted behaviour. For most people, whether a social situation is providing or draining energy very often depends on more than just you.

Yes, there are exceptions. But don't underestimate yourself -- in either direction. The vast majority of people need both to thrive.

> Another hypothesis: being extravert means getting energised by interactions with others; being introvert means that costs energy. (Most people will have experienced both, at different times.)

This isn't really a hypothesis so much as a restatement of the definition of each term. The person to which you are replying is giving a hypothetical explanation of _why_ the two conditions are the way they are.

Fear seems an incorrect analysis. The idea that introverts wish they could talk to people more if not for the anxiety seems to project the desires of an extravert onto them without good reason.

Social anxiety is a thing, introversion is a thing, and sometimes they overlap. But not universally.

I have both extroversion and social anxiety and I am reasonably sure you're correct. Fear has motivated me at times to act like an introvert, but that's not the same as being one. Whenever I have an excuse to go be around people I will do so, and it takes some effort to back out of social opportunities that I think will hurt my overall goals.

I think you are mixing up being an introvert with being socially anxious. While the two can go hand in hand, there are plenty of socially anxious extroverts and socially confident introverts.

I don't think the socially anxious gain energy by behaving like extroverts.

But I agree with socially confident introverts.

I guess you can have more reasons to behave a given way, and it's really hard to isolate traits or narrow them down towards a definition.

> I don't think the socially anxious gain energy by behaving like extroverts.

My point is that they are seprate traits (albeit with sone correlations).

Socially anxious people don't gain energy by "behaving" like extroverts. Being an extrovert is not a behaviour.

I think this is insightful, based on my own experience. I think the two traits are orthogonal. I'm naturally(?) extraverted, but have always been shy and am still anxious in most social situations.

People would probably recognize me as extraverted, but it requires something like mental/emotional gatecrashing (or some disinhibiting agent).

I mean, that'd probably just be the worst case: you're afraid of social situations, but you also don't like to be alone.

As someone who leans introvert who has worked to be more extroverted over many years I think there are some merits of your hypothesis. I'm not really afraid of social consequences, but when I speak I really want to be correct and precise. What I have found in many conversations is that correct and precise is not the purpose. People want to chat and feel like they came to some group understanding as a group. So instead of stating positions and quickly getting to the end result, it's a long dance. It's fine, but as you mention, it's very tiring to me. Something I have not figured out how to solve over the years.

> - they are less interesting to small talk with because they leave little room to engage

I would rephrase this as "introverts are generally uninterested in pointless small talk".

>I would rephrase this as "introverts are generally uninterested in pointless small talk".

This, I want to talk about something, not rehash the same comments about the weather. I don't even mind when people talk about their vacations or their kids, but I want to know interesting specific details, not nonsense generalities just for the sake of talking. I love talking to people about their careers, but I want to learn the weird minutiae that isn't common knowledge.

Yes, all those discussions about introverts sound more easily described as a bully society.

- Bullied people are afraid of talking and must prove their hypotheses all the time,

- Bullying people aren’t afraid of extrapolations, because even when they are wrong, they can use various forces to remain on top.

are you trying to claim that all extroverts are bullies and all introverts are being bullied?

i think not!

first of all, bullying is usually a chain. people who are bullies are themselves being bullied elsewhere (by their parents for example, or their bosses)

that alone makes this distinction difficult.

second (and i admit that i don't research this, it's just a guess), i believe most bullies are introverts because they don't know how to properly interact with others, and bullying is their way to get attention. extroverts can get attention more easily, so i suspect that extroverts are less likely to be bullies. but again, that's just a guess. i could be completely wrong here.

Introversion and extroversion is not a static spectrum, it slides depending on circumstances.

If I'm in a work environment, or somewhere action-oriented, or discussing something practical or intelligent, I am the biggest extrovert on the planet -- especially if the culture includes straightforward and honest communication.

But if I'm in a culture of passive-aggression/double-talk/"nice" or I'm discussing philosophical or otherwise non-practical matters (e.g. "oh. My. Gawsh. Look at how cuuuuute that puppy is") or the people I'm conversing with have zero dimension or breadth to the topics they choose to engage with: I don't fucking care, and my interest in engaging is zero.

The confounding factor is that most introverts like to talk about specific subjects that are uncommon interests while extroverts like to talk about specific subjects which are common interests.

I think you're getting close to an accurate general statement, but your points are wrong. I can bring introverts out of their "shells" by engaging with them on topics that interest them (at which point they will likely overpower me) and I can put extroverts into their shells by forcing a topic that they have nothing to say on.

The thread that connects all of this is interest. Introverts have a set of interests that is not conducive to general, everyday conversation, while extroverts do.

From there you can have knock-on effects like confidence, social outlook and initiative, and other things that cascade throughout the years that make the divide between the two more apparent and may generate specific differences (e.g. fearful of criticism or not, etc.).

> The thread that connects all of this is interest. Introverts have a set of interests that is not conducive to general, everyday conversation, while extroverts do.

This is spot on. I love listening to people talk about their interests because their enthusiasm for whatever they're interested in is usually contagious (at least to me). In my experience, the folks that lean more towards introversion tend to have more niche interests, and I feel like I always learn something new by talking to them.

However, I'm seeing a lot of comments here talking about being "right" or "wrong" in conversations. I definitely lean more towards the introvert end of the spectrum, but I've spent a long time trying to get better at holding conversations. I don't know if it's a consequence of getting older, but I don't have a lot of patience for being corrected on trivial matters. I would never argue with someone about something they have expertise in that I don't, but I once got called out for mispronouncing "tesla" (apparently its "tez-la", not "tess-la"?). The only outcome of that conversation was a strong desire to not talk to that person again and to deliberately avoid saying anything that could have an ambiguous pronunciation.

To be clear, this is entirely context-dependent. Obviously, correctness is important in technical discussions. I'm talking about chit-chatting over a few drinks. If you see conversation as a zero-sum game, everybody loses.

Extraverts use communication as a means to bond while introverts use communication to relay a message.

This has it all wrong.

Introspective people are abstract, extrospective people are concrete.

Introversion/extroversion has nothing to do with abstraction. In fact, all the best known abstract geniuses throughout history are all introspective introverts. (Yeah, I'll pitch that your extrospective extrovert society would never have crawled out of the bronze age without INTJs!)

> This has it all wrong.

It's not. The article is about language, not thinking. See some examples here: https://www.bps.org.uk/research-digest/introverts-use-more-c...

The article is well written (not just some blog) so I appreciate some time has been invested, though still not buying it. I think with all of the frumpy attitude with temperaments (I don't think we should be pigeon holed either, though they're useful), these aspects have not been properly explored. Further, one point mentions color and mood as abstract, when these are actually emotional.

The second and the fourth parameters of the kiersey system addresses these "perception" and "enactment" qualities. (How we internalize and express.)

This is the tricky thing with studying the human mind and behavior! We're so dynamic.

I'm not sure someone citing pseudo science is in position to criticize researchers who spent much more time doing the real work. I'm pretty sure they know what is the tricky thing with studying the human mind and behavior. I'd really advice you to give their research a better read. Usually the state of art section of a paper is quite enlightening.

GP wasn’t hostile, and a good way to have this website “become” something else is to lose common sense and ignore science for pseudoscience.

I think introverts are less likely to talk about their ideas unless they are going to put them into practice though, so you get extroverts just blabbering about whatever whim comes to them, confusing everything

Feynman seemed pretty extroverted. Von Neumann as well. "All" is a pretty strong word, it's 3 times in your post and all wrong.

The MBTI [1] is pseudoscience.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi...

MBTI is pseudoscientific. The Big Five is more reliable

Reliable in what sense? What is being measured here exactly?

Every time an article involving personality pops up, someone inevitably mentions MBTI, and shortly thereafter a "pseudoscience" or "astrology" comment follows up to accompany it (I feel like this phenomenon should have its own name—akin to Betteridge's law of headlines).

And of course I always follow up on the follow-up comment to point out that none of Big Five, MBTI, or even the latest peer-reviewed attempts at temperament classification based on various dimensionality reduction techniques (e.g., ICA) perform very well. Not one. Sure, they're all more predictive than random chance, but it's not like MBTI is a horoscope and the SOTA matches the accuracy of particle physics.

It would be as though someone switched from using logistic regression to a random forest, but the nature of the data is such that there's only a very minor bump in precision/recall, and both were already low to begin with. I would ask what purpose is the model being used for in this case? It's not like quant trading where even slight improvements can lead to outsized returns.

If a personality model is being used to predict human behavior for any purpose other than entertainment, then I'd argue that this practice is misguided and should be discontinued in all professional settings. Whereas if the purpose is simply to have fun, then I'd argue MBTI achieves that goal much better than the other models. So what is the point of Big Five then?

I appreciate your view, and would not recommend these devices for qualifying or prescribing outcomes, however I have found at least one useful application: understanding why certain people have difficulty communicating with other certain people.

Haven't you noticed there are plenty of instances even the most intelligent and experienced persons cannot communicate with each other?

I find for instance that N/J's cannot communicate with S/P's in a more than superfluous way for instance (speaking the same language and everything.) x/J to N/x; or x/P to S/x are great. They "get" each other. The x/J to S/x just cannot.

I correlate this as due to N/J using abstractions and S/P are pragmatists requiring concrete specificity.

So a rough cut, sure, definitely "pseudo", however somehow practical as a guide explaining why some intelligent people do not pair well.

Talking abstractly is usually better in social situations. Your audience can get the main point really easily, and if they want more details then there are lots of questions they can ask.

Diving into concrete details is bad because. - Explaining details takes time and can lead to monologues. You want to be sure that people want the details before you do this - Understanding the details can take a lot of effort so it’s tiring for the other person, and you risk making them feel stupid if they don’t understand.

I think that this experiment is showing that extroverts have better social skills.

The article is not really talking about abstraction vs concrete details in the sense that you are—it's about the difference between extroverts giving high-level descriptions and sweeping inferences ("they admitted to engaging in more interpretation – describing things that were not directly visible in the pictures") vs introverts describing images exactly as they are, with their extra words coming in as extra details from the image ("numbers and specific people") and "making more distinctions".

In other words, the abstraction isn't an intentional one that is designed to an end, it's creative and knowingly potentially inaccurate. Meanwhile the concrete details aren't a sort of out-of-touch technical rant that's out of reach for the audience, it's that introverts tend to interpret the question literally and actually describe the contents of the photos.

One of the researchers' conclusions actually runs directly counter to your introverts-exhibit-worse-social-skills narrative:

> "Thus an introvert's linguistic style would induce more situational attributions and a higher perception of trustworthiness than an extravert's style," the researchers said.

Although far more frequently they will talk abstractly enough that they are not really saying anything, and they just keep going. When the point could in this case would have been possible to make with 2 short detailed sentences. I am afraid to ask any questions, because I think they will not understand the question anyway, and it will just be another reason to keep saying whatever they want to say with no meaning at all.

I think in work settings, many extraverted managers are like that. Just so much time in meetings spent on this yapping.

Ultimately I think they just do it because it gives them feeling of control, authority and visibility. Because people will see someone with a lot to say as higher status.

More likely they do it because the social interaction is an end in itself for them, so dragging it out doesn't feel like a waste of time.

There's a productive reason to do it for themselves, because it indicates higher status, and that is good for their career. It's probably subconscious and naturally rewarding for a lot of them for sure.

But overall for team productivity, it hurts since more time in meetings, more energy and time wasted, less time spent on development.

As an introvert I would find those meetings very draining, but coding is stimulating and energizing.

I’ve always thought that it’s a difference between intuitives (abstract, and possibilties) vs sensors (concrete, and what is/was)

Hmm, yes this might be a breakthrough discovery for my marriage.

Introvert/extrovert is a false dichotomy.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/what-is-an-introverted-extr...

Like horoscope signs, though, we all know ours and confirmation bias kicks in so the predicted behaviors start to seem more true. Just knowing the traits we're "supposed to have" can cause us to change our behavior to act that way.

I also think abstract/concrete is often more varied in real life. Personally, I use abstractions often, think ambiguity adds layers of meaning, and hate it when people start stacking hypotheticals on one another because then entire conversations happen about nonsense. So which camp does that put me in?

A boss was an extrovert, not really a favorable example of one. My impression is that he started talking and hoped that it would all make sense in the end. A peer of his was quite introverted, and seemed to start talking only when he knew what the end of the paragraph would be. It was amusing to see them in meetings, and it clearly wore on the introvert.

I think what is meant is that many extroverts don't fully understand what they're talking about.

Their communication often consists of catchphrases which sound good and clever, superficially. But by prioritizing form over substance, they don't allow themselves to develop a nuanced, in-depth understanding of anything. They tend to fall back on socially accepted axioms as opposed to thinking from first principles.

Catchphrases and first-principles thinking don't mix. Catchphrases are more geared for triggering emotional responses. I find that, on average, extroverts don't have the same level of rational, critical thinking as introverts do because everything they say and hear passes through some kind of emotional layer.

For example, with many extroverts, what I've found is that if they tend to get defensive when you're trying to share ideas and they often don't seem to understand nuanced arguments. I believe this is because, to the extrovert, the primary purpose of communication is to exchange emotions, not information.

Also, when an introvert debates an extrovert, they're not playing the same game. The introvert tends to be laser-focused on crafting the most logical arguments possible. On the other hand, the extrovert is laser-focused on crafting the most palatable argument which they believe most people will agree with. The extrovert is laser-focused on triggering desired emotional responses.

Introverts tend to craft arguments as if trying to convince god himself. Extroverts know that this isn't how you win debates; they know who their audience is and what their emotional trigger points are. They know what narratives they need to invoke to activate blind-spots and neutralize opposing arguments.

IMO, the reason people are extroverted is mostly because they enjoy the emotional validation which social interactions provide (both inbound and outbound). Unfortunately, this tends to cloud their judgment.

That said, the zero percent interest rate economy has given extroverts a massive advantage since it has made it possible to profit from emotional thinking... People made a lot of money from companies like Facebook, Twitter, Bitcoin, Dogecoin, Bored Apes NFTs, real estate in trendy inner-city suburbs... Most people got into these assets with an investment thesis of "My friends agree this is cool!"

In a proper, functioning economy that kind of investment thesis typically wouldn't pan out... Certainly not to such extent as we have witnessed.

I recognize what your saying here as a real phenomenon, and there is definitely a correlation with extraversion and introversion, but I've met a few people who don't fit this rule.

I.e. Extraverted logical and introverted emotional.

Yep agreed, there are always outliers. Some extroverts are very skilled and can switch to first principles thinking (or at least the appearance of it) when they need to. They may have a really strong sense of their audience and adapt well to their context/environment.

It seems quite a stretch to extrapolate how one describes a picture of an ambigious social situation to how abstract/concrete you talk in general.

Can't wait to see how this is replicated.

Seems like the title should talk about vaguely vs abstractly though...

Should it be replicated abstractly or concretely? And will one be a failed replication or just the replicator’s respective?

My rather obvious question: is this not merely a difference in how the two camps interpret the instructions given to them?

I’ve always struggled with the extrovert/introvert dichotomy. The DSM-5 is pretty unsatisfying on this and it goes downhill from there in terms of scholarship.

I think it’s more useful to parameterize situations than people: one can never step in the same river twice.

These days “extrovert” seems to be asymptotically approaching “amoral charismatic” in common usage. We have nomenclature for amoral people who lead cults of personality.

I appreciate the desire to re-brand this type of extravagantly self-serving storyteller, given that we put basically no one else in any position of influence, but on HN I think we can still call them assholes.

> I’ve always struggled with the extrovert/introvert dichotomy.

Yeah, I wonder if there's more to it than bullshit like the MBTI. It also doesn't seem to match what I observe of people. I don't think there really are extroverts in one side and introverts in another side, even accounting for different, finer levels. There are only if you expect to find such a split, at the cost of ending up with a wrong model for your observations.

I would be happy to be proven wrong, I'm curious about topics around personality, but the domain seems riddled with pseudoscience and beliefs. I don't know where to look. I'm not interested in theories that came out from someone's ass, I want proofs that come from rigorously applied scientific method.

Sample size of 40 people, all from the same company and same workplace. Whilst results are interesting, I'm not a big fan of that press release making it "new research has found" when it could do with a few dozen study reproductions at larger and more diverse scales followed by a meta-analysis. 40 people is a tiny amount to eke any statistical significance from.

I’m probably about 80-85% introvert. Whenever someone speaks makes a sweeping generalization I ask for examples. So I guess the article is sort of correct.

Dichotomies are generally false.

Dichotomies are generally false, whereas other forms of systematizing knowledge are more often correct.

Yes ! Unless they are git related, in which cases they are awesome :p

And what of those who talk of abstractions concretely?

You know, the mathematicians.

And what about those who sculpt abstractly out of concrete?

And what about those who abstract concrete from the concrete plant?

It had to be subtracted from the contract. The exact impact isn't a known fact. They extracted it by Amtrak.

Ah yes, the reificationists

"Wesley Salmon, what about the ROUSes?"

"Reificationists Of Unusual Solidity? I don't believe the concept exists."

*gets attacked*

This all looks like a nice way of saying "extroverts say less considered, less precise, dumber things than introverts".

> describing things that were not directly visible in the pictures

I.e. making up shit about the picture, like an image-to-text AI.

(2012).

I understood that Myers-Briggs and other pseudo-scientific categorizations that value direction over degree and therefore produce polarization rather than distribution ("You are 51% extrovert in most situations? Come over here with all the other extroverts") are rather discredited these days.

> Participants who scored higher in extraversion tended to describe the photos in terms that were rated by an independent coder as more abstract. For example, they used more "state verbs" (e.g. Jack loves Sue) and adjectives, and they admitted to engaging in more interpretation – describing things that were not directly visible in the pictures.

How do we distinguish accurate intuitive thinking, from hallucinating or BS-ing?

Is one way to evaluate the truth of the assertion? For example, if the subject says "Jack loves Sue"... are those their names (or is the subject using an idiom, or making a cultural reference), and (unless metaphor) does the male in the photo actually love the female in the photo?

The researchers might not know, a priori, that the man in the photo loves the woman in the photo, but if they could get an authoritative answer to that, then they might find that the subject is picking up on cues they didn't, or they might find that the subject is just talking out of their buttocks.

Would be interesting to know how accurate social intuition correlates with introversion and extraversion.

Think of the clickbait value -- gasp -- of a research finding that there's a sizable class of introverts who understand more of what's going on in social situations, than many extraverts just cruising on unwarranted/indifferent confidence.

These single task correlative behavior studies are interesting but useless. So much behavior is wholly contextual and inferring "personality type"/identity labels from them is deceptive and limiting.

Self-identifying as an introvert or an extrovert is a limiting belief. Free yourself from this pseudo-science garbage.

It can also expose you to bias, for instance assumptions about what kinds of jobs or tasks you are suited for. This is why I advise against self-identifying as an introvert in a business situation.

I agree that forming your identity as either extroverted or introverted is a bad idea, but using extraversion/introversion as tools for understanding tendencies in your mind is very beneficial.

that is such a Libra thing to say

Or: "extraverts talk more shit"

Is “extraverts” the English spelling?

I like the idea of referring to "normal" socially energetic people as extroverts and reserving extraverts for talking about the ones that are just utterly exhausting.

It might be a mondegreen

(2012)