![]() | You are viewing Log in Create a LiveJournal Account Learn more | Explore LJ: Life Entertainment Music Culture News & Politics Technology |
by Jonathan Rauch
Do you know someone who needs hours alone every day? Who loves quiet conversations about feelings or ideas, and can give a dynamite presentation to a big audience, but seems awkward in groups and maladroit at small talk? Who has to be dragged to parties and then needs the rest of the day to recuperate? Who growls or scowls or grunts or winces when accosted with pleasantries by people who are just trying to be nice?
If so, do you tell this person he is "too serious," or ask if he is okay? Regard him as aloof, arrogant, rude? Redouble your efforts to draw him out?
If you answered yes to these questions, chances are that you have an introvert on your hands—and that you aren't caring for him properly. Science has learned a good deal in recent years about the habits and requirements of introverts. It has even learned, by means of brain scans, that introverts process information differently from other people (I am not making this up). If you are behind the curve on this important matter, be reassured that you are not alone. Introverts may be common, but they are also among the most misunderstood and aggrieved groups in America, possibly the world.
I know. My name is Jonathan, and I am an introvert.
Oh, for years I denied it. After all, I have good social skills. I am not morose or misanthropic. Usually. I am far from shy. I love long conversations that explore intimate thoughts or passionate interests. But at last I have self-identified and come out to my friends and colleagues. In doing so, I have found myself liberated from any number of damaging misconceptions and stereotypes. Now I am here to tell you what you need to know in order to respond sensitively and supportively to your own introverted family members, friends, and colleagues. Remember, someone you know, respect, and interact with every day is an introvert, and you are probably driving this person nuts. It pays to learn the warning signs.
What is introversion? In its modern sense, the concept goes back to the 1920s and the psychologist Carl Jung. Today it is a mainstay of personality tests, including the widely used Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Introverts are not necessarily shy. Shy people are anxious or frightened or self-excoriating in social settings; introverts generally are not. Introverts are also not misanthropic, though some of us do go along with Sartre as far as to say "Hell is other people at breakfast." Rather, introverts are people who find other people tiring.
Extroverts are energized by people, and wilt or fade when alone. They often seem bored by themselves, in both senses of the expression. Leave an extrovert alone for two minutes and he will reach for his cell phone. In contrast, after an hour or two of being socially "on," we introverts need to turn off and recharge. My own formula is roughly two hours alone for every hour of socializing. This isn't antisocial. It isn't a sign of depression. It does not call for medication. For introverts, to be alone with our thoughts is as restorative as sleeping, as nourishing as eating. Our motto: "I'm okay, you're okay—in small doses."
How many people are introverts? I performed exhaustive research on this question, in the form of a quick Google search. The answer: About 25 percent. Or: Just under half. Or—my favorite—"a minority in the regular population but a majority in the gifted population."
Are introverts misunderstood? Wildly. That, it appears, is our lot in life. "It is very difficult for an extrovert to understand an introvert," write the education experts Jill D. Burruss and Lisa Kaenzig. (They are also the source of the quotation in the previous paragraph.) Extroverts are easy for introverts to understand, because extroverts spend so much of their time working out who they are in voluble, and frequently inescapable, interaction with other people. They are as inscrutable as puppy dogs. But the street does not run both ways. Extroverts have little or no grasp of introversion. They assume that company, especially their own, is always welcome. They cannot imagine why someone would need to be alone; indeed, they often take umbrage at the suggestion. As often as I have tried to explain the matter to extroverts, I have never sensed that any of them really understood. They listen for a moment and then go back to barking and yipping.
Are introverts oppressed? I would have to say so. For one thing, extroverts are overrepresented in politics, a profession in which only the garrulous are really comfortable. Look at George W. Bush. Look at Bill Clinton. They seem to come fully to life only around other people. To think of the few introverts who did rise to the top in politics—Calvin Coolidge, Richard Nixon—is merely to drive home the point. With the possible exception of Ronald Reagan, whose fabled aloofness and privateness were probably signs of a deep introverted streak (many actors, I've read, are introverts, and many introverts, when socializing, feel like actors), introverts are not considered "naturals" in politics.
Extroverts therefore dominate public life. This is a pity. If we introverts ran the world, it would no doubt be a calmer, saner, more peaceful sort of place. As Coolidge is supposed to have said, "Don't you know that four fifths of all our troubles in this life would disappear if we would just sit down and keep still?" (He is also supposed to have said, "If you don't say anything, you won't be called on to repeat it." The only thing a true introvert dislikes more than talking about himself is repeating himself.)
With their endless appetite for talk and attention, extroverts also dominate social life, so they tend to set expectations. In our extrovertist society, being outgoing is considered normal and therefore desirable, a mark of happiness, confidence, leadership. Extroverts are seen as bighearted, vibrant, warm, empathic. "People person" is a compliment. Introverts are described with words like "guarded," "loner," "reserved," "taciturn," "self-contained," "private"—narrow, ungenerous words, words that suggest emotional parsimony and smallness of personality. Female introverts, I suspect, must suffer especially. In certain circles, particularly in the Midwest, a man can still sometimes get away with being what they used to call a strong and silent type; introverted women, lacking that alternative, are even more likely than men to be perceived as timid, withdrawn, haughty.
Are introverts arrogant? Hardly. I suppose this common misconception has to do with our being more intelligent, more reflective, more independent, more level-headed, more refined, and more sensitive than extroverts. Also, it is probably due to our lack of small talk, a lack that extroverts often mistake for disdain. We tend to think before talking, whereas extroverts tend to think by talking, which is why their meetings never last less than six hours. "Introverts," writes a perceptive fellow named Thomas P. Crouser, in an online review of a recent book called Why Should Extroverts Make All the Money? (I'm not making that up, either), "are driven to distraction by the semi-internal dialogue extroverts tend to conduct. Introverts don't outwardly complain, instead roll their eyes and silently curse the darkness." Just so.
The worst of it is that extroverts have no idea of the torment they put us through. Sometimes, as we gasp for air amid the fog of their 98-percent-content-free talk, we wonder if extroverts even bother to listen to themselves. Still, we endure stoically, because the etiquette books—written, no doubt, by extroverts—regard declining to banter as rude and gaps in conversation as awkward. We can only dream that someday, when our condition is more widely understood, when perhaps an Introverts' Rights movement has blossomed and borne fruit, it will not be impolite to say "I'm an introvert. You are a wonderful person and I like you. But now please shush."
How can I let the introvert in my life know that I support him and respect his choice? First, recognize that it's not a choice. It's not a lifestyle. It's an orientation.
Second, when you see an introvert lost in thought, don't say "What's the matter?" or "Are you all right?"
Third, don't say anything else, either.
I believe I have said this before. But I so wish I could go on a holiday now. I want to go back to Rome. For some inexplicable reason, I love the place. I want to go back to Cinque Terra and stay in one of the 5 towns for a week just staring out at the ocean from my window, buying fruits from the grocer downstairs and write/draw/dream. I want to go back to Paris and walk along seine and sit at a sidewalk cafe with my cappucino.
I love travelling with bobo and etc but there's a part of me that really wants to travel alone. I wish I want I dream, but I am so afraid. I am so afraid that I would be lost, be bored, and not know what to do.
Actually, I am most afraid that I have no one to eat with me.
I want to be alone but not lonely. I am dissatisfied with something in my life, but I can't really put a finger on it. Something is bothering me.
First, this is not a post about moi life. so if you ain't interested you can stop now at the end of this sentence. STOP.
If you're going to read on, then this is the damn article that sparked off my tirade.
Second, I don't get it. I really don't get it. The Thai military kicks out Thaksin who at least looks remotely capable of running the country financially, and allows a Thaksin-ally to step up, one who doesn't look like he's financially savvy. What the hell is wrong with these people? Look this is the guy who justified the military's brutal suppression of pro-democracy demonstrators by declaring that the government had the right to do so as long as the United States could send troops to kill people in other countries (WIKIPEDIA). He apparently also said he was a proxy of Thaksin (although i suspect this is just to get TRT-supporter's votes and he will 'kill' Thaksin as fast as Surayad would because Thaksin is the REAL threat).
The truth is, these people are honestly back to square one, if not WORSE. So what good has the Thai military done except to shake investor confidence, rescind the Temasek transaction and kick Thaksin out of the country? Well I mean I presume kicking Thaksin out of the country was one of the objectives, but which of these have actually been good for the people???
and here's where the alarm bells ring. The MILITARY APPOINTED govt including Surayad, rushed through a series of legislative amendments that does not allow the ELECTED govt to make changes to the military appointments. (Note: this Samak had connections with the military!) Since when did the military become a law unto itself??? As far as I've learnt, the process of democracy is meant to give representation to the people's choice and one of this choice is the PRIME MINISTER. The last i remembered, the military is under the executive arm of the govt i.e. the Cabinet. But NOW there is one arm of the government which is above the damn government itself! *clap clap* the Thai military has completely outdone itself.
The whole idea is a farce. The military govt overthrows Thaksin, with only the King's approval, then say they'll draw up a constitution but HOW do you draw up a constitution when you weren't elected?? the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Yes it is to protect the people and I'm sure the army takes it upon itself to do the holy job, but that's an absolutely parochial way to look at it, as though "the people can't frigging decide for themselves so let me do it for them". Unfortunately, the Constitution is also to give voice to the people, it's something that you've drawn up right from the beginning and sometime you keep for years and years to come and not just write a new one everytime you overthrow some corrupted (or so they say) shiz. My fundamental problem with this is, how do you write a Constitution if you aren't a representative of the people?
and and and read this! the military can throw the PRIME MINISTER into jail if he tries to make changes to the military appointments. Is there NO alarm bells amongst the Thais??? isn't this like a hot bed for nepotism, abuse, corruption, and whatever vice you can think of? this is effectively making the military the most powerful organ (though it isn't technically MEANT to be one).
You can rely on your king today because the military respects him. what if one day you get a terrible king and the military finds it impossible to listen to him? overthrow the constitutional monarchy and put up a new king? there are a million permutations, all of which puts the military at the apex, not the govt obviously, and not the king.
"absolute power corrupts absolutely" everybody knows this, but why are we so forgetful?
sure, you have more things to worry about in your life like whether you're earning enough to feed your children. I'm not advocating taking to the streets or picketting etc. But if you're aware, you'll know what hit you when it happens, you'll know how to cast your vote, and you'll know the dangers you're facing. It's saddest that you live in a nice pretty bubble and when it bursts, you find yourself surrounded only by ugliness which has always been staring at you in the face but which you've always refused to acknowledge.
it's ridiculous how stupid politicians get away with stupid things because we just can't be bothered sometimes.
i'm ranting, but i really am angry. angry at how people can take advantage of people that way. how people can think they're so great, that what they're doing must be right.
i think i might die too young getting angry this way. i'm so angry i really am.