From predispositions to potential: personality, change, and growth
By Lorenzo Bona
Recently, I came across two insightful articles that explore the dynamic between introversion and extraversion. While they approach the topic from different angles, reading them back-to-back sparked a broader reflection on how we tend to view human potential and on the possible hidden traps of personality labels, both for individuals and organizations.
A brief summary of the two articles could perhaps be presented as follows.
The Biopsychological Perspective
The first article, “The ‘Relational Fatigue’ of Introverts” (La ‘fatica relazionale’ degli introversi, April 30, 2020), appears to draw on research on personality traits that explore introversion primarily through the lens of biological predispositions and differences in how individuals respond to social stimulation.
Its central theme could perhaps be understood as reflecting what might be called a biopsychological perspective, which can be summarized through the following ideas:
The “Introvert Hangover”: Prolonged social interaction in crowded environments appears to drain—more than it typically does for extraverts—the mental and physical energy of many introverts, sometimes leading to a genuine sense of mental fatigue.
Socializing Tires Everyone: Social interaction requires biological energy from everyone after extended periods, although the speed at which our internal batteries seem to drain may vary considerably.
The Role of Dopamine: Many of these differences could be linked to biological predispositions, with research suggesting that extraverts generally experience external stimulation as more rewarding because of differences in dopamine responses.
Sensitivity to Stimulation: Because they seem to process stimulation differently, introverts often appear more likely to experience loud, fast-paced environments more draining than energizing.
The Search for Meaning: Rather than primarily seeking external stimulation, many introverts appear to recharge through quieter activities and often report valuing deeper conversations, authentic relationships, and personally meaningful pursuits.
Overall, this perspective on personality traits appears particularly valuable for explaining why many introverts experience social situations differently from extraverts and for encouraging greater understanding of these differences.
At the same time, because it focuses primarily on biological explanations of personal traits, the perspective may unintentionally reinforce the idea that these traits are more stable than they necessarily are.
In this sense, explanations or perspectives of this kind may carry the risk that personality labels, when interpreted too rigidly, could shift from useful tools for self-understanding into self-limiting narratives that discourage individuals from exploring situations in which growth and adaptation can occur.
The Action-Oriented Perspective
The second article, “Are our personalities set in stone, or can we work on – even improve – them?” (The Guardian, January 10, 2021), presents ideas discussed by psychologist Benjamin Hardy that place greater emphasis on personal development and the possibility of change.
The article’s central message could be understood as reflecting what might be called an action-oriented perspective, which can be summarized as follows:
personality is not necessarily fixed throughout life;
labels such as "I am an introvert" may reinforce the behaviors they describe;
present actions should be guided more by who we aspire to become than by who we currently believe ourselves to be;
many behavioral tendencies develop through learning and deliberate practice;
Rather than asking why people differ, this second perspective seems to primarily ask how people can continue to develop.
In this respect, this action-oriented perspective also appears particularly pragmatic and optimistic because it highlights the possibility that habits, environments, and deliberate action can gradually help us reshape many aspects of our behavior that may prevent us from reaching our full potential.
At the same time, this perspective should not be interpreted as suggesting that change is always simple or equally accessible to everyone. While human beings possess remarkable capacities for learning and adaptation, biological predispositions, past experiences, and environmental conditions continue to influence the effort and time required for meaningful change.
Looking Beyond the Labels
Although the two perspectives emphasize different aspects of personality, they need not be seen as necessarily contradictory.
On the contrary, they appear to complement one another remarkably well.
The biopsychological perspective helps explain why people naturally experience social interaction differently and reminds us that biological predispositions deserve understanding rather than judgment. The action-oriented perspective, on the other hand, reminds us that these predispositions need not define the limits of our future.
Reading the two articles together also raises a broader question: can the way we explain personality itself influence how much people believe they are capable of changing?
One possible concern is that explanations of personality traits placing a particularly strong emphasis on biology, however valuable they may be, could inadvertently reinforce the perception that personality is something more fixed than it actually is.
This observation should not be interpreted as a criticism of biology-based explanations themselves or of the article summarized above. Rather, it is a reflection on how the relative emphasis placed on different explanations could influence people's expectations regarding their own personal traits and capacity for change.
Biology Shapes the Starting Line, Not Necessarily the Destination
It seems reasonable to assume that people inherit different nervous systems and biological predispositions. Nevertheless, it appears equally plausible that biology alone may not fully determine who we eventually become.
Human beings appear to share many fundamental learning mechanisms and motivational systems.
Most people respond—although to different degrees—to encouragement, meaningful goals, incentives, social belonging, and repeated learning.
Our biological predispositions influence how naturally certain behaviors emerge, while our environments, habits, experiences, and reward structures shape how those predispositions are expressed, reinforced, or gradually adapted over time.
Seen in this light, a highly sensitive nervous system does not necessarily imply that an introverted person has no option other than permanently avoiding challenging social situations.
By gradually changing environments and reward structures, pursuing meaningful goals, and repeatedly exposing ourselves to new experiences, we may discover new and unexpected sources of satisfaction and develop behavioral patterns that extend well beyond our original comfort zones and perceived limitations.
Two Final Insights
On personal growth
As suggested above, the two perspectives seem to offer complementary rather than competing ways of understanding personality.
One helps us understand ourselves and others with greater compassion; the other reminds us that self-understanding should not become a limitation on personal growth or a justification for avoiding opportunities to learn and adapt.
On firm behavior
Just as people can mistake learned habits for fixed identities, firms and organizations may similarly confuse long-established routines with their essential nature.
By reconsidering incentives, practices, and organizational habits, firms and organizations may discover that their capacity for adaptation is often greater than they initially assume.