Aren't You Having Fun?

[leahbobet]

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".

Comments

[amy34.livejournal.com]

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.

[veejane.livejournal.com]

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.

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

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.

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

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

One of which is that social lies are anaethema, which I swear gets us into more trouble than the rest combined.

My life has been much easier since I learned to get out of these kinds of situations by, well, shameless fibbing.

"Aren't you having a good time?"

"Lovely, thanks."

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

One of which is that social lies are anaethema, which I swear gets us into more trouble than the rest combined.

Yeah. That's the one that gets me into trouble. We were talking about that a little over at mrissa's place too. I have devised a whole art of how to get out of having to utter social lies when talking to normal people.

I'm not sure it's a fallacy, though (which of course I'd say, being a geek). There's something to be said for holding to a sharper degree of honesty.

[veejane.livejournal.com]

Well, yeah, I do that too, but I prefer to lie plausibly. Also, "Lovely, thanks" sounds to me like an invitation to the interloper to stay, and say nice platitudes. Crude honesty can warn off the well-meaning; and actually, it can have a backhandedly positive ice-breaking effect on people of a similar mien.

(Not, usually, that they're the ones asking, "Aren't you having a good time?" usually, but I find that one person admitting to nerves will trigger a cascade of similar confessions, and considerable easing of tension.)

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

There's something to be said for holding to a sharper degree of honesty.

Well, there is. And I hope I am a fairly honest soul. But there's a sort of very tricky balance between avoiding Saying The Thing That Is Not, avoiding pedantry (if there's a kind of geek that I find incredibly challenging, it's the kind of geek who cannot let either a small and unimportant error or a smidge of hyperbole go by without immediate and lengthy correction), avoiding rudeness, and keeping strangers out of my business.

It's not an easy balance...

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

Huh. That's really interesting -- I don't know that a lot of people have the chance to do that kind of hardcore observation outside of going out and getting a grant for it. *g*

The diagnosis of autism spectrum stuff is odd. I know some people who have said a few times that most geeks have one or two autism/Asperger's traits, and that may or may not mean anything with regards to actual diagnosis.

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

Also, "Lovely, thanks" sounds to me like an invitation to the interloper to stay, and say nice platitudes.

I guess I figure that's the chance I take in going to social events; if I show up, I'm agreeing to be at least pleasant to people whether or not I find their company incredibly pleasing.

If I can't face it, I develop a diplomatic headache and stay home.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

Heh. Yes. People are tiring.

(if there's a kind of geek that I find incredibly challenging, it's the kind of geek who cannot let either a small and unimportant error or a smidge of hyperbole go by without immediate and lengthy correction)

I've...kind of gotten used to that, at the same time as having let it go myself? I was very concerned with accuracy in all things as a kid. It kept my universe ordered and stable, and it was important that Correct and Incorrect be delineated and stable. I'm a lot more sympathetic to the tendency because of that, I think.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

It's funny -- there's a way people can overuse that strategy too that makes it even worse than the nothing: the kind of people who...complain as social solidarity-building? And then if you're a geek, you eventually want to beat them about the head and go "so if you're unhappy about things, fix them, or let someone else help fix them, or if you're not unhappy enough shut up".

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I've mostly heard the definition where it's what you draw your energy from.

I get away with a hell of a lot, I think. But not in the way where I hide behind it. In the way where I think people would hold me to account for some of the norm-dodging I do if I didn't have a prior claim to that label.

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

I'm sympathetic to it, on some level. It's what I'm like about academic work, or any sort of research.

But it makes including such a person in conversations with a crowd of metaphor-hyperbole-and-allusion types without letting them dominate (or just plain kill) said conversation really challenging.

Extreme cases always make me think of that Chaucherblog tshirt: "Okaye so sometymes it raineth in March: make notte a chancerye case of the whole mattere."

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

Norm is always worth dodging. Especially Sexual Norm. :)

And yeah, I get you.

[asatomuraki.livejournal.com]

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.

[gleefulfreak.livejournal.com]

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? :)

[ginny-t.livejournal.com]

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.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

Heeeee.

That's an awesome shirt.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I'm doing a lot of History of Medicine reading, and it makes me wonder if this is one of the social peculiarities people are going to write papers on in a hundred years.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

Hee. Less calories!

I think part of why the label's getting used in this weird way is because it's so fuzzy. It's a grouping of very relative behaviours that just...aren't strongly defined, and it's so dependent on your social group and what people do and who's there...

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

I process "shy" as totally different. Different affect, different behaviours, different motives. I think there's a perception that shy can be gotten over, and introvert is...manageable but not significantly alterable at the end of the day?

As for the panic attacks...I've found getting the right amount of recharge time is kinda crucial for keeping mine off (as well as the parade of dietary stuff and whatnot). But in the way that not putting wood on the fire is crucial, not that the introversion was the match. If that makes sense. I think it's a symptom versus a cause?

Now I am all thinky.

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

I suppose on consideration what I'd actually say is probably closer to "It's a lovely party, I'm just a little tired." Or, you know, some other formulation that isn't quite untrue. A lot depends on whose asking -- a friend? A total stranger? The hostess? One of my spouses?

I think ... there are social lies and social lies.

I mean, the situation that people were talking about over in mrissa's lj, of condolences - which is an extreme case but therefore sort of useful illustratively - meaning it isn't the same as feeling it.

I'm not always feeling it, but you know, that's my problem, not to be inflicted on someone who's in mourning. If somebody's in trouble the least I can do is express sympathy, and I just need to grit my teeth and do that.

[themachinestops.livejournal.com]

"Mundane"?

I disagree that introversion is not stigmatized. In my experience, especially my working experience, if you're someone that does not get a charge out of working with people, one who is actually exhausted (and is not a good enough liar to conceal that exhaustion) by human interaction, you are stigmatized, either in the form of whispers about "that antisocial person" or speculation about whether or not you're mentally ill (which I happen to be but that doesn't mean it's kind to speculate). If your introversion is coupled with panic attacks when your battery gets low enough (which is how I think of my capacity to deal with people... they drain my batteries, alone time builds it back up, sometimes it crashes), then boy is that ever stigmatized.

I don't find that writers are any better than non-writers/creative people when it comes to this; a con is at least as draining as a week of work, and writers are funny people to disclose one's mental state to: either they think it doesn't apply to them because "we're the same," or they romanticize mental illness and "otherness" in such a way that makes me want to puke all over the con suite. Many writers think you should be automatic frendzz because you're a writer, they're a writer... doesn't work that way. Actually, I know who my friends are because when I'm around them or speaking to them on the phone I don't get drained, I get energized. Which is like four people.

But I have never and would never use the "I'm not having fun, I'm an introvert" line because generally I DO enjoy hanging out on the periphery and interacting in my own way. If anything causes me not to have fun at a party, it's someone constantly trying to bring me out into the open and interact with the other party goers on their terms. Luckily there really isn't anyone in my social sphere who would do that so I'm free to hang in the middle or hang at the side, whichever I prefer.

Re: Now I am all thinky.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

My tricky point with condolences is actually the cases where I neither mean nor feel it.

In neutral situations, I can mean it without feeling it. I am sorry that this person hurts and has lost; I don't have to feel the loss myself.

In non-neutral situations, well. Death in your circle or not, I continue to not owe you anything, and there will be no reprieve of the dislike you have justly earned. The social expectation that I ought to suspend it...rankles. That death is not between them and me.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

(Unrelatedly? You have a cool LJ handle. *g*)

That's interesting. I've been hit with the antisocial label at workplaces, but not when I was thinking ahead enough to smile demurely and offer the introversion explanation. It's when people thought I didn't like them (and sometimes I didn't) or felt myself above them that the stigma came out.

writers are funny people to disclose one's mental state to: either they think it doesn't apply to them because "we're the same," or they romanticize mental illness and "otherness" in such a way that makes me want to puke all over the con suite.

I will hazard an opinion that you're totally hanging out with the wrong writers. *g*

There's an interesting discourse on LJ among writers and fans on mental health -- particularly depression, for a few reasons -- that I don't think does either. It has its various failings, but I think that the two you've listed above aren't one of them. If you're interested, oyceter's On Depression (http://oyceter.livejournal.com/381636.html) posts are a good example. And a couple cons are getting really good about making sure there's Quiet Spaces, as well as the usual set-aside space for other things.