Someone recommended the book 5 love languages and here let me show why I don’t buy these kinds of ideas.
Actually, she noticed the key issue herself. When saying gift, she immediately added the word “thoughtful”, and that little word(context) you added changes everything, which tells much more than the dry word gift. Suppose a billionaire sends a new phone to different girls every day,(he can even be thoughtful on choosing which phone to send), but we know the difference and what means thoughtful. Suppose I buy random books I don’t read for you, it’s still a gift by definition, but you may be unhappy! I received some books as a gift in my life, and “reasons for my hope” is among the best, not only because the book itself is practical and useful, it’s also because the book is from someone that I had a relationship with! See how important the actual relationship is and how less important the gift itself is. (The thoughtful feeling behind the gift is key)
When saying hug or physical touch, she immediately added “that also depends on who”. Actually, it’s the key point, which is exactly what I want to say, these concepts talking about relationship/love can’t be self-centered and self-determined, it has to be talking in a relationship/context. I want to hug people I love and don’t want my roommate to touch me at all!
Everyone of course borns with some difference. Features like hair color, music gifts, exist and obviously don’t change much according to context, they are self-determined.
Obviously, there are people who are generally more talkative, friendly to strangers, and people who probably don’t talk much. Nobody denies that. By observing these things in real life, we created the concept of introvert and extrovert. Roughly, an extrovert is talkative (or whatever-related habits/behavior). We can use these words and everyone knows what you mean, you are an extrovert, he’s an introvert. By saying it, what we actually say is, you are talkative and have many friends and…from my observation. You see, extrovert actually means we observing that person is talkative, etc.
We can’t say he is talkative because he is talkative, but we say he is talkative because he is an extrovert. See the wrong step here!! The extrovert is a concept we created and a self-determined word, if we use “because”, it looks like the person herself is the source and this feature is the root, somehow he borns with an extrovert feature and will not change.
By its own definition, extroverts gain energy with people, lose energy alone, like a battery. You say you are an extrovert, but when a colleague said something improper or rude, you may also want to just be alone. By reading Bible or visit the park alone, you may also feel relaxed and refreshed.
Then can we say everyone is somewhere in between those 2 concepts? Still, for sure we can make a spectrum according to how generally talkative (friendly..) everyone is, there’s no problem with that. (Still, I will doubt it) But everyone has different reasons to be like that according to the situation, you can’t create a concept and mark it as the reason or essence of a person. He’s that talkative, 36% in the spectrum I made, you can follow further reductionism, it’s because he’s born with 36% of some special DNA between introvert and extrovert, then what’s the difference between saying he’s 36% talkative and the whole thing is on your paper, in your mind and has nothing to do with the reality..
I’m talkative with some people, I don’t have much to say to many others, can we say it’s because I’m an extrovert when I’m with Eunice. How strange is that! Actually, I marked myself as an introvert for most of my life when I was young, I read books like “how to survive as an introvert” in high school. When I look back, I can see more reasons, the education system, read books most people don’t read, etc. But by believing myself as an introvert, when sometimes I need to say something with courage, I was silent with fear and I comforted myself, it’s just because I’m an introvert, I can’t change that so nothing wrongs. See the self-pity and self-fulfilling prophecy!
Last year working from home generally is ok. But that has nothing to do with the concept of the introvert. I also had few bad days if sleep is not good etc. If I need to give a reason, it’s I feel closer to God, met Eunice, etc. When I was in Warwick, for a while I also felt struggling alone at home, that doesn’t mean I was an extrovert. Many things like the stress of dissertation, HK issues, my own job, and future, not find a church, etc. are much more meaningful to explain my struggling at that time.
By putting someone on an island, you can see he is strong or smart, you can’t say he’s an introvert or extrovert. By putting him in a party or meeting and observing how talkative he is, we can roughly say that. And that’s not the reason why he’s talkative, that’s talkative itself. Your friend doesn’t want to leave a party, probably because the party is good, good friends around and she’s in the mood that day. For sure there’s a party she wants to run away from!
If I make a concept pious/non-pious just similar to extract/introvert. Relationship with God and relationship with people. By observing people go to church every week, read Bible, spend time on prayer. I say it’s just because he’s pious, that’s all. I’m non-pious so I don’t have time for Bible and I can do nothing about it, that’s all. I’m just non-pious like I’m an introvert. Of course, it’s me trying to hide something else and don’t take responsibility. Relationship can’t be self-centered and self-determined, it needs to be put back to the relationship. I’m very talkative to some friends when talking about Christian, and I was silent for years before, not because I have become an extrovert, but because I know God loves me and I love them more and want to spread the gospel to them.
Whining time: Psychology is mostly a bunch of vocabulary inventions and contributes to the degeneration of language and confusion of thinking. It is a cheap and inferior fortune-telling subject after modern people have moved away from religion. It gives people cheap pleasure with explanations in a sophisticated but actually superficial way. It can only play a more misleading role and cover the truth of God.