Introversion: What it is and what it ain't

[firecat]

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/articles/201008/revenge-the-introvert

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-improvement? Is it supposed to bring to mind "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? (If so it's hardly only "contemporary" American culture that's relevant.)

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?

Comments

[wired]

I'm a quite social introvert. I can be the life of a party, and it's fun in the moment, it's just that when I go home I am drained and would like to stay in my bathrobe all the next day.

I have always thought it was weird that these articles conflate socialbility with extroversion. They are not the same thing, in my experience.

[snippy]

+1

[laughingrat]

Yes, exactly. I've had people inform me that I'm not an introvert, or inform me that I'm outgoing--but I can perform bubbly sociability because, as a female*, I was trained rigorously to do so. I'm still exhausted afterwards, doubly so because I was playing a part.


*And as my mother's daughter--but still, with emphasis on "daughter."

[the_siobhan]

*raises hand* Another very social introvert here. As you say, parties are fun and being with people is fun, but it's exhausting.

One of my partners is a shy extrovert. He gets an enormous amount of energy from being around people but he finds it hard to initiate social contact with people he doesn't already know. So when we go out together it's usually me who strikes up the conversation with the really interesting people at the next table and he often remarks that he has no idea how I manage to do it. That doesn't change the fact that I'm the one who's the introvert.

[jae]

Yeah, me too. I call myself an introvert who really, really likes people. :)

-J

[kaigou]

Same here. My sister is a strong extrovert, but hardly ever says anything around people, while I'm loud and talkative -- but I need three days to recover from a party of ten (after only three hours with them!), while my sister's quite happy doing it for twelve hours after which she'd get up the next day and be ready for more. There are quiet extroverts and loud introverts, and sadly, I'm one of the latter.

[eagle]

I haven't read the whole article, so I can't comment on it as a whole, but I'm with you in pretty strongly disagreeing with some of the bits that you quote.

My definition of introversion is the same as yours: an introvert is someone who is drained by social interaction. I prefer being by myself as a "normal" state rather than being in company, and after being intensely social, I like having time to myself to recover.

This, for me, has nothing whatsoever to do with seeking or not seeking emotional arousal, or feeling time pressure, or wanting to move more slowly. Most people tell me that I think extremely quickly, and that doesn't change when I'm by myself. I often multitask (more than I really should). And I do seek hits of emotional arousal; I just do that *by myself*. It drives me nuts to see that somehow connected to introversion, as if the only way to seek big hits of positive emotional arousal is through interaction with other people. This is fundamentally bogus, and that assumption (often made by extroverts) is one of the things that I and other introverts I've talked to find the most infuriating.

I think many of us who have introversion tendencies have had rather negative past experiences with people trying to force us or push us into social interaction because it's "good for us" or we'll supposedly "like it once we're there." This business of tying social interaction to bliss is part of that same broken logic to me.

And the discussion of conversational patterns that you quote near the end is completely alien to me. I certainly don't think or interact in conversations like that. I tend to be the person who talks very quickly, and (due to conversational patterns in my family) I tend to talk over the ends of other people's sentences as soon as I understand the whole sentence. (I'm trying to stop doing this.) People seem to think I do very well in social situations, and I'm fairly good at things like running meetings. People often look baffled when I say that I'm introverted.

But I find social interaction draining and tiring and much prefer to be by myself when I have that option, and being alone doesn't bother me even for extended periods. I remember very fondly some chances I've had to be completely alone except for short periods like grocery store visits for a week or more. Thus, I'm an introvert.

I probably shouldn't make a general comment without reading the whole article, but it seems to me like the author is once again going off the rails by conflating introversion with a bunch of other things that are simply not related, and is stereotyping introverts by doing so.

[alphaviolet]

For me, it depends on the type of social interaction. If I'm having a good time, it's energizing to socialize.

[striped]

Thank you for this! I myself love performing, I think I am very quick and smooth in most social situations, and I love my job which consists almost entirely of interacting with people. I like parties and many kinds of stimuli, and I actively search for happiness and bliss.

Still, I consider myself an introvert! And most of the people I know would say that am one, too. Because, just like you said, I get exhausted by too much social interaction, and I require time alone to rest. I think an extrovert is just someone who recharges in the company of others, and an introvert recharges alone. No more, no less.

[firecat]

What do happiness and bliss mean to you?

[autographedcat]

I found most of the article *generally* true for me. There were specific details that didn't quite match, but that's to be expected.

Introversion/Extroversion aren't states. They are the endpoints of a spectrum, and not even a necessarily linear spectrum. The article identifies many common traits that introverts share. All of them may not apply to you. Indeed, I don't think the other factors in the M-B test (controversial in its own right, but since we're discussing this in its context) exist entirely in isolation to Introvert vs. Extrovert. How an INTJ introvert processes may be quite different to an ISTP, who may both be different to an INFP.

I think the article was well written in a broad sense, and gives people something to think about. I found it very close to the mark on for me.

[firecat]

Good points.

[laughingrat]

While I'm glad some folks are speaking out for introverts, I think there's a real problem defining introversion, much less differentiating it from, say, social anxiety, trauma related to emotional abuse, hypersensitivity to stimulus (which can happen for TONS of reasons), etc. etc. etc. What you've quoted from the article certainly seems to indicate that, but I've also had that trouble myself, and seen other people floundering with it, too.

The trouble is that our society is so intolerant of difference that it seems to need a name--a why--before it can begin to accept that a person's difference is okay. No wonder I can't stand people. ;)

[firecat]

As a part of our society, I sometimes find a name useful in understanding my difference from what I suppose to be normal. But the "why" part is definitely problematic.

[snippy]

It's hard to perceive this article as helpful, although I suspect that was the author's intent. Conflating various axes (introversion-extroversion, shy-bold, anti-social-social) that are metaphorically orthogonal oversimplifies without aiding understanding and tends to collect behaviors that are rewarded by society into a "good" kind of person in contrast to the "bad" kind of person (or the one who needs accommodations).

Some of it fits me, or my imagination of myself. I think I do process more information (although I blame that on being prey too often as a child, not on being an introvert), and I think a lot during conversations, which makes it hard to keep up and yes hard to remember names. But I am pretty happiness-focused, and very successful at that, I think. On the other hand I know at least one introvert who doesn't think at all about the social implications of small talk before responding "fine," and who has no problem finding happiness in American culture without being aggressive.

I wonder what problem the author was trying to solve, for which this article seemed like a helpful solution.

[firecat]

What does being happiness-focused mean to you? How are you defining happiness when you say that?

[owlectomy]

Yeah, I think it's a problem when people confalte social anxiety, social awkwardness, and introversion -- I have all three, though I'm not scared of public speaking, but to me they're clearly different things although they feed into each other. And some of the ideas that article pulls in are, as far as I can see, way-out-there speculation...

I do have a hard time processing multiple inputs, and I feel like that's one of the reasons parties sap my energy so much -- I get really stressed out when there are two conversations going on at the same time, or even two different songs playing at the same time on different radios. And I feel like I may have more internal conversation going on than average -- I only have problems keeping myself company when my internal dialogue gets very morose -- but it's not to the point of having trouble with greetings; about the extent of it is when someone asks me a straightforward question and I answer, "Yeah, but -- no, well, hmm, yeah, that wouldn't work but maybe if..."

The stuff about happiness and meaning is just way out there. It's so vague and speculative and I doubt it's based on reality.

[firecat]

On the conflation of those things, it was eye-opening to me when I started taking antidepressants -- suddenly I no longer had social anxiety. But I still had introversion.

I can stay longer in a social situation where only one person is talking at a time than in a situation where I feel I need to pay attention to multiple inputs.

[alphaviolet]

I agree with your comment that "happy" doesn't equal "fast-paced."

[lisa-marli.livejournal.com]

I agree with you on the social greetings. I usually can handle those ok.
But long conversations, my mind tends to wander. I will withdraw into my knitting or PDA game at BASFA when it gets to be too much.
The Harolds have it much worse than I do. Which is why Moose disappears into his games at BASFA. And why I have a hard time dragging Big Harold to Anything. He has so few people he calls friends. These strangers make his life uneasy.
I have at least made a few friends, and so can handle parties and things a little bit better. I also can close up a bit at Big Social Things better and thus handle the overload.
But I do enjoy my Extroverted Friends! They push me to do things I normally wouldn't and that can be fun. I really sleep the next day though, *whew* that was Too Much Party.

[mama-hogswatch.livejournal.com]

1. I'm fine with performing publicly. I'm an entertaining public speaker.

2. Introverts do by damn brainstorm. At least this one does. How in HELL can you plan an organize without putting all the puzzle pieces out on the table first. (Many introverts I know do like to work quickly. You know, think awhile then dive into hyperfocus. It's a common enough pattern for people whose primary professional asset is their brain).

http://noelfigart.com/blog/2010/08/14/for-the-last-time-introversion-is-not-shyness/
She's merging introversion with high spectrum autism in some cases, I think.

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

I found the use of "happiness" in that article pretty weird when I read it also. It seemed like the author was trying to say that we should learn to be okay with the idea that introverts aren't as happy as other people -- that it's okay because introverts don't need to be happy the way extraverts do. Which is just weird. If they like the state they achieve, then how is that not happiness?

That said, I think my introversion is more stereotypical than yours (I have shyness and social anxiety) so it fit me better even if not perfectly (for example, I do talk a lot in conversations).

[firecat]

On happiness: exactly.

I have shyness and social anxiety, but much less since taking antidepressants. Having much of my social anxiety go away suddenly was really weird. (The introversion stayed.)

[karenkay.livejournal.com]

I didn't read the article, just your comments. Your comments make sense to me, but your quotes from the article just wouldn't parse. (I don't think it's the quotes you chose.)

I THINK I am an extrovert, and I don't suffer from much performance anxiety, and I loathe brainstorming. FWIW, which I think is not much.

[bastette-joyce.livejournal.com]

Totally agreed about the "introverts don't seek happiness" idea. Huh? The author seems to have one concept of "happiness", so that when certain groups of people don't seek that particular thing, she concludes that those people aren't concerned with being happy. That makes no sense to me, as I believe that almost everyone is motivated by a desire for things that make them happy, however they may define that. "Happiness" is one of those ill-defined words that can mean a thousand things to a thousand people. Sure, I use it all the time, because I know what I mean by it. :) But if I were trying very hard to explain the subtle nuances of what that really means to me, I'd choose words with more specific definitions.

Regarding your response to her comments about how introverts respond to perfunctory "How are you?" questions, I actually think that her description of the dynamic was spot-on about you. OK, it was a bad example - you don't respond that way to standard social greetings. But I think the principle is correct. This seems to be a situation where a poor example has obscured a more general truth. I have seen this happen with you many times!

[firecat]

you don't respond that way to standard social greetings. But I think the principle is correct. This seems to be a situation where a poor example has obscured a more general truth. I have seen this happen with you many times!

I mentioned "I dislike answering personal questions on the spot" in the previous paragraph, and I think that's the dynamic you're talking about. But my perception is that if someone says to me "How are you? I've been meaning to talk to you about X," then unless X is an interpersonal issue, I'm much more likely to skip the "How are you" altogether and go straight to "OK, tell me about X." What do you think?

I meant to say something else, too

[bastette-joyce.livejournal.com]

Another thing that I always wonder (not just about introversion and extroversion*, but about any personality trait that is defined as being part of one's inborn temperament) is this: how can you determine your inborn temperament, when so many life experiences affect those traits and preferences? I'm not saying there's no such thing as inborn temperament. I just don't know how to separate that from my observations of my own behaviors and preferences, many of which seem to be responses to prior experiences as much as to anything else.

Back to the E/I scale, if someone gets easily overstimulated by social interaction, and requires a lot of alone time, is this because of a biological tendency to be introverted, or is it because, due to some negative experiences, the person finds it somewhat stressful to be around people, so becomes drained after spending a lot of time with them? Similarly, if someone is highly social and craves the stimulation of interactions with others, is that due to their temperament, or could they possibly be "addicted" to the high of getting attention and approval from people? I don't mean to imply that these are the only possible motivations for these preferences - they're just two examples of desires that a person might genuinely self-report as being true for them, that may not come from true biological temperament, but rather, from needs stemming from past experience? (Or maybe from some combination of nature/nurture, but how do you figure out what's what?)

I'm also not saying it's impossible to make that distinction, but personally, I haven't been able to figure this one out for myself. The two "nurture" examples I gave above are true for me: due to insecurity, which comes from some of my past experiences, I get a high and a self-esteem boost from attention and approval from others, but also, due to distrust and suspicion about how other people see me (also due to past experience), I find many social situations to be stressful, and that in turn causes me to avoid social situations a fair amount. The tug of war between these two impulses takes up a lot more space in my conscious mind than any sense of what my underlying temperament might actually be!

This is a basic weakness in the way MBTI typing is done, IMO - it seems to be based mostly on self-reporting (relying on answers to questions about preferences in various situations). Does this actually reveal basic temperament?

* "extroversion" is a valid spelling variation... I looked it up. :)

Re: I meant to say something else, too

[firecat]

I prefer the spelling you use :)

how can you determine your inborn temperament, when so many life experiences affect those traits and preferences? I'm not saying there's no such thing as inborn temperament. I just don't know how to separate that from my observations of my own behaviors and preferences, many of which seem to be responses to prior experiences as much as to anything else.

I mostly don't believe in "inborn temperament" -- that is, I agree with you; I don't think there's an easy way to tell what's an "inborn temperament" and what's a strong tendency that's influenced by both nature and nurture. I guess studies of identical twins raised apart might shed some light on that.

So if I say that I'm an introvert, I mean that so far in my life, there is a tendency in this direction. But I don't know where it comes from.

Back to the E/I scale, if someone gets easily overstimulated by social interaction, and requires a lot of alone time, is this because of a biological tendency to be introverted, or is it because, due to some negative experiences, the person finds it somewhat stressful to be around people, so becomes drained after spending a lot of time with them?

I've noticed that when I'm in an environment that I find very friendly, such as a fat conference, I don't become an extrovert but it takes me longer to get drained. So I think that worrying about how people are going to react to me does affect the degree of introversion I experience. But I've never personally been in an environment where I didn't get drained at all. (That might be because I had negative social experiences when I was very young, so it might still be that introversion for me has a largely experiential cause.)

Similarly, if someone is highly social and craves the stimulation of interactions with others, is that due to their temperament, or could they possibly be "addicted" to the high of getting attention and approval from people?

How are you defining addicted? Needing it in increasing quantities, or to a degree that's detrimental to other aspects of their lives?

This is a basic weakness in the way MBTI typing is done, IMO - it seems to be based mostly on self-reporting (relying on answers to questions about preferences in various situations). Does this actually reveal basic temperament?

My understanding is that people are expected to change their "score" on the MBTI over time. Certainly my score changes depending on whether I'm thinking about work or social situations and also on other stuff going on in my life. (I always test as an introvert, but the other things shift around.)

[mjlayman.livejournal.com]

I've changed almost completely since I got sick. Part of it is that I don't have enough time to be out with other people -- I start needing to go home and sleep* -- but I think some of it is changes in my brain.

*and very few people have accessible houses, so I can't go there with others.

[stardustnprison.livejournal.com]

You make some interesting points. I am both an introvert and shy and social phobic. I tend to lump them all into one cluster but you're right. They're quite seperate. Shyness and social phobias are sometimes causal but not one in the same. Enlightening. Thanks.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

Just on a meta-issue, I find it hard to take anything in Psychology Today seriously. They print a lot of really badly researched pop psychology. I think Psychotherapy Networker is better for people who are serious about learning about current psychological thought and trends (though it has its "woo" moments as well).

I had issues with a lot of the same passages you did, mainly with the fact that, while some of it might be true for some introverts, it was waaaay over-generalized.