# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
When Emotions Make Better Decisions - Antonio Damasio

# data[].attributes.body
It is not about all or nothing..it is always possible to be more inclusive...move that bar, if only a little bit no matter where you are.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC One - A Special School, Series 1, Episode 1, A Special School

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ysgol Y Deri is an extraordinary school for extraordinary people.

# data[].attributes.body
See Link.

# data[].attributes.body
by Todd Rose

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The End of Average: Harvard's Todd Rose on Why Individuality Is the Key to the Future

# data[].attributes.body
Chris Gadbury Instagram- IB Imagery/Posters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Extended Learning from All - Google Jamboard

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser. Dismiss

# data[].attributes.body
prior knowledge - scaffolding - identity/self-esteem - extending learning - high expectation - relationships

# data[].attributes.body
an ongoing process that aims to increase access and engagement in learning for all students by identifying and removing barriers.

# data[].attributes.body
Building relationships can have powerful effect on learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I wrote this essay with Anthony Evans and Gideon Goldin

It is common to think that emotions interfere with rational thinking. Plato described emotion and reason as two horses pulling us in opposite directions. Modern dual-systems models of judgment and decision-making are Platonic in the sense that they endorse the antagonism between reason and emotion. The activities of one system are automatic and often emotional, whereas the activities of the other are controlled and never emotional. The automatic system gets things done quickly, but it is prone to error. The controlled system's mission is to keep a watchful eye and to make corrections when necessary. Like a watchful parent, this system reins in our impulses and overrides our snap judgments.

Emotions can be powerful experiences, but they usually do not last long. They sometimes make us do things we later regret. Today, we are angry at a colleague and want to yell at her. Tomorrow, we wish we had acted more rationally, no matter how compelling our desire was at the time. By transforming goals and desires in the heat of the moment, emotions can lead us to make choices that hurt our long-term interests. Doing something that you do not want to do is one of the hallmarks of irrationality - hence, emotions make us irrational.

The struggle of reason against emotion is an appealing image. But do emotions always lead us astray? Clearly, one of their functions is to guide us towards pleasure and away from pain. To succeed in gaining what is good and avoiding what is bad is difficult in an uncertain environment. We often make decisions that resemble gambles. When we invest in a company, buy a new house, or get married, there is a chance that things won't work out as hoped. It's critical that we're able to judge what risks are worth taking - and emotions can help us make those judgments.

A few years ago, neurologist Antonio Damasio and his colleagues showed how negative emotions can improve decisions involving risk. They devised a gambling task, in which players repeatedly selected cards from four decks. With each draw, they either gained or lost money. Two of the decks were safe and advantageous; choosing them consistently would gradually accrue money over the course of the task. The other two decks were riskier. Although the winning cards were worth more than the winning cards from the safe decks, the losing cards were so damaging that, if chosen repeatedly, the risky decks would eventually bankrupt the player. The best strategy was to consistently choose from the safe decks.

Damasio and colleagues found that participants were initially attracted to the risky decks because of their large positive payoffs. However, players soon retreated to the safer decks where they fared better in the long run. How did they figure out that playing it safe was better? The answer came from a group of neurological patients with damage to a brain region associated with emotional sensitivity to reward and punishment (i.e, the orbitofrontal cortex). Though these patients' cognitive reasoning was unimpaired, they could not experience the negative emotions that normally accompany large losses. Like the unimpaired participants, these patients were initially attracted to the riskier decks, but because they failed to respond emotionally to large losses, they never learned to avoid the risky gambles.

So, if fear of loss can protect us from courting disaster, can we conclude that negative emotions always play an adaptive role in decision-making? The answer is no, and to show why, Shiv, Damasio, and others followed up the original gambling study with an interesting variation. In their experiment, participants repeatedly chose between keeping and investing $1. If they invested $1, they had a 50% chance of winning $2.50 and a 50% chance of losing the invested dollar. In this game, it is best to always choose the risky option. Individuals who fail to invest, out of fear, suffer financially. As in the first experiment, players were initially attracted to betting on risky gains, but as before, they became more conservative after experiencing loss. In contrast, orbitofrontal patients (who have trouble experiencing negative emotions) continued to invest regardless of losses. In this task, the patients who were not encumbered by emotion outperformed individuals experiencing the fear of loss.

The lesson from these studies is that the experience of negative emotions can help and hurt decision-making; it all depends on the context. Considered in isolation, emotions are rather arational (neither rational nor irrational). It seems then that we are right back to the Platonic dualism of reason and emotion. If we can't trust that emotions will always steer us in the right direction, there is no way around a dispassionate calculation of potential gains and losses. This controlled, quantitative approach is most useful for decisions with clear, measurable outcomes. With economic choices, it's possible to estimate the probabilities of different consequences and to quantify how good or bad those outcomes are. For example, in the games of roulette and blackjack, we can mathematically ascertain that the best strategy is to never play. Similarly, we can come up with mathematical criteria to judge where we should invest our money.

Things get a bit murky, though, when we try to apply calculated reasoning to social decision-making. Many social situations involve costs and benefits that are difficult to assess and compare. Consider the gambit of asking an attractive stranger out on a date. Being rejected is a type of loss (just as being accepted is a type of gain), but assigning numerical values to such outcomes may seem contrived or arbitrary. Likewise, we can assume that there is some probability of rejection, but how to come up with a specific value is not obvious. Understanding human choices in their natural context is harder than understanding the rules of a laboratory game. What's more, the way people respond to social situations is somewhat subjective and variable. The anxious and avoidant might respond to rejection more strongly than the emotionally secure. In a world where something that is rational for one person may be irrational (or even unfathomable) for another, prescribing a rational or adaptive response is difficult.

So Plato's rationalism may not win the day either. Darwin would argue that the influence of emotions on decision-making has survived the rigors of natural selection. In review, we see three reasons why this may be so. One reason, as noted in the preceding paragraph, is that emotions give useful guidance whenever the environment fails to provide all the information needed for thoughtful analysis. The other reason is an asymmetry that might be lurking behind the two Damasio studies. When looking at the two gambling studies, it is tempting to discard emotions from the process of decision-making. If they help in one context and hurt in another the net outcome seems to be a zero effect. It may be the case, however, the type of context in which emotions help is more common in our world than the type of context in which they hurt. The final reason not to discard emotions remains the fact that they make us act quickly and decisively.

Bechara, A., Damásio, A. R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S. W. (1994). Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex, Cognition, 50, 7-15.

Shiv, B., Loewenstein, G., Bechara, A., Damásio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (2005). Investment behavior and the negative side of emotion. Psychological Science, 16, 435-439.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reason and emotion: A note on Plato, Darwin, and Damasio

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There is a place for reason and emotion in human decision-making. How the two relate to each other is a matter of considerable complexity. If emotions sometimes help us choose well, how do we know when to listen to them? There are some clues, but don't expect simple answers (Always follow your heart, not!).

# data[].attributes.body
Inspiring patient and hopeful advocacy..small change can have great impact

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dr. Maya Angelou: Try to Be a Rainbow in Somebody Else's Cloud | SuperSoul Sunday | OWN

# data[].attributes.body
What are the forces driving or preventing change? What is the current versus the desired situation?

# data[].attributes.body
Create using guidance from IB Learner Profiles

# data[].attributes.body
What type of flame are you?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Eduardo Galeano (An ocean of little flames) "Un mar de fueguitos"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Eduardo Galeano (An ocean of little flames) "Un mar de fueguitos"

# data[].attributes.headline
Investigate, explore + create (constructivism)

# data[].attributes.subject
Investigate, explore + create (constructivism)

# data[].attributes.body
Ask and answer your own questions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Constructivism is an important learning theory that educators use to help their students learn. Constructivism is based on the idea that people actively construct or make their own knowledge, and that reality is determined by your experiences as a learner. Basically, learners use their previous knowledge as a foundation and build on it with new things that they learn. So everyone's individual experiences make their learning unique to them.

Constructivism is crucial to understand as an educator because it influences the way all of your students learn. Teachers and instructors that understand the constructivist learning theory understand that their students bring their own unique experiences to the classroom every day. Their background and previous knowledge impacts how they are able to learn. Educators are able to use constructivist learning theory to help their students understand their previous knowledge. If you're a current or aspiring educator, it's important to get the education and credentials you need. But it's also important to understand learning theories and how they impact you and your students. This guide will tell you more about the constructivist learning theory and how it helps you as a teacher.

There are many specific elements and principles of constructivism that shape the way the theory works and applies to students. Learn about the different principles of constructivism and how they make up the whole theory.

Knowledge is constructed. This is the basic principle, meaning that knowledge is built upon other knowledge. Students take pieces and put them together in their own unique way, building something different than what another student will build. The student's previous knowledge, experiences, beliefs, and insights are all important foundations for their continued learning.

People learn to learn, as they learn. Learning involves constructing meaning and systems of meaning. For example, if a student is learning the chronology of dates for a series of historical events, at the same time they are learning the meaning of chronology. If a student is writing a paper about history, they are also learning principles of grammar and writing as well. Each thing we learn gives us a better understanding of other things in the future.

Learning is an active process. Learning involves sensory input to construct meaning. The learner needs to do something in order to learn, it's not a passive activity. Learners need to engage in the world so they are actively involved in their own learning and development. You can't just sit and expect to be told things and learn, you need to engage in discussions, reading, activities, etc.

Learning is a social activity. Learning is directly associated to our connection with other people. Our teachers, our family, or peers, and our acquaintances impact our learning. Educators are more likely to be successful as they understand that peer involvement is key in learning. Isolating learnings isn't the best way to help students learn and grow together. Progressive education recognizes that social interaction is key to learning and they use conversation, interaction, and group applications to help students retain their knowledge.

Learning is contextual. Students don't learn isolated facts and theories separate from the rest of our lives-we learn in ways connected to things we already know, what we believe, and more. The things we learn and the points we tend to remember are connected to the things going on around us.

Knowledge is personal. Because constructivism is based on your own experiences and beliefs, knowledge becomes a personal affair. Each person will have their own prior knowledge and experiences to bring to the table. So the way and things people learn and gain from education will all be very different.

Learning exists in the mind. Hands-on experiences and physical actions are necessary for learning, but those elements aren't enough. Engaging the mind is key to successful learning. Learning needs to involve activities for the minds, not just our hands. Mental experiences are needed for retaining knowledge.

Motivation is key to learning. Students are unable to learn if they are unmotivated. Educators need to have ways to engage and motivate learners to activate their minds and help them be excited about education. Without motivation, it's difficult for learners to reach into their past experience and make connections for new learning.

There are different types of constructivism that educators can use to find success with this learning theory.

Cognitive. Cognitive constructivism focuses on the idea that learning should be related to the learner's stage of cognitive development. These methods work to help students in learning new information by connecting it to things they already know, enabling them to make modifications in their existing intelligence to accommodate the new information. Cognitive constructivism comes from the work of Jean Piaget and his research on cognitive development in children.

Social. Social constructivism focuses on the collaborative nature of learning. Knowledge develops from how people interact with each other, their culture, and society at large. Students rely on others to help create their building blocks, and learning from others helps them construct their own knowledge and reality. Social constructivism comes from Lev Vygotsky, and is closely connected to cognitive constructivism with the added element of societal and peer influence.

Radical. Radical constructivism is very different from cognitive and social constructivism. It focuses on the idea that learners and the knowledge they construct tell us nothing real, only help us function in our environment. The overall idea is that knowledge is invented, not discovered. The things we bring to the table make it impossible for us to have truth, only interpretations of knowledge. This theory was developed by Ernst von Glasersfeld in 1974.

It's important to understand how teachers can apply constructivism inside their classroom to create a unique learning environment for students. In constructivist classrooms, the teacher has a role to create a collaborative environment where students are actively involved in their own learning. Teachers are more facilitators of learning than actual instructors. Teachers must work to understand the preexisting conceptions and understanding of students, then work to incorporate knowledge within those areas. Teachers will also need to adjust their teaching to match the learner's level of understanding.

Constructivist classrooms rely on four key areas to be successful:

Shared knowledge between teachers and students.

Shared authority between teachers and students.

Teachers act as a guide or facilitator.

Learning groups consist of small numbers of students.

Constructivist classrooms are often very different from normal classrooms in many ways. Constructivist classrooms focus on student questions and interests, they build on what students already know, they focus on interactive learning and are student-centered, teachers have a dialogue with students to help them construct their own knowledge, they root in negotiation, and students work primarily in groups.

Constructivist classrooms often have teachers who do small group work, collaborative and interactive activities, and open dialogues about what students need in order to find success.

The biggest criticism of constructivist learning is its lack of structure. Some students need highly structured and organized learning environments to thrive, and constructivist learning focuses on a more laid-back method to help students engage in their own learning.

Grading is often removed from constructivist classrooms and places more value on student progress, which can lead to students falling behind and not meeting standardized grading requirements.

If you are hoping to become a teacher, a degree is crucial to getting on the right path. Additionally, it's valuable for teachers to understand different learning theories and how they impact their classroom and their students.

Subscribe to the WGU Blog

Stay up-to-date with the latest articles, tips, and insights from the team at WGU

Our focus on your success starts with our focus on four high-demand fields: K-12 teaching and education, nursing and healthcare, information technology, and business. Every degree program at WGU is tied to a high-growth, highly rewarding career path. Which college fits you?

Want to see all the degrees WGU has to offer? View all degrees

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Constructivism is an important learning theory based on the idea that learners build on their existing foundation to learn new information. Learn more about constructivism and how it impacts education.

# data[].attributes.headline
Metacognition in the continuum for how we communicate ideas

# data[].attributes.subject
Metacognition in the continuum for how we communicate ideas

# data[].attributes.body
What are the possibilities?e.g. introvert vs. extrovert

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The concept of extroversion isn't new, under one heading or another, theories of extroversion/introversion have been apparent in psychological literature for over 100 years.

Many theories incorporate an individual's level of extroversion/introversion as a key factor underpinning personality.

Extroversion plays a role in mediating how a person tends to direct their energy, that is, externally or internally and the level of extroversion can help us to understand how an individual is likely to respond to and interpret external stimuli.

How extroverted we are can have a huge bearing on our day-to-day life across a multitude of contexts and it's important to note that there's no 'better' level of extroversion/introversion - both ends of the spectrum have their advantages and disadvantages but by understanding where we fall on the scale we can address areas in which we're perhaps lacking.

Understanding how introverted or extroverted an individual is can also help practitioners in the positive psychology space adapt their approach to suit the subject while in relationships and social bonds, knowing an individual's propensity to internalize or externalize actions can help us adapt our behavior accordingly.

Before you read on, we thought you might like to download our three Positive Psychology Exercises for free. These science-based exercises will explore fundamental aspects of positive psychology including strengths, values, and self-compassion, and will give you the tools to enhance the wellbeing of your clients, students, or employees.

What is an Introvert, Extrovert, and Ambivert?

The early 1900s was a period in which the field of psychology was developing as an independent discipline. During this time, Carl Jung proposed core ideas in his exploration of personality, including the constructs of introversion and extroversion.

Jung (1921) suggested the principal distinction between personalities is the source and direction of an individual's expression of energy - defining extroversion as "an outward turning of libido" (para.710) and introversion as "an inward turning of libido" (para. 769).

The interest of the introvert is directed inwards; they think, feel, and act in ways that suggest the subject is the prime motivating factor. Extroverts, on the other hand, direct their interest outwards to their surrounding environment; they think, feel, and act in relation to external factors rather than the subjective.

Consider a busy social event, an extrovert will likely revel in the social interactions and be invigorated by it, while an introvert will likely find their energy depleted and need time alone to compensate.

Not to be confused with Freud's theory of the libido (1920) in which libido was described as a source of psychic energy specific to sexual gratification, Jung referred to libido as motivational to a range of behaviors - not solely sexual gratification.

Abernethy (1938, p. 218) defined an extrovert as "one who enters with interest and confidence into social activities of the direct type and has little liking for planning or detailed observation." Conversely, introverts were defined as being "below the general average in social inclination and above the average in liking for thought."

Introversion and extroversion are, in some ways, at the ends of the bell curve. So what lies between the two? Jung (1921) accepted there is an extensive third category and admitted it is difficult to determine whether this group's energy comes from within or without, rather it appears to be drawn from both in varying degrees along the introvert-extrovert spectrum.

Heidbreder (1926, p. 123) suggested that "pronounced introversion and pronounced extroversion merely represent extremes of behavior, connected by continuous gradations. In other words, the evidence points to a single, mixed type rather than to two sharply separated classes."

Conklin (1923) also posited the existence of ambiverts, considering them to be the most 'normal' with individuals showing flexibility between the two extremes. Roback (1927, p. 123) agreed that the majority who lie within this category are "the less differentiated normal man, the source of whose motivation can scarcely be determined offhand, as his introversion or extraversion is not sufficiently accentuated."

What is the Introvert-Extrovert Spectrum?

Some things in life can easily be categorized. Eye-color, whether someone is left or right-handed, species within a genus, time-zones - these are all examples of discontinuous traits. With regards to the introvert/extrovert archetypal distinction, does human behavior really fall neatly into one of two categories?

In reality, most of us exhibit qualities of both and fall somewhere between the two. Rather than existing as a clear cut label, extroversion is regarded as a spectrum with individuals exhibiting a range of behaviors associated with both.

The Introvert-Extrovert spectrum, like many continuous dimensions within psychology, represents a way in which we can classify something in terms of its position on a scale between two extreme points. In this case an individual's innate tendency to respond to stimuli in a certain fashion.

Considering the bell-curve of normal distribution for continuous traits, if we place absolute extroversion at one end of the scale and the absolute maximum tendency towards introverted behavior at the other we have a spectrum which can account for introverts, extroverts and every nuance in between.

When considering continuous traits, it's important to remember that the invention of the dichotomous paradigm of introversion versus extroversion is a purely human imposition - aimed at providing a simple framework through which to categorize individuals based on their behavioral characteristics.

In reality, a spectrum provides a scale against which we can more accurately determine just where someone falls in terms of their behavior relative to others. While it's easy to say an individual is either an extrovert, introvert or ambivert based on personality assessments, in reality, the multi-faceted nature of all behavior and the underlying contributors make such an assessment something of a broad-brush approach.

The human brain remains the most complex structure in the known universe. With 100 billion neurons, ever-fluctuating neurochemical levels alongside inheritable and learned components of behavior and not to mention dynamic stimuli as we move through life, our characteristics are much more complex than the binary or ternary intro/extro/ambivert distinction suggests.

Chair of the Psychology Department at Northwestern University, Dr. Dan McAdams (2017) described extroversion-introversion as a continuous dimension, suggesting there are no pure types in psychology.

As with other continuous scales like height and weight, there are of course people who score at the extremes, like very heavy people, or very tall people, or people who score very high on the trait of extroversion, but most people fall in the middle of these bell-shaped curves.

While the binary or ternary distinctions provide a broad-brush way to categorize individuals, the spectrum provides a much more accurate relative picture. Consider two individuals who complete a personality assessment including a measure of extroversion, for example, the Myers Briggs Personality Inventory (MBIT).

One receives an extremely high score for extroversion while the other scores mildly extroverted - is it fair to say they are both extroverts?

Introvert vs Extrovert: The Difference Between Personalities

Assumed to be dichotomous halves of the introversion-extroversion personality dimension, introverts are considered to be reflective, private, thoughtful individuals while extroverts are thought to be gregarious, assertive, adaptive, happy individuals with a tendency to take risks.

Introversion and extroversion are complex, multi-faceted personality constructs. Individuals can fall at the extremes of each dimension or, more commonly, lie somewhere in between the two and exhibit traits of both.

Let's have a look at a sample of introvert-extrovert personality differences in relation to the following areas.

Sociability

In social situations, extrovert and introvert personalities display very different behaviors. Extroverts show a preference for seeking, engaging in, and enjoying social interactions, whereas introverts tend to be reserved and withdrawn in social settings - often preferring to avoid social situations altogether.

Guilford & Guilford (1936) proposed two extremes of sociability: social withdrawal and social dependence. While introverts tend to be quieter, gaining enjoyment from spending time alone, extroverts are more socially-present, thriving on the energy of those around them, often finding themselves the center of attention in large social groups.

This is not to say that introverts are anti-social, rather they gain enjoyment away from the overwhelming stimulation produced by social gatherings.

Communication

Min Lee & Nass (2003) postulated the cause of the extrovert's strong social presence is their tendency to talk more often and in louder voices, to take up more physical space with broader gestures and to initiate more conversations than introverts.

In a small study of students, it was found that during conversations with an unknown person, extroverts made more eye contact and spoke more frequently than introverts (Rutter, Morley, & Graham, 1972).

Additionally, extroverts are significantly more confident and accurate when interpreting the meaning of nonverbal communication than introverts (Akert & Panter, 1988). Termed 'the extrovert advantage' this nonverbal decoding was attributed to extroverts' experience in social settings and their greater desire for sensory stimulation.

Decision-making

In time-pressured situations, introverts are more likely to use early information to form judgments and make decisions than extroverts in the same context (Heaton & Kruglanski, 1991).

Research into the impact of extroversion/introversion on decision-making suggested extroverts make more snap decisions based on what feels most natural at the moment. While extroverts were found to exhibit quality checking behavior before making decisions, there was also a need for someone to steer them in the right direction when they faced important decisions.

Conversely, introverts avoid impulsive decisions through thoughtful consideration, intuition and primarily count on themselves. (Khalil, 2016).

In the workplace

Extraverts generally hold more positive evaluations of life in general and their careers are no exception. Research has shown positive associations between extraversion and career satisfaction. Additionally, extroverts are more likely to take action in order to remedy unsatisfactory workplace situations than their introvert counterparts (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999).

Noise distractions in the workplace are more of a problem for introverts than for extraverts. Belojevic, Slepcevic, & Jakovljevic (2001) found that the introduction of noise distraction caused pronounced concentration problems for introverts, while extroverts actively selected higher noise intensities.

These results supported the hypothesis that introverts have a more pronounced reaction to noise, leading to heightened arousal which then interferes with performance on complex tasks (Eysenck, 1982).

Is there a Difference in the Brain?

Early research in the area of extroversion and introversion was predominantly anecdotal and self-reported. However, with the development of neuroimaging technologies, we have been granted access to a whole world of scientifically-supported, quantitative evidence that suggests the brains of extroverts and introverts really are different.

Research by Fischer, Wik, & Frederickson (1997) investigated neural differences in the introvert-extrovert spectrum by looking at regional cerebral blood flow. Their findings suggested a dopaminergic basis for individual differences in extraversion. In introverts, activity in the putamen was left-lateralized, with these areas having high concentrations of dopamine terminals.

Additionally, introverted subjects displayed an increase in neuron activity within brain regions associated with learning, motor and vigilance control. As such, it was suggested that extroversion is subcortical, neostriatal and dopaminergic, rather than solely cortical.

Lei, Yang, & Wu (2015) employed neuroimaging techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI) to investigate personality traits from a neurobiological perspective.

The results indicated that extraversion is associated with activations in regions of the anterior cingulate cortex (related to decision-making and socially-driven interactions), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (executive functions such as working memory and cognition), middle temporal gyrus (semantic memory and language), and the amygdala (processing emotions).

MRI has also been used to examine automatic brain reactivity as a function of extraversion. Eysenck (1967) suggested that, due to differences in the baseline activity of ascending reticular pathways, extroverts have a lower baseline level of cortical arousal than introverts. Cortical arousal increases wakefulness, motivation, attention, and alertness.

From this perspective, it is postulated that extroverts are minimally aroused and so will search for additional external stimulation in order to raise their cortical arousal level. MRI results found that introverts displayed heightened responsiveness within the frontostriatal-thalamic circuit (responsible for the mediation of motor, cognitive, and behavioral functions within the brain) when presented with sad, happy, and neutral facial expressions.

It was thus surmised that the presence of arousing stimuli - such as facial expressions of emotion - underpinned introverts' preference for avoiding social interactions (Suslow, Kugel, Reber, Dannlowski, Kersting, Arolt, Heindel, Ohrmann, & Egloff, 2010).

Investigations into cerebral blood flow and introversion/extroversion sought to outline the areas of the brain associated with each dimension.

It was suggested that, while extroversion is significantly correlated with the anterior cingulate gyrus (emotion and behavior regulation), the temporal lobes (sensory input), and the posterior thalamus (regulation of sleep and wakefulness); introversion is associated with increased blood flow in the frontal lobes (involved in initiation, impulse control, and social behavior) and in the anterior thalamus (sensory signals) (Johnson, Wiebe, Gold, Andreasen, Hichwa, Watkins, & Boles-Ponto, 1999).

A Look at the Psychology and Theory

As early as 300 BCE Greek thinkers and physicians like Theophrastus tentatively pondered human behavior and characteristics. By the late 1700s, philosopher and scientist, Immanuel Kant discussed human personality in terms of four very distinct temperaments:

Sanguine (carefree and hopeful),

Choleric (proud and hot-headed),

Melancholic (anxious and thoughtful), and

Phlegmatic (reasonable and persistent).

In the realm of psychology, human personality has been the subject of great interest even before Freud first examined human behavior in relation to personality components.

While theories of personality encompass various aspects of human personality, the dimension of extroversion-introversion was a key factor in the development of each theoretical framework.

Popularized by Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung (1921), the terms extroversion/introversion were used to describe aspects of human personality as part of a collective unconscious. Jung regarded extroversion and introversion as the major orientations of personality. In the years that followed, many researchers developed and utilized methods of factor analyses that gave support to Jung's initial distinction and built theories upon its foundation.

Eysenck (1967) assumed that brain processes could be characterized by means of a simplified conceptual nervous system that encompassed the key circuits relevant to personality and behavior.

Eysenck's theory of personality (1967) identified two primary brain systems as the key components of his conceptual nervous system: reticulo-cortical (controls the cortical arousal generated by incoming stimuli) and reticulo-limbic circuits (controls response to emotional stimuli).

In this theory, levels of extraversion are directly related to arousal of the reticulo-cortical circuit through external stimulation, so that introverts exhibit higher levels of base arousal than extraverts. Eysenck went on to develop the PEN model of personality, a hierarchical taxonomy based the super factors of psychoticism, extroversion, and neuroticism.

The theory is based on the assumption that we have an optimal level of arousal and that as one becomes more or less aroused than their optimal level performance will deteriorate.

Cattell (1965) considered personality as being much more complex than previously theorized, and thus developed 16 personality factors ranging from extroversion (described as social boldness) to emotional stability. It was argued a much larger number of traits should be considered in order to garner a detailed understanding of human personality.

By the 1990s Digman had popularized the five-factor model of personality (FFM). The FFM is a set of five broad trait dimensions:

1. openness to experience,

2. conscientiousness,

3. extraversion,

4. agreeableness, and

5. neuroticism.

Often referred to as the "Big Five" or O.C.E.A.N., the FFM was developed to represent the variability in individuals' personalities as much as possible, using only a small set of trait dimensions. Many personality psychologists agree that its five domains capture the most important, basic individual differences in personality traits and that many alternative trait models can be conceptualized in terms of the FFM structure.

What Do The Statistics Say?

If you were to search for statistics relating to extroversion and introversion, you would be met with contradicting information and no real idea of what the true statistics say. Depending on the source, you may well find yourself facing a multitude of facts and figures that are quite simply unverifiable.

However, there are quantifiable statistics out there. Let's have a look at some of the evidence-based statistical information related to the introversion-extroversion spectrum. It is important to note that many statistics in this area do not include ambiversion as a stand-alone trait, rather they acknowledge extroversion and introversion alone.

The first official random sample by the Myers-Briggs organization showed introverts made up 50.7% and extroverts 49.3% of the United States general population. Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer (1998) found that within this sample 45.9% of males and 52.5% of women were extroverted and 54.1% of men and 47.5% of women were introverted.

A later study by the American Trends Panel (2014) utilized a five-point scale with which 3,243 participants described themselves as being closer to extroversion or introversion. Along the scale, it was found that 12% described themselves as very extroverted, while 5% considered themselves to be very introverted. 77% of respondents described themselves as falling somewhere between the two extremes. The remaining 6% were unsure and not included in the results.

Freeman (2008) looked at how extroversion differed in American students and students from Singapore. The results indicate that Singapore students are less introverted (51%) than their American counterparts (62%).

In a survey of 3,014 American lawyers, it was found that a majority 56.4% were introverts and the remaining 43.6% were extroverts. These figures indicated that extroversion/introversion is important depending on the area in which a lawyer practices. For example, labor law attracted the greatest number of extraverts, while real estate law and tax work seem to draw more introverts (Richard, 1993).

Scherdin (1994) surveyed 1,600 librarians using the MBTI. It was hypothesized that librarians as a group would be logical problem solvers, working out solutions in their heads and independently and not loudly and collaboratively. The results found that 63% of librarians were indeed introverted while 37% were extroverted.

50% of extroverts make snap decisions and quick decisions, while 79% of introverts rely on their intuition and inner feelings (Noman, 2016).

11 Interesting Facts

1. Introverts are more likely to locate their "real me" (the essence of who they really are) on the Internet, while extroverts locate their "real me" through more traditional social interactions. Amichai-Hamburger, Wainapel, & Fox (2002) emphasized the importance of expressing the "real me", describing it as a crucial life skill. Those who cannot express their "real me" are prone to suffer from serious psychological disorders. It is thought that the social services provided on the Internet represent an avenue for introverted personalities to form social contacts.

2. Heavy social media users (those who spend more than two hours daily) are seen by themselves and others as more outgoing and extroverted (Harbaugh, 2010).

3. Introverts and extroverts respond differently to types of workplace training. O'Connor, Gardiner, & Watson (2016) revealed a relationship between levels of extroversion and training type - specifically ideation skills training (focusing on idea generation) vs. relaxation training (focusing on opening the mind and removing mental barriers). Their study suggested relaxation training is particularly beneficial for introverts whereas ideation skill training is more effective for extroverts.

4. Extroverts are more likely to prefer immediate rewards. Hirsh, Guindon, Morisano, & Peterson (2010) suggested that extroverts are particularly sensitive to impulsive, incentive-reward-driven behaviors and are more likely to be involved in extreme sports and other risk-taking behaviors.

5. When interacting with synthesized voice-mediated human-computer interfaces and VR systems we prefer synthesized extrovert/introvert voices that suit the context. Min Lee & Nass (2003) suggested individuals feel stronger social presence when stereotypically introverted roles are represented by an introverted computer voice, in a library for example, rather than when they are represented by an extroverted voice. In situations where socially present virtual actors are desirable, in sales and marketing, for example, selected voices should clearly manifest extroversion.

6. Introverts and extroverts prefer different leisure activities. Diener, Larson, & Emmons (1984) suggested extroverts are more likely to participate in social leisure activities. Conversely, introverts are more likely to participate in solitary leisure activities.

7. Extroverts and introverts have very different verbal styles. Beukeboom, Tanis, & Vermeulen (2012) investigated the link between extroversion and language abstraction, they discovered that extroverts tend to talk in more abstract terms whereas introverts are more likely to focus on concrete facts.

8. Extroverts are more likely to be achievement oriented and have learning styles that promote group activities. Codish & Ravid (2014) examined the personality trait of extroversion and how individuals with high levels of extroversion and introversion perceive different game mechanics in a gamification setting (the application of gaming elements, such as a point system or leaderboard, in other activities). Their findings suggested that extroverts prefer talking out loud, and learning through interactions. Introverts on the other hand prefer to reflect first and act later, work privately and present their work in a way that lets them keep their privacy, preferring intermittent communication rather than a constant flow.

9. Ambiverts tend to perform better on IQ tests. Research into the relationship between intelligence test performance and personality dimensions suggest that the moderate levels of extroversion displayed by ambivert personalities perform significantly better on both verbal and performance measures of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (Stough, Brebner, Nettelbeck, Cooper, Bates, & Mangan, 1996).

10. Introverted learners use a greater range of metacognitive and cognitive strategies than extroverted learners. Naci-Kayaoglu (2013) investigated the link between extroversion and language-learning strategies. The results indicate that introverts consciously employ goal-oriented specific behaviors to ease the acquisition, retrieval, storage, and use of information for both comprehension and production and extroverted learners used more interpersonal communication strategies.

11. Extroverts show superior performance in learning tasks when rewarded. Pickering, Corr, Powell, Kumari, Thornton, & Gray (1995) suggest that dopamine responsivity encourages sensitivity to rewards in extroverts, while introverts exhibit greater sensitivity to punishment.

Carl Jung's Work on the Topic

The concepts of extraversion and introversion have been apparent in modern psychological theory for decades with popularization of the terms and acceptance by the psychology community largely attributed to the work of Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Jung.

According to this early work in the area, Jung (1921) posited that individuals hold one of two mutually exclusive attitudes with those being extraverted or introverted.

Jung suggested that an individual's extraversion-introversion preference could be determined by the way in which individuals direct their "general interest" with extraverts focusing on the external and introverts focused internally.

Jung went on to broadly describe the difference in behavioral characteristics to highlight the distinctly separate attitudes.

According to Jung, the two types are " so different and present such a striking contrast that their existence becomes quite obvious even to the layman once it has been pointed out. Everyone knows those reserved, inscrutable, rather shy people who form the strongest possible contrast to the open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters who are on good terms with everybody, or quarrel with everybody, but always relate to them in some way and in turn are affected by them. " (1921, para. 557).

Jung suggested that we each have a bias towards introversion or extraversion and that this tendency towards one or the other was universally determinable not only among the educated but in all ranks of society. For Jung, these tendencies can be discovered " among laborers and peasants no less than among the most highly differentiated members of a community. " (1921, para. 558).

Furthermore, Jung posited that given the apparently random distribution of attitude types, the general attitude type was not a product of a conscious or deliberate choice of attitude, suggesting instead an unconscious, instinctive cause with a biological precursor.

Jung described an extraverted individual as one who is orientated by objective data. Jung said that when an individual's orientation to external objects and objective facts become the predominant drivers of behavior, the individual can be said to be extraverted.

On the other hand, the introverted attitude type belongs to an individual who, rather than being driven to action by external objects and an objective assessment of facts, is driven by subjective factors. Jung attributes the introverted attitude type as a tendency towards subjective determinants rather than as a failure to acknowledge the objective.

Jung regarded extroversion and introversion as the major orientations of personality.

These orientations were expressed through individual preferences for non-rational functions of sensation (our immediate experience of the objective world) and intuition (our perception of inner meanings), or rational functions of thinking (evaluation that is concerned with the truth or falsity of experience) and feeling (judging the value of things based on likes and dislikes).

In essence, Jung's early work on the dichotomous nature of man suggested that extraverted individuals attributed higher weight to objective facts in determining actions while an introverted attitude type was biased towards basing decisions on subjective interpretations.

Other Introvert-Extrovert Tests, Scales, and Quizzes: A Look at the Validity

In psychology, the concept of validity refers to a test's ability to measure what it is intended to measure (Kelly, 1927). If a test fails to relate to underlying theoretical concepts or predict future performances, its validity is certainly compromised. Consider the plethora of 'personality quizzes' you can find online. While some may be based on existing theories and tests, can you really be sure of their legitimacy?

Popular TED speaker and organizational psychologist, Adam Grant, developed the 10-question quiz ' Are you extrovert, introvert, or ambivert? ' based on previous personality tests like the MBTI. On completion of the test, you will be given your extroversion score on a scale of 1-10 and provided some interesting information to assist your understanding of the results.

While this quiz is less detailed than others, it is easily accessible and a useful tool to help you recognize your personality type in relation to extroversion. Grant estimates that between 50% and 66% of the population are ambiverts, why not give this short quiz a try and discover where you lie on the introvert-extrovert spectrum.

Eysenck's Personality Inventory (EPI) was Eysenck's initial attempt to measure levels of extroversion and neuroticism through a series of yes and no questions. This was later developed into Eysenck's Personality Questionnaire (EPQ).

Based on the initial EPI, the EPQ includes a further dimension of psychoticism and consists of 57 questions. The EPQ does have limitations in relation to other complete 'personality tests' considering it is built upon just three dimensions, it is a simplistic measurement scale.

The Big Five Personality Test is made up of fifty statements which are scored on a five-point scale from agree to disagree. This test is commonly used as a valid measure of the five broad dimensions that define human personality (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism).

The Quiet Introversion Questionnaire was developed by Susan Cain as a response to researcher dissatisfaction with the 'extroversion ideal' and society's tendency to favor extroversion over introversion. The 20-item questionnaire measures personality traits such as preferences for solitude and for small scale social activities as a means to aid understanding of where individuals lie on the extroversion-introversion spectrum.

Introvert and Extrovert Relationships

Relationships between introverts and extroverts can be fraught with obstacles and misunderstandings. There is a whole world of literature with the sole purpose of helping one to understand the other.

The dichotomy of extroversion and introversion means the two have very different preferences when it comes to interacting with others. An extrovert might think nothing of picking up the phone to have a spontaneous chat with someone. However, if the person on the other end of the line is an introvert, it may well be considered completely inappropriate.

A conversation-loving extrovert can overwhelm an introvert with too much information. The overstimulated introvert can come across as disinterested when, in fact, they simply feel overloaded.

In relationships where one is extroverted and the other introverted, communication problems can be paramount with each person misunderstanding the other.

Consider an extrovert/introvert couple after a long day at work, introverts can find human interaction exhausting, preferring quiet after a day spent with others.

Extroverts - being energized by other people - are likely happy to continue socializing. While both have the capacity to exhibit outgoing, sociable, or unsociable behaviors, introverts and extroverts generally choose to seek out situations congruent with their personality type.

It's not hard to see how this could be problematic if one wants to relax quietly at home while the other wants to go and socialize further.

We know that extroverts get their energy from external stimuli and love to talk, it may be difficult for an introvert to understand this. Rather than talking about things, introverts value time alone to process and formulate their thoughts. This can leave the extrovert seeing the introvert as aloof and standoffish while the extrovert is considered to be loud and overwhelming.

According to Diener, Larsen, & Emmons (1984), extroverts flourish when provided an abundance of social interactions; conversely, introverts prosper when able to withdraw from social situations if required.

Consider extroversion and introversion in the workplace. For extroverts, the hustle and bustle of a busy environment provide energy while being alone depletes it. The opposite is true for introverts, with distractions creating problems with concentration. It is easy to see how this can impact both productivity and create conflict between the two personalities.

When dealing with conflict, the extrovert and introvert have very different approaches. Oftentimes, introverts are less assertive, less willing to compete and avoid conflict altogether. According to (Kilmann & Thomas, 1976) individuals who exhibit high extraversion tend to be more likely to confront conflict head-on with an integrative and assertive approach.

While it may appear that relationships between extroverts and introverts are doomed to fail, it's simply not the case. The primary cause of conflict between the two is a lack of understanding on each side. Fortunately, we can overcome this apparent mismatch.

5 Recommended Books

With such an intriguing subject, one would want to read more than just a blog post. To help you out, below is a selection of five recommended books on the topic.

1. The Genius of Opposites: How Introverts and Extroverts Achieve Extraordinary Results Together - Jennifer B. Kahnweiler

At the heart of The Genius of Opposites is the idea that while relationships between introverts and extroverts can be tenuous, the two can work together with incredible results.

Through discussions on introvert-extrovert partnerships, Kahnweiller provides a 5-step process to set these pairs up for success and avoid a break down by learning from the other and developing new skills.

Find the book on Amazon.

2. Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking - Susan Cain

In Quiet, Susan Cain discusses how our lives are driven by whether we are an introvert or an extrovert.

Written as a response to what Cain describes as the 'extrovert ideal' - the omnipresent belief that the ideal self is gregarious, alpha and comfortable in the spotlight - Quiet looks at how the brain chemistry of introverts and extroverts differs, and the ways in which introverts are often misunderstood.

The book also contains helpful tools and techniques that allow the introverts among us to better understand themselves and take full advantage of their strengths.

Find the book on Amazon.

3. Success as an Introvert for Dummies - Joan Pastor

Success as an Introvert is like a survival manual for introverts. In her work, Pastor offers practical tips on how to become a confident public speaker, an effective team leader, and succeed as an entrepreneur.

There are also chapters on finding personal happiness and advice on how to be supportive of introverted friends and children.

Find the book on Amazon.

4. Me, Myself, and Us: The Science of Personality and Well-Being - Brian R. Little PhD

Me, Myself, and Us examines personality as a sum of its components, including aspects of extroversion and introversion.

Little shares recent data and insights about who we are, why we act the way we do, and how we can best flourish in light of our personality.

Me, Myself, and Us also considers what our personalities portend for our health and success, and the extent to which our well-being depends on the personal projects we pursue.

Find the book on Amazon.

5. The Science of Introverts (And Extroverts and Everyone In-Between): Master Your Personality, Amplify Your Strengths, Understand People, and Make More Friends - Peter Hollins

The Science of Introverts provides a simplified yet thorough look at introversion and extroversion in everyday life.

Psychologist, Peter Hollins, gives tips on how to thrive socially, harness your personality for success, and how to capitalize on your unique strengths.

Find the book on Amazon.

5 Interesting TED Talks

Who are you really? The puzzle of personality - Brian Little

Why we need introverted leaders - Angela Hucles

Blueprint for a quiet revolution - Susan Cain

Introvert, extrovert, or ambivert - Stephanie Maggio & Ghilene Joseph

In defense of extroverts - Katherine Lucas

A Take-Home Message

Regardless of where you fall on the extroversion spectrum, there is no 'better' personality. If we work towards understanding our own motivations and energy we, in turn, gain a greater understanding of the motivations and energy of those around us.

Many of the conflicts between extroverts and introverts can be resolved or avoided altogether. Simply being aware that there is a distinction can be enough to change how you think about and approach those whose behavior seems alien to yours.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don't forget to download our three Positive Psychology Exercises for free.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Introvert vs Extrovert: A Look at the Spectrum & Psychology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By understanding how introverted or extroverted an individual is, a practitioner can adapt their approach to better suit the client.

# data[].attributes.body
Alignment with ambition

# data[].attributes.body
Context, community and culture are key. Community buy-in is necessary regardless the context to build a culture of learning that is conclusive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are an estimated 240 million children with disabilities worldwide. Like all children, children with disabilities have ambitions and dreams for their futures. Like all children, they need quality education to develop their skills and realize their full potential.

Yet, children with disabilities are often overlooked in policymaking, limiting their access to education and their ability to participate in social, economic and political life. Worldwide, these children are among the most likely to be out of school. They face persistent barriers to education stemming from discrimination, stigma and the routine failure of decision makers to incorporate disability in school services.

Disability is one of the most serious barriers to education across the globe.

Robbed of their right to learn, children with disabilities are often denied the chance to take part in their communities, the workforce and the decisions that most affect them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Children with disabilities are often overlooked in policymaking, limiting their access to education and learning.