<p>Does anyone else find at least half of the articles on AOL cringe-worthy. From an article today:</p>
<p>“Your standing in your social circle has less to do with how you look than with your personality type. Studies show that women with extroverted personalities enjoy higher social standing among both sexes than women who tend to be neurotic or withdrawn, no matter how physically attractive they are.”</p>
<p>By inference it appears that, according to AOL, introverted women are neurotic and withdrawn.</p>
<p>So, women who are outgoing tend to be more popular than women who are withdrawn, or women who are neurotic. I If a woman prefers to sit home alone and read a good book, is it surprising she is less popular than one that goes out to have fun with others in public? Or, if a woman is neurotic she might make fewer friends?</p>
<p>I haven’t read the study, just Op’s quotes, but it seems to make sense to me.</p>
<p>P.S. I think this would apply to a man too.</p>
<p>As an introverted woman, I can assure you that I am neither neurotic nor withdrawn. As far as popular goes … that’s not something I have even thought about since high school. FWIW, I was not popular in high school! That fact has had no importance in my life since high school graduation, of course. However, I certainly resent any assumption that not being an outgoing or “popular” person means I am neurotic and withdrawn.</p>
<p>Tempest, meet teapot. The original quote included “…than women who tend to be neurotic *or *withdrawn.” Note the “or” indicating a union of women who are neurotic with those who are withdrawn. This does not imply that the two sets also intersect. It’s kind of like saying that because two leading causes of traffic accidents are bad weather and drinking that people who drink are also bad weather, or that bad weather is the same as drinking.</p>
<p>washdad interprets it just as I did. The word “or” separates neurotic from withdrawn. The importance of popularity is another issue still as Kelsmom has pointed out- she wasn’t popular in high school and didn’t care, but that has nothing to do with Op’s quote.</p>
<p>As kelsmom adds " I certainly resent any assumption that not being an outgoing or “popular” person means I am neurotic and withdrawn."</p>
<p>I don’t think I would like that assumption either, and it wasn’t me that made that assumption. Jess and CM16 have different interpretations than me. Further, thats not what the OP’s quote said. As I understand her quote, not being popular doesn’t prove one is either neurotic or withdrawn, or both. Her quote just says that those who are neurotic or withdrawn are less likely to be popular.</p>
<p>If I had sales figures from Office Depot that white stationery sells more than pink or blue, would that mean any stationery that wasn’t white MUST be either pink or blue? Does that statement indicate no other colors exist? no. Does it mean white is better? No. That pink can’t be happy just as pink? No. It only means white is more popular than either blue or pink.</p>
<p>To washdad- I’d better not drink and drive in bad weather! Funny example.</p>
<p>I agree with the OP, though, that the AOL quote shows a weak understanding of the introverted/extroverted continuum, which is more about where someone gets their energy from (self or others), then whether or not they’re the life of the party. </p>
<p>For example, I have many traits traditionally associated with extroverts… involved in a ton of activities, friendly and outgoing in social situations, love exploring new environments, but I’m a total introvert in that I get my energy from quiet reflection, spending time in nature, or one-on-one conversations with a good friend. I also like listening, find it fascinating how much I can learn just from letting someone else talk. The world needs introverts!</p>
<p>In this case, I think shy extroverts have the worst time of it. They need the social stimulation to feel energized, but because they are shy, they don’t have as many opportunities to socialize.</p>