Entry tags:
Introversion: What it is and what it ain't
![[personal profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
graymalkin sent me an article about introversion. I think the article is OK and I think that articles debunking myths about introversion are generally a good idea. But there are some ways that this article ends up reinforcing some myths about introversion, and it has some other problems.http://www.psychologytoday.com/arti
Here is my understanding of introversion: Being drained by spending time in social environments (as opposed to gaining energy thereby). Needing alone-time to recharge.
Here are things commonly associated with introversion that I think are not inherently part of introversion: Shyness. Social phobia. Social awkwardness. Invariably being quiet in groups. Being unable to think on your feet. Disliking to perform.
Following are some quotes from the article and my comments.
[Introverts] do seem to process more information than others in any given situation. To digest it, they do best in quiet environments.I'm not sure what is meant by "process more information" and "digest" information. I don't need a quiet environment per se to recharge my energy. What I need is an environment where no one expects anything of me. It's easy for me to filter out environment noise.
I would use this metaphor: At a social event, I feel like I'm trying to filter out excess sensory stimuli. Eventually the filter gets clogged, and I need a quiet environment to flush out the filter.
Further, their brains are less dependent on external stimuli and rewards to feel good.Could be. I don't know. It feels to me more like I prefer different external stimuli and rewards, compared to some people. A cool breeze makes me very happy.
As a result, introverts are not driven to seek big hits of positive emotional arousal--they'd rather find meaning than bliss--making them relatively immune to the search for happiness that permeates contemporary American culture.Ummmmmm. You know what, drawing a dichotomy "meaning vs. bliss" makes absolutely no sense to me. "Finding meaning" is a somewhat specific thinking-type activity. "Finding bliss" is, I don't know, it could be anything, depending on the person. But when I'm enjoying thinking, it feels pretty blissful. When I'm alone in a natural place, it feels pretty blissful. I seek those situations. So I don't think that I'm disinterested in bliss. However, it's probably true that I am driven more by avoiding hassles than by finding meanings or finding bliss. I'm also driven more by avoiding sensory overload than by seeking sensory pleasures.
As for "the search for happiness that permeates contemporary American culture." What does this mean? Is "the search for happiness" being used to stand in for materialism/acquisitiveness/self-improve
I feel like I'm participating in a "search for happiness," but maybe I'm defining happiness a little differently than the author of this article. I've figured out that having more possessions is probably not the key to increasing my happiness. (Not because I'm into voluntary simplicity or anything -- it's just that I have a lot of stuff already.) I've figured out that I feel a lot of in-the-moment happiness in situations where very little is going on. There's also a sort of happiness that comes from feeling I've accomplished something, and in-the-moment happiness doesn't substitute. Introversion shouldn't interfere with that kind of happiness though. Being able to spend time alone without getting antsy should help me accomplish long-term goals.
In fact, the cultural emphasis on happiness may actually threaten their mental health. As American life becomes increasingly competitive and aggressive, to say nothing of blindingly fast, the pressures to produce on demand, be a team player, and make snap decisions cut introverts off from their inner power source, leaving them stressed and depleted. Introverts today face one overarching challenge--not to feel like misfits in their own culture.The problem here is that I don't see a connection between an "emphasis on happiness" and a competitive/aggressive/fast culture. Where is the connection? Is happiness being defined strictly as winning, being on top, having the biggest market share? And maybe the money that comes with that? If so, maybe there's a connection. But that doesn't sound like happiness by my way of thinking. When I think of being on top, I think of the stress of having to defend my position, and I can't imagine it would make me feel happy.
Another assumption is that there is only one kind of "American life," and that's this "competitive/aggressive/fast" kind of living. It's an aspect of corporate culture, and so people who are working in corporations, they might feel this pressure. But there are other ways to live. Aren't there? Am I missing something because I'm too privileged? Also, is there really no place for introverts in corporate culture? I did feel pressure when I worked in corporations, but I had a job pretty well suited to my introverted tendencies.
An introvert and a shy person might be standing against the wall at a party, but the introvert prefers to be there, while the shy individual feels she has no choice.This sentence suggests that all shy people are really extroverts, which isn't true.
Introverts prefer slow-paced interactions that allow room for thought. Brainstorming does not work for them.I don't think this is true of all introverts. It's true that I dislike answering personal questions on the spot, but brainstorming and trading wisecracks and other fast-paced forms of interpersonal interaction are fun for me with the right people. I just want a lot of alone time as well.
Even a simple opener of "Hello, how are you? Hey, I've been meaning to talk to you about X," from anyone can challenge an introvert. Rather than bypassing the first question or interrupting the flow to answer it, the introvert holds onto the question: Hmm, how am I? (An internal dialogue begins, in which the introvert "hears" herself talking internally as the other person speaks.)Ummm, no. This suggests that introverts can't figure out that "Hello, how are you?" is a greeting. It did take me longer than some people (which might be due to introversion or might be due to other social issues I have) but I'm perfectly capable of making small talk and using the standard social forms of my culture without starting a whole internal dialogue with myself about the question "How am I?"
While the introvert is evaluating the question on at least two levels (how she is feeling and what she thinks about the question, perhaps also what this says about our society), the speaker is already moving on to sharing something about his day. The introvert must take the incoming message from the speaker and tuck it into working memory until she can get to it, while more information keeps flowing in that demands tracking, sorting, searching, and critical analysis.As already mentioned, that's not how it works for me with a greeting. On the other hand, maybe it's a good explanation for why I find it difficult to remember people's names after I meet them -- I'm thinking about a bunch of other things happening in the interaction.
The conversation is also anxiety-provoking, because the introvert feels she has too little time to share a complete thought. She hungers to pull away and give time to the thoughts her brain has generated.This suggests all introverts have social anxiety. Not true, IMO.
What say you? How well do these quotes or other stuff in the article fit with your social energy tendencies?
no subject
The only way to deal with it as a T, it seems, is to at least thank the F for listening and/or allowing the dumpage. Nothing motivates an F better than "this really matters to me (that you do this)".
To motivate an NT, you only need to say, "well, I'd ask you, but you probably couldn't do/handle/manage it. Too big of a challenge (or: above your grade)" -- and you'll see the NT (especially ENTJs, who fall for this trick EVERY SINGLE TIME) go ballistic to prove themselves as capable. NTs have a big thing about competency, though ENTJs and INTJs are the worst of the lot for that. NFs just want to connect, so if you tell them, "you can't do this," they take it personally and agree with you, and slink off to a corner to lick their wounds (or, alternately, to sulk, ehehe) about the fact that you spoke so harshly as a sign that you don't like them. The NT could care less whether or not you like them, so long as you respect them (and think them competent).
I once had a boss ask me why it was that CP could motivate his disparate team so effectively -- boss being, I suspected, a strong ESTP. I ended up doing a crash course in MBTI as a general management rule-of-thumb, because CP-the-INFJ could peg each employee instinctively -- being a people person -- as to what would motivate them. For someone less emotion-oriented, the MBTI is a useful tool to compensate for what is not the natural inclination. (I say this as someone who will sometimes lean hard on basic MBTI knowledge to compensate when I'm new to a work environment, because I am not a natural connect-to-people person.)
My reaction to "someone who puts people/feelings first" is that I think I put people first but not feelings first.
Err, my bad -- from an F's point of view, they're the same thing, basically. "Other people" = "feelings about/between people" = "making decisions based on emotions (for/about/due to other people)". A T is not a heartless machine, and certainly is going to think about other people (especially NTs, who are going to be juggling the iNtuitive need to take in information, and what are people if not a great source of information?) -- but the ultimate decision process is not based on how other people feel, so much a more head-ruled, logical, objective-attempt at understanding, though how people may fit into the decision certainly comes into it -- but a strong T isn't going to decide based solely on feelings, just as a strong F would feel very uncomfortable with a logical/objective decision that didn't take into account how s/he and other people will feel as a result.
A T can be incredibly generous, for instance, and the F will feel all warm and fuzzy. If the T is less socially-adaptive (like INTJs and INTPs can be, sometimes), the T might forget the F-ness present and say, "well, actually, it's just that it's on my way, and by doing this, then I know you'll be willing to do that in return, and besides, I also get this out of it," and is all pleased for finding both objective (benefit) and subjective (happy friend) out of an essentially logical idea.... and the ENFP in the passenger's seat feels utterly, completely used -- because they hadn't even thought of "what I get out of this" and were just enjoying friends doing stuff for friends. (Actually, this will crush an ESFJ even harder, because they didn't even see the possibility of the benefits, or even, sometimes, the pattern of the NT's thought processes.)
Uhm, I guess I'm giving the impression it's really easy for an NT to crush an F. I'd say something to alleviate this impression, except... it's pretty much true. NTs do have a knack for accidentally stomping on Fs -- but then most Fs I've known have instinctive sense for how to damage an NT in return. Heh. Goes around, comes around, eh.
Mostly what I do is think about how it's connected to other stuff.
That there is the ultimate clue that you're an N -- the stronger the N, the more likely you are to see everything as connections and possibilities.
(As opposed to the S, for whom facts are facts and possibilities/potentials aren't a focus... meanwhile the N is going, "but if you add this fact to that fact and see how this parallels that, add this other fact and OMFG we could end up with GODZILLA!" and the S just stares blankly. Not that I've ever had that experience, myself. Righto.)
no subject
Hm. I don't consider myself a snapping/stomping sort of person, but I do "grump," so I guess that counts. I do hold grudges, but they're not so much grudges against people who dump anger as grudges about unethical/thoughless behavior. And they aren't strongly emotional grudges -- but if I decide I disapprove of someone, then I'll stick them in an "AVOID-ICKY" category in my head. (I do this with ideas too, not just people.)
well, I'd ask you, but you probably couldn't do/handle/manage it.
If someone said that to me, my MANIPULATION alarm bells would go off, and I would not react well. I do care about showing my competency but I'm more likely to respond to "Can you do this? Let me know if it's too much, I don't want to overburden you."
I like "We could end up with GODZILLA!" as a general description of N-type thinking.
no subject
Whereas if you were to offer the same kind of motivation to, say, an ESTJ, they'd stare at you while probably thinking, "well, then, why did you bring it up?" A challenge doesn't motivate an ESTJ or ISTJ at all -- not in the same way, that is. An ESTJ/ISTJ gets more mileage out of being told 'this is the way it's always been done' and they're happy with that, more comfortable. (While the INTJ behind them is going, OMG KILL ME at the thought of being told the same thing.)
An ESTP is most likely to be motivated highly if you tell them there's great danger, possible all-nighters, and probably a party at the end. I say that with tongue only slightly in cheek.
no subject
Whereas if you were to offer the same kind of motivation to, say, an ESTJ, they'd stare at you while probably thinking, "well, then, why did you bring it up?" A challenge doesn't motivate an ESTJ or ISTJ at all -- not in the same way, that is. An ESTJ/ISTJ gets more mileage out of being told 'this is the way it's always been done' and they're happy with that, more comfortable. (While the INTJ behind them is going, OMG KILL ME at the thought of being told the same thing.)
An ESTP is most likely to be motivated highly if you tell them there's great danger, possible all-nighters, and probably a party at the end. I say that with tongue only slightly in cheek.