leahbobet | Aren't You Having Fun?

Current Mood: thoughtful
Current Music: Tori Amos -- Famous Blue Raincoat

Entry tags:

Aren't You Having Fun?

mrissa has me thinking about introversion and extroversion. Specifically, how we use those labels, what assumptions they carry, what their social function is.

(Warning. This is gonna get kind of nitpicky and technical in a semantics/philosophy/armchair psych kinda way, and I'm not sure where it's going until it gets there. Fasten your seatbelts.)

We throw around the idea of introversion in a way that's odd mostly for its essentialism, its description of something in one's social conduct that is utterly not malleable or arguable. And I'm not saying it is malleable and all those people really ought to just buck up and conform to the social expectations of their local village. The point is the assumption, the way we appeal to that label. We're not keen on linking permanent traits with patterns of sociability these days or dividing people into 'kinds' of people. Current society really is down on models of behaviour that are not modifiable by some means, that's hardwired into us. The expectations are for behaving to the expected social patterns regardless of who we are or what we're doing at home. Which is why this interchange, if you look at it, is really...so weird:

"Aren't you having fun?"
"No, I'm an introvert."

Game over, right? There's no arguing that. There aren't a lot of social labels we can appeal to in a way that shuts down any rebuttal. For example:

"Aren't you having fun?"
"No, I'm a Taurus."

There's another bundle of character traits given a label. But Tauruses are still expected to give way when their local norms say the appropriate social practice is not to be stubborn. The Early Modern Melancholic was still expected to provide nice conversation at the dinner table. Misanthropes can hate people all they want, but the prevailing connotation to the word implies that really, they shouldn't. There's an underlying assumption in that, whether it's a true or false one: the idea that deviance from norms of sociability in these cases is a choice. That the people under these labels could, if they really wanted to, just shape up and behave like everyone else.

Nobody seems to do that with introversion and extroversion.

Sure, yeah, people do it to individuals all the time. But there's a difference in quality there: people refuse to believe that you're really an introvert or extrovert, rather than feeling that introversion or extroversion in and of itself is a chosen social deviance. What's being questioned is your inclusion in the category, not the validity of the actual category. I don't know that people consider "introvert" and "extrovert" as...well, excuses for being a brat.

So introversion doesn't pattern like a bundle of character traits given a label. What does it pattern like, that quality to the label of social behaviours against the norm that are rooted in permanence, subject to lack of choice, superceding the will? It patterns with mental illness.

Try again:

"Aren't you having fun?"
"No, I'm clinically depressed."

Nothing to argue there. Person didn't choose that, can't do anything about it, will continue to behave in a way that you do not feel fits the norms of sociability in this situation. No culpability. Move along, right?

That's even weirder.

Because mental illness has that perjorative connotation. There are campaigns to reduce the stigma of depression, and that's all it takes to prove that there is a stigma. But...introversion and extroversion don't. Yet we still assign them no culpability for flouting the norms of the social situation, whether we think that situation calls for a higher or lower level of social engagement.

But I wonder...is that social patterning we do without thinking getting at something?

I'm an introvert. It's rather severe, actually. I learned to put on otherwise when I started working in retail, and that professionally detached false face is my survival skill. I don't know that my introversion is actually a natural part of my personality, though. My parents had a big chunky portable video camera when I was a kid, and before school-age I was actually pretty extroverted. I couldn't wait to engage with other people. I wanted to talk to them and hear what they had to say and sincerely enjoyed other people. I have video proof.

Then, as the standard geek sob story goes, I was teased regularly and severely, to the point of people encouraging suicide, for the next ten-odd years.

I'm not surprised that people require a hell of a lot of energy from me, that engaging with them wears me out. I'm running a lot more software in my head for every human interaction: what this person's saying, what they might really mean, whether there are openings in this I'm leaving for them to do something unto me, what their body language says, where my escape routes are. I can run my professional persona on autopilot and it requires relatively less energy, but actually engaging with a human being is exhausting. No wonder being by myself is preferred, more energy-efficient, and just...so much more relaxing.

I have no idea if this theory holds water for me, never mind other people. It's not even really a theory: I'm sort of just thinking out loud here. Personalities change as you grow. It could be indeed a natural predisposition that came up, coupled with my pain-in-the-ass childhood, and intensified an effect that was already going to be there.

But I really do wonder at this assumption we have that introversion and extroversion are natural and hardwired components of a personality, and the way we give them social leeway like nothing else gets without a corresponding social penalty. I wonder if we do correlate introversion with damage in some way I can't quite get at -- read it as a coping mechanism for a trauma even if it isn't that thing -- because it's not like our society is shy about telling people who have natural and hardwired preferences that they ought to suck it up and be different. Unless we think it's because of damage. Then we get out of their way.

Why's this the exception?

Because it is. Because the easiest way I know to get out of some of those stressful situations is a demure smile and a "no, sorry, I'm kind of an introvert".

Threaded | Flat

Interesting thoughts. I'm an introvert and I have two sons, both of whom went to co-op preschool, which means I worked in the classroom and was able to observe how they interacted with their peers.

My older son was extroverted from the get-go. He was drawn to other kids--wherever the biggest knot of kids was, that's where he'd go. He'd watch what they were doing and join in. It was almost like he was a chameleon--he showed few preferences as to what he personally wanted to play or do. Whatever the other kids were doing, he wanted to do it.

He's now 9 years old, and everywhere he goes, he does the same thing. Finds a knot of kids he finds appealing, watches them, insinuates himself into their play. He claims that making new friends is hard, but I've never seen a kid who does it more easily.

From the time he was 4 years old, I watched him and thought, my preschooler has better social skills than I do.

Then my second son went through the same preschool program. In those first days of class, he spoke to no one--not even if they spoke to him. He'd find something he wanted to play with--but only if no one else was playing with it. If a knot of kids came over and joined him, he'd leave.

He's now a year and a half into the program, and has made some social progress. He answers when the teacher speaks to him (usually). He very occasionally raises his hand in class. And once in a while he plays one-on-one with another child, but only if it's something he wants to play. He rarely adapts to another child's play style.

When I invite kids over for him to play with, he does much better--apparently being around just one or two other kids is much easier for him than being around 14. He also plays quite happily with his brother.

If you're thinking he's on the autistic spectrum, it's possible, but I don't think he is. He reminds me of myself at that age--able to play in small groups but incapable of dealing with a crowd. I think he's just a severe introvert--a natural one, not created by any kind of peer abuse.

Watching the two of them, I've come to realize being an introvert does have some advantages. My extroverted boy will, I believe, always be more susceptible to peer pressure; whatever the prevailing trend is, he follows it. But my youngest, though he's likely to have a much harder time with his peers in school, may have a stronger internal compass.

We're not keen on linking permanent traits with patterns of sociability these days or dividing people into 'kinds' of people.

I wish this were more true, because I'm so tired of those stupid ENTJ IMXQ WTFF STFU acronyms and their potential usage in professional settings (and in professional discrimination).

I think introversion as the get-out-of-jail-free card is true only among geeks (or only among whom the word "introversion" does not need to be defined in conversation), and I wonder if it's somehow twined into geek culture. Geeks need get-out-of-jail-free cards; we have our own set of social fallacies that are crippling and weird and drive me bananas; introversion is the very least of the conversational gambits I'll play to ward off someone I don't like. (Another option is suddenly changing the topic to be about antique chairs.)

"Aren't you having a good time?"
"No; I feel nervous."

Phrasing it that way solicits the questioner to dig further and try (god forbid) to be helpful. There are many potential reasons to be wearing a scowl at a party, but it's nice to have one that is perceived as inarguable and fixed. It's that or start claiming that my wedgie is about to catch fire, or something.

That's interesting. I've been both noticeably introverted and noticeably extroverted during my life; it seems to swing based on my physical and mental condition overall.

Someone, and damn I wish I remembered who, once defined introversion and extroversion to me as being a matter, not of whether one ENJOYED crowds, people, etc, but as a matter of whether one found people were draining or energising, and that's specifically what I mean when I say I've been both.

My immediate reaction to your post was to say "what the fuck, I've never gotten away with anything because of being introverted", but now that I come to ponder this, this is probably actually because people don't think I am (and because I've never gotten into the habit of playing the card), not because it doesn't work.

I've been formally tested a lot, from childhood to adulthood (I was in a study of eidetic memory children, starting in the 70s) and usually the Myers-Briggs had me as an INTJ, with the "I" meaning introvert. But usually just barely. In college I once tested out as an extreme extrovert. I don't think it's a fixed thing, though I do require alone time to recharge. Some say that is the mark of an introvert. *shrug* People love their labels, especially when they can also be used as an excuse. It is an interesting topic, though.

I am kind of stupid right now, so bear with me...

I used to identify as an introvert, until LJ introduced me to people who strongly identified as introverts and I realized that I actually do enjoy some social interaction more than that. Prior to that, it had never occurred to me to say "sorry, can't, too introverted right now" to any invitation to be social. I do enjoy alone time and I don't think I could ever be considered an extrovert, but my introversion has never been such that I need to beg off hanging out with people. Anytime I've begged off, it was because of tiredness/illness/feeling down, not because of introversion. I have been known to sometimes leave parties early, but I think that's not so much a function of being introverted as it is of just feeling that I don't fit in there (not being a drinker or enjoying being around people who are drinking is a big reason for that feeling, a lot of the time) and I'd rather be elsewhere. If it's a gathering for something I really enjoy, then it's not an issue - I can be around a couple thousand people at one of Amma's programs and be perfectly happy.

Sometimes I find it tiresome to have conversations even with people I consider friends, but again, I don't chalk that up to introversion, but different conversational styles. I dislike small talk and repetition and statements of the obvious and other unconsidered things that seem intended to keep a conversation going at all costs, and sometimes I have more patience with that than others.

So, yeah. I don't use the i-word to describe myself so much anymore, because it seems as though I'm not really what an introvert is. I'd call myself "quiet" because I think that sums me up as far as social habits - I'm a homebody and I don't like noise or crowds - but DJ would laugh his ass off, because I'm not exactly a quiet personality, either. Maybe I'm Introvert Lite? :)

I'm not at full capacity here, so I haven't processed everything you've said.

I do want to add that I sometimes feel like my introversion is getting more pronounced and could someday turn into panic attacks (which, really? so do not want). In my not-firing-on-all-cylinders state, this feels like something that ought to be mentioned.

edit after glancing at some other comments: There are the different ways of defining "introvert". The mundanes think it means shy (and the psychologists, but what do they know?), whereas there are those who define it as needing time alone. It leads to a further disconnect (at work, someone said, "maybe you're a mild introvert" to me. I was good and didn't laugh in her face because for all that she's a near-complete mundane, she's been a good person so far). Maybe I think that's got a place in this discussion because it can reinforce the idea that introversion is behaviour that can be trained instead of behaviour that's hardwired.

Edited 2008-02-01 02:23 (UTC)

I thought I had something interesting and useful to add to the discussion, but when I wrote it down I wound up having a discussion with myself over whether I really believe it ... which I suppose isn't such a bad thing, but isn't so useful for the general populace.

I will say that I like knowing you, and I'm gonna keep poking at you to hang out with us some time. But online is a good thing, too.

I think in most social situations I qualify as an introvert. I don't really go out of my way to talk to people at parties (or even to go to parties), and often when I'm in a social situation I find it difficult to keep up a conversation; I just can't get into the groove of it.

In my chosen communities, though, I have a reputation as someone who's easy to talk to, opinionated but open-minded, a resource for several different subjects, and generally a good communicator. That description doesn't sound particularly introverted at all.

I still think of myself as an introvert, though, because my ability to engage with other people depends mainly on whether the state of my internal dialogue is compatible with the expected norms for external dialogue in the situation I'm in. At first blush, this sounds like I'm saying "I only talk about what I happen to be thinking about at the time," which is probably a valid accusation. :P But it also has to do with what I can get myself to think about. If I encounter a conversation on a subject I find interesting, I can shift the direction of my internal dialogue and join a discussion without hogging the floor or turning it to a different topic (I used to be much worse at this in the past) -- if the subject is something I just can't summon up any passion for (sports, SF-writing-101 stuff, office politics, pretty much any form of social maneuvering), I get bored and move on.

I think extroverts tend to be better at operating in any social situation because they're more adept at connecting passionately to what other people are doing -- they find it inspiring and energising. It's good for their mental health, and that's great for them. When most of the introverts I know get bored in a social situation, they find themselves thinking about how much happier they would be at home doing something they found more internally fulfilling. Often this includes communicating with other people -- just in a more low-impact environment, such as quiet gatherings with one or two friends, or over IM/email/LiveJournal/IRC/whatever.

Huh. You're a bit hard on yourself, aren't you? And everybody else. I noticed that about some of your posts before. Always with a weird twinge of recognition, because I grew up in a "buck up and get over yourself" kind of family. It has its advantages up to a point - good for survival and generally making one's way in the world, for one thing. But also I find it encourages emotional detachment as a coping mechanism(I'm talking about myself here, I have no idea what your coping mechanisms are) and tends to make one judgmental of those who can't just "buck up".
I totally agree that introversion and extraversion are socially created definitions as much as actual inclinations, and also I find that they fluctuate over time and circumstance. Having said that, I really don't see why they would need to have a negative or positive moral valance attached to them - I mean, so what if someone doesn't like parties? And why should they make themselves have fun at social gatherings? I don't think I ever saw one category as better than the other, nor do I think everybody ought to be social - at most, I might suggest to a close friend that they try to be a bit more social as it might make them happier. And even then I'd be careful with assumptions like that. Anyway, maybe I'm just reading the terms differently from you - if we understand "introversion" as "extreme avoidance of any social interaction even when one's responsibilities dictate it", then I can sort of see your point.

Not only have I never used the introvert card in that situation, it never occurred to me that I could. When I was little, people's $%&$%&@!!! parents were always trying to "draw me out" and "include me," and when they discovered that I was not in fact shy but rather not interested in what the other kids were doing, that never went well. "Shy" was okay; a little shy girl with blonde braids and great big brown eyes was someone they could envision pulling out of her shell until at the end of the day she was shouting and laughing with the others and having a great time. But "shy" comes with connotations of "scared" and "nervous" for a lot of parents, and it comes with the idea that the person in question would get used to the others over time and be less shy with them. Whereas discovering, even without the label "introvert," that I was neither scared nor nervous, just content with myself, did not go well. Ever. So I never introduced it with that vocabulary as an adult, either.

I'm running a lot more software in my head for every human interaction

Yes. I'm so glad you posted this--it's good knowing someone else shares this kind of experience. In social interactions, I always feel like I'm missing something--I'm not processing enough information, or there's subtext that I miss or just don't get. I do better now than I did as a kid, but it's still really wearing.

Hm. I don't recall ever getting a free introvert pass. OTOH I find that focusing my vision on something else, saying "excuse me," and walking away works perfectly in such situations. (Or even just picking a pause in the conversation and wandering off. You'd think people would get upset, but mostly the ones worth staying friends with don't.)

I'm not sure introvert/extrovert is changeable, but I'm quite certain degree is. I should make a graph.

Threaded | Flat

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject