Introvert people

Putting together a large number of contemporary tests of personality, Grimes, Cheek, Julie Norem, and Courtney Brown created the STAR test to measure four kinds of introversion. To figure out your primary introverted type, take this online test:

To find out where you stand on each of the four meanings of introversion, answer the following questions by deciding to what extent each item is characteristic of your feelings and behavior. Fill in the blank next to each item by choosing a number from the following scale:

1 = very uncharacteristic or untrue, strongly disagree

2 = uncharacteristic

3 = neutral

4 = characteristic

5 = very characteristic or true, strongly agree

Social Introversion

____ 1. I like to share special occasions with just one person or a few close friends, rather than have big celebrations.

____ 2. I think it would be satisfying if I could have very close friendships with many people.

____ 3. I try to structure my day so that I always have some time to myself.

____ 4. I like to vacation in places where there are a lot of people around and a lot of activities going on.

____ 5. After spending a few hours surrounded by a lot of people, I am usually eager to get away by myself.

____ 6. I do not have a strong need to be around other people.

____ 7. Just being around others and finding out about them is one of the most interesting things I can think of doing.

____ 8. I usually prefer to do things alone.

____ 9. Other people tend to misunderstand me—forming a mistaken impression of what kind of person I am because I don’t say much about myself.

____ 10. I feel drained after social situations, even when I enjoyed myself.

Thinking Introversion

____ 1. I enjoy analyzing my own thoughts and ideas about myself.

____ 2. I have a rich, complex inner life.

____ 3. I frequently think about what kind of person I am.

____ 4. When I am reading an interesting story or novel or when I am watching a good movie, I imagine how I would feel if the events in the story were happening to me.

____ 5. I seldom think about myself.

____ 6. I generally pay attention to my inner feelings.

____ 7. I value my personal self-evaluation, that is, the private opinion I have of myself.

____ 8. I sometimes step back (in my mind) in order to examine myself from a distance.

____ 9. I daydream and fantasize, with some regularity, about things that might happen to me.

____ 10. I am inclined to be introspective, that is, to analyze myself.

Anxious Introversion

____ 1. When I enter a room I often become self-conscious and feel that the eyes of others are upon me.

____ 2. My thoughts are often focused on episodes of my life that I wish I’d stop thinking about.

____ 3. My nervous system sometimes feels so frazzled that I just have to get off by myself.

____ 4. I am confident about my social skills.

____ 5. Defeat or disappointment usually shame or anger me, but I try not to show it.

____ 6. It does not take me long to overcome my shyness in new situations.

____ 7. I feel relaxed even in unfamiliar social situations.

____ 8. Even when I am in a group of friends, I often feel very alone and uneasy.

____ 9. My secret thoughts, feelings, and actions would horrify some of my friends.

____ 10. I feel painfully self-conscious when I am around strangers.

Restrained Introversion

____ 1. I like to be off and running as soon as I wake up in the morning.

____ 2. I’ll try anything once.

____ 3. For relaxation I like to slow down and take things easy.

____ 4. I like to wear myself out with exertion.

____ 5. I often say the first thing that comes into my head.

____ 6. I generally seek new and exciting experiences and sensations.

____ 7. I like to keep busy all the time.

____ 8. I often act on the spur of the moment.

____ 9. I sometimes do “crazy” things just to be different.

____ 10. I often feel sluggish.

How’d you do?

To find out your score for each of the four kinds of introversion,RECODE the following Reverse-Worded items: (1=5) (2=4) (4=2) (5=1):

Social Introversion items: 2, 4, & 7

Thinking Introversion item: 5

Anxious Introversion items: 4, 6, & 7

Restrained Introversion items: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9

Next, add together all the numbers to come up with a total score.

Here’s a guide of how you scored compared to others in the general population:

  • Social Introversion — below 24 low, around 30 average, above 36 high​
  • Thinking Introversion — below 28 low, around 34 average, above 40 high
  • Anxious Introversion — below 23 low, around 30 average, above 37 high
  • Restrained Introversion — below 25 low, around 31 average, above 37 high

This alternative way of assessing introversion is not likely to be embraced by Big Five personality researchers [6]. But if it offers you a more satisfying, personally meaningful way to glean insight into your unique personality, feel free to throw the Big Five framework out the window.

© 2014 Scott Barry Kaufman, All Rights Reserved.

Acknowledgement: Thanks to Connor Child at Qzzr for his help with the online quiz, and Jennifer Odessa Grimes and Jonathan Cheek for their help with this post.

[1] This list is adapted from Jonathan Cheek’s book review, which can be found here.

[2] As another example, take people who conceptualize themselves as highly introverted because they are very introspective and value their rich inner mental lives, but who score high in enthusiasm and assertiveness on the Big Five test. These folks are being told by modern personality psychologists: “You are really an extrovert who is also high in intellect/imagination.” For those who have spent their entire lives equating their love of thinking and fantasy with their “introversion”, they respond: “huh?” In the Big Five, imagination, fantasy, and introspection are positively associated with Extraversion. But if we do away with the label of introversion in the Big Five, then that allows a person to be introverted in the thinking/introspective sense but also be an extravert in the Big Five sense (high in enthusiasm and assertiveness).

[3] Popular writers on introversion are also not pleased with this psychological imperialism. For instance, in Sophia Sembling’s book The Introvert’s Way, she has a chapter titled “Introverts are Not Failed Extroverts”.

[4] Keep in mind, the Big Five is a descriptive model; it merely describes patterns of covariation between people. The labels used to describe the five personality dimensions are subjective. A lot of the arguments over what counts as introversion come down to a naming game. In my view, it’s really unfortunate that Big Five researchers started to use the label “introversion” to mark the lower end of extraversion. It wasn’t always this way. In fact, the original name for “extraversion” in the Big Five was “Surgency“. If it were up to me, it would have stayed that way, leaving the label “introversion” free to continue roaming the personality landscape. As Jonathan Cheek told me, “if the Big Five folks would just go back to that phrase [“Surgency”], they would not be crossing swords with folk psychology/ordinary language introverts. Perhaps introversion should *not* be used as a label in the Big Five system.” I agree.

[5] Here is the link to the research report about the new STAR scale. You might be wondering: “What about the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) test? Isn’t that good enough to measure introversion?” Well, no it isn’t. As it turns out, the MBTI extraversion-introversion scale only includes items relating to being talkative, gregarious, and sociable (vs. quiet and reserved). Since there’s not a single item on the MBTI extraversion-introversion dimension that mentions being introspective or reflective, even the MBTI doesn’t measure Jung’s original conceptualization of the term!

[6] Big Five researchers could make the case that each of these four meanings of introversion can easily be mapped onto the Big Five framework. For instance, they could argue that:

-Social introversion is really just “low enthusiasm” (part of the extraversion domain)

-Thinking introversion is not part of the extraversion-introversion domain at all, but really is “high intellect/imagination”

-Anxious introversion is really just a blend of “high neuroticism” and “low assertiveness” (part of the extraversion domain)

-Restrained introversion” is a blend of a number of lower-order extraversion-related traits, including “low sensation seeking”, “low excitement seeking”, and “low activity”.

Why do people have so much aggression?

  • We all act aggressively from time to time—say while sitting in traffic or in the midst of an argument—but some are more aggressive than others.
  • There are several reasons we engage in aggressive behavior, which also help to explain why some people display aggression more often.
  • These causes include instinct, hormonal imbalance, genetics, temperament, nurture, and stress.
  • If there are excessively aggressive people in your life, like a loved one or coworker, you can learn to cope or deal with their behavior effectively.
  • First, try keeping your cool, empathizing, and expressing your concern—these actions should help you to navigate the interaction and make it more pleasant.
  • If these strategies don’t prove effective, consider distancing yourself from the overly aggressive person; your wellbeing should be your priority.

Aggression is hostile or violent behavior. It’s a woman yelling at her son for spilling his milk on the carpet. It’s a child pushing his friend down on the playground because she was playing with his favorite toy. It’s a girl snapping at her boyfriend because he didn’t invite her out with the guys.

As you can see (and probably know from personal experience), aggression can take many forms. We all act aggressively at some point or another in our lives, whether it’s yelling at the black Sudan that cut us off or getting into it with family or friends. But some are more aggressive than others—quick to react or engage in hostile behavior. Which begs an important question: why

What Causes Aggression? 6 Origins

Sure, traffic can spur aggression, as can a disagreement with a coworker. But what’s the psychology behind this behavior? There are actually a few reasons we become aggressive, which also help to explain why some people are more aggressive than others:

1. Instinct: Aggression is one of our many survival instincts. According to Sigmund Freud, aggression continuously builds up until it releases as aggressive behavior, at some point or another. Some individuals can suppress this aggression and use other survival instincts instead, but others simply react and release.

2. Hormonal imbalance: A hormonal imbalance in an individual can certainly contribute to aggressive behavior. For example, high levels of testosterone contribute to high levels of aggression. This explains why males are characteristically more aggressive than females.

3. Genetics: Aggression can also be passed down genetically. Children are at a greater risk of adapting aggressive tendencies if they have a biological background for it. Time and time again, father and son both display aggressive behavior.

4. Physiological illness and temperament: Serious illness can have a major effect on an individual’s mood and behavior, as the stress and other mental effects may bring about greater aggression. Additionally, one’s temperament can play a role in aggression. People with bad tempers typically become aggressive more quickly than calmer individuals.

5. Social learning: Aggression can be learned. Some become more aggressive due to personal experiences or observational learning. For example, children are always looking for cues on how to act, as illustrated by the Bobo doll experiment. They learn to act aggressively when they watch someone else commit violent acts like in movies or video games.

6. Psychological frustrations: It’s human nature to become frustrated when life just doesn’t seem to be going so well. This frustration may involve work or love, for example, and can lead to an all-around feeling of negativity. This negativity then represents a threat, which can lead to aggression

How to Cope with an Aggressive Individual

Dealing with someone who constantly lashes out in hostile or violent behavior is tough—especially when it’s someone you’re close to like your boyfriend or mother, or someone you can’t get away from, like a coworker. In any case, the following can help you deal with the aggressive people in your life more effectively:

  • Keep your cool. The last thing that will alleviate this situation is another aggressive individual. Maintain your composure and use your better judgment to handle the situation. Aggressive people often seek to intimidate and upset others. You have to ensure this doesn’t happen and instead of reacting with rage like they want you to, take a moment to count to ten and think of a better way to deal with the situation at hand.
  • Put yourself in their shoes. Even if the aggression seems unwarranted, take a moment to imagine yourself in their position. Maybe they grew up in an overly aggressive household. Or, maybe they have a lot on their plate and they’re reacting to the stress with aggression. This will help calm your own negative feelings down and empathize with the individual. Then, maybe you can turn the aggressive attack into a productive conversation.
  • Express your concern. Maybe there isn’t an obvious, underlying cause of the individual’s aggression. Once you’ve taken a step away and you’re both calm, express your concern for them. They may not realize the severity of their aggression or its effect on those around them. It could take someone like you bringing it to light for them to make that realization and make a change.
  • Distance yourself. Sometimes, these aggressive individuals are just not worth it and don’t deserve a place in your life. You have to prioritize your wellbeing and if that means cutting them out of your lives, then so be it. And if cutting them completely out of your life isn’t very realistic (think, an aggressive aunt or uncle that’s at every family reunion or your coworker who doesn’t look to be going anywhere anytime soon), then just distance yourself as best you can. Avoid them.

Ultimately, you have to decide if it’s worth dealing with the aggressive individual. If you decide that it’s not, kick them to the curb and distance yourself from them. But if you decide that this individual is worth it and could maybe use your help, do your best to sympathize with them and determine the underlying cause of the aggression. This will help you both moving forward

GREEN REVOLUTION AND ITS IMPACT ON INDIA’S RURAL SOCIETY, ECONOMY AND ECOLOGY.

The episode of ‘Green Revolution’ has often been identified with the ‘New Agricultural Strategy’, extended under the premiership of the then Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, and Food Minister C. Subramanyam, particularly from the mid 1960s, which highly elevated
the ‘begging bowl’ image of India and transformed the import-dependent country to one which is self-reliant and self-sufficient with surplus food. The Green Revolution has been regarded as a political and technological achievement; unprecedented in the human history, since the output generated by these strategically programmed reforms was remarkable leading to the overall economic and agricultural
growth. The salient features of these newborn systematic efforts and developments included the introduction of High Yielding Variety seeds (HYVs), use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, use of agricultural machineries such as tractors, pump-sets, etc, introduction of soil testing facilities, provisions
of institutional credit to be advanced to the small-farmers for assistance and initiation of Agricultural Education Programs to make the farmers aware of the modern techniques and its efficient utilization. All these reconstructive measures, arising out of the wedlock of scientific and technological advancement
with that of the contemporary political and economic necessities, culminated into extraordinary results and an extensive economic growth.


Although, these new strategic remodeling measures contributed to the economic advancement of India – at a critical juncture when prolonged economic stagnation had compelled the nation to become dependent on imports of food grains – their impact and long-term consequences on the nature of agricultural growth, rural society, marginal and small-farmers, and the environment and ecology have generated heated debates and controversies. This article attempts to present an in-depth and comprehensive evaluation of these revolutionary measures along with its impressions and repercussions on Indian economy, rural-social scenario, and ecology. In order to investigate the advantages and judge the hidden and hitherto unknown socio-economic and ecological costs of the ‘Green Revolution’, it is necessary to attain an insight of the contemporary Indian politico-economic scenario.


India was in the ‘throes of a crisis’ during the mid-1960s, facing acute food shortages along with stagnant agricultural growth. On one hand, the population growth rates increased from about 1% to about 2.2% after independence, on the other hand, growing approach towards planned industrialization had put enormous pressures on Indian agriculture. The stagnant growth in per capita income and agricultural production consequently resulted in the price rise of food grains. India was forced to import increasing amounts of food in order to meet the crisis. Nearly 4.5 million tons of food grains were imported under
the PL-480 scheme from The United States in 1963. In addition to these came the two wars with China (1962) and Pakistan (1965) and the two successive drought years in 1965-66 leading to a fall in agricultural output by 17%. Food prices shot up, rising at the rate of nearly 20% per annum between 1965 and 1968. India had to import more than 10 million tons of food grains in 1966. With famine conditions emerging in various parts of the country, the US threatened to repudiate commitments of food exports to India. Therefore, it was in this background that economic self-reliance and food self- sufficiency were of the utmost priority in the Indian Economic Policies, which brought about the extensive implementation of the new strategy throughout the country.


Initially these were introduced in particularly selected areas where supplies of assured water created “fair prospects of achieving rapid increases in production”. A total of about 32 million acres of land, nearly 10% of the total cultivable area, was chosen for the distribution of this package. By 1965, the
Food Ministry was ready with a full-fledged version of the ‘New Strategy’, which called for the implementation of a High Yielding Varieties Program in districts that had already been selected for intensive development under the Intensive Agricultural Areas Program (I.A.A.P) and Intensive Agricultural Development Program (I.A.D.P). The New Strategy attained spectacular economic gains and assumed crucial importance in the Planning Commission’s agricultural development strategy. With the introduction of the strategy, production reached a record high of 16.6 million tons in 1967-68, Government investment in agriculture rose significantly and Institutional finance to agriculture doubled between 1968 and 1973. Prospects for such a breakthrough seemed even brighter in 1969-70, when estimates of total food grains output indicated an achievement of nearly 100 million tons. The Agricultural Prices Commission was set up in 1965 and efforts were made to ensure that farmers were assured a profitable market. Even the new technology was attempted to be made available at low prices which raised the profitability of private investment by farmers and as a result of all these factors, the Total Gross Capital Formation in Agriculture increased profoundly.


Thus in the realm of economy, the “major impact of the Green Revolution strategy was that through increases in agricultural yields India was able to maintain, once again, the high rate of agricultural growth achieved since independence.” Food availability kept increasing sharply to 110.25 million tons in 1978 and 128.8 million tons in 1984, putting an end to India’s ‘begging bowl’ image, making the country self-sufficient in food with buffer stocks of over 30 million tons and even capable of exporting food to pay back its earlier loans and advance food loans to other food-deficit countries.5 Apart from increasing agricultural output, the Green Revolution generated a rapid increase in the marketable surplus of food grains. “It was the marketed surpluses as a result of the Green Revolution…which
enabled internal procurement of food by the government and the building up of large food stocks.” Thus, the food requirements could now be met internally and India was finally liberated from its dependence on PL-480 or other imports inaugurating a self-reliant development.


Even though the new strategy proved to be profitable at the economic front, many arguments regarding its impact on society and ecology are extensively debated. In the words of Vandana Shiva, “Instead of stabilizing and pacifying the countryside, it [Green Revolution] fueled a new pattern of conflict and violence.” It is generally held that the strategy was “accentuating regional inequality”, where the gains of these new techniques have been very unevenly distributed. In Ludhiana, the majorities of cultivators have economic holdings of 15 or 20 acres or more, and could accumulate surpluses, the benefits of the new technology have been most widely unevenly shared, while presumably only the farmers, with holdings of 10 acres or less, have experienced a serious deterioration in their economic position. In the case of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, where over 80 percent of cultivating households operate farms of less than 8 acres or are pure tenants, have actually led to an absolute deterioration in the economic condition. As an opponent of this view, G.S Bhalla has shown that instead of promoting regional inequalities, the Green Revolution has over time actually spread to large parts of the country bringing prosperity to these regions. In the first stage (1962-65 to 1970-73) of the Green Revolution, the North-Western region of Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh achieved the increase in yields. In the second phase (1970-73 to 1980-83), the Green Revolution spread to the other parts of the country such as eastern Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, etc. The third phase of Green Revolution showed very significant results and spread to the eastern regions of West Bengal, Bihar, Assam, etc. “This period saw not only a marked overall (all-India) acceleration of the growth of agricultural output…but also witnessed a much more diversified growth pattern, considerably reducing regional inequality by increasing the spread of rural prosperity.”

Another view is that the Green Revolution was leading to “class polarization” in the countryside. It is said that the Green Revolution encouraged and strengthened the large farmers who could afford the capital intensive techniques and the small farmers and the tenants were left alienated as they were unable to access modern inputs and were consequently unable to retain their lands. “The Green Revolution thus started the process of depeasantization of peasantry, through increasing cost of cultivation”. Further, the mechanization of agriculture was displacing labour leading to increasing unemployment and a fall in wages of agricultural labour, which ultimately gave way to rural-social conflicts throughout the country. The destabilizing impact of rapid modernization within an agro-economic context that favors the large farmers was highlighted by the Home Ministry’s 1969 report on “The Causes and Nature of the Current Agrarian Tension.” Justifying an increase from 19 to 43 reported cases of agrarian conflict in one year; it found that over 80 % of the agitations were led by the landless against landowners. The “predisposing” factors responsible for these agrarian tensions were the failure of land reforms to provide tenants with security of tenure or fair rents, or to correct inequalities in landownership through redistribution of surplus land. However, the “proximate” causes which converted discontent into open conflict were rooted in the new agricultural strategy and Green Revolution.

However, the classic work, ‘India since Independence’, has put forward that from the very beginning of the New Agricultural Strategy, there was an awareness in regards to ensure that the poor farmers could access the new technology and the agricultural labourers’ interests were protected. Efforts were made in the late sixties and seventies as a part of ‘garibi hatao’ campaign launched by Mrs. Indira Gandhi. A series of programs such as Rural Works Programme (RWP), SFDA, Crash Scheme for Rural Employment (CSRE), etc. were launched to assist small-farmers. Regarding the fall of the small farmers to the ranks of the landless, it depicts that with the adoption of the new technology, improved seeds and other agricultural inputs, the small farmers became more feasible and were not compelled to sell their land. This view is confirmed by the studies of G.S Bhalla and G.K Chadha. The rise in rural
unemployment because of labour-displacing mechanization has been rather said as, “The net impact of tractorization, taking into account increase in cropping intensity etc., was an increased demand for labour.” However, all the employment generated were not sufficient to meet the employment
requirements of the growing population and that the programs initiated for the assistance of the small farmers were very slow in their progress for which, Vandana Shiva commented, the “…experiment of Green Revolution…have pushed society to the verge of social breakdown.”


At the ecological level, the question of environmental degradation and its sustainability has become a hard pressed issue. The advancement of the technology and the Revolution had a negative impact on the already depleting natural resources and the environment. The excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides, the large scale deforestation in order to increase land under cultivation and the withdrawal of ground-water without adequate recharge of the same have contributed to the loss of fertility of the land, breed new pests and diseases and hampered the ecological balance at a great height. The transformation from multiple cropping patterns to monoculture has significantly deprived the soil from its fertility. The ‘miracle’ seeds, as the high yielding seeds were labeled, have put new demands on scarce resources, generated severe ecological destruction and created new kinds of scarcity and vulnerability. Vandana Shiva has thus pointed out that, “Instead of transcending the limits put by natural endowments of land and water, the Green Revolution introduced new constraints on agriculture by wasting and destroying land, water resources, and crop diversity.”

Thus in order to conclude, it can be said that the Green Revolution had a great impact on rural India with the gains of food availability, decline in relative prices of food, generating of agricultural and non-agricultural employment, rise in wage, most importantly the economic and agrarian growth at a critical period. The ‘miracle’ seeds have handsomely contributed to the rural and agricultural development of India making it self-reliant and self-sufficient in regards to food. In spite of the direct criticism of Vandana Shiva that “the experiment [Green Revolution] has failed”, the contribution of the Revolution to make India independent from the shackles of dependency on other countries for food, should not be neglected. Therefore, even though the Green Revolution generated conflicts and instability at the political level; rural disparities and inequalities at the social level; and scarcity and vulnerability of resources at the ecological level, the economic gains of this new strategy of Green Revolution should not be overlooked.