A few months ago one of the major Croatian news channels did an interview with a Croatian chef that was a host of Anthony Bourdain in Croatia while filming "No Reservations".
Amongst other things they talked about Anthony and his stay there. One of the things the Croatian chef said about A.B, that kind of stuck with me, is how different he was off camera and on camera.
Off camera he was very quiet and kept to himself until he would have few glasses of wine. His theory was that A.B was an 'introvert' acting to be an 'extrovert' and that (according to this chef's opinion) must have been taking a toll on him all these years.
I think the idea that performers and characters are not the same when they are not performing or playing their character is something that's quite common. It's not really an insight into introversion and extraversion, but about popular culture.
After all the only information about a person that we get is from what we see and hear. It's healthier to expect and notice that a celebrity is not the same when not performing.
One example where some people have difficulty realising that celebrities are not normal is when the celebrities play The Bad Guy and people encounter them in the street and get negative responses. Whereas if they usually played The Good Guy then any equally as false positive reactions could be attributed to their normal character.
Another example from last millennia which is similar would be fans of authors expecting their idols to be erudite dinner guests, founts of wisdom, or the swashbuckling hero of their work. The author would have to point out that their novel took 12 months to create and a further 6 months of editing and they were not the same person as the lead character and that they lived with their aunt and collected roses as a hobby.
There logically have to be lots of Tonies like this. I think people can move across whatever that spectrum of introversion and extroversion is, but for people who are truly introverted and prefer solitude but also really like people, it can be hard to balance because your internal and external lives are inherently different.
As a 100% introvert who enjoys presenting and being in front of an audience, I completely understand the behaviour the Croatian chef described. It's not that unusual.
I can't find the original source, but long ago in an interview Mike Myers (comedic actor, formerly of Saturday Night Live, and a string of over-the-top movies) described himself as a "situational extrovert". If you are aware of Mike's work, you might too be surprised to learn that he's an introvert.
Extroversion and introversion do not work like that.
In layman terms, it is where you "get your energy from". For introverts they spend energy when they have to interact with lots of people and be the "center of attention". But it doesn't mean they don't like it. Or that it's bad for them. It just means they have to go and be by themselves after to recuperate.
That’s some thing I hear a lot on the internet lately as if it’s truth, and I have no clue where it comes from.
Some people really do get stressed out with too much human interaction, just like there are people who suffer when they don’t get enough. And there’s a whole spectrum in between and going in various other directions.
I believe it comes from Meyers Briggs (sp?), the MBTI personality assessment. On some level it's not wrong to suggest this is an observable component of personalities. But it's a bit aggressive to assert that this is the sole definition of the word.
More pseudo-science touted as fact. It's the programmer's Horoscope. I know people (plural), IRL who laugh at horoscopes and then spout MB horseshit with a straight face.
I think the MB framework is decent. The issue is that the test is noisy, is context dependent, unstable, and a middle value isn't well defined. But the tail ends are very interesting, relevant ways to categorize personality.
If you forget the test and just consider the ideas, it's useful
The idea isn't new; it came from Carl Jung [1], who coincidentally also coined the terms "introvert" and "extrovert". I don't believe his notions of "psychic energy" are taken seriously by the scientific establishment of today.
Is there any evidence people are actually wired this way? Because as far as I can tell people mostly gain/lose energy based on whether they like the people they're interacting with, and everyone likes some time alone. Extroversion strikes me as liking the average person over anything else, and extroverts stop being extroverts when they're interacting with people they find objectionable. A person who exclusively gains energy from being alone is likely schizoid, which is an outright disorder (and relatively rare).
As a mostly introvert I can say that I lose energy from interacting with a group, and gain it back when I can be alone. But at the same time being social relieves stress. So it's a push/pull.
I actually really like most people. But I like them one on one when I can have a real conversation. I hate party chit chat because I'm terrible at it.
I have a couple friends whom I'd call extreme extroverts. One big difference between them and me is if they try to initiate talking to a stranger (at say a bar or some other reasonable location) and get rebuffed or otherwise have a bad experience, they instantly forgot about it and move on - whereas I'm still thinking about it years later.
So yeah maybe introversion is just social anxiety.
Social anxiety (and selectiveness) in general seem like better descriptions to me. The introvert/extrovert framing seems off to me, I feel like it's misdiagnosing the problem.
>Because as far as I can tell people mostly gain/lose energy based on whether they like the people they're interacting with
I was responding to this comment, which seemed to imply that introverts don't have a problem spending time with people they like. Or, at least, they don't have a problem with it any more than non-introverts.
I'm saying that's not the case (but it's possible I misunderstood what you were saying to begin with).
I think introverts both gain energy from interactions with loved ones, and gain energy from being alone, and I think that's the same for extroverts. It's different types of "energy." I just don't buy that the simplified dichotomy is a good way of categorising, even if it's in some sense a spectrum. It misrepresents how human psychology works.
No ... as an introvert there's no limit to how much time I can spend with my best friend. If he's invited others I'll usually politely decline. I'm suggesting that we actually prefer being the center of attention when it involves few people.
I suspect introversion and extroversion are just two different sets of competences and are not mutually exclusive or unlearnable. Attempting to do something you are not good at is tiring.
