This question began, for me, with Stephen Chow.
Few people would doubt Chow’s expressive ability on screen. His control of comic timing, verbal rhythm, character relationships, absurdity and narrative structure is unusually strong. Yet away from films, particularly in media interviews, he is often quiet and can appear restrained or awkward. It is therefore easy to label him as simply “introverted”.
But introversion and the ability to express oneself are not the same thing. A person who speaks little is not necessarily poor at expression, and a person who talks constantly is not necessarily good at it. Some people are perfectly capable of expressing themselves but have no desire to do so in every setting. They may feel that a conversation contains little substance, or that a great deal is being said without getting to the point, so they choose not to add more. Someone else may be lively at a party, able to respond to every remark and keep a conversation moving, yet still have difficulty expressing a complex idea clearly. Talking more and expressing oneself well are different abilities.
Modern personality psychology does not define extraversion simply by how much someone talks. Extraversion is a broad personality dimension that includes several components, such as social enthusiasm, assertiveness and a preference for stimulation. Whether someone is talkative at a particular gathering describes one behaviour in one situation. It does not, by itself, establish that person’s overall personality.
A similar confusion often appears between introversion and shyness. Shyness is more closely related to tension, self-consciousness and avoidance when a person feels exposed to other people’s evaluation. Sociability, by contrast, concerns how much a person actually wants social interaction. Psychological research has long treated shyness and sociability as distinguishable traits. Someone may enjoy social contact but become shy with strangers. Another person may have no difficulty giving a speech, chairing a meeting or talking to a room full of people, yet still have little need for frequent social contact in everyday life.
This is why it is difficult to infer personality from seeing someone sit quietly at an unfamiliar gathering. The person may be nervous, but may also simply be uninterested. They may not know what to say, or they may know exactly what they could say and decide that saying it would add nothing.
I experienced this kind of misclassification myself quite early. During adolescence, I once thought of myself as relatively introverted. At that stage of life, self-consciousness becomes stronger. People become more aware of how others see them and of their own place within a group, so many adolescents go through a period of greater caution and discomfort in social situations. It is easy for both the person and those around them to interpret that temporary pattern as a fixed personality trait.
Yet even then, one feature of my behaviour was obvious. With classmates and friends I knew well, I talked a great deal and told plenty of jokes. With people I did not know, however, I felt little need to entertain them or make the atmosphere lively simply for the sake of doing so.
As I went through university and later work, it became increasingly clear to me that the issue could not be reduced to a simple choice between introversion and extraversion. I worked as a university teacher and also as a class adviser, so not long after graduating I was already dealing with and managing many students. Later, when university classmates organised a large reunion, at a time when the internet was only beginning to become widely available and contacting people was much harder than it is now, I helped take the lead in reconnecting classmates scattered across China and even overseas. That required a considerable amount of communication, organisation and coordination, and I never felt that I was incapable of doing it.
At the same time, I can easily go for days without talking to anyone. I can read, think through a problem, practise the piano and spend long periods alone without finding it difficult. I do not need to remain constantly surrounded by people in order to feel mentally settled.
Work shows the same contrast. When discussing technical or professional questions, I tend to be serious, and disagreement can sometimes become quite intense. Yet when colleagues are having a meal and the pressure of work has lifted, I may tell many jokes and the atmosphere can be completely different. Experiences like these gradually convinced me that seriousness and humour are not opposites either.
A serious person can be very funny. Someone who says little in ordinary situations may still understand very well how to make other people laugh. In fact, the most interesting humour often depends on precise and fairly rational observation. A person first notices an absurdity in language, social rules or human relationships, then suddenly reverses the structure or reveals a contradiction. That shift is often where the laugh comes from.
This is also why Stephen Chow’s comedy is not simply a matter of “being funny”. On the surface, many scenes rely on cheekiness, verbal play or ridiculous behaviour. Underneath, however, there is strong structural control. A character’s social role may suddenly be inverted, the meaning of a sentence may change halfway through, and the solemn may collide with the absurd. These effects are supported not merely by liveliness but by observation, judgement and control of structure.
Humour itself cannot be derived neatly from introversion or extraversion. Psychology distinguishes between different styles and functions of humour. Some socially oriented forms of humour do show statistical associations with extraversion, but that does not mean extraverts are necessarily funnier, and it certainly does not mean introverts lack a sense of humour. A statistical relationship between traits is not the same as a rule that determines an individual person.
Directing films provides another useful example. A director must work simultaneously with actors, cinematographers, lighting crews, production designers, producers and many other specialists. The role requires judgement, coordination, persuasion and conflict management, so it demands a high level of communication and organisational ability. Yet none of this means a director must have what people casually call an “outgoing personality”. Stanley Kubrick, for example, maintained an intensely private public image and rarely gave interviews, but that did not prevent him from managing large productions or working through highly complex creative and technical problems with actors and crew. Terrence Malick has likewise spent long periods giving very few formal interviews. Literature offers similar examples. J. D. Salinger withdrew from public life for decades while remaining, by any reasonable standard, an exceptionally capable writer. The desire to participate frequently in public or social interaction is simply not the same thing as the ability to communicate with precision when communication matters.
Another issue that is often mixed into this discussion is the now popular idea of “emotional value”. People sometimes assume that extraverted people are better at providing emotional value, while introverted people are weaker at it. I have always thought this is too simple.
Several different capacities are being bundled together. A person must first notice another person’s emotional state, then understand it, judge what kind of response might help, know how to express that response, and finally decide whether they want to do so. These are not identical abilities. Someone who does not immediately display warmth may still have noticed that warmth is being sought. Someone who does not offer instant reassurance may still understand perfectly well what the other person is feeling. Research on emotion regulation itself distinguishes between internal emotional experience and outward emotional expression. Human beings can experience an emotion, understand it and deliberately control how much of it they display.
The reverse stereotype is equally weak. It would be just as simplistic to say that introverted people are necessarily more sensitive or better at understanding emotion. Current personality research does not support such a clean conclusion. Empathy and emotional understanding are related to personality, but they are also influenced by factors such as agreeableness, emotional stability, experience and environment. They cannot be placed neatly on a single introversion–extraversion axis.
A more accurate description is that some people understand what others call emotional value but, after understanding it, choose not to use it excessively. Human relationships do need lubrication. Making a small amount of unimportant conversation, overlooking minor irritations and taking another person’s feelings into account are normal interpersonal skills. But recognising that such behaviours are useful is different from deciding how much effort one wants to invest in them.
Some people place great importance on maintaining relationships through frequent emotional interaction. Others may feel that if a relationship can survive only through continuous reassurance, accommodation or performance, it may not deserve unlimited investment. They therefore accept less surface-level liveliness and allow relationships to be filtered gradually by time. This can be interpreted by others as coldness, poor sociability or an inability to “deal with people”. For at least some people, however, it is not a lack of social skill. It is a deliberate choice about which relationships deserve sustained effort.
I later spent a considerable amount of time studying personality and character analysis, including psychology, personality psychology and psychoanalytic approaches. In the early period of generative AI, I also developed a personality-analysis app called Personality Insight, combining some of these ideas with AI technology. The App Store page is https://apps.apple.com/au/app/personality-insight/id6651823965 . That work reinforced something I had already begun to suspect: a person is difficult to understand through the two labels “introvert” and “extravert” alone. A useful analysis usually has to separate modes of expression, need for social contact, emotional response, habits of decision-making and the way behaviour changes across different environments.
Returning to Stephen Chow, the original puzzle therefore becomes much easier to understand. On screen, he has extraordinary expressive control. He can use words, physical movement, timing and even silence to shape an audience’s emotional response with great precision. Off screen, particularly in interviews, he may say relatively little.
That does not show that he cannot express himself, and it cannot be reduced confidently to a single label such as “introverted”. A person can be highly expressive and still have no wish to express themselves in every setting. Knowing when to speak and when not to speak is itself a form of judgement.
Discover more from Geoffrey Chen
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.