[hedgie]

well, pg is some dude defining identity on a blog, and the people i mention are famous scientists who quantified personality and isolated introversion/extraversion using a statistical theory with predictive value. this theory explained the behavior of dogs that Pavlov had noted in the fifties. the preference was eventually linked by Eysenck to levels of cortical arousal.

whether you consider it part of your identity or not is moot since introversion/extraversion still defines a consistent set of reactions to external events.

the article is wrong on every level. introversion has nothing to do with confidence. i speak very confidently when i want to. i was an excellent ta and can present on subjects clearly. in the course of my studies and career i have had several people tell me that i was the only person who could clearly explain complicated mathematical concepts to them. i enjoy talking to people and discussing with them.

i am still an introvert and have a preference for isolation that is consistent in my reactions to external events. this preference does not determine my reaction to all events. how introverted i am is a measure of the consistency of my preference towards solitude. i like talking with people - i just don't like it all the time.

i'm sure some people don't consider them introverts or extraverts. they usually fall on the middle of the scale, with no distinguished preference towards either category. however, their existence does not disprove that other people have strong preferences towards introversion or extraversion.

[JoachimSchipper]

Nobody is arguing that intro-/extraversion does not exist and is not a valuable component in predicting human behaviour. pg 's article predicts that people self-identifying as X will have certain hangups around X, e.g. people self-identifying as shy are less likely to learn to be less shy, even if this would be desirable. Looking at this thread, that is exactly what happens. (And I'm done with this thread.)