The difference is cerebral: introverts’ brains show a stronger response to external stimuli.

-

We all feel comfortable in different situations. Some people can think of no greater pleasure than sitting in a library; to them, even the thought of going to a techno club is unfathomable. Others are the polar opposite: there is no place they feel more at home than among a throbbing mass of people, and it would drive them crazy to spend a single afternoon in the library.
Why are these stark differences?

In an attempt to answer this question, psychologists and other researchers observed how infants responded to certain stimuli. In one experiment, they held cotton swabs soaked in alcohol under the infants’ noses while simultaneously playing a recording of balloons popping. The reactions of the children displayed two very distinct behavioral patterns:

20 percent of the children fell into the high-reactive category, that is, they reacted to the stimuli by screaming and kicking violently. Their pulse and their blood pressure also increased sharply.

40 percent of the infants were in the low-reactive category; they remained cool and composed, hardly reacting to the stimuli at all.

These reactions are controlled by the human brain’s emotional switchboard – the almond-shaped amygdala. The amygdala is the first place our sensory organs send every stimulus received from the outside world. Then, the amygdala determines our response to this input.

The amygdala of high-reactive people is extremely sensitive. Since these people have particularly  strong reactions to external stimuli, they end up preferring low-stimulation surroundings, such as libraries, and mature into reserved and thoughtful people: introverts.

On the other hand, it is difficult for the brains of low-reactive people to respond to new impressions. That is why in their childhood they remain unaffected by normal stimuli and seek out more stimulating environments, eventually becoming nonchalant, lively extroverts.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

History unfolds in a cyclical pattern.

-
Image
Humankind is obsessed with time –⁠ measuring it, dividing it, observing it, and most recently, controlling it. Throughout the course of our species’s history, humans have developed three distinct ways of thinking about time. The first is chaotic time, which was the dominant theory during our primitive days. In this view, historical events occur randomly. There’s no point in trying to determine the causes of events or to try and improve society because history doesn’t follow a path and there’s nothing people can do to influence it. The second theory of time, which became prevalent during the classical period, was cyclical time. The idea was that events occurred in cycles, much like the rotation of the earth, the orbit of the moon, or the procession of the zodiac. Humans can participate in and shape history by performing the right actions at the right times, thus winning favor from the gods. As such, this theory gives people more agency than in chaotic time. Finally, the thir...
Read more

Usually, the largest share of the results (output) is produced by just a small part of the work (input).

-
Image
Have you ever looked back on a project you worked on and found that most of your work was done right before the final deadline? Perhaps in the few days when you were almost out of time you achieved more than in all the previous weeks put together. In fact, similar imbalances between effort and reward can be observed in a variety of different settings. For example, many businesses have found that 20 percent of their product range actually accounts for 80 percent of their profits. Similarly, 20 percent of motorists cause 80 percent of accidents. Most motorists drive carefully, while a small minority is careless and causes the majority of accidents. This phenomenon is better known as the 80/20 principle: roughly 80 percent of work results – or output – are produced by 20 percent of the work effort, or input. Why is this ratio not more balanced? Because not every cause has the same impact on results. In fact, causes can be roughly divided into two categories: a minority that ha...
Read more

Check your goal is feasible before moving forward.

-
Image
OK, you’ve got your first draft down. Bravo. Now it’s time to put your Worthy Goal through its paces.  Think of it as a stress test. How sturdy is it? Does it support the weight of your ambition, or does it look like it’s going to wobble? We’ll start with the spouse-ish test.  Here’s the idea. You’re going to run your idea past the person who knows you best. It’s spouse-ish because it doesn’t have to be an actual spouse. It could be your best friend, or your sister, or your partner. Point is, they’re someone who’s heard it all – your jokes, your dreams and ideals, your hang-ups. They have a sense of who you are, what you stand for, and where you are in life. They care.  Your sketch is still on paper. It sounds great, but it’s still abstract. It could easily stay there, tucked away in a drawer, but you’re about to change that. You’re going to both make yourself accountable and give yourself a reality check. Scary? Sure. Necessary? Absolutely. We all have our bl...
Read more