Personality Puzzle

I was having a discussion with a friend about whether passivity or activity is a better attribute. This friend claimed that there was no "better" trait, because "it's not like introverts are better than extroverts". This comparison implies that passivity and activity are not behaviors, but personality traits. Further, the conversation followed on his concept that all Introverts are Passive. This belies a pop-definition mentality that contrasts ideas in groups, and creates stereotypes of unrelated qualities now associated with vague terms. 
Ex:
Introvert-> Shy-> Unpopular...( etc) = Introverts are everything that is unpopular.
And Extroverts are the opposite. Everything positive and popular.
Such groupings can even lead to simplistic associations deem all added connotations as "good" or "bad".

But aren't all Introverts Passive?

I say no.
First, a word from Ms Cain: Susan Cain Ted Talk
For those of you who don't like to watch entertaining speeches, I'll sum up the points relevant to my argument. Cain claims that introverts are essential in the workforce, though culturally not popular employees. Introverts as she defines them are individuals who don't mind being independent. They like alone time, they may be quiet, they look at details and they think over them thoroughly.  In general, simple terms, one may equate this with "shy". Though shyness may accompany introversion, it is not, I believe,  conditional. And to use these concepts as synonyms follows the pop-definition system, which assumes associated traits qualities to an idea.

An extrovert is concerned with exterior things. Socializing with many people falls easily into this interest, as well as looking at things objectively.
 The Myers-Briggs test confuses the definitions further, as it popularizes and can generalize traits of introverts and extroverts.  Much like the Kinsey Scale, the Intorvert-Extrovert dichotemy is actually a continuum most everyone ignores. It is easier and more convenient to think of absolutes, and mutually exclusive opposites. This leads to presumptions that any trait held by an extrovert is held by all extroverts and these are opposite that of an introvert.  One may assume that an extrovert " Likes hanging out with people", and "is popular", "is friendly", " is good", etc... vs an introvert who must then assume all the opposite. However, none of these added traits determine each other. It may be difficult to extrapolate these ideas from each other because concept-grouping like this is so ingrained in our society. Indeed, memory is formed by a chain of associations. The trick is to realize that these associations are tenuous, and do not together represent some ideal personality type.

As these simplistic groupings of traits and forming opposite stereotypes only muddles matters, it is important in any discussion using terms which are vague and popularly defined/ understood should be considered with caution and a critical mind.

 So for definitions ( from Merriam-Webster.com) :

 Introvert: to turn in on, concerned with one's own mental state. " the act of directing one's attention toward or getting gratification from one's own interests, thoughts, and feelings"

Extrovert:  "the act, state, or habit of being predominantly concerned with and obtaining gratification from what is outside the self"

Neither of these definitions mentioned shyness, passivity, or any other associated trait.  

Passive: Being acted upon, "(1) : acted upon by an external agency (2) : receptive to outside impressions or influences"

 Active: Acts upon "characterized by action rather than by contemplation or speculation" and, "expressing action as distinct from mere existence or state".

I know that people do not exhibit absolute, clearly defined and separate traits and manners of being. But I do know some people, who, in some situations blend a strong emphasis of introversion and activity.  And cutting these traits to the quick in order to see clearly how the common associations do not necessarily apply is helpful. 

  An example:
Say there are introverts and extroverts ( as defined above, lacking attributed values and traits) interested in the same cause, such as a governmental legislation.  

Introverts may choose to examine this issue in terms of the self, while extroverts seek answers from outside. This does not mean introverts sit in a corner and cry about it, doing nothing. Rather, introverts do nothing obvious. As an introvert, one does not appeal to outside forces and opinions. But self- contemplation can lead to action or inaction. 

An Active Introvert could consider issue, determine an argument, and draft a letter or petition stating their demands.  (The thought process is done in an introverted manner, and the action originates from the individual. )
A Passive introvert could consider the issue and wait for a petition to come round for signing. 
( Here, the thought process may be the same, but actions are done to the individual.  The petition is passed to him or her. This Passive Introvert may have waited endlessly, circling ideas in his or her head.)

One might argue that Extroverts are always "doing" things. This is not true. One can be very social and love being surrounded by others, but allow others or outside forces to determine most of their actions. 

The example of the petition holds true for Extroverts. The only difference would be an extrovert-process. An extrovert would talk with others, read reviews, and gather outside information before acting or not acting. 

An image that helps me conceptualize Passivity and Activity is that of a twig in a stream. No matter what type of stream ( introvert/extrovert) or where it is going ( the arena in question: governmental legislation), the twig is active or passive independent of those factors. It may stick stubbornly in the mud and resist the current or be swept along with it. But the stream and the twig are not the same.

I believe this thought experiment  re-establishes an essential element of communication and understanding: definitions. Tricky words with many social-cultural layers and connotations cannot be taken lightly as "obvious" markers for the things they define. It important to go over concepts and the words defining them before making claims about such concepts. Otherwise, it is all hot air, misdirected emotion, and more vague terms.  "Love", "God", and even "Privacy" may have many different meanings dependent on the listener. So the speaker is responsible for making it clear which meaning he or she intends to discuss. 

Then perhaps some assumptions, (associating passivity and introversion), can be cleared away so a better picture of the truth shows through. 


  What do you think?