You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: No, You Are Not An Introvert

in #anthropology7 years ago (edited)

Hmm. Not sure I entirely agree - but I don't entirely disagree either. I don't like large groups of people, but if necessary, I can function (quite well) in that environment. I just find it exhausting. I like being on my own. I don't play many computer games. I read books. I greatly prefer communication that is considered to mere verbal diarrhoea, so prefer the written word. Or the still image, not that fond of TV either. I'm a rock musician who hates loud noise. I can strut my stuff onstage, but go home, alone, to blissful silence. I rarely listen to background music. I like to live inside my own head.

So you can see why I simultaneously agree and disagree with you. I am able to do the extrovert things, but I don't like them as much as the introvert things. I suspect you've undermined your point a little by talking about computer games, as I can neatly sidestep that point ;)

I agree with you about in-game communication, by the way. My son does lots of it. I don't spend much time gaming, but when I do, I avoid communication with other players. I have tried it, and find it more stressful even than large real-life groups. The lack of visual cues makes it too difficult to manage etiquette.

Having said all of that - I actually agree with the bigger point, which is that the definition of "normal" is in fact discriminatory, and although my character traits (which have not changed noticeably with age) may fit a certain dysfunction, I am not disabled or in need of a psychologist or psychiatrist. I just like my own company. I don't need medicating for that. I'm as "normal" as the next person. ;-)

Sort:  

Hi @dangwalt. I feel the same way you do--no need to over-identify with labels, but there is validity (at least for me) in the preference for peaceful and solitary activities over boisterous ones. A younger me certainly preferred larger social groups but as I mature, I find being alone and focused provides greater satisfaction. (Said the lady on social media). Hee!

Haha - yeah, we may be undermining our point... ;-)

But agreed, younger me certainly did party - and I still do from time to time. But that's always been, for me, a secondary activity. The things that I really value, and have always valued, are generally more solitary activities...

Which might invite a certain kind of follow up comment, but I'm not making it! ;)

Oh, and - nice cat :-D

Again, if you have lived 100 years ago this would not have happened. You don't have an intrinsic behavior of "preferring to be alone or with smaller groups". Technology aided this behavior and reinforces it. This doesn't make you "introvert".

No, that's where I wholly disagree with you. My preference for my own company is not predicated on technology. In fact, I use modern tech far less than most. And I'm old enough to remember before computers and mobile phones. And I preferred my own company then too. I recall an occasion in school when we were asked to design our own coat-of-arms and motto. My motto was "Silence is golden." And that was 1981 or 1982. I don't think I knew anyone with a computer or mobile phone (not sure the latter had been invented), and we did not possess a television in my home.
I do accept that for many, your analysis applies. But I have the sort of mind that enjoys quite contemplation. Maybe in the past I'd have been a monk (though I am also of a logical mindset, so maybe not).
Having said that, I love steam engines and railways, so 100 years ago you would probably have found me sitting alongside a railway line somewhere watching the trains. For the time, that was the most modern, exciting tech there was... ;)
Introversion is a character type - always has been, it's there in characters in literature going back hundreds of years or more. Our modern assignation of introversion to a large portion of the population is, I agree, largely a result of technology.
But I, and many like me, would find your insistence that we're just as social an animal as the next troubling. I'm not. I never have been. And you cannot make me be so. To attempt to force me to fit your concept of normal is as unreasonable as the average shrink insisting that I'm autistic and need medication...
Another way of saying all of that is - some people are more social than others. I'm at the less sociable end of the line. What word you choose to describe that is up to you, but introvert will do. Loner is another. Solitary is yet another. Or hermit... I'm sure I can think of more if necessary! These words would not exist if they were not applicable to some people.