Excerpt #2: What if I'm an Unstable Introvert?

  Let's put together what we've discussed so far in Chapter 3 with what we learned in Chapters 1 and 2.

  We may indeed have an 'integral self' - a spiritual self, even! - but this is unprovable in scientific terms and, therefore, beyond the scope of this book, What we can say is 'self' appears to be the schematic selfplex 'sitting' atop a basic set of temperamental dispositions - see Fig 10.

  We know, from our discussion of schemas and memes in Chapter 2, that our brain is a memetic battleground and that the selfplex is changeable.

  But what about our temperament?

   If we are born with a tendency to be an introvert, could we ever become extraverted? If we're born Unstable, are we doomed to be neurotic?

   For those of us who are born with what we might term 'unpleasant' or 'uncomfortable' dispositions, the notion that temperament is innate is perhaps not good news.
   Worse still: is it a case of God help us! if we score highly on the Psychoticism axis?!?
   Firstly, Eysenck argued strongly that a predisposition to either Neuroticism or Psychoticism did not predestine you to mental health problems. It created a vulnerability that made you more likely to develop such problems than those that didn't have such a predisposition. (To support his argument, he produced significant statistical evidence of people with high scores on his Psychoticism scale who had not developed a full-blown psychosis.)
   However, Eysenck was firmly of the view that his axes measured dispositions that were largely biologically-determined - ie: innate. Here we need to understand the word 'disposition'. Reber & Reber offer the following definition: “…the regularity and consistency of behaviour (more or less) independently of variation and alteration in the environment”

The “more or less” is interesting here because both Eysenck and Jerome Kagan found variations, though relatively minor ones.

So it's probably accurate to say that it seems temperament doesn't change much. Even if we're highly 'changeable', we're likely to be changeable' across all contexts and circumstances! However, the degree of changeability will vary.

Fig 10: the selfplex and temperamental dispositions in the psyche (basic version)

  The same possibilities of minor variation for shyness, sociability, moodiness, cheerfulness, etc, etc.
   Let's take shyness. Most people who would describe themselves as 'shy' will be a little more shy with certain people and a little less shy with certain other people.       Both Eysenck and Kagan attribute these relatively minor variations to learning.
   You may learn to act more outgoing if it is rewarding to be more outgoing; but, when not acting, you will have that natural tendency to be on the shy side.

  In other words, any one of your temperamental dispositions is not necessarily fixed absolutely. It's more or less fixed. You can learn to move more or less. It's probably more helpful to think of temperamental disposition as a very strong predetermined tendency with some capacity for movement.