Introversion

Somebody (I believe it may have been Muro), turned me on to Cracked.com's "Top" lists and recently I read a list about how quiet people are misconceived. That list linked me to this article and the points made by the author really resonated with me.

I've teased other members of The House about being autistic, and the more I thought about this article the more I thought that perhaps we all fall somewhere on the introvert/extrovert spectrum as opposed to the autism spectrum.

The fact that interacting with other people draws from an introvert's energy reserves really hit home for me.

In any case, this was a good find for me. What do you all think? Do you have introverted or extroverted tendencies?

 

I'm definitely introverted. It took me many years to come to terms with it, though. I was always envious of people who were part of a big gang of friends, and used to try to go to parties and other social events, even though I would always feel uncomfortable when I was there, and would come away having got nothing out of it.

Now I realise that I'm better off on my own anyway. Plus it means I have more time to post on here. It's win-win for everyone.

 

I guess I'd have to say I'm introverted, and I do find it quite exhausting to be around people - even immediate family members who I haven't seen for long periods of time - for a day or so. I thought about arguing that introversion is a learnt behaviour, but honestly it isn't, even when I have been more socialable I've still always wanted an hour or two to recuperate after being around people; and often now after my partner has gone to sleep I'll stay up because I enjoy time to myself.

In regards to introverts being arrogant, well if you take the author of the article as anything to go by I'd say definitely so. He states that he's "more intelligent" than your average extrovert, and that pretty much all extroverts are vacuous. Whilst I'd say that some extroverted people are vacuous, most aren't, and me personally I have nothing against meaningless conversation. Honestly I'd rather talk about something pointless and amusing than something supposedly "deep and thought provoking" any day of the week. I'd say that as an introvert I'm not arrogant, and I don't prejudge people to the extent the author of the article seems keen to.

I also don't like the whole "introvert pride" theme running through the article, it seems reactionary to what the author thinks extroverts' opinions of introverts are, and just serves to undermine his point. Ultimately people are people, and there'll always be more to a person than an introvert or extrovert label.

 

Wait. Does that mean that extrovert people like me really dominate public life and everything? Wow. I did not knew that.

 

Well looky that. An extrovert not realising something. What are the odds.

 

Hello everyone, my name is Muro and I'm an anonymous introvert.

As for the article, while it has some fair points, the "Are we arrogant? Nah, we're simply more intelligent" thing indeed isn't really helping any cause.

 

The author makes it a point to state that introversion is an orientation. I have never given the term "orientation" much thought, particularly as it is frequently applied to sexual orientation. Now "orientation" makes sense. The orientation of my personality is toward introverted behavior. My introversion (probably) wasn't learned or chosen, it is more the case that I have a natural proclivity to introverted behavior.
This puts perspective on homosexuals; their orientation is a natural tendency, not a choice.

My justification of introversion and homosexuality implies that they are not the norm, in turn implying that there is a norm. I would argue that heterosexuality is the norm and that homosexuality is a deviation from that norm. It seems the author of the article would argue that there is a certain stigma associated with being introverted, suggesting that extroversion is the norm. I think he states that extroversion appears to be the preferred orientation.

While meaningless conversation often drives me nuts, that is not to say I value "deep and meaningful" discussions any more. If a conversation is meaningless but intended to be informative, then I hate it. If it's meaningless yet amusing, I'm on board. If it's deep and meaningful but about religion, then Xyle can GTFO. If it's deep and meaningful but about impractical physics, then Grossenschwamm can GTFO. I would imagine the author included some introverted stereotypes in his article that aren't true for every case.

I found so many good points in this article that I overlooked this point. As it happens, Cracked.com refuted the misconception that introverts are more intelligent than extroverts. Not that they folks at Cracked.com are experts, but they at least appear to be fair and balanced.

Yes.. I did.. very recently in fact. However this was taken entirely out of context and is completely unrelated to the above passage involving homosexuality.

 

Introverted. I mean, I practically live on this broadband connection to the rest of the world. I do enjoy speaking with people, but put me into any social situation and I get drained too damn quick.
And, TDC, I understand. The practicality of something that's theoretical by name isn't something easy to see, and even if you understand how it would work, it won't always matter to you. Explaining how something works that no one has directly seen has a limited audience, and not everyone interested will understand; much like your co-worker and the 10 foot ladder.
I'm very interested in theoretical physics, as my posts will say, however I'm not certain of the career growth in the field and have consequently shifted my educational focus to electrical engineering, which is wholly more tangible to me.

 

Introverted of course, but it's not all that simple. Some people are just vampires, and some are just socially retarded compared to me, draining my energy.

Presumably, the people whom I consider as sources of energy and as role-models, think of me as a retarded vampire.

Is there an emoticon for what I'm trying to say?

:throwup: :boxing: :smash:
:thinkof:

not really.

 

Read the article before I read the thread. Saw this:

Read the thread. Observed that this had already been noticed. Instantly waved the authour off as a pretentious moron.


EDIT: Also, I have read Sartre's "No Exit", multiple times, and am currently workshopping it as a director, and can confidently say that he never specifies that Hell is other people during breakfast. Where the hell did that line come from? Don't introverts think before they speak or some shit?

Unfortunately, not. I googled the line "Hell is other people at breakfast" to see if maybe it's some strange translation of the original French I had never heard of before. Every page is a blog linking back to this article, many of which use the quote as their post title, making sure to attribute it to Jean-Paul himself.

This leads me to the theory that this article, the authour of this article, and anybody who finds themselves empathisizing with this article is stupid. There is something awfully ironic about third-party quoting and then bragging about how deep and introspective you are.

 

There's something awfully ironic about mistaking an obvious joke for a serious quote and then bragging about how clever you are for spotting that it is inaccurate.

 

Me? Introvert.


Now that you understand, or are beginning to understand, the difference between introverts and extraverts, I recommend learning about personality types. http://www.personalitypage.com/ is a good start.

 

That's almost not uninteresting; my personality type changed in one respect: I am now stupid, having gone from 100 in Thinking to 40-something, and my Feeling has gone up from 0.

What I don't get, though, is how the test-makers think they've provided for someone who'll react in a Feeling way to a situation from a Thinking perspective (now I feel like Xyle, being an idiot who capitalizes random words), such as, for example, not wishing to hurt someone's feelings so that you can keep forcing them to do shit for you or mooching off of them; or even not wanting to argue a point with someone and preferring to just forget about it because your introversion just doesn't want to fucking deal with some fool jabbering on about whatever bullshit (s)he's pontificating about. I dunno if I answered the questions from that viewpoint, or if there's some kind of Pinocchio situation going on wherein I've become a real boy, but there ya have it.

I also wonder if these personality types are supposed to be immutable, because I suppose it's not dreadfully unlikely that my letter changed because I've shifted my focus from logic, physics, and mathematics to music.

 

I don't believe any one type of personality can adequately describe one person consistently through their life. I'm sure there are exceptions, as nothing is truly absolute (well, death and taxes...). I've essentially remained an introvert, but every time I've deigned to take one of these tests a letter has changed, or how much I represent the letters has changed, despite my answers remaining honest regarding my personal views. I've witnessed people switch from one extreme to the other as their personality shifted due to illness, experience, or a desire to change; though I suppose illness (mental or physical) is a form of experience, and change is in turn influenced by experience, so I'm not entirely sure why I've delineated these three things. I've also seen some switch back again.
From this, I think a person may have the capacity to change their core personality attributes through living their lives while still being true to their sense of self.

 

That's because your sense of self is an illusion. Your brain makes all kinds of arbitrary decisions, and then your consciousness comes along after the fact and goes "Oh, yeah, I did that because of this logical well-thought-out reason." It's actually nonsense, and you're always going to feel like "you" no matter what changes in your head. In fact, if something does change, your brain will helpfully reconstruct your memories of the past to include the new you in them instead of the old you.

Your brain! Adjusting reality to preserve your fragile sense of ego, so you don't have to!

 

Remove the word "the", and that sentence turns into something Charonte would say.

 

&

"You are who you choose to be." -- Iron Giant
If the basis of your decisions about who you are choosing to be has nothing to do with the factors that determine personality types, why shouldn't personality types shift? But I have a better explanation (see below)

Smuel, that is a load of bull. And what's worse, it is too easy to see as such.
Just because we are capable of self-deception doesn't mean we always deceive ourselves. There are other routes that can maintain one's fragile sense of ego without breaking with Truth.

----------

Kurlan Naiskos from Star Trek (or rather what it represents) -- The artifact that reminded Picard of the philosophy that individuals are communitities and communities are individuals.

We are who we choose to be, and we are sum of all that we were. All the senses of self that we have had, are having, and will have are part of who we are now. We will deceive ourselves about who we were to our conscience selves if we cannot accept who we were at one moment in time, but that aspect of who we are/were will still impact who we will be. And because we have not experienced our future "selves", we tend not to factor that part of our being into the equation.


Personalities types are an attempt to find order in the chaos that is our soul. The order is the illusion, but the chaos is real.

 

Yeah, Smuel, leave Truth alone, he's an OK guy.

 

A great deal of generalities have been discussed in this thread. This thread itself is based on a generality published by an introvert.

• Introverts thrive on in-depth discussion.
  While my anecdote does not refute this claim, it certainly provides a counter example. While the discussion of theoretical physics is ripe with opportunity for deep conversation, it annoys me more than it intrigues me. In fact, it exhausts me as much as some people do.
• I am an idiot for identifying with this article because the author got a quote wrong.
  The conclusion is logically removed from the suggestion, the content of the article is not dependent on the validity of the quote, and "Hell is other people at breakfast" is an amusing quote regardless of the accuracy of its origin.
• A generalized personality evaluation will work for everybody.
  Despite how readily I identify with article linked about, these personality tests frustrate me. That's just ironic. More to the point, I think individual assessment is the only way to better understand one's personality type.
• Personalities are constant.
  If the quality of being introverted is an orientation, then it is fitting to describe it as a tendency. I'm willing to accept that tendencies can be influenced and retrained, not unlike how wayne-scales has shifted by focusing more on music than on logic.
  Similarly, I have always been introverted, but I like other people and have learned how to enjoyably interact with them. That has not changed the fact I need time a lone to recuperate from the interactions. Perhaps I could shift this, but I don't mind being introverted so I'm not going to.
• The soul is chaos.
  I don't know that this isn't true, but it is a generalization. I entertain the possibility that the soul has order as well.