Introvert, Extrovert, Ambivert: You Might Not Be What You Think You Are

As a new year begins, I've been thinking a lot about the goals I want to have for the upcoming year and how I want to be. That's led to a lot of reflection about how I'd like to connect with people and what my personality is like, which has led to a lot of questioning about what personality even is in general.

Are we mislabeling our own social personalities?

In the business context, much of the conversation around personality revolves around introversion and extroversion. Introversion means that a person gets energy from having time by themselves, well extroversion means that a person gets energy from being around others. Most leaders are concerned with how to make each personality type feel comfortable in the workplace and how to maximize the benefits that both bring to the table.

But in a chat with Stephen Bartlett, body language expert Vanessa Van Edwards asserted that most people -- a whopping 80 percent -- are ambiverts, meaning they can do well in both solitude and around people. This suggests that the emphasis on introversion and extraversion might be biased or misinformed. More importantly, it suggests that many of us might incorrectly self-identify the personality type we have.

Just a few days after seeing Bartlett's post, I came across an article by psychologist Robyn Koslowitz in Psychology Today. Koslowitz asserted that there is a hidden curriculum around how to interact with others, which we learn through social experiences. It makes sense that, if we learn this curriculum well and also have secure attachment with our caregivers, ambiversion would be a natural outcome, as we'd feel comfortable with who we are on our own and also feel safe in the company of people.

But what happens if we don't learn this hidden curriculum?

Koslowitz theorizes that individuals who don't learn social curriculum because of various forms of trauma are likely to socially retreat. The risk of rejection, ridicule, or other abuse and pain simply feels too great. Their introversion isn't introversion at all, but rather a conditioned, self-protective mechanism that doesn't necessarily match the way they'd naturally socially engage if they were better equipped.

A broader view of the hidden curriulum

Koslowitz's concept fits neatly with the avoidant personality in the attachment theory model. But attachment theory doesn't recognize just one way personality can develop based on trauma (or the lack thereof). It recognizes four basic personality types:

• Securely attached, with a positive view of themselves and others
• Avoidantly attached, with a positive view of themselves and a negative view of others
• Anxiously attached, with a negative view of themselves but a positive view of others
• Anxious-avoidant, having a negative view of themselves and others

What Koslowitz's theory thus misses is that people don't necessarily respond to trauma only through retreat. For instance, a person who is habitually neglected by both caregivers and their community might internalize the idea that they have to work extra hard to connect. They may go out of their way to attend functions, participate in groups, or try to make friends, not because they're naturally extroverted, but rather because they're afraid that not putting in the extra effort will lead to abandonment. In attachment theory, this would match the anxious personality, which seeks strong reassurance in relationships and can often come across as clingy.

Deconstructing the constructed

Although Koslowitz's concept might need some tweaking, the overall idea that our expressed social personality might not actually be our innate social personality is intriguing. It means that, as we grow and connect to our authenticity and historical experience, we might feel a pull to change the way we engage with others. Giving ourselves permission to respond to this pull might be a necessary key to feeling truly satisfied and having our genuine core needs met.

For my part, I'm beginning to accept that much of my current existence and thinking has been a construction not of my choosing. There is awkwardness and grief in that. Yet, at the same time, there is hope. Psychologist assert that attachment styles or personalities are not rigidly fixed, but can be shifted and healed over time through relearning processes. What has been constructed can also be deconstructed, meaning that I can challenge the lessons I was taught and deliberately choose to discover and return to what I naturally would have been.

And the really beautiful thing is, we all can.

Like this content?

• Subscribe to Wanda Thibodeaux's LinkedIn Mind Uncensored newsletter.
• Register for free and paid content at Wanda Thibodeaux's author site, wandathibodeaux.com.
• Subscribe to Wanda Thibodeaux's real-time, full portfolio on Authory.