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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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. ;)

[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."

[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.

[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.

[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.

[firecat]

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

[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.

[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.

[firecat]

Good points.

[firecat]

What do happiness and bliss mean to you?

[jae]

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

-J

[alphaviolet]

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

[alphaviolet]

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

[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.

[kaigou]

Too many people simplify the MBTI into the extreme/textbooks of each letter. I've gotten to the point that I just assume the person I'm speaking to is already assuming textbook, and that if I broach the topic, I should be ready to explain (yet again) that it's far more complex and nuanced. Of course the other three letters are going to impact the introversion/extroversion (and vice-versa), which is kinda the point of the various combinations -- and even then, there's no true 'textbook' because your, say, 10% introversion is going to impact things more one way and less another way than my 90% introversion... so even if we were both identical XXXX, the percentages themselves can make us appear quite different to someone who doesn't know what to look for (to find the similarities).

Uhm, or maybe it's just because with a parent qualified to test & counsel people on the MBTI since way way back, I've heard just about all of it. I should be immune by now, I'd think, and know better than to even open my mouth, but obviously, nooooo.

[firecat]

Since you know more than most people about MBTI, maybe you can answer this question that came up in the LJ version of this post? -- Is MBTI supposed to measure innate tendencies or current behavior patterns? Do people's scores commonly change over time?

[kaigou]

First, my understanding of MBTI is that it measures who you are right now, with the difficulty that some types shift rapidly or fluidly (especially P-types) while others tend to be comparatively static even in vastly different situations and different stresses (especially J-types and S-types). So if you hate your job and you take the MBTI while thinking "I am in job mode," you're likely to end up with a type that's, well, not you. If you take the MBTI while you're in a good place (mentally, emotionally, even physically) -- and I include "safe" in the definition of "good" -- then you're more likely to test true-to-type.

We all flex with where we are and what we're going through, so even the more static types (like ESTJs) will flex -- a happy ESTJ might be 60%, 30%, 75%, 55% per each letter... and the same ESTJ, in a highly stressful (pressures that push the person against type, which for an ESTJ might be, say, trying to deal with a child who's an INFP or a boss who's an ISFP) may go to extremes -- very strong on every letter. That's the influence of the J, since J-types are more likely to get less flexible, and this impacts all the other letters in turn, while a P-type will cloak itself as something else while it tries to make do.

For instance, my mother is naturally a soft E, but a pretty solid NFP. Back when she was stuck in a really bad work situation with a real jerkass boss (and an ESTJ from hell boss, at that), she tested as an ENTJ, and the only thing farther you can get from an ENFP would probably be an ESTJ. Both are commandants, really -- the joke among MBTI'ers is that ENTJs are born with combat booties; the ESTJ differs in that their "commandant" personality relies on "this is how we've always done it" while the ENTJ relies on "this is my vision and you will NOW CARRY IT OUT". (Heh.)

Hell, in sixth grade, I was pretty miserable after yet another military transfer (I hated them), and I tested as an INTJ -- weak on all letters but almost total on the I. In high school, where I was a jock and had to deal with the pressures of team-mates (and school in general), I flexed to become an ENTJ, but made up for this pressure by testing as one-hundred-percent iNtuitive, which is so freaking unusual as to be a sign that something is really off, somewhere. (My mom's comment: "It's not you, it's just that the test didn't ask the right questions to reveal your S-side.") In my early twenties, with a boss who was -- and I don't use this term lightly -- psychotically cruel, I tested as an INTP, with extremes on the first two and with only a 2% range on the T and the P, which is within the scale of being considered an X (split perfectly between the two). Again, not impossible, but very unusual, and more so to happen on two letters. By my late twenties -- the last time I could really take the test and retain any validity -- I tested as what's on my profile, as an INTP, with more reasonable scales on each.

The fact is that I'm a pretty strong P, under it all, so when I'm under a lot of pressure (especially any kind that requires excessive extroversion-like qualities), I flex and mask my 'true' type under a cloak of what I 'need' to be.

When I first took the test, the word was (and still is) that 10 or 11 is way too young. Kid's personalities appear to flex far too easily, and you end up destroying validity, especially as a kid moves into puberty and everything is going haywire at a root level. It's not that the personality changes so much as, well, you know the drill. That makes any measurement kinda suspect, especially given that a possible P-type has the tendency to instinctively flex in reaction to the environment.

As for some of the bits I saw in the post you linked to, a lot of that is conflation of different parts under one label ("extroversion/introversion"). It reads to me like someone who's, hmm, probably an iNtuitive Perceptive type -- an _N_P -- and is trying to expand his/her understanding onto all types through the lens of introversion. Processing, for instance, is not an aspect of extro/intro-version, but a facet of the S/N range, tempered by the J/P range: an S processes based on physical/tangible evidence most comfortably ("what are the facts/things") while Ns process based on intuitive leaps and hunches -- but Js want it decided and settled, while Ps are more likely to say, "let's wait and see, we need more information." So an SP is going to keep researching for more facts/things, while an NP will want to think it over and brainstorm, "see what hits me" -- while an SJ wants it figured out RIGHT NOW (and most often, is perfectly happy if the "figure it out" is based on "how we've always done it", since that's obviously about as "settled" as you can get!) and an NJ combination will contain a constant tension between the wish for a final decision against the iNtuitive tendency to brainstorm/consider. This natural combination/influence between the letters is also why you see certain sets together -- the J/P combination isn't nearly as influential for Ns as the T/F combination, while for Ss, it's the J/P combination that can really turn the key; thus you'll sometimes see the shorthand of SJ, SP and NT, NF.

Think of it this way: the first letter deals with where you get your energy. It's not entirely independent of the others, but for the most part, you can treat it like it is. The second letter is the filter through which you get information, the third letter is how you decide/judge that information (based on your head/logic versus your heart/emotions), and the last letter is whether you push for that decision or prefer to leave it open-ended. No one does any of these totally one-sided; even a strong T like myself may sometimes make decisions based on making other people happy (an F-style action), and even a strong J like my dad may sometimes opt to "leave it to decide later", as do many Js when their N-side (thirst for taking in more info) outweighs their J-ness.

The whole thing about verbal puns and jokes and whatnot... humor isn't really something you can type. ISTJs are the most likely to have an entire repertoire of jokes, yet you'd never guess that from the SJ combination. Their main rivals in bad-puns are the INTJs, who can make the intuitive leaps to find the worst puns without a second's thought, but the ESTPs aren't exactly slouches at that, either. ENTJs are more likely IME to find slapstick funny, but so can INTPs, who are a little off-the-wall in a lot of ways -- but then, my mother's theory on that was that sometimes what we find funny (or the way we express our humor) can also pivot on a kind of self-aggrandizing humor that's attracted to our opposite -- INTPs being the most cerebral of the sixteen types, so probably the last type you'd expect to find laughing hysterically over slapstick like the Three Stooges... but some INTPs do. (I actually fell off the sofa once from laughing so hard at a Laurell and Hardy routine, while my family -- the ENFP, INTJ, and ENFJ -- all stared at me like I'd gone insane. They didn't find it even a third as funny as I did.)

The bottom line, however, is that MBTI doesn't just flex... it's absolutely useless in a vacuum. This was one point that my mother insisted on, though (at the time) I got the sense she was kinda alone in saying it (but then, ENFP, going to think through a lens of human connections) -- that the real value in the MBTI is not in knowing your type, but in knowing your boss' or your kids' or your spouse's type and how your types interact. With an ESTJ, I react to completely different buttons than I do with an ENFP, and what about me pisses off the average INFP is something the average ISTP doesn't even register. I guess you could say that the real value in the MBTI is the space between your type and another person's type, and understanding that gap, and that the MBTI is a tool for measuring and bridging that gap. For the individual, on an individual-only level, it might give a little bit of insight, but that innate tendency of humans to flex to their situation (more or less) means that one's interior base-type may not be of much worth when facing down a really strong type like, say, an ESTJ or an ENTJ.

Side-story of humor and types: in high school, after my boyfriend had gotten the test from my mom. My sister -- the ENFJ -- her boyfriend -- the ESTP -- my boyfriend -- the ENFP -- and me -- the ENTJ (at the time). My boyfriend is trying to recall everything my mom had said, and he stumbled over the letters. "What's ENFP mean, again?" he asked, to which my sister's boyfriend -- without missing a beat -- replied, "it means you have Essentially No Fucking Personality." The two Ts in the car (sister's boyfriend and myself) laughed hysterically at this, while the two Fs in the car sat in glum silence.

Man, Fs are just so sensitive. *whistles*

[kaigou]

Also: T-types suck at small talk... but not entirely. INTJs have got to be the worst at it, because they're too busy thinking about twenty other things to even notice (or can't see reason to bother) coming up with some vapid reply. INTPs attempt small talk but are more likely to reply to "how are you?" with a treatise on whatever's consuming their brains right then. ISTJs can manage small talk and can be pretty glib about it, so long as it's tangible (ie the weather, the traffic, etc) but they're going through the motions as a result of the SJ pressure to follow convention. ESTJs are similar to ISTJs in that respect, but the most small-talking small-talkers I've ever met are ESFJs and ENFPs. The first is the eternal host/hostess ("can I get you something? drink? a snack?") while the ENFP is just delighted to connect with another person (and more like to ask how you feel about the weather or traffic, which baffles -- if not annoys -- the average ENTJ or ESTJ). The ESTP will ask the question and barely register the answer, too busy flying onto the next fun thing. The INFP and ISFP are the two that will actually stop and think seriously about "well, how do I feel?" -- which I think is probably because of the introversion (processing internally) plus feeling (immediately using emotion as filter) and a fair dose of the P (which doesn't just want things open-ended, but also often indicates the person will interpret a great deal as ambiguous or open-ended).

(Actually, my P-side is one reason, I'm told, that I will frequently read things as having a double or ambiguous meaning, while any SJs on the team saw it as "totally obvious" how the email was meant. Doesn't help that I'm also a strong N, so the intuitive hunch + open-ended, and you get... "oh, I read it this way, what do you mean none of the rest of you immediately thought of elephants on tricycles?" The INTP, and to a lesser degree the ISTP, seems to frequently be the one at the table going, "oh, I guess it really IS just me.")

I really think the author of that piece must be an INFP, or an INTP/J who's had it beaten into her head that she has to be more touchy-feely (and that only 'bad people' are strong T-types). Come to think of it, on re-reading the excerpts, I might even say the author is possibly a P under pressure, who's stressing out over social expectations that are against the grain of where she'd be more comfortable -- like, say, an INFP who's forced by work to be an ENFJ -- hence the emphasis on wanting more time to process, on needing to consider things carefully -- possibly an INFP surrounded by ESTPs. If you think daredevil high-energy frat-boy hooligan stereotype, you're not far off a basic ESTP template, and that's hell on INFPs, who want to connect emotionally and deeply.

Okay. Now I'm going to finish the trim in the bathroom and get to sleep. Really.

[firecat]

Thanks, this is utterly fascinating! I had no idea that "P" types "flex" under pressure. And the stuff about interactions between types being important makes a lot of sense. E.g., my primary partner is an "S" and I think that's caused me to become more "S" over the years we've been together.

The last time I had the actual MBTI as opposed to the various short forms on the Internet, I tested as an INTP. Making decisions can be really weird for me.

The two Ts in the car (sister's boyfriend and myself) laughed hysterically at this, while the two Fs in the car sat in glum silence.

I'm laughing!

[firecat]

I actually like small talk in, well, small doses. And when I'm not preoccupied. Being able to do it and enjoy it is a little reminder that I don't have overwhelming social anxiety any more.

I think your analysis of the author is spot on. She said at the beginning of the article that she felt too pressured being a full-time psychotherapist.