My go-to definition of introverts and extroverts goes like this: Extroverts gain energy from being with other people. Being with others is a relaxing thing which recharges their batteries. Introverts pay energy to be with other people. Being with others tires them out.
What exactly does energy mean here? How many joules does it cost?
I have the impression that when new age people use energy is a way that doesn’t correspond to something that can be measured in joules that’s bad, but when people with a more rational background do so, it’s completely fine.
What exactly does energy mean here? How many joules does it cost?
“Energy” in such a context refers to a subjective physical and mental sensation, which has in common with joules that it is experienced as being used up and replenished. Newage types may attribute physical existence to it, but everyday usage need not be making any such claim.
But I’m rather surprised by your question, given the amount you’ve written on the importance of proper physical awareness and use of our bodies.
I know you intended your comment to be a little tongue-in-cheek, but it is actual energy, measured in Joules, we’re talking about. Exerting willpower drains blood glucose levels.
I don’t know of studies that indicate intraverts would drain glucose faster than extraverts when socializing, but that seems to be a pretty straightforward thing to measure, and I’d look forward to the results. At least, i can tell from personal experience that I need to exert willpower to stay in social situations (especially when there are lots of people close by or when it’s loud), and I’m a hardcore intravert. Also, I can conclude from the observation that there are actually lots of people who like to go to these places, while very few people enjoy activities that force them to exert willpower, that not everyone feels about it the way I do.
I know you intended your comment to be a little tongue-in-cheek, but it is actual energy, measured in Joules, we’re talking about. Exerting willpower drains blood glucose levels.
Some doubt has been cast on that theory (Googling /willpower glucose/ turns up various papers for and against), but besides that, someone reporting sensations is not reporting the physiological causes of those sensations, even if they have a belief about what those causes are.
while very few people enjoy activities that force them to exert willpower
There’s an annual 100 mile bicycle ride at my home town that gets above 3000 participants every year. There are 50 and 25 mile options, and perhaps only a minority do the full 100, but it’s still a sizable number.
Anything that one is serious about wanting to do, one will exert as great an effort as required. “Having to exert willpower” sounds more like not actually wanting to do whatever it is but grinding on with it anyway. It’s the activity that’s unenjoyed, rather than the effort.
“Energy” in such a context refers to a subjective physical and mental sensation, which has in common with joules that it is experienced as being used up and replenished. Newage types may attribute physical existence to it, but everyday usage need not be making any such claim.
As if sensations don’t have physical existence.
But I’m rather surprised by your question, given the amount you’ve written on the importance of proper physical awareness and use of our bodies.
A core part of developing physical awareness is to get clear about what words one uses to label what phenomena. If you can distinguish more different states by having clear labels for them, you get more awareness.
To me “Extroverts gain energy from being with other people. [...] Introverts pay energy to be with other people.” feels like a cached thought.
If you assume that humans have something like “batteries”, it’s worth thinking about the physical reality of what you are talking about. Are you talking about glucose level in the blood or aren’t you?
Is this about Roy Baumeister’s glucose based willpower and the amount of joule in that glucose?
I think it’s worthwhile to consciously think about what we actually mean instead of only relying on metaphors. That doesn’t mean that metaphors are always bad but it’s important to be conscious of the reason one has for using them.
“Energy” in such a context refers to a subjective physical and mental sensation, which has in common with joules that it is experienced as being used up and replenished. Newage types may attribute physical existence to it, but everyday usage need not be making any such claim.
As if sensations don’t have physical existence.
They do. So does the physical mechanism that produces them. I was intending to point to the fact that these are two different things—not a non-thing and a thing. The everyday use of “energy” refers to the former.
To me “Extroverts gain energy from being with other people. [...] Introverts pay energy to be with other people.” feels like a cached thought.
Cached vs. newly thought is orthogonal to this. That a thought is familiar does not invalidate it.
I think it’s worthwhile to consciously think about what we actually mean instead of only relying on metaphors. That doesn’t mean that metaphors are always bad but it’s important to be conscious of the reason one has for using them.
A sharp taste. A dull pain. A piercing scream. Fluent speech. Raw weather.
Feeling energetic.
We all know what these expressions mean. Metaphors are unproblematic as descriptions. The important thing is to be aware that they are descriptions, not explanations. When misused as explanations they amount to magic: an explanation with no moving parts, just a name. Real explanations require more than thought alone, but also observation and investigation.
Actually, the first definition that Google gives for “energy” is “the strength and vitality required for sustained physical or mental activity”, not the sense it takes in physics. In the OED, of the six senses distinguished, the thing measured by joules is in last place and dates from 1807. So it isn’t even a metaphor here.
In the OED, of the six senses distinguished, the thing measured by joules is in last place and dates from 1807. So it isn’t even a metaphor here.
If by “metaphor” you mean “using a word with a sense other than the historically oldest one, then whenever you’re talking about checking something when not playing chess you’re using a metaphor.
I was intending to point to the fact that these are two different things—not a non-thing and a thing.
I think you overrate the difference from New Agey people in that regard. Someone who does energy healing speaks labels certain sensations he perceives as energy.
That a thought is familiar does not invalidate it.
I don’t think “invalidation” is the point of asking questions.
We all know what these expressions mean.
These expressions can usually refer to a bunch of different things.
Also if you know what the expression means, it shouldn’t be hard for you to break it down.
These expressions can usually refer to a bunch of different things. Also if you know what the expression means, it shouldn’t be hard for you to break it down.
They mean certain generally familiar sensations. What has that to do with “breaking it down”? You can stare really hard at those sensations, and examine how they arise and change and pass away, which I am guessing is what you are referring to as “breaking it down”, and you can study them from outside the experience with the usual methods of science, which might also be part of what you are referring to, but that has nothing to do with knowing “what these expressions mean”.
If I learn from a carpenter about the construction of tables, I am learning about tables, not about the meaning of the word “table”.
There’s a sensation of having a high muscle tonus. There a sensation of feeling the need for sleep.
There’s a sensation that comes with an increase in testosterone. There’s a sensation of reduced inhibition for movement. There’s a sensation of motivation.
There’s low/high blood sugar. There’s heart rate variance. There’s willpower.
Those are all different variables that person could mean when he speaks about “paying energy”.
If you are interested in actually understanding what happens when introverts pay energy for social interaction it’s useful to mentally distinguish those things. Distinguishing them allows you to intervene.
I personally don’t drain when in social interaction. But I’m also not a typical extrovert.
when new age people use energy is a way that doesn’t correspond to something that can be measured in joules that’s bad
They use it in an unempirical way that corresponds to things that are literally nonreal. Besides, “energy” is a fine word to describe people “getting tired in social situations”.
They use it in an unempirical way that corresponds to things that are literally nonreal.
Are you arguing that those people aren’t feeling a sensation of energy?
If you think energy when used to talk about introverts paying energy during social interaction is meaningful and describes more than a subjective impression, what metric would you use to measure that energy?
If you consider them to be meaningful in this context I don’t think you have grounds to object with a large portion of the way the word energy is used by New Age people in practice.
What exactly does energy mean here? How many joules does it cost?
I have the impression that when new age people use energy is a way that doesn’t correspond to something that can be measured in joules that’s bad, but when people with a more rational background do so, it’s completely fine.
“Energy” in such a context refers to a subjective physical and mental sensation, which has in common with joules that it is experienced as being used up and replenished. Newage types may attribute physical existence to it, but everyday usage need not be making any such claim.
But I’m rather surprised by your question, given the amount you’ve written on the importance of proper physical awareness and use of our bodies.
I know you intended your comment to be a little tongue-in-cheek, but it is actual energy, measured in Joules, we’re talking about. Exerting willpower drains blood glucose levels.
I don’t know of studies that indicate intraverts would drain glucose faster than extraverts when socializing, but that seems to be a pretty straightforward thing to measure, and I’d look forward to the results. At least, i can tell from personal experience that I need to exert willpower to stay in social situations (especially when there are lots of people close by or when it’s loud), and I’m a hardcore intravert. Also, I can conclude from the observation that there are actually lots of people who like to go to these places, while very few people enjoy activities that force them to exert willpower, that not everyone feels about it the way I do.
Some doubt has been cast on that theory (Googling /willpower glucose/ turns up various papers for and against), but besides that, someone reporting sensations is not reporting the physiological causes of those sensations, even if they have a belief about what those causes are.
There’s an annual 100 mile bicycle ride at my home town that gets above 3000 participants every year. There are 50 and 25 mile options, and perhaps only a minority do the full 100, but it’s still a sizable number.
Anything that one is serious about wanting to do, one will exert as great an effort as required. “Having to exert willpower” sounds more like not actually wanting to do whatever it is but grinding on with it anyway. It’s the activity that’s unenjoyed, rather than the effort.
As if sensations don’t have physical existence.
A core part of developing physical awareness is to get clear about what words one uses to label what phenomena. If you can distinguish more different states by having clear labels for them, you get more awareness.
To me “Extroverts gain energy from being with other people. [...] Introverts pay energy to be with other people.” feels like a cached thought.
If you assume that humans have something like “batteries”, it’s worth thinking about the physical reality of what you are talking about. Are you talking about glucose level in the blood or aren’t you? Is this about Roy Baumeister’s glucose based willpower and the amount of joule in that glucose?
I think it’s worthwhile to consciously think about what we actually mean instead of only relying on metaphors. That doesn’t mean that metaphors are always bad but it’s important to be conscious of the reason one has for using them.
They do. So does the physical mechanism that produces them. I was intending to point to the fact that these are two different things—not a non-thing and a thing. The everyday use of “energy” refers to the former.
Cached vs. newly thought is orthogonal to this. That a thought is familiar does not invalidate it.
A sharp taste. A dull pain. A piercing scream. Fluent speech. Raw weather.
Feeling energetic.
We all know what these expressions mean. Metaphors are unproblematic as descriptions. The important thing is to be aware that they are descriptions, not explanations. When misused as explanations they amount to magic: an explanation with no moving parts, just a name. Real explanations require more than thought alone, but also observation and investigation.
Actually, the first definition that Google gives for “energy” is “the strength and vitality required for sustained physical or mental activity”, not the sense it takes in physics. In the OED, of the six senses distinguished, the thing measured by joules is in last place and dates from 1807. So it isn’t even a metaphor here.
If by “metaphor” you mean “using a word with a sense other than the historically oldest one, then whenever you’re talking about checking something when not playing chess you’re using a metaphor.
I think you overrate the difference from New Agey people in that regard. Someone who does energy healing speaks labels certain sensations he perceives as energy.
I don’t think “invalidation” is the point of asking questions.
These expressions can usually refer to a bunch of different things. Also if you know what the expression means, it shouldn’t be hard for you to break it down.
They mean certain generally familiar sensations. What has that to do with “breaking it down”? You can stare really hard at those sensations, and examine how they arise and change and pass away, which I am guessing is what you are referring to as “breaking it down”, and you can study them from outside the experience with the usual methods of science, which might also be part of what you are referring to, but that has nothing to do with knowing “what these expressions mean”.
If I learn from a carpenter about the construction of tables, I am learning about tables, not about the meaning of the word “table”.
There’s a sensation of having a high muscle tonus. There a sensation of feeling the need for sleep. There’s a sensation that comes with an increase in testosterone. There’s a sensation of reduced inhibition for movement. There’s a sensation of motivation. There’s low/high blood sugar. There’s heart rate variance. There’s willpower.
Those are all different variables that person could mean when he speaks about “paying energy”.
If you are interested in actually understanding what happens when introverts pay energy for social interaction it’s useful to mentally distinguish those things. Distinguishing them allows you to intervene.
I personally don’t drain when in social interaction. But I’m also not a typical extrovert.
They use it in an unempirical way that corresponds to things that are literally nonreal. Besides, “energy” is a fine word to describe people “getting tired in social situations”.
Are you arguing that those people aren’t feeling a sensation of energy?
If you think energy when used to talk about introverts paying energy during social interaction is meaningful and describes more than a subjective impression, what metric would you use to measure that energy?
Are you somehow implying that subjective impressions are not meaningful?
If you consider them to be meaningful in this context I don’t think you have grounds to object with a large portion of the way the word energy is used by New Age people in practice.
Causes you to subjectively feel more tired.