Is introversion innate or acquired?

Introversion

  • Mostly innate

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Mostly acquired

    Votes: 1 20.0%
  • Can be both

    Votes: 4 80.0%

  • Total voters
    5

ortharzeal

EteRnal Evil.
Title.

LARPers aside, some people, who actually behave as introverts in real life, actively communicate online.
This made me think that introversion could be acquired and behind it stands lack of social acceptance. It's common knowledge that one feels much more secure when talking online anonimously, rather than IRL.
Making the poll and the thread to get to know what you think, maybe I'm not noticing something important.
 

nervewracking

Incels.Net Novice
Both, I think. Life can make introverts out of us all whether you're born with an introverted personality or not. Figuratively; you get shocked from touching the wrong doorknob, or hammered into the dirt enough times, you're going to engage in avoidance tactics.
As a young kid (6-9) I remember not understanding the actions of my peers. Like their playtime choices, their attitudes towards teachers and each other, etc. I found most activities more enjoyable on my own. Between 10-14 I'd like to think was my most outgoing period in life. I was incredibly active online, and even made an effort to see friends every weekend. (The glory days of MSN Chat.) Often I made friends with people much older than myself and prided myself for being able to have full-blown intelligent conversations.
-insert ѕhit circumstances that dominated my life for years here-
Flash forward to me being 27. I've left my house maybe a dozen times in the last two years. (That didn't involve me going to work or groceries.) I'm not involved in any type of social media (and haven't been since I was 21) or signed up to any platform used to communicate with other human beings. Discord, for example. This is the first forum I've joined in... Well, fuсking FOREVER. I don't even have a Reddit account. :/ I've lost interest in most of my hobbies, and unless the few friends I have left come to literally kidnap me, I don't see people outside of my family.
I've come to believe that I'm losing my ability to communicate. Intelligently, or otherwise.
 

ortharzeal

EteRnal Evil.
nervewracking said:
Both, I think. Life can make introverts out of us all whether you're born with an introverted personality or not. Figuratively; you get shocked from touching the wrong doorknob, or hammered into the dirt enough times, you're going to engage in avoidance tactics.
I just don't think that one is born with some personality.

There's a somewhat religious point of view that one is, because every human is granted a soul except women and, therefore, a character and a personality. This would mean that those who sin will be punished in hell for the way they were born, because their personalities were given to them from birth.

It seems to be often used as a bluepilled argument for the existence of true love. Like, there's a partner for everyone out there, who you're meant to be with. In case you fail to find one, you'll be told that you're destined to be with yourself. Cruel, yet not exactly illogical. It's like an empty set in maths. Has no elements, but remains a set.

I think there are some inborn characteristics that have effect on what personality one will be more likely to acquire. For example, a healthcel will be disposed to hypochondria. An ugly incel would probably mocked throughout his formative years and develop the "toxic personality", or at least will never manage to "be confident".
So, maybe, "innate" personality traits are not exactly inborn, but developed for many years because of unchangeable factors and therefore too hard to change to see them as acquired, implying flexibility.
Disclaimer: The crossed out text is a reference to Synod of Mâcon and is not intended to offend anyone.
 

lordoftheincels

Incels.Net Master
Introversion is usually genetic, and correlated with high intelligence.

I think many people online appear to be extroverts. When they are really introverts in real life. Because there is a difference between online and real-life situations. Its like Wizard of Oz where he sounds like an extrovert. But it is all smoke and mirrors and he is really an introvert. I think the real way to tell is through Facebook. If someone has a small amount of Facebook posts they are probably an introvert. Even if they have hundreds of forum posts. Forum psychology is different than Facebook psychology. You can also judge by their style of text. If they use a lot of modern lingo and overly emotional texts with excessive punctuation and emotes. They are probably an extrovert with average level of intelligence. Or a super-introvert trying to blend in and pretend to be a normie.
 

lordoftheincels

Incels.Net Master
Toxic personality is a separate issue.

Toxic personality is often associated with higher levels of testosterone. T levels influenced by both social, environmental, and genetic factors. However this is not always the case. For instance, as tremor stated earlier, people who are socially ostracized may grow up to be toxic individuals regardless of hormone levels. However, some are simply born toxic. Due to raised levels of T causing mental instability. I think estrogen can also cause people to be bad people also. Toxic but in a more passive aggressive and callous way. Extroverts tend to be toxic, but this is not always the case.
 

nervewracking

Incels.Net Novice
All very good insights... and I should've said inborn traits rather than personality. That's a much better wording.
I don't know about this whole "soul" thing, but I do know from my own personal observations and that child development class I took once upon a time that infants freshly out of the womb indeed display unique, individual characteristics. Some babies cry and are inconsolable, while others are quiet and cry only when they have some need to be met. Some laugh and smile before others (though that's a primal reflex, I think), etc. As they grow older most of those characteristics deepen.
My little cousin Cruz for example, he was very quiet baby. Easy to sit for, almost never fussy... That has held true to today. He talks the least out of all his brothers (unless I can get him going about games), and never complains or whines when asked to do something. His older brother on the other hand had the former traits of crying nonstop and if I have to be honest, he was a mean little toddler. Nowadays he's not so outwardly aggressive, but has never been shy about vocalizing how he feels about any situation.

Now whether those personality traits are something that develop in the womb or really are just inherent, I really couldn't say for sure.

I still find it more enjoyable to watch you two debate. Carry on, gentlemen.
 

ortharzeal

EteRnal Evil.
nervewracking said:
Now whether those personality traits are something that develop in the womb or really are just inherent, I really couldn't say for sure.
How do you expect a personality trait to develop in the womb? I don't imply I think it's impossible, I just don't understand, what it's supposed to be linked to.
Depending on what stuff the foetus gets from ѕhit the mother consumes or something?
 

lordoftheincels

Incels.Net Master
tremor said:
nervewracking said:
Now whether those personality traits are something that develop in the womb or really are just inherent, I really couldn't say for sure.
How do you expect a personality trait to develop in the womb? I don't imply I think it's impossible, I just don't understand, what it's supposed to be linked to.
Depending on what stuff the foetus gets from ѕhit the mother consumes or something?
The idea that genetics have no part in personality is an sjw myth to perpetuate the marxist equality meme. The real truth is that many personality traits are hardcoded in the brain during fetal development. Science declares the effect as 50/50. 50% nurture (social experiences) and 50% nature (genes encoded by birth.)

So 50% of the human personality is determined in the womb. The other 50% by social/worldly experiences.

The womb mind is determined (roughly) 50% by genes. The other 50% by hormones and chemicals the mother happens to ingest at the time.
 

ortharzeal

EteRnal Evil.
lordoftheincels said:
The idea that genetics have no part in personality is an sjw myth to perpetuate the marxist equality meme. The real truth is that many personality traits are hardcoded in the brain during fetal development. Science declares the effect as 50/50. 50% nurture (social experiences) and 50% nature (genes encoded by birth.)
I never denied that genes had impact on personality. The whole topic was about introversion in the first place, which I believe to be mostly acquired, because it's about interaction or lack of it, but as for personality in general 50/50 seems legit ngl.
 

nervewracking

Incels.Net Novice
tremor said:
nervewracking said:
Now whether those personality traits are something that develop in the womb or really are just inherent, I really couldn't say for sure.
How do you expect a personality trait to develop in the womb? I don't imply I think it's impossible, I just don't understand, what it's supposed to be linked to.
Depending on what stuff the foetus gets from ѕhit the mother consumes or something?
Something like that. (Injested substances are the obvious factor.) But it's proven that fetuses can hear the world outside and sounds may impact brain development.
Hormone levels in the mother impact it as well. I think personality traits may result from how your brain forms, long before making the more complicated connections needed for things like verbal communication. This is hard to verify, which is why I can't be sure. But I am sure that even in the womb, there are outside factors affecting the babeh.
Another ѕhit and unessessary piece of information; my mother likes to reminisce about how she used to fuck with me in the womb. Placing her hand somewhere, creating a warm spot, waiting for me to move and cozy up to her hand, then suddenly moving it and starting the process again. A part of me would like to think it was preparation for the world that stuck with me.
 

lordoftheincels

Incels.Net Master
tremor said:
lordoftheincels said:
The idea that genetics have no part in personality is an sjw myth to perpetuate the marxist equality meme. The real truth is that many personality traits are hardcoded in the brain during fetal development. Science declares the effect as 50/50. 50% nurture (social experiences) and 50% nature (genes encoded by birth.)
I never denied that genes had impact on personality. The whole topic was about introversion in the first place, which I believe to be mostly acquired, because it's about interaction or lack of it, but as for personality in general 50/50 seems legit ngl.
You expressed puzzlement as to how personality could form in the womb, I explained it is due to 2 primary factors, genes and chemicals in the mother.

Introversion is generally genetic but there are additional factors. Examining the fact of how blacks generally have higher tesosterone levels than most. And how they exhibit mostly outwardly (extroverted) type behavoirs. So it is a mix of both genetics and hormones. Genetics causing testosterone levels to rise. But it can also rise based on diet, lifestyle and/or mental attitude. And there is also this. That if someone is inherently (genetically) introverted, increasing testosterone may not increase their confidence (or extroversion). But cause them to feel more sexually frustrated and shyer than before.
 

ortharzeal

EteRnal Evil.
lordoftheincels said:
Introversion is generally genetic but there are additional factors. Examining the fact of how blacks generally have higher tesosterone levels than most. And how they exhibit mostly outwardly (extroverted) type behavoirs.
I understand that the "acquired" stuff is reflected in an organism biology anyway, but how can introversion be mostly genetic? Almost all little children seem to be extroverted and adventurous AF. Are they immune to the hormonal thing in this stage of development somehow?
 

lordoftheincels

Incels.Net Master
tremor said:
lordoftheincels said:
Introversion is generally genetic but there are additional factors. Examining the fact of how blacks generally have higher tesosterone levels than most. And how they exhibit mostly outwardly (extroverted) type behavoirs.
I understand that the "acquired" stuff is reflected in an organism biology anyway, but how can introversion be mostly genetic? Almost all little children seem to be extroverted and adventurous AF. Are they immune to the hormonal thing in this stage of development somehow?
Normies in general tend to be extroverted. As a child I was introverted generally. Of course there were times at the playground where I interacted with other people. But these were structured, organized safe-spaces. I was reluctant to exit my home into non-organized structures, including avoiding talking to even my own neighbors.
 

ortharzeal

EteRnal Evil.
lordoftheincels said:
Normies in general tend to be extroverted. As a child I was introverted generally. Of course there were times at the playground where I interacted with other people. But these were structured, organized safe-spaces. I was reluctant to exit my home into non-organized structures, including avoiding talking to even my own neighbors.
That was the way you've adjusted yourself to the environment you lived in, wasn't it?
 

nervewracking

Incels.Net Novice
Children are all naive to how the world works. Best part is they have no filters, even the shy ones. So while displaying introverted personality traits on their own, when presented with playtime with peers they'll all seem like happy little extroverts. And for that moment, they are.
 

ortharzeal

EteRnal Evil.
nervewracking said:
Children are all naive to how the world works. Best part is they have no filters, even the shy ones. So while displaying introverted personality traits on their own, when presented with playtime with peers they'll all seem like happy little extroverts. And for that moment, they are.
I'm just thinking about it in terms of risk-aversion. From this angle, the naivety you're talking is the assumption that there is no risk, so being active is the sure method of maximizing the gains from interaction. It may originate from being protected by parents. Then some kids go through misfortunes, becoming less certain on whether the outcome of their actions will be positive or not, thus potentially risk-averse.

What doesn't quite fit in this picture is how children under hypo-protective or absent parenting sometimes go as far as becoming criminals in their disposition to taking risks, but this might be the result of having to assure their survival independently.
 

lordoftheincels

Incels.Net Master
Nature doesn't have concepts of "risk-taking". That is, there is no "risk-taking" gene that can be found.

What happens is simply genes cause gut-feelings. A bodily feeling of aversion to negative patterns. The ones with strong feelings survive. The ones with weak ones don't. Overtime, languages form. Placing words and definitions on the concepts, calling these feelings "risk-taking" or shy. In a sheltered environment devoid of real threat, being shy and quiet is not understood as valuable. But loud and dumb is viewed as valuable. Artificial selection, city dating and selection. usually based on fetishes, like the need for big cock, even though it has no function other than pleasuring female butts.

Evolutionarily, loud and dumb need large groups, armies, to survive. Social-focused types. Shy and quiet usually silent hunters, forming small parties of their own. Social-averse types. Neither type are happy as incel. The idea that anti-socials, or that strong indepedent wamens, don't need sex or companionship is just a blue pill delusion made up by feminism.
 

nervewracking

Incels.Net Novice
Once again lord over there beating me to the punch with a better explanation than I could offer.

To a child who hasn't put words to the feelings, no there isn't a risk. There isn't even a gain that they're aware of. Kids are in-the-moment creatures, just grasping the concept of cause and effect. Like not touching something that's hot 'cause it'll burn you. Or not drawing on the walls because they'll be punished. (I suppose the latter requires the ability to think ahead, if it's not a repeat offense.) Higher functioning concepts like social awarness isn't something a child can comprehend. Or at least most of them. But the learning part is there. If they get bullied by a peer for something that was said, they could most definitely feel like they need to avoid what they said or the individual themselves in the future. But that depends on the kid themselves. They could also just not give a ѕhit and repeat the action multiple times and not learn from the experience. I'd chalk it up to who they are as an individual and how self-aware they are. This is true whether they're prone to introversion or extroversion.
(I feel like the introverted response would be more submissive, to avoid the conflict all together though, while the extrovert would be the repeat offender. But most feelings and personality's are on a spectrum.)
 

nervewracking

Incels.Net Novice
tremor said:
What doesn't quite fit in this picture is how children under hypo-protective or absent parenting sometimes go as far as becoming criminals in their disposition to taking risks, but this might be the result of having to assure their survival independently.
Hmm... I'd say more like identity/attention is the goal in that case. If you're parents keep you under lock-and-key you don't get to experience mistakes for yourself, you'll break the law for the thrill or because you never learned the consequences of drastic actions. Being told simply "you can't" makes you want to find out why, right?
Now if the parents are absent... Yeah that survival theory could definitely come into play. But more than likely it's the feeling of no one gave a ѕhit about me, so why should I give a ѕhit about anyone. You do what you want, when you want, because you feel you have to. Or simply misbehaving as a child was the only way you could get a guardians attention. Period. In that case most kids learn to like the negative attention, because it's all they had.
(But again every individual is on their own spectrum and their psychology may play out the scenario differently. Just because you have no parents doesn't automatically mean you'll follow the same criminal patterns. It's just the most common justifications for why this outcome may occur. )
 
Top