Blog on mind and brain research and advice

Rewarding Experiences Are More Rewarding to Extraverts

July 6, 2016 by Joycelyn Campbell Leave a Comment

Introverts and extraverts alike have a reward system in the brain that has the same purpose and that functions the same way. However, all brains don’t process rewards identically. Whether intrinsic or extrinsic, rewards are an important element of behavior change, which is why I became interested in the subject after noticing that some of my clients have a harder time than others in getting the hang of using rewards.

It’s commonly believed that the primary difference between extraverts and introverts is each group’s desire for alone time. Introverts want and need more of it, and extraverts want and need less of it. Although that’s not necessarily inaccurate, it’s wrong to assume that extraverts always prefer social interaction over alone time. And even if they do, that isn’t what differentiates one group from the other.

Research suggests that what distinguishes extraverts from introverts is sensitivity to rewards in the environment. A preference for social interaction—independent of the reward/enjoyment of the interaction—is not what’s at the core of extraversion. According to Colin G. DeYoung, Ph.D. (researcher in the field of personality neuroscience):

People who score low in Extraversion are not necessarily turned inward; rather, they are less engaged, motivated, and energized by the possibilities for reward that surround them. Hence, they talk less, are less driven, and experience less enthusiasm. They may also find levels of stimulation that are rewarding and energizing for someone high in Extraversion merely annoying or tiring (or even overwhelming). Their reserved demeanor is not likely to indicate an intense engagement with the world of imagination and ideas, however, unless they are also high in Intellect/Imagination.

It’s All in Your Head

Extraversion/introversion isn’t merely a psychological concept. The differences can be observed in the brain. According to DeYoung, the unifying function of dopamine is exploration. The release of dopamine increases motivation to explore and facilitates cognitive and behavioral processes useful in exploration. When dopamine floods the brain, both introverts and extroverts become more talkative, alert to their surroundings, and motivated to take risks and explore the environment. Both introverts and extroverts have the same amount of dopamine available, but dopamine is more active in the brains of extroverts than in the brains of introverts.

Here are some of the other differences that have been observed in the brains of extraverts and introverts.

GENES

Although no one gene determines temperament, D4DR (“the novelty seeking” gene) is found on the 11th chromosome which has been deemed the personality chromosome because of its influence on behavior, particularly exhilaration and excitement. Thrill seekers examined in a study conducted by geneticist Dr. Dean Hamer were shown to have a long D4DR gene and were less sensitive to the neurotransmitter dopamine. Those participants with more reflective and slower paced natures had shorter D4DR genes and a higher sensitivity to dopamine.

BLOOD FLOW

Rev up: In extraverts’ brains, blood flows in shorter pathways toward parts of the brain where external stimuli (visual, auditory, touch, and taste—but not smell) are processed. The neuropathways most used by extraverts are activated by dopamine. Extraverts, who tend to have a novelty seeking personality and can process a higher amount of external stimuli, are less sensitive to dopamine. Their brains use adrenaline to make more dopamine.

As a result, the brain becomes alert and hyper-focused on its surroundings. Blood sugar and free fatty acids are elevated to provide more energy, and digestion is slowed. Thinking is reduced, and the person becomes prepared to make snap decisions. While extraverts thrive on the dopamine-charged good feelings created when they engage the sympathetic nervous system, for introverts, it’s too much.

Throttle down: Introverts have more blood flow to their brains than extraverts, and the blood in introverts’ brains travels longer, more complicated pathways and focuses on parts of the brain involved with internal experiences such as remembering, solving problems, and planning. The more dominant neurotransmitter in introverts’ neuropathways is acetylcholine, which affects attention and learning, influences the ability to stay calm and alert, utilizes long-term memory, and activates voluntary movement. Acetylcholine makes us feel good when we think and feel.

GRAY MATTER

A 2012 Harvard University study revealed that introverts tended to have larger, thicker gray matter in their prefrontal cortex—a region of the brain that is linked to abstract thought and decision-making—while extraverts had less gray matter. The study’s author concluded this might account for introverts’ tendencies to sit in a corner and ponder things thoroughly before making a decision, and extraverts’ ability to live in the moment and take risks without fully thinking everything through (which has its cons and benefits, of course).

FACIAL RECOGNITION

The brains of extraverts pay more attention to human faces than do introverts. Introverts’ brains don’t seem to distinguish between inanimate objects and human faces.

Experiencing Rewards

Extraverts tend to experience more positive feelings and get more out of rewards in general, and they are more likely to seek and spend more time on rewarding activities. When they do, they also experience a higher boost in momentary happiness as compared to their introverted counterparts. This partly explains the direct relationship between extraversion and momentary happiness. [The relationship between extraversion and happiness or subjective well-being (SWB) is one of the most consistently replicated and robust findings in the SWB literature. –W. Pavot, E Diener, F. Fujita]

Extraverts are more likely to go for immediate gratification, while introverts tend to delay rewards and instead invest in the hope of a larger payoff down the road. They are significantly more likely to prefer smaller, immediate rewards compared with introverts overall. When extraverts are in a good mood, they are even more likely to choose an immediate reward. Regardless of mood, introverts were more likely than extraverts to prefer delayed rewards.

Extraverts are already sensitive to rewards, so when they are in a positive mood it primes the brain’s reward system even more, so they’re focused on immediate opportunities. That may explain why extraverts are so impulsive, since when they are exposed to potential rewards that puts them into a positive mood, which in turn cues them that now is the time to pursue that reward.

The reason extraverts seem to experience stronger positive emotions may be based on how their brains process the memory of rewards. Dopamine affects how we feel when we recall a reward. Stronger dopamine response in relation to the memory of a first kiss, for example, carries with it a certain rush (associative conditioning).

The brains of extraverts show an extremely high level of associative conditioning, while the brains of introverts showed essentially none. Over time, the brains of extraverts “collect” an increasingly more robust network of reward-memories. Recalling these memories triggers their brains’ reward system, eliciting positive emotions.

Introverts brains don’t do this sort of reward collecting—or at least they don’t do it nearly as much or as strongly as the brains of extraverts. On a day-to-day basis, introverts have less of a reward-memory network to rely on for a “boost,” while their extraverted counterparts are able to tap into their networks for boosts aplenty.

Extraverts report more happiness than introverts during effortful “rewarding” activities, such as sports and exercise, and financially rewarding work tasks. No difference was found in extraverts’ and introverts’ happiness during low-effort, low importance “pleasurable, hedonic” activities, such as watching TV, listening to music, relaxing, and shopping. Given that extraverts experience more happiness during rewarding activities, but not during pleasurable activities, it may be that extraverts don’t have a more responsive pleasure system, but rather a more active and responsive “desire system.”

Extraverts experience a bigger happiness boost than introverts when they perform rewarding activities with other people, rather than alone. Extraverts spend more time on rewarding activities than introverts, and they tend to have more social contact during their daily activities.

The brain’s reward system generally operates outside our conscious awareness, so it can be difficult to identify rewards. Some people are more resistant to rewards than others. As far as the brain is concerned, anything that produces a hit of dopamine is good regardless of our opinion of it. If you want to get serious about long-term behavior change, it’s important to understand the role of rewards and the way your particular brain responds to them.

The Enneagram:
Use It; Don’t Abuse It

June 29, 2016 by Joycelyn Campbell 1 Comment

The Enneagram is a fascinating and powerful tool for understanding ourselves and others better—but only when it’s used wisely.

Any system or method of classifying people has the potential to be used in harmful ways. But classifying things and people is one of the ways in which we organize and make sense of the world. Our brains do most of this classifying on their own without our conscious intervention. It isn’t possible or even desirable to dispense with our classifying behavior.

In terms of the physical/material world, it’s good to know which classifications of mushrooms are safe to eat and which are not, which insects have a deadly sting and which are harmless, which sounds and smells signal danger and which are innocuous.

In terms of people, things can get a bit dicey. We have all kinds of classifications for people based on nationality, religion, race, gender, age, level of education, make and model of car, number of children, physical appearance, language, whether or not they just cut you off in traffic, where they live, and even whether or not you know them. We also, of course, classify people by their personalities or temperaments.

Types and Stereotypes

We can get into trouble with temperament or personality typing when we forget about individual exceptions. Just because something is true in general for an entire group of people doesn’t mean it is true for every single individual within that group.

We can also get into trouble by using types or stereotypes against people. Although the most egregious examples are racism, sexism, religious persecution, and the like, we can also use personality stereotypes against other people.

But “stereotypes are observations…neither good nor bad, desirable nor undesirable, moral nor immoral,” according to evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa. “Stereotypes tell us what groups of people tend to be or do in general; they do not tell us how we ought to treat them.”

Each of us views the world through our own set of filters, biases, opinions, judgments, personal experiences, and type. We make snap judgments, jump to conclusions, and react emotionally. When conflicts arise or someone says or does something we don’t like, it can be tempting to blame their behavior on their personality type.

While the Enneagram can definitely help us understand ourselves and others better, type is only part of the picture. We can never fully know someone else’s story. If we judge them solely on their personality type, we’re doing ourselves, the other person, and even the Enneagram a disservice.

My Heart: The Practical Value of Knowing What You Want

June 22, 2016 by Joycelyn Campbell Leave a Comment

I teach a course called What Do You Want? that’s based on a process I developed to help me create a more consistently satisfying and meaningful life. It didn’t become part of my program curriculum until I recognized that without knowing what they really want my clients can’t make effective use of the tools I teach them.

The purpose of the course is to identify what I call Big Picture Wants. There’s a psychological term for this, higher order wants, but the concept seems to be a well-kept secret. I do a lot of reading and researching in this area, and I didn’t come across a reference to higher order wants until after I started teaching the What Do You Want? course.

There’s a belief out there in the world that it’s OK—even necessary—to get your needs met, but getting what you want is optional. (Do you really need it or is it just something you want?) It may seem as if trying to get a need met or satisfied is less self-centered or narcissistic than pursuing something you want, but that isn’t the case. It’s simply more underhanded, and it actually keeps your attention focused on you.

There aren’t that many things we need from a survival standpoint: food, water, shelter, and social connections cover most of them. Nearly everything else is optional.

But, as David DiSalvo says, “We have a big brain capable of greatness,” so we’re not satisfied with merely surviving. We want more. We’re actually wired to want more. But we can go either way with that. System 1, the unconscious part of the brain that runs us most of the time, is focused on the short-term, on immediate gratification, on feeling good. System 2, the conscious part of the brain is focused on the long-term, on the bigger picture, on plans, goals, and dreams.

If we don’t know what we really want—meaning what leads to a satisfying and meaningful life as we define it—we’re likely to succumb to what feels good or what’s easiest in the moment. What we’re chasing over the long-term has to be compelling enough to keep us focused and not susceptible to immediate gratification.

I’ve never been clearer about how important this is than I am right now.

Roadwork Ahead

This past December I developed a process for reassessing and prioritizing my own Big Picture Wants for 2016. As I went through the exercises, I realized that one of them—vitality—was a keystone for the others. I want vitality for its own sake, but vitality also positively impacts every one of my other BPWs. Being aware of how important vitality is to me allows me to focus more attention on it, which has a cascade effect on the rest of them.

Armed with this awareness, I set out in January to increase my level of physical exercise and pay more attention to what I eat. And through the first six weeks of the year, I felt fantastic—full of vitality and very productive, focused, and energetic. Then came the crash.

I had an incident while I was using the treadmill one day in February that was somewhat alarming but didn’t stop me from completing my workout. I had a similar, though milder, incident the following day. But the next time I used the treadmill, everything felt normal. About a week after that, I started having chest congestion and trouble breathing. I’d been having some sinus congestion on and off, so I thought the chest congestion was related. I kept up most of my scheduled activities, but it became more and more difficult to do that. I facilitated a four-hour workshop the last Saturday in February and had to have someone else carry my materials from my car into the building.

The following Monday, a friend took me to the ER, where over the course of the day and numerous tests, it was determined that I was in heart failure as a result of undiagnosed mitral valve stenosis and atrial fibrillation and/or flutter. I was transferred to another hospital where I remained for the next seven days.

Three cardiologists are convinced I had rheumatic fever as a child, which is the usual cause of mitral valve stenosis. My general cardiologist claims it is “remarkable” I had no symptoms prior to February because the stenosis is moderately severe.

Lost and Found

This was definitely a life-changing experience, but primarily because I was quite aware I had lost—at least temporarily and possibly permanently—the thing that mattered most to me. Shortly after leaving the hospital, I resumed walking every day, but it was a slog and I wasn’t clear why. I kept up most of my activities but I tired much more easily and although I enjoyed facilitating my classes as much as ever, life was not nearly as invigorating as it had been before.

Then my general cardiologist decided that all of my EKG results indicated I had an atrial flutter, not fibrillation. He referred me to a heart rhythm specialist to be evaluated for a catheter ablation, a procedure that had the potential for eliminating the atrial flutter by destroying the parts of the heart that are causing it. The rhythm specialist explained that my heart was beating 240 times per minute, but due to a conversion (2:1) within the electrical circuit, my pulse measured 120. It was 120 when I was sleeping and 120 when I was exerting myself. It never changed, which was why I was having so much difficulty walking and why I was so tired.

The day the procedure was supposed to happen, it was discovered that my flutter is on the left side (atypical) rather than the right side, so I didn’t get the ablation. Instead they did cardioversion to shock my heart into a normal rhythm. That almost always works but it’s temporary (5 minutes, 5 weeks, 5 years…you never know). So I was put on a medication to maintain the normal rhythm.

It took a few days after this procedure for me to notice the difference. My pulse rate was back to increasing and decreasing the way it’s supposed to. Walking suddenly became much easier and much more enjoyable. Within a few more days I was back to walking at my usual pace for the usual amount of time. And I had energy. I had focus. I had enthusiasm. My vitality was back!

Having had it, lost it, and regained it confirmed its value and importance to me. It’s what I want. It’s what I really want. I now have numerous inconvenient dietary restrictions, which means I have to spend more time preparing my own meals, but if I do that I’m more likely to maintain vitality. I’ve recently been cleared for any and all forms of exercise, which I enjoy doing anyway, but if I do them regularly I’m more likely to maintain vitality. I have way too many medical appointments (11 this month) that eat up a lot of time. But being monitored is something that can help me keep on the right track and maintain vitality.

So I don’t have any internal dialogue about whether or not I’m going to do any of these things because I’m very clear what doing them gets me. I don’t do them because I’m “supposed to” or “have to.” And no will power is involved. I’m not remotely tempted to slack off because vitality is much more compelling to me than any short-term gratification. That simplifies decision-making and makes doing what I need to do easy. (I wrote this post before the major disruption, so there’s some irony in what followed. But my attitude hasn’t changed.)

That’s really the point of identifying Big Picture Wants. When you know what you really want—and you know what it takes to get it—the path ahead is clear. You don’t need to motivate yourself or talk yourself into doing those things because why wouldn’t you do them?

~

At the moment, my heart is in a normal rhythm and my heart failure is “well under control.” At some point there will need to be an intervention in regard to the mitral valve, but I don’t have another appointment with the valve specialist for six months. And I’m now down from three cardiologists to two. As Dr. S said the last time I saw him, “Who needs three cardiologists? You’re not that sick.” Cue the theme from “Rocky.”

Counterfactual Thinking: The World of What Might Have Been

June 15, 2016 by Joycelyn Campbell Leave a Comment

Counterfactual thinking is thinking that runs counter to the facts. It consists of imagining outcomes other than the ones that occurred: the way things could have been—or should have been—different from the way they turned out. Being able to imagine different outcomes is an enormous evolutionary and practical advantage. It’s critical in regard to being creative or inventive and in not continuing to make the same mistakes over and over again. But there are different ways of using counterfactual thinking, some of which are effective and some of which are not.

Nonfunctional or Functional?

Nonfunctional counterfactual thinking frequently leads to blame (of self or others), and if carried on long enough, to rumination, stress, anxiety, and depression, as well as to conspiracy theories and alternate versions of reality.

Functional counterfactual thinking is an honest attempt to examine a situation to determine what, if anything, could have been done differently to create a different outcome. It doesn’t involve blame, rumination, or the twisting of facts.

Upward or Downward?

Upward counterfactual thinking focuses on how things could have turned out better, while downward counterfactual thinking focuses on how things could have turned out worse. Focusing on how things could have gone worse tends to make people feel better. You might think this is a good strategy, but it’s a short-term solution that can contribute to long-term difficulties because it decreases the impetus to change.

That’s because focusing on how things could have gone worse prevents people from identifying actual problems that need to be solved or behaviors that need to be modified. Sometimes it’s only a matter of dumb luck that things didn’t turn out worse than they did.

Evidence vs. Information

Perhaps the biggest difference between nonfunctional and functional counterfactual thinking is that in the former case, the events or actions leading to an outcome are perceived as evidence to support a particular agenda, while in the latter case, the events or actions leading to an outcome are perceived as information to be examined without regard to an agenda. (You can read about feedback loops for a more in-depth treatment of evidence vs. information.)

If you are dissatisfied with a particular outcome, the most useful thing you can do is use counterfactual thinking functionally by attempting to determine what led to the outcome and what, if any, changes you could make to be more effective in similar situations in the future.

Analyzing a situation and identifying what you want to change and why you want to change it uses System 2 (conscious) attention, which is why it isn’t always the go-to response. But if you want to use your brain instead of letting your brain use you, and if you want to be a creative rather than a reactive force in your own life, you will sometimes need to do what doesn’t come naturally.

Do You Object to Being Typed?

June 8, 2016 by Joycelyn Campbell 2 Comments

I’m preparing to present the second annual Enneagram Panel at my upcoming Monthly Meeting of the Mind (& Brain), so I thought I would respond briefly to a few of the objections people have expressed about being typed.

#1: I Don’t Want to Be Boxed In

Some people strongly resist being typed. They believe they are unique and that assigning a label to them diminishes them somehow. They think typing puts them in a box. But typing doesn’t put people into boxes; it identifies aspects of the boxes we’re already in—and from which we can’t completely escape.

Each of us looks out at the world from within our own model of the world (our box), which influences what we pay attention to, how we interpret and react to events, the meaning we assign to them, and much of what we think, feel, do, and say.

Learning about your Enneagram type can provide you with a window into your personal model of the world. It can also help you understand others while developing the self-awareness that’s essential for creating positive and sustained change. Knowing your type doesn’t diminish your uniqueness. In fact, it can actually help you expand and reshape the box you’re in.

#2: Typing is Just another Term for Stereotyping

The premise is that stereotyping equals categorizing, and categorizing people is a bad thing. However, categorizing is a function of the unconscious part of your brain (System 1). You can’t stop your brain from categorizing, which means your brain (i.e. you) is already stereotyping other people. (Reacting based on stereotypes is a separate issue.)

You wouldn’t want to stop your brain from categorizing. Being able to make quick assessments is essential to your survival. If you were roaming the savanna as your distant ancestors did, you wouldn’t want to have to wait until a lion was in your face to determine whether or not it was in fact a lion. You’d want to be able to make a quick assessment based on general features, take action, and fill in the details later.

In the case of a lion, it’s better to be safe than sorry. And that’s the basic operating principle of the part of your brain that runs you. It wants you to survive and categorizing is a thinking shortcut that increases your chances of survival. The lion’s brain makes the same kinds of quick assessments. So does your cat’s or dog’s brain.

Since your brain is always categorizing anyway, wouldn’t it be preferable to have those categorizations be based on something (informed) rather than be random or arbitrary?

#3: Type Doesn’t Explain Everything about a Person

It’s absolutely true that type doesn’t explain everything. In fact, over three years ago, I published a blog post on my Enneagram website in which I wrote:

As comprehensive a tool as it is, the Enneagram can’t and doesn’t explain everything there is to know about us. It is not the personality equivalent of a Theory of Everything.

But that’s no reason to avoid it.

You have a capacity referred to as mentalization that allows you to understand your own mental states or thought processes and to attribute mental states—beliefs, intentions, desires, etc. to yourself as well as to others. You can also recognize that others have beliefs, intentions, desires, etc. that are different from yours.

Learning more about the mental states of other people actually increases your ability to understand both them and yourself. And the Enneagram is the best tool I’ve found for knowing myself at a deeper (rather than a superficial) level and for understanding where other people are coming from.

Occasionally I wonder if the real resistance some people might have to being typed is a fear of being found out—of actually being understood. But there are no good or bad types. You can be highly self-aware or pretty much asleep-at-the wheel no matter what type you are. You have to decide what you want to do with the information.