The next item of business today is a member's business debate on motion number 10898, in the name of Jackson Carlaw, on Neilston and Upplemore first responders reaching their 100th emergency call out. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I now call on Jackson Carlaw to open the debate. Mr Carlaw, seven minutes or thereby please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It's a genuine pleasure to propose and speak to the motion table in my name this afternoon, and I'm delighted to be able to do so as the work to which it pays tribute is vital, the support of other organisations for that work has been generous, spontaneous and heartfelt and especially. The volunteers who have made all that has been achieved possible represent the very best of Scotland, and I know too that there will be members who will be equally familiar with community first responder groups in their own areas. Indeed, there are some 100 schemes operating across Scotland with some 1200 volunteer responders. For those who are not, let me explain that community first responders are asked to attend serious and life threatening emergencies such as breathing difficulties, chest pains, cardiac arrest or unconsciousness. It should be noted that they are not sent to road collisions or traumatic injuries or to anything out with their training. They are trained by the Scottish Ambulance Service in basic first aid and life saving skills so that they can deliver a speedy, reassuring response to patients while an ambulance is on the way, and they are deployed to appropriate calls by the Scottish Ambulance Service control centre. An emergency ambulance is always dispatched first, and the role of the responder is to support the patient while that ambulance is on its way, providing an important service that benefits the community and which, importantly, the community itself recognises and appreciates is of benefit. My motion is, I am afraid, already somewhat out of date. It recognises the 100th call of the Neilston and Upland, where responder group, as was the case when I first lodged it on September 1. However, by Tuesday this week, that figure had increased dramatically to 147 call-outs, and, Presiding Officer, perhaps with the assistance of any willing member suitably overcome with excitement by remarks during the next few minutes, we might even push it over the 150 mark during the course of this debate. That is all quite remarkable. However, the success of voluntary projects and initiatives is never guaranteed. It depends on leadership and the commitment and support of a great many people. In the case of Neilston and Upland, this leadership has been ably provided by Stuart Maclellan and Ross Nelson, both of whom are in Parliament today. I say again, as I had the pleasure earlier this year, of welcoming and thanking personally a more extended team from the group here at Holyrood. Stuart Maclellan gave the spark of life to this responder group in April last year when, like others across Scotland, he approached the Scottish Ambulance Service and the service then convened a meeting to test public interest and support to which initially 15 people turned up willing to participate. Stuart recruited constantly throughout the year and, by November, a team was being trained and then, in January, with the appropriate approval secured, the group went live. I have made mention of the support from others in the community, from a local hotel in Upland, which cheerfully allowed meetings to take place free of charge in its premises, to St John's Scotland, which has supported the project in a number of ways to which I will return, and also to Arnold Clarke, which has given such a boost to the responders with the donation of a vehicle at least. I am grateful to the managing director of Arnold Clarke, Eddie Hawthorne, for his support and engagement. Perhaps I might just add at this point and pay tribute to Sir Arnold Clarke himself. I am happy that this will then find its place in the official record of Parliament. I have known him for many years, and such as his reach and depth and length of service to the retail motor industry in Scotland and the UK over several generations, I can add that I know him as my father and my grandfather did before. He has built one of Scotland's most successful businesses and he has been content not to posture on the wider stage, but I know there will be many community groups all over Scotland who will be indebted to him for the generous support he has offered personally and for the assistance that has been offered by his organisation, a branch of which cannot now be far removed from any Scottish community. I might mention a moment to go also over the support of St John's Scotland. Less well known generally in Scotland than it deserves, St John's Scotland formed in 1947 and has as one of its main objects the encouragement and promotion of all work of humanity and charity for the relief of people in sickness, distress, suffering or danger. That is a perfect fit. What I have most enjoyed about their involvement is the enthusiasm that this project has generated among their members, an infectious enthusiasm that was achieved by Stuart McClellan and Ross Nelson on the now several visits that have been made to secure further funding, which has to date paid for a defibrillator, extensive training equipment and most recently for the refurbishment of the former police station in Nealston as a permanent base after the group grew out of the generous provision of space offered by the Nealston Development Trust, yet another successfully locally based project. I should note that this facility will be lost as a consequence of a change of ownership, but I'm in no doubt that St John's team will identify and then set about securing and equipping an alternative base. That is if the acquisition cost of £55,000 cannot yet be raised, but knowing that I'm not certainly going to rule that out. It's sometimes easy to talk in abstract terms about the mechanics of a voluntary group. What can sometimes get lost is the character and the dynamic and the public worth. When I've met up with the responders, as I have done now on several occasions, they've been full of buzz and fizz and enthusiasm, which is there for everyone to see. All the more so now, as from being a theoretical organisation being established, they are attending call-outs across the community and helping to save lives. And the response of the community itself as it begins to understand just what an advantage they have represented. This is not an initiative that in any way seeks to ameliorate ambulance arrival delays far from it. It's the recognition that for most people, basic life-saving skills are simply not understood or practised. The support of someone who can act immediately and ensure that the attendance of the Scottish ambulance service is all the more effective, efficient and successful is something that any of the individuals or families who have experienced it will not forget. Across Neilston and Uplemore, the appreciation of the public is palpable. Across Scotland, that will also be true. And hopefully yet elsewhere, communities will be fortunate enough to identify and enlist committed individuals and leadership and establish the first responder group with similar success. I'm actually sure that the Government and members of all parties will join me in congratulating this local first responder group, one of several in the west of Scotland regional constituency I represent, and of those groups that are represented and established elsewhere across Scotland. All equally deserving our congratulations and support, and I'm delighted to formally move the motion in my name. Many thanks, and I'll call on Joan McAlpine to be followed by Hugh Henry. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I would like to congratulate Jackson Carlaw on securing this very important debate on a very important subject. I had a look at the website of the Neilston and Uplemore first responders unit, and I was very impressed with the numbers involved, all the more so after hearing from Jackson Carlaw that the group has been in place for a really long time. It's relatively short period of time and has clearly achieved a great deal in that short period of time, as have the many hundreds of schemes across Scotland that have now been established, and as Jackson Carlaw says, involving 1,200 volunteers, which is extremely impressive. I understand that it was Dr Richard Cummings from Seattle in the USA who discovered in 1990 that if a series of interventions took place in a set sequence, a patient suffering from a heart attack stood a greater chance of survival, and these events are now known as the chain of survival, community first responders are an integral and valued link in the chain of survival in areas that experience an extended journey time, as they can provide essential simple treatments in those crucial first few moments. The sequence is this, one early recognition and call for help, two early CPR, three early defibrillation and four early advanced care. That might sound daunting but full training is given and all first responders will undergo IHCD, that's institute of healthcare and development training for first persons on the scene. This course has been devised in association with the Royal College of Surgeons but these volunteers must also pass exams and get through a very rigorous selection process as well as pass the PVG. First responders must also update their skills continually with monthly training and their advice to sign up for at least one call shift every week to ensure that the skills that they acquire are put to practical use and don't attrify. It's obvious that first responders require a great deal of commitment and the fact that their volunteers makes that all the more admirable. The work is part of a team that, as Jackson Carlaw says, they're not intended to replace ambulances or paramedics but they do by vital time. When a person has a sudden cardiac arrest, their heart's regular rhythm becomes chaotic or arrhythmic and every minute that the heart is not beating lowers the odds of survival by 7 to 10 per cent. After 10 minutes without defibrillation very few people survive. I'm very pleased to note that mortality due to heart attacks has declined significantly across the world since the 1970s and the OECD attribute that in part to the introduction of treatments aimed at rapidly restoring coronary blood flow and the point that processes of care such as those timely medical interventions play a big part in determining whether a person will live or die. Comparative figures show that countries with the highest heart attack survival rates include Denmark, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden. It's no coincidence that most of those countries have highly organised and long-standing network of community first responders. I'm very pleased that Scotland is, for some time now, has been putting the experience of those other countries into effect with great success. First responders are on the front line of our community resilience plan that the Scottish Ambulance Service has put in place and covers the period 2011 to 2015. Even when you do achieve the best ambulance response times in the world, there are conditions, as I have said, such as cardiac arrest and acute hyperacute stroke, where every second counts. The Scottish Ambulance Service website lists the places where first responders are needed because clearly they need more volunteers. The lists are far too long for me to read out here, except to say that in my region of the south of Scotland there are 49 communities on the website requiring volunteer first responders. Those range from smaller places such as Newcastleton and Port William to relatively large rural population centres such as Peoples Moffitt and Dalbeaty. I know that Moffitt has a big group, which I believe has done 24-7 cover, which is quite something, but even that group is still looking for additional volunteers. It is clear that, while I represent a rural area, you can see the benefits for first responders everywhere. That is notable in the fact that both Glasgow Airport and Brayhead shopping centres are listed as looking for additional volunteers. Once again, I congratulate Jackson Carlaw on securing the debate and congratulating his group and indeed all groups of first responders working across Scotland. I want to thank Jackson Carlaw for giving the Scottish Parliament the opportunity to put on record our recognition and thanks of the work being done by the first responder scheme in Nilsson and Uplimer, which is in my constituency of Renfrewshire South. All too often across Scotland we can say that we know that the volunteers do tremendous work, but we do not sometimes take sufficient time to put that on record. What Ross Nelson and Stuart McClelland and the team of volunteers have done in Nilsson and Uplimer is something that is making a significant contribution to the lives of individuals in that community. I do not think that they or anyone else would want to suggest for one moment that this scheme is a substitute for an effective and efficient ambulance service, but it can complement the work that our excellent ambulance service does and it can make a difference in saving lives. I think that it is also, I might be putting this in the context of the communities of Nilsson and Uplimer. Two very distinct communities, but actually very closely linked to Nilsson, is the larger of those two communities. There is a long and proud community identification, community tradition and determination to work together for the benefit of all. Just last night I attended an event in Nilsson to celebrate the work of Pauline Gallacher in the Nilsson Development Trust and the fantastic contribution that she has made to the village of Nilsson. Not just through the development trust but also the extension to having the community wind farm, which is an example to communities right across Scotland. I know that there are many people who are working hard to have a war memorial established in Nilsson, John Maguire of Phoenix Honda, but also a classmate of mine, Jimmy Higgins, walked to France last year to raise money for that war memorial. We are talking about communities, two communities that are determined to do everything that they can to help each other. Jackson Carlaw has eloquently outlined the role that these organisations play increasingly across Scotland and Britain, but it is happening internationally. I know that we can actually point to success from those schemes. I talked to my two Labour councillors, who represent Nilsson, councillor Elaine Greene, whose daughter Jennifer is a volunteer with the first responder. They have told me the fantastic work that has been done and the very human response. My other councillor, Paul O'Kane, was telling me that, once Sunday at Masset, St Thomas's in Nilsson, an elderly parishioner had taken on well. It was really because of the rapid response from that team of volunteers that that person's condition was able to be stabilised in advance of the ambulance service arriving. We have a team of volunteers, a scheme that is making its mark on the local community. It has the support of the local community, the fact that you have got 30 or more people already prepared to give their time to something that they see of immediate benefit to themselves, their families, their neighbours and friends. Stuart and his team have had to work really hard to get the money, and Jackson Carlaw has indicated some of the support that they have had. They are now in temporary premises, hoping that they might just be able to get the finance to make that permanent. It would be a real shame if a small amount of money was to prevent that skill base that has been developed from continuing to make its contribution to Nilsson and Duplemore. I know from, as I said, from talking to local people that they already value the service. They know that it has made a difference and they can point to the individuals whose lives have been helped by those volunteers. I hope that, collectively, we are all able not just to offer our word and words of support but to identify ways in which we can help this fantastic service to continue. Once again, I thank Jackson Carlaw for enabling us to debate this, but I thank the team of terrific and tremendous volunteers that are putting their mark on Nilsson and Duplemore. I close the debate on behalf of the Government in seven minutes. Are there by ministers? I congratulate Jackson Carlaw on securing time for this debate and to offer my congratulations to the first responder team in Nilsson and Duplemore for the tremendous work that they have undertaken. Jackson Carlaw says that they have now significantly surpassed their 100th emergency call-out. They are now at 147, which is a remarkable amount of call-outs given that they have been operating in the area for a relatively short period of time since January of this year. I am sure that, as all members will recognise, there are a range of medical conditions where time is of the absolute essence and how we respond to that individual within our community in order to provide him with the best possible care that we can. Conditions such as cardiac arrest, as we have heard from Joan McAlpine, are conditions where every second counts. That is exactly why community first responders schemes are so important. I am sure that members will recognise that community first responders send out a very strong message about the level of community resilience within our own individual communities and their desire to do the right thing for their own community and its wellbeing. It is important that we work to support them in undertaking that type of work. There are presently 127 first responder schemes across the country with more than 1,000 volunteers involved in participating in the programme. I want to take this opportunity to say that there is always an opportunity to introduce more of the community first responder teams. I would like to encourage any community that is considering the possibility of participating in the programme to encourage them to do so in the same way in which the community, Nielsen and Uplamore have responded over the last year. If they are interested in doing so, the Scottish Ambulance Service will be more than happy to assist them in providing support necessary to set up the first responder scheme within their own local area. Members will recognise that the increasing number of community first responder programmes sits within a range of other work that we have undertaken in order to improve community resilience around meeting the healthcare needs of our local communities. For example, we have the community resuscitation development officers who recruit and train community members to provide care. We have the public access defibrillators in a range of locations, which is also supported by local training programmes and awareness raising programmes. We have the first aid awareness and training that we provide through schools and the community at large. The community first responder programme sits within the wider context of trying to make sure that we improve the health and wellbeing of the people of Scotland. Members may have noticed last week that I announced that we would be taking forward a strategy next year that aims to cut the number of deaths from out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, a point that Joan McAlpine may reference to in her contribution. We know that survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests depends on what is the chain of survival, which we need to make sure is as complete as possible in order to ensure that someone receives resuscitation and defibrillation when a cardiac arrest occurs. Our community first responder teams are an important part of that chain within our local communities so that we can continue to reduce the number of people who die as a result of an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. That sits within the wider work that we have been doing around increasing the number of publicly available defibrillators. The Cabinet Secretary for Health, earlier this year, provided a further £100,000 to increase the number of publicly available defibrillators. In August of this year, I launched a new roll-out of defibrillators being provided to our independent dental practices across Scotland.  What they are now doing is mapping all of those on the Scottish Ambulance Service control system. That means that, if an emergency occurs near a dental practice area or one that is in a local shop or within a workplace or a supermarket, as increasingly is the case, it can be tasked in order to deploy that piece of kit. That involves some £600,000 worth of investment and we now have approximately 815 dental practices that have been signed up to the programme. That also sits alongside the work that we are doing with the British Heart Foundation's Heart Start programme within our schools. Almost 62 per cent of our secondary schools have now registered with the Heart Start programme. We have 150 teachers being trained as Heart Start instructors. The Heart Start programme, again, is about helping to build on that community resilience within our own individual communities. The community responder scheme is an important element to that. I do not underestimate the value of the community first responder scheme. As Hugh Henry rightly says, it is not a replacement for paramedics from our Ambulance Service, but it is an additional support in order to make sure that individuals who may require assistance and care can receive that as early as possible. As a Government, we intend to continue to build on that work in the coming years. I again wish to offer my sincere thanks and on-going support to those within the community first responder scheme in Nielsen and Atlaw more.


As usual, I love, just adore, to bash self-styled experts, and so-called scholars, online. Here's the rule of thumb, if they're online, they're not experts, they're not scholars. With one exception, of course, me, my name is Sam Vaknin, I'm the author of Malignant Self-Love, Narcissism Revisited, and a professor of psychology. Today, I'm going to discuss the God-awful confusion between shyness, avoidant personality disorder, schizoid personality disorder, introversion, social phobia, social anxiety, and anxiety disorder. Not to mention shyness. Yes, all these psychological constructs are very often confused and conflated to the point of an utter mayhem where people can't tell the difference between being shy, being avoidant, being introverted, being schizoid, and other things. Socially phobic, socially anxious, anxious, generally anxious, paranoid, and so on and so forth. So even mental health practitioners, even people with academic degrees in psychology and even psychiatry, can't tell the difference. And they can't tell the difference because they largely rely on observable phenomena when actually what differentiates these disorders from each other is not the outside, not the behavioral aspect, but the etiology and the psychodynamics. I can't focus on all these disorders simultaneously in one video because I never make videos longer than 10 hours. So I'm going to focus today on two of these constructs. One is schizoid or schizoidism or schizoid personality disorder compared to introversion. What's the difference between an introvert and a schizoid person? On the surface, they look the same. They avoid social interactions, but are they doing this for the same reasons? Absolutely not. And so let's plunge right in. As usual, everything I say is backed by scholarly research and studies. I will place a very short bibliography, I'm sorry, a very short bibliography in the description of the video. You're well advised to follow up on it, but try to purchase these books if the topic for some oblivious reason is of interest to you. So welcome to the Saint-Vaknin narcissism horror show. And this time it's not about narcissism. Well, at least not directly. Maybe my own. And that's it. We start with introversion. The dictionary of the American Psychological Association defines introversion this way. Introversion, noun, orientation towards the internal private world of one's self and one's inner thoughts and feelings, rather than orientation toward the outer world of people and things. Introversion is a broad personality trait. And exactly like extroversion, it exists on a continuum of attitudes and behaviors. Introverts are relatively more withdrawn, retiring, reserved, quiet and deliberate. They may tend to mute or guard the expression of positive effect, adopt more skeptical views or positions and prefer to work independently. The concept, of course, was originated by Carl Jung for the study of personality types. I recommend to you to watch the video I had made about Carl Jung's view of narcissism, because Carl Jung says that narcissism is actually a very healthy, a very healthy, as you heard it right, a very healthy investment in introversion. And he said that introversion is an inevitable and very important phase or stage in the development of what he called a constellated self. In other words, Jung believed that introversion is indispensable to the formation of a self.   All this is explained in that video, but today we are focusing on the social manifestations and etiology of introversion. One thing that emerges immediately from this definition, and it's a very important distinction, introverts are never, ever impulsive. They're deliberate, they're slow, they're guarded, they're paranoid, they're skeptical. Introverts are highly unlikely to find themselves in situations where they suddenly do something because they have an impulse to do it or on a whim, or because they can control themselves or because they're drunk. They never get drunk to the point of losing control. They never get drunk to the point of acting on an impulse. In this sense, they're very hyper-vigilant. So if you see someone acting impulsively, recklessly, defiantly, even if that someone appears to be introverted and shy and avoidant, he is not. Introversion and impulsivity, introversion and defiance, introversion and recklessness, introversion and contumatiousness do not go together. To cut a long story short, a psychopath may well be shy, a psychopath may have anxiety disorder, a psychopath may be socially phobic or socially anxious, but a psychopath can never, ever be an introvert. And introverts never find themselves in situations where they had lost control or recklessly abandoned all safeguards or act on an impulse, or get to the point of acting on an impulse, for example, but is inhibiting themselves with alcohol and drugs. That's not introversion. That is psychopathy, masquerading as introversion. If you were to acquire the wonderful, widely encyclopedia of personality published in 2020, you would find several mentions and a whole article about introversion and extroversion. And I would like to read to you the summary of this article. The extroversion-introversion personality dimension is a robust and highly heritable personality dimension that is recognized around the world. Characterized by both interpersonal and temperamental characteristics, the key features of extroversion-introversion are sociability and positive effect. The extroversion-introversion are features, dimensions, when they became well established as a result of the biological basis and the lexical significance in cross-cultural language. Extroverts and compass approach behaviors, rooted in the need for increased stimulation caused by cortical under-stimulation, while introverts demonstrate avoidance behaviors to inhibit over-stimulation. Similarly, extroverts are more likely to engage in approach behaviors commonly associated with impulsivity, while introverts are more likely to engage in avoidance behaviors commonly associated with anxiety. So here we're beginning to see the first very important distinctions. It seems that introversion is a result of dysregulation, sensory overload, over-stimulation. It's a defense. It's an attempt to wall yourself off the world to firewall yourself in order to avoid a collapse or a decompensation under consistent pressure of environmental stimuli. What does this remind you of? Yes, you're good students. It's reminiscent of autism spectrum disorders and even more so, it's reminiscent of borderline personality disorder. Introversion, therefore, can be conceived of simply as another name for emotional dysregulation, or at least the observable reaction to emotional dysregulation, while extroversion is actually an attempt to compensate for a lack of environmental stimulation for under-stimulation. And therefore, extroversion is much more likely to be associated with externalized personality disorders and personality traits and behaviors such as psychopathy. Again, impulsivity and anxiety. These are the keys. If you see someone who is anxious, but then acts impulsively, that's a psychopath. If you see someone who is anxious and then withdraws or becomes paranoid or becomes deliberate, very slow and plodding, and then avoids life, situations, environments and people, that's an introvert. Anxiety plus impulsivity equals psychopathy. Anxiety plus avoidance equals introversion. And so here's a description from this encyclopedia of an extrovert. He enjoys attending all the class parties. He is known for having lots of friends and is open to seeking out new experiences that offer thrilling lifestyle. This person is energetic, a leader in most domains, and is very happy with their life. And here's the introvert. The introvert tends to stay away from the class parties. He is instead happiest when quietly staying home with a good book. This second person, the introvert, may have a few close friends, but tends to be more comfortable within their organized and routine lifestyle. So this sounds suspiciously like a schizoid. We would need to differentiate the introvert from this schizoid. We will do it a bit later in this video. At this stage, the distinction between the shy or quiet psychopath and the introvert rests on the pillar of impulsivity. Impulsivity distinct is the differential diagnosis between these two. What about shy and quiet borderlines? It's not an unsensical construct, but borderlines do tend to become secondary psychopaths under stress, humiliation, rejection, and abandonment. And when they do become secondary psychopaths, when they do make this transition, when they switch, impulsivity rains. So then we know these are not introverts, but actually borderlines who had switched or transitioned to secondary psychopaths. But there is such a thing as a shy and anxious psychopath. Increasingly, we are beginning to realize this. We are even beginning to dispense with the old view that psychopaths are fearless. And I recommend that you watch the video The Myth of the Fearless Psychopath on my channel, of course. Where else? The only channel with scientific proof and foundation. All right, enough self-promotion, Vaknim. You got your dose of grandiosity. Move on for pricing. Okay, I will. We are about to enter a much more fraught minefield. The distinctions, the delicate and subtle distinctions between extroversion, introversion, and schizoid, schizoidism, and schizoid personality disorder. But to do so, we need to delve a bit further into extroversion, introversion. Extroversion, as we said, has interpersonal and temperamental components. And the interpersonal characteristics of extroversion reflect the typical extroverted behaviors, sociability, assertiveness, etc., etc. The stereotype in this case is quite true. The temperamental characteristics of extroversion reflect increased activity level and positive effect. And so when we consider extroversion, introversion, dimension, an extrovert is someone who is outgoing, talkative, social, energized, exactly the stereotype. The introvert is the opposite, who is reserved, squared, passive. And so Carl Jung, as we said, was the first to propose this dichotomy, the idea of extroversion. He conceptualized extroversion and introversion as two separate types of people. Jung identified extroverts as having a focus on the outer world, directing an outward flow of so-called personal energy to the social environment. And Jung said that introverts have a focus on the inner mental world, and they direct an inward flow of personal energy on internal factors, for example, internal objects and introjects. And so extroversion, introversion started off as a classification, a taxonomy of personal styles, what we call today personality styles. But it had evolved and had become unrecognizable since Jung's time, luckily for us. Immediately after Jung, there were other scholars who entered the fray and had contributed greatly to the current understanding of introversion and extroversion, most notably Hans Eisenk and Jeffrey Gray. Hans Eisenk in the 1980s, he conceptualized a hierarchical personality model with a hierarchy based on traits that Eisenk believed to be highly heritable. I want to make an intermezzo here. The idea that introversion and extroversion and other Eisenk types, the five factor personality model, including, for example, agreeableness, which Jordan Peterson constantly mentions in each and every of his numerous lectures, the idea that all these five factors of personality, including introversion and extroversion, that they are based on genetics, on heritability, is just this, an idea. We do have some indications that, for example, introversion and extroversion run in families, sometimes skipping generations, but it's very weak and frail evidence. At this stage, it's a speculative hypothesis with very, very little foundation in studies and research, but for some reason, perhaps because it's in vogue, perhaps because it's fashionable, we tend to believe that introversion and extroversion are somehow genetically determined. And all this goes back to Eisenk, because Eisenk was the one who said, without any studies to back up his claim in 1985, he was of us to say that introversion, extroversion is heritable and psychophysiologically rooted. Eisenk theorized the concepts of excitation and inhibition in relation to personality and behavior, and he said that excitation and inhibition are actually biological determinants. In the model of personality of Eisenk, he focused on three dimensions of extroversion and introversion. The first dimension was sociability and so on, we'll come to it in a minute. So, his original model had three dimensions, introversion, extroversion, neuroticism, emotional stability, and psychoticism. And so, he began with these three broad brushstrokes at the top of the hierarchy, and then he went down, as I said, and within each one, he found subunits or subsections, subsegments. And he narrowed down, so he started with these three enormous, with this canvas of three enormous dimensions, introversion, extroversion, neuroticism, psychoticism, and then he narrowed them down, he hacked, he sliced them into a highly specific list of characteristics. So, for example, in extroversion, he said that the traits are sociable, active, assertive, and sensation-seeking. He said these are the elements of the factors of extroversion, loading into what he called the E-factor, the extroversion. Eisenk then proceeded, he spent all of his career, actually, breaking down extroversion, introversion, neuroticism, emotional stability, psychoticism, breaking them down into traits, and then breaking these traits into further traits, and then they're breaking these traits into further until we had the laundry list of every conceivable interpersonal and temperamental style elements. And on the third level of Eisenk's model, there is something called habitual acts. Someone who is extroverted is more likely to habitually attend many parties to seek out new adventures, such as, I don't know, skydiving, traveling, and the habitual behaviors to get a load into a narrow second-level characteristic of sociability and sensation-seeking. So actually, Eisenk's model is a grassroots model. Behaviors coalesce into traits, traits coalesce into dimensions on three levels. Raymond Cattell, C-A-T-T-E-L-L, expanded on Eisenk's three-factor approach. He developed a list of 16 personality factors derived from modern factor analysis of lexical approaches. These 16 personality factors, five of them clustered together to form the higher order of extroversion, including interpersonal warmth, impulsivity, and boldness. And so this, and I recommended you watch my video on MBTI, but this created an enormous argument. The question was, could such a small number of factors include all the key elements of personality? Are we capturing everything there is to capture? Or do we need to continue to add to the list all the time? And one of the most common personality taxonomies is the five-factor model of personality, referred to as the big five. It is derived from factor analysis of the most commonly used words in the English language, five broad traits, extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness. And within this model, extroversion is assumed to adopt a hierarchical structure with six lower order facets, warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking, and positive effects. So this is extroversion. Everything that's the opposite of extroversion is, of course, by definition, introversion. There have been many studies which delved into the question of whether these characteristics and traits are heritable, nature versus nature. There's a huge study with 25,000 pairs of twins. There is the biggest study about ARAS, the ascending reticular activation system. So there are studies of this with introverts allegedly possessing a lower threshold for arousal compared to extroverts. I will not go into all of this. Isink and Gray started this, actually, these kind of studies, and then vehemently disagreed with Isink's view of arousal as a conditioning behavior. So there's a huge row. I will not go into all this. Let's go back to personality. Extroversion, introversion is a robust personality dimension. It's robust in the sense that it's supported by numerous massive studies. It exists. It's real. It's not our imagination. It's not a figment. It's not an artifact of some other, for example, artifact of a test, a psychological test. It's real. It's a real personality dimension. It's dynamic. This is a spectrum. Extroversion and introversion don't exist in a vacuum. Extroversion interacts consistently with other personality correlates. And this provides implications for life outcomes and individual differences in behavior. The substantial evidence that extroverts experience higher levels of positive affect, for example, compared to introverts who are usually prone to negative affect. And the relationship between extroversion and positive emotions had been replicated across cultures, regardless of personality disposition. So it seems that extroversion and introversion, while being personality dimensions, are not conditioned or dependent upon what personality type you have or even whether you have a personality disorder. At its core, extroversion encompasses the core feature of positive affect. Extroverts react more positively when they are presented with positive stimuli, and the relationship between extroversion and positive affect is also explained by differences in behavioral tendencies. For example, sociability is a key feature of extroversion. Researchers propose that extroverts engage in a greater number of social activities, but they also reap more benefits when they engage in daily social behaviors compared to introverts. Introverts seem to fail in extracting benefits from social interactions. Extroverts are more likely to view their social interactions and the world in general positively. Research has examined the link between personality and psychopathology, and we found that extroversion is negatively related to anxiety and depression. So these mental health concerns usually lead or are characterized by social withdrawal. If you're anxious, if you're depressed all your life, you would tend to withdraw socially. You tend to have, by definition, low levels of positive affect, and this would lead you to a low level of extroversion. In considering psychopathology as maladaptive extremes of some personality dispositions, some researchers have identified that very low level of extroversion, also known as introversion, introversion is linked with social isolation and with anhedonia, inability to experience pleasure, and very high levels of extroversion have been linked with maladaptive, reckless, risky, impulsive behaviors such as sexual promiscuity and substance abuse. These concerns may be linked to the greater likelihood for extroverts to seek out and engage in rewarding and highly arousing activities. We're coming back full circle. You may be anxious, you may be depressed, but if you're abusing substances and thereby disinhibiting yourself, if you then engage in reckless behaviors such as sexual promiscuity and other reckless behaviors, such as extreme sports, especially if your reckless behaviors are intimately linked to your substance abuse, this rules out, precludes introversion. Introversion is about control. Introversion is a hyper-vigilant control reaction to internal dysregulation and overload, sensory overload, sensory overstimulation, highly sensitive persons, HSPs are introverts.  They don't do this. Psychopaths do this.  This is not an introverted behavior. Anything that leads via substance abuse usually to reckless behaviors is a strong indicator of psychopathy. Primary psychopathy, factor one, or secondary psychopathy, factor two, borderline. Let me read to you something from another book written by Zelensky and Soboko, the Handbook of Solitude, published this year by Wiley. So here's a summary of one of the chapters. In this chapter, say the authors, we review personality differences in propensities for solitude, focusing on the dimension of introversion, extroversion and its link with psychological well-being. Although extroversion is often linked with greater happiness, many scholars oppose this conclusion. We consider these objections and we examine their veracity with regard to empirical work. Although we ultimately conclude that introversion is indeed associated with lower levels of happiness, our review also provides a more nuanced view of disassociation. For example, how its magnitude can depend on measurement tools for culture or culture. Finally, we review and evaluate theoretical explanations for extroverts characteristically higher levels of happiness, and we explore the potential of increasing happiness by increasing introversion. What the authors are saying very gingerly and very carefully is that extroverts may not actually be more happy than introverts. It's an artifact of testing and social and cultural conditioning and expectations. We are conditioned to feel happier when we interact socially, even if fundamentally we are actually not happier or even if we are hypervigilant and paranoid. We just told society kind of brainwashes us into feeling happier when we're with other people, which would explain why many of us, many of us, drink and do drugs when we are with other people, because perhaps it's not such a pleasant experience after all. So, to summarize this first segment or first section of the video, introverts do not engage in psychopathic behaviors like substance abuse, like promiscuity, sexual and otherwise, reckless behaviors, defiance, consumatiousness and impulsivity. If you see these things, even if these things happen once a year, even if it happened once a decade, it's a powerful indication that the person is not an introvert, but a shy or anxious psychopath or a secondary psychopath, in other words, a borderline. End of chapter one of this video, and we proceed now to schizoid personality disorder or schizoidism. Schizoids are exactly like introverts. They stay at home. They avoid social interactions. Mini is a schizoid. She never leaves home. I keep telling her, Mini, it's not good for you. You need to go out. You need to socialize with other mugs. You need to have a life, but she doesn't want to. She stays at home. She says she's perfectly happy, hanging on. So, you know, I do what I can. What's the difference between schizoidism and introversion? Outwardly, as observers, we cannot tell the difference. They look identical. Both introverts and schizoids behave in ways which are indistinguishable from each other. Stay at home, avoid social interactions, hypervigilance and hedonia, depression and anxiety, the empty schizoid core. Both of them usually have grandiose defenses. It's very difficult to tell them apart, but let's try. We start by going again, reverting again to the American Psychological Association's dictionary. Schizoidism. Now, complex of behavioral traits that include seclusiveness, quietness, general introversion, indicating a separation by the person from his or her surroundings, the confining of psychic interests to the self, and in many cases a tendency towards schizophobia. It's also called schizoidia, and it was originally defined by Eugen Bloyler long before Freud, actually. Bloyler is a much, much neglected genius, which in some respects overshadowed Freud. I mean, he was even, in my view, in many respects, more important than Freud. Bloyler, B-L-E-U-L-E-R. Knock yourself out. Let's go to, let's define schizoid. So, we have defined schizoidism, which is a personality trait. Let's define schizoid. Schizoid, the same dictionary, denoting characteristics resembling schizophrenia, but in a milder form, invoking lack of effect, social passivity, and minimal introspection. These are beginning to be crucial differences between schizoids and introverts. Let me repeat. Lack of effect. Introverts have effect. Sometimes they have inappropriate effect, but they always have effect, mostly negative effect. They're likely to show sadness, depression, anxiety, unhappiness, envy, anger. They have pronounced effect. They don't have. Introverts do not have lifelong or pervasive reduced effect display. Schizoids do. Schizoids are totally flat. They have exactly like psychopaths, flat effect. They never ever show emotions of any kind ever, like ever. That's the first difference. Second thing, social passivity. The schizoid is socially passive. In other words, he or she are likely to respond to social cues, for example, being invited somewhere, but are very unlikely to initiate social interactions. That's the schizoid. Introverts are different. They sometimes initiate social interactions with one or two good friends or family members. And finally, the schizoid has no introspection. He's utterly incapable of introspecting, of seeing himself or herself as he is or she is. Schizoid has zero self-awareness. Schizoid would deny the most obvious facts about his or her life and personality. The introvert is exactly the opposite. The introvert spends an ordinary amount of time, actually most of his life or her life, introspecting. Introversion is another name for exaggerated, out-of-control, dysregulated introspection. The introvert spends 80% of her resources on studying herself, on minutely documenting every quirk, every dimension, every mishap and every happening within her soul. She is the chronicler of her own internal environment, including her internal objects and introverts. Introvert is focused like a laser beam on herself and does little else. Schizoid is exactly the opposite. Schizoid rejects self-knowledge and self-awareness, defends against them. Schizoid has alloplastic defences and an external locus of control. Schizoid is unlikely to acknowledge shortcomings, failings, mistakes. Schizoid would defend ferociously against any attempt to define him or her, to describe him or her, to provide him or her with insight. So Schizoids are against insight. They reject insight. They become almost psychopathic, almost defined when you try to introduce insight and self-awareness into their lives. Introvert welcomes insight and welcomes self-awareness. It's very common for an introvert to latch onto a therapist, for example, and over attacks the therapist, become very clinging and demanding and needy because the therapist can provide insight. The introvert, the introverts need for insight. The introverts need for self-awareness. The introverts need for self-knowledge is insatiable. There's no limit. And if you let the introvert, she will take over your life, demanding minute responses and demanding repeated reassurances and analysis. The introvert over-thinks herself. Schizoid is the absolute exact opposite. He doesn't want to hear anything about himself. Schizoid is a surface phenomenon. The surface is he has no depth. Schizoid has no core. It's emptiness masquerading as presence. Schizoid is about absence. Introverts, introversion is about too much presence. The introvert is too present in her own life.  But it's not a black hole. There's a lot there.  She wants input. She wants feedback. The schizoid is exactly the opposite. Schizoid pushes people away because he does not want to know anything about himself. He wants to remain on the surface because all he has is a surface. If anyone goes deep, they find a black hole, void, emptiness, howling wins. Schizoid personality disorder is defined in the dictionary of the American Psychological Association as a personality disorder characterized by long-term emotional coldness, absence of tender feelings for others, lack of desire for and enjoyment of close relationships, and indifference to praise or criticism and to the feelings of others. The eccentricities of speech, behavior or thought that are characteristics of schizotypal personality disorder are absent in those with schizoid personality disorder. Let's delve a bit deeper. Horat Goldman is the editor of Review of General Psychiatry, published by Prentice Hall. He says, the person with schizoid personality disorder sustains a fragile emotional equilibrium by avoiding intimate personal contact, thereby by minimizing conflict that is poorly tolerated. Schizoids are often described even by the nearest and dearest in terms of automatons, robots. Schizoids are uninterested in social relationships. They are utterly turned off by interactions with other people. They have a very limited emotional repertory. It is not that they do not have emotions, but they express emotions, poorly and intermittently. They have poor affect or lack of affect or flat affect. Schizoids appear cold, appear to be stunted, flat, zombie-like, dead, dead inside. The most common phrase when people come across a schizoid, they are likely to say, she's dead inside. She had died a long time ago. She just doesn't know it and doesn't realize it. Consequently, exactly like introverts, schizoids are loners. Schizoids confide only in first-degree relatives, but maintain no other close bonds or associations, not even with their immediate family. So, they have a single friend or a single family member and that's just about it. Naturally, schizoid's gravity into solitary activities and they find solace and safety in being constantly alone. Their sexual experiences are sporadic and limited, if at all. Finally, they cease altogether. Schizoids are unhedonic. They find nothing pleasurable, nothing attractive, but they are not necessarily dysphoric, said or depressed. Some schizoids are asexual. They resemble the cerebral noses. Schizoids pretend to be indifferent to praise, criticism, disagreement and corrective advice, but deep inside, they are not. They get hurt. It's painful. Schizoids are creatures of habit, frequently succumbing to rigid, predictable and narrowly restricted routines. For example, they're very likely to travel. They are very likely to be afraid of traveling because they feel unsafe. They feel at risk. Now, if you are an introvert, you are unlikely to engage in reckless behaviors, impulsive behaviors, unlikely to disinhibit yourself with substances, but if you're schizoid, you're likely to do all these. Schizoids have these bouts, especially if they are also psychopaths. You remember that the schizoid core is at the heart of narcissism, at the heart of psychopathy and ultimately at the heart of borderline personality disorder because it's a form of emotional dysregulation coupled with psychopathy. So the schizoid core is an engine.  It has a lot of energy. So it's like an engine. And sometimes with the schizoid, this core generates impulsive, reckless behavior, disinhibited behaviors, dysregulated, unbounded behaviors. It never, ever happens with an introvert. It's a crucial distinction. The introvert never engages in dysregulated, unbounded, impulsive, reckless, defined behaviors. Never. Introversion is a state of being predominantly interested in one's own mental self, one's own personality, one's own psychosocial and psychobiological history. It's a preoccupation with the self. It's constant, obsessive, compulsive introspection. Introverts are perceived as reserved or reflective because they're busy. They're busy thinking about themselves. You could conceive of introversion as a dimension of extreme narcissism. Some psychologists characterize introverts as people whose energy tends to expand through reflection and dwindle during an interaction. It's like Jung. Jung said the same, although he focused on what he called mental energy. Don't ask. Some modern conceptions of introversion disagree. They say that actually introverts find pleasure in solitary activities such as reading, writing, or meditating an introvert enjoys time spent alone finds less reward in time spent in large groups of people. You are very unlikely ever to find an introvert at a club or in a bar or in a party. An introvert would never do this, ever. And if you see an introvert in this location, someone in these locations and he looks shy and anxious and withdrawn and avoidant, that's not an introvert. That's someone with social anxiety or social phobia or it's someone who is a psychopath. So introverts are easily overwhelmed by too much stimulation from social gatherings and engagement. Introversion is about being quiet, being minimizing, stimulating external environment. Introverts absolutely avoid assiduously and religiously environments with multiple people. Introverts concentrate on a single activity at a time. They are likely to kind of observe situations before they participate in these situations. And they're very, very hyper vigilant and very careful and very cautious and very paranoid and very reticent and very reluctant and so on. They're very analytical. Before they say anything, they analyze it like a thousand times and they analyze it in conjunction with and in respect to their perception of themselves. So kind of how would it reflect on me or does it reflect me accurately? Susan Cain had written the book Quiet, The Power of Introverts and she defines introversion and extroversion as preferences for different levels of stimulation. She said and she's correct. It's nothing to do with shyness. Shyness is a fear of social judgment, fear of humiliation and therefore it's a very close cousin to avoidance, avoidant personality disorder, for example. It's even, it has even affinity with covert narcissism. But introverts are not like that. When we mistake introversion for shyness, it's a common error. Introversion is not shyness. It's not avoidance. Introversion is a preference. It's a choice. Shyness stems from distress. Introversion leads to strength. Introverts prefer solitary to social activities but they don't fear social encounters the same way they shy people do. They just don't want, they're overwhelmed, they're overstimulated so they avoid them. So Susan Cain argues that modern western culture misjudges the capabilities of introverted people and that it's very wasteful of talent, energy and happiness. Cain describes how society is biased against introverts and that people are taught from childhood that to be sociable is to be happy. We are conditioned. If you're in a group of people you should be happy. If you're not happy something's wrong with you. Introversion is now considered somewhere between a disappointment and a pathology. And Cain says that introversion is not a second class trait. Both introverts and extroverts enrich society. Back to Iseng who is the father of all this and also the culprit, the perpetrator of most of our misunderstandings and nonsensical exceptions of introversion and extroversion. Iseng to remind you described extroversion, introversion as a degree to which a person is outgoing and interactive with other people. So Iseng's kind of three-tiered, three-tier personality structure is heavily dependent on observations. In other words it's anecdotal, it's phenomenological if you wish to be charitable. Later iterations of Iseng's model were even less rigorous because they relied on dictionaries. I'm not kidding you're not. On words in dictionaries, in lexicals. These behavioral differences are presumed to be the result of some brain physiology which had never been demonstrated or proved.  Extroverts is said to seek excitement and social activity in an effort to raise their naturally low arousal level, while introverts tend to avoid social situations in an effort to avoid raising their naturally high arousal level too far. So Iseng designated extroversion as one of his three major traits. As I said there's the PEN model, psychoticism, extroversion and neuroticism. He originally suggested that extroversion is a combination of two major tendencies, impulsivity or impulsiveness and sociability. Later Iseng added several other more specific traits, liveliness, activity level, excitability etc etc and these traits are further linked in his personality model to even more specific habitual responses such as parting. Iseng compared extroversion to the four temperaments of ancient medicine with choleric and sanguine temperaments equating to extroversion and melancholic and phlegmatic temperaments equating to introversion. And today our view of introversion and extroversion is heavily influenced by Iseng's model and by his tendency to link it to some mysterious hitherto to be proven dynamics in the in the brain which are supposedly genetically and hereditarily determined. Okay what about shyness? Shyness is a tendency to feel awkward, to feel worried, concerned, tense during social encounters especially with unfamiliar people. Severely shy people have physical symptoms, they blush, they sweat, skin conductance changes, the heart pounds, blood pressure, upset stomach, you name it. They develop negative feelings about themselves, they develop worries about how other people view them and they tend to become avoidant. They have a tendency to be drawn from social interactions. The thing is that most people are shy all the time. Whenever you meet someone new, whenever in a new situation someone you tend to be shy. Shyness seems to be a reflexive and very common response but when it is intense, dysregulated, it takes over. That's when we begin to discuss a kind of pathology. So as the encyclopedia of psychology says, most people feel shy at least occasionally. Some people shyness is so intense however that it can keep them from interacting with others even when they want to or need to leading to problems in relationships and at work. Shyness is a personality trait, it's most likely to occur as we said in unfamiliar settings, environments and situations but it hinders, it obstructs, it's dysfunctional and it metastasizes. So it starts as a kind of hyper vigilant response to unfamiliar settings but it takes over and then you begin to be shy in familiar situations and relationships, you begin to avoid objects, I mean other people, you begin to be apprehensive, you begin to feel uncomfortable inept, you develop a low or fluctuating sense of self-worth, low self-esteem, negative self-image, etc etc. It becomes cancerous, it becomes malignant, shyness perpetuates and enhances itself.  Sometimes shyness vanishes, fades away but that's actually extremely rare. There's a lot of data in studies suggest that three personality types, evident in infancy, easy, slow to warm up and difficult, tend to change as children mature. Extreme traits become less pronounced and personalities evolve in predictable patterns over time but the tendency to internalize or externalize problems, this tendency remains pretty constant and by the way also attachment styles, they're pretty constant. So individuals who are shy, they are shy because they tend to internalize their problems, they dwell on problems internally instead of expressing problems, sharing, communicating their concerns and this internalization leads to disorders like depression and anxiety. Humans experience shyness in different degrees in different areas but if it's all pervasive, if it permeates everything, ultimately you will end up developing depression and anxiety. So shyness is a form of discomfort, it's because very often it's because the person feels clueless, the person misinterprets, social and sexual cues is bound and apt to misbehave, to react wrongly so people with autism spectrum disorder for example also tend to develop shyness, it's the difficulty of knowing what to say, what to do in social situations, a crippling physical manifestation of uneasiness which can culminate in severe anxiety and panic attack. Shyness involves symptoms, it's quite devastating, the person feels that she's boring or that she's bizarre or then she attempts to overcompensate to try to create interest and this alienates people further so she doesn't know when to smile, she doesn't know how to engage in conversation, when to assume a relaxed posture, when to make good eye contact, when to respond to sexual cues and which social cues to respond to and how to, how to do that so there's a lot of dysregulated and boundary sexual promiscuity. Shyness becomes not only a second nature, it becomes the first nature, it determines actually the manifestation and expression of all other personality dimensions traits and it is behavioral determinant. It's also socially self-reinforced because people tend to perceive shy people negatively, people react very negatively to shy people especially in cultures that are extroverted cultures like for example the West, United States, United Kingdom.  People who are not shy are affront, they may even be aggressive or but they're perceived as okay, these are perceived as variations on a healthy theme but everyone is critical towards shy people, everyone is trying to get shy people out of their shells kind of, motivate them to not become shy. As a winner when people try to draw a shy person even if they're kind, even if they're well-intentioned the exercise backfires because it focuses attention on the individual who is shy anyhow and increases self-consciousness, a sense of awkwardness and shyness but what's the difference between shyness and introversion? Shyness actually captures a family of afflictions, a family of disorders including timidity, a prehension emitting new people, bashfulness, diffidence, reluctance into assert oneself, a prehension and anticipation, dissipatory anxiety, general fear of potential interaction, intimidation, object of fear, not low self-confidence but fear. So shyness is a catch all umbrella term but in some cases what appears to be shyness is actually reservation or introversion, it's a character trait which causes an individual to voluntarily avoid excessive social contact because of over-stimulation, causes an individual to be terse and abrupt and current in communication but introverts avoid social contact, minimize communication not because of discomfort, fear, anxiety, apprehension or lack of confidence. I repeat this because it's again a crucial differential diagnostic feature, introverts avoid people not, not because they experience discomfort, not because they're apprehensive, not because they lack confidence, not because they hate people, introverts avoid people because people over-stimulate them, so introverts are not shy but they simply have a preference in order to avoid over-stimulation, schizoids avoid people because they derive no benefit from social interactions, they find social interactions boring, so schizoids are bored, introverts are over-stimulated, shy people are anxious and fearful, introversion is a personal preference, shyness is a form of distress, Bernardo Calducci Professor of Psychology emphasizes that introverts choose to avoid social interactions because they derive because they are under pressure in social interactions owing to over-stimulation because they derive no reward, no other reward, so there's a surplus of sensory input, it's overwhelming but they're getting nothing to compensate for, shy people are simply afraid, they're anxious, there's been a lot of research which had demonstrated that shyness overlaps with introversion in neuroticism, negative emotionality, but only very, very mildly, only in the fringes, in other words these are not the same phenomena, low societal acceptance of shyness or introversion reinforce shy or introverted behaviors owing to a lowering of self-confidence, but the etiology, the motivation couldn't be more different, schizoids are not introverts, introverts are not shy, shyness and introversion outwardly manifest as social withdrawal, there's tendencies to avoid social situations especially unfamiliar ones, but research is clear that shyness and introversion possess clearly distinct motivational forces, lead to uniquely different personal and peer reactions and cannot be described as the same, again I refer you to Susan Keynes book, Quiet, published in 2012, shyness and introversion is involving being differently social, preferring one-on-one of small group interactions, the introvert is not anti-social or asocial, but simply has a preference for one-on-one, the introvert will never go to a party, the introvert will never go to a club, the introvert will never go to a bar, the introvert will try her best to not travel with big groups of people, organized tour, so unique physiological responses are also attendant upon these states. What about social phobia? So extreme shyness may amount to social phobia, actually in the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of 1980, in 1980 they identified social phobia as a form of malignant shyness, extreme shyness, but when the DSM-4 was published 14 years later, 1994, it was converted to social anxiety disorder and they said it's nothing to do with or little to do with shyness, but today more recent studies demonstrate a very close correlation between shyness and social anxiety disorder, so it seems that social anxiety and social phobia are correlated with shyness, social inhibition, they are correlated with shyness. Back to introversion, introversion is a basic personality trait, it's a preference for the inner life of the mind over the outer world of other people. One of the big five dimensions that define all personalities includes introversion, introversion is in a continuum, the opposite is extroversion, compared to extroverts, introverts enjoy subdued and solitary experiences, introverts do not fear others, introverts do not dislike others, they're not shy, they're not plagued by loneliness, they never feel lonely, so introverts are going to avoid crowded situations, clubs, parties, bars, overcrowded workplaces, these are torture for introverts because of the overstimulation, they enjoy one-on-one engagement in calm environments, it's a nervous system issue probably, evidence suggests that the brains of introverts are a bit different as far as dopamine but again it's scant evidence and so I hope that I made the distinctions clear, it's not easy to distinguish these, you need to be clinically adept, you need to be exposed to these various disorders, but the rules of thumb are pretty simple, introverts avoid overstimulation and overstimulation environments, schizoids avoid all environments with other people, introverts avoid the environment, introverts avoid other people, not because they don't like other people, not because they don't enjoy the company of other people, but because they need to take it one person at a time, schizoids avoid other people, because they don't enjoy the company of other people. Introverts are incapable of impulsive reckless defined behavior. Schizoids are. Schizoids are capable. Introverts cannot survive in an over-taxing, over-stimulating environment like a nightclub or a cruise. Schizoids can and often do, actually. Psychopaths seek such environments occasionally if they're anxious or depressed psychopaths. So the behaviors tell a part. The introvert is heavily invested emotionally, analytically, intellectually in analyzing herself all the time. That's her main preoccupation. The schizoid never does this, avoids it actively, because there's nothing there. It's a surface phenomenon, a shimmering pond of no depth. The psychopath doesn't even understand what is introspection or self-awareness. He wouldn't understand it if you try to communicate. So an introverted person is a benign phenomenon, not a pathology, while psychopathy and schizoidism are extreme pathologies on the border of psychosis in some respects. Same goes for borderline personality disorder, which combines the worst of both worlds, emotional dysregulation, and psychopathy, the tendency to act psychopathically when she decompensates. Thank you for surviving this.