saving ink

Today’s search through the Internets have resulted in an absolute gem: Revenge of the Introvert on Psychology Today.

Reading this article is like reading a manual on me. A few parts stand out especially, like this one:

“As a card-carrying introvert, I am one of the many people whose personality confers on them a preference for the inner world of their own mind rather than the outer world of sociability. Depleted by too much external stimulation, we thrive on reflection and solitude. Our psychic opposites, extraverts, prefer schmoozing and social life because such activities boost their mood. They get bored by too much solitude.”

And this one:

“Scientists now know that, while introverts have no special advantage in intelligence, they do seem to process more information than others in any given situation. To digest it, they do best in quiet environments, interacting one on one. Further, their brains are less dependent on external stimuli and rewards to feel good.”

I’ve known for some time now that I’m not a team player. Not that I can’t stand other people (that largely depends on their level of intelligence and sense of humor), but for the most part, I prefer to be alone or in a small group, especially when working. Then, that 20-30% of me that’s extroverted comes out in large bursts, usually on weekends, usually when there are large amounts of alcohol involved.

But I go crazy if I don’t get a certain amount of alone time each day or week, to the point of getting irritable and snappy towards those around me. Luckily, since I’ve been living by myself for about three years now, that doesn’t happen very often anymore.

And then there’s this perfect explanation of why I’ve always preferred writing to conversation - or at least found that I’m far better at the former:

“Extraverts are comfortable thinking as they speak. Introverts prefer slow-paced interactions that allow room for thought. Brainstorming does not work for them. Email does.”

In other words, I can absolutely come up with a witty and intelligent retort to your insult that could reduce you to a blubbering mess… if you give me a couple of hours.

Anyway, I’ve known the previously-mentioned information for a long time now, and accepted it as part of my personality. However, reading about the following correlation just resulted in an epic “duh” moment, as in, why the hell didn’t I see this earlier:

“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. 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.”

Of course! How did I overcome this challenge? By leaving it - by leaving America and the 9-to-5 system I obviously don’t belong in, and that I’m even now continuing to distance myself from more and more. But that means that there are millions of others - half of the population of the U.S. according to the article - still stuck in a country that “promotes the direct, fast-paced style of communication associated with extraversion” and rewards “talkativeness, assertiveness, and enthusiasm”. To summarize the gist of the rest of the article: That’s kind of fucked up, right?

I think the ultimate irony is that the best response to this problem would be to join together as introverts and rise up against the dominance of extroverts in American culture… except that, well, we can’t really do that. At least, not comfortably. And probably not that effectively. Perhaps a manifesto of some sort would be more fitting, but that would just be ignored. What’s an introvert to do?

Perhaps one place to start would be to instill some understanding in extroverts: What Not to Say to an Introvert. Damn straight.

Finally, this apt distinction between introversion and shyness should be far more prevalent in our culture:

“On the surface, introversion looks a lot like shyness. Both limit social interaction, but for differing reasons. The shy want desperately to connect but find socializing difficult […] Introverts seek time alone because they want time alone. 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.”

Yes! The introverted aren’t hopeless social rejects, we just don’t like you!

Ok, ok, more accurately: we just like our own heads better.

It’s all too often that, in the name of orderliness and simplicity, a dichotomy is established when the matter at hand is far more complicated. Such, I believe, is the case in the age-old classification of human beings into leaders and followers.

At least one more category is necessary, and this one I’ll dub “free agents”. A free agent is neither a leader nor a follower. They work best on their own, keeping to their own schedules and habits, and completing tasks at their own pace and with their own modus operandi.

However, problems arise when free agents are forced into the leader/follower polarity. Free agents do not follow commands well. They will do assigned tasks, as long as they’re allowed to complete them in their own manner. But if they’re forced into a rigid structure, they naturally rebel, sensing that their perceived way of doing things is the only correct way, whether this feeling actually corresponds with reality or not.

Just the same, free agents do not make good leaders. Leaders often mistake a free agent’s independence and hard work as a sign of their desire for a leadership position, and free agents themselves often fall into this trap because that’s what others have come to expect of them. But free agents have no desire to hold power; inherently, they’re rather be left to their own devices, and having to rule over others is a distraction from their actual goals.

When leaders and followers congregate, a natural order is immediately established: the followers follow the leader (or occasionally leaders). However, when several free agents are in a situation where they must work together, a completely different pattern emerges: that of collaboration amongst equals.

So what system of government would be more reflective of this situation? A democracy - the best we’ve managed to come up with so far - by nature is composed of leaders and followers, with no place in its framework for free agents. Could this system be altered to include free agents in the most productive way, or would an altogether new system have to be established?

And, perhaps most of all, why do thoughts like this come to me in the shower after a cold, mostly sleepless night?

A friend sent me a good article in today’s New York Times: What Life Asks of Us.

And it got me thinking.

My only problem is that the approach Brooks describes only works for the majority of people, but not for all of us. It’s most usually outsiders that revolutionize an institution’s methods and theories, precisely because they are not indoctrinated in the institution’s ways. And without those revolutions, particularly in science but also in most crafts, we wouldn’t have progress.

There’s a good analogy that Lee Smolin made when discussing the way modern physicists are categorized, which works for all fields that depend on progress. He said that among physicists, there is the majority, which is those who do regular science: expand existing theories, do the hard math and apply new theories to various fields, etc.; and then there are the visionaries, who think up the new theories, often not doing much else in the process. Both are necessary for science to progress; without the visionaries, the rest would eventually come to a wall once everything that can be derived from the existing theories has been derived. Without the regular scientists, inventing new theories would be pointless as there would be no one around to apply them and expand them to apply to different fields that the original theorists never considered.

The same goes for baseball, or journalism, or banking, or just about anything. The problem that I think Brooks is getting at is that too many people are trying (and failing) to be visionaries, and without the “regular scientists” sticking to the institutions, the institutions are collapsing.

But his first debate about the value of a liberal education is a bit beside the point; most people tend to see this as a black and white issue: either liberal educations are a waste of time and people should just be trained in their craft (institution), or that everyone should have a liberal education so they can be free thinkers and the world will be a wonderful place if only that was made law. In reality, not all are cut out for a liberal education, and would be better off sticking to a craft and doing it well. But, eliminating the idea of a liberal education would be diasterous for all, as there are those who are naturally drawn to it, and eliminating that option for them would mean eliminating the very visionaries so necassary for progress.

Ok, here is yet another example of how people who see the world as black and white, with no shades of grey or concept of balance, piss me off:

Brokaw: “Finally, Mr. President-elect, the White House is a no-smoking zone, and when you were asked about this recently by Barbara Walters, I read it very carefully, you ducked. Have you stopped smoking?”

“You know, I have, but what I said [to Walters] was that there were times where I have fallen off the wagon,” Obama told Brokaw.

“That means you haven’t stopped,” the steely NBC interrogator asserted.

Obama’s response: “Well, the—fair enough. What I would say is, is that I have done a terrific job, under the circumstances, of making myself much healthier, and I think that you will not see any violations of these rules in the White House.”

from this article: http://www.slate.com/id/2206445/

Now, why is everyone and their mother (other than the author of the above-mentioned article, who takes a refreshingly rational view) calling for Obama to quit smoking completely? They guy has obviously cut down - you don’t see him ducking behind the podium while making a speech for a puff, and he’s hardly a pack a day smoker. He hasn’t snapped at anyone because he didn’t have a smoke that day (though you know the media are salivating waiting for such a moment).

So, why does he have to quit completely? Why don’t non-smokers (or heavily addicted smokers) realize that there is a third choice, a middle way of smoking once in a while, when you want to, not need to?

Frankly, I’m quite proud that I’m the same type of smoker that Obama is. I never wake up yearning for a cigarette - in fact, I’ll usually go Monday-Thursday without a single one, then I’ll have a few on the weekend when I’m out at bars (yes, smoking is still allowed indoors in Poland). And for those who would say that this will lead to me becoming addicted to nicotine, chew on this: I’ve been doing this for three years now, and if anything, I probably buy fewer packs of cigarettes these days than three years ago because they’ve gotten much more expensive.

So kids, don’t believe the anti-smoking ads, they don’t work anyway. You can be a social smoker, just like you can be a social drinker. You don’t see every person out clubbing and getting drunk on the weekends hammered the entire week at work/school, do you? It depends on self-discipline and genetics - some people are just not easily addicted to anything. And if those people want to have the occasional cigarette, or whiskey, or joint, or even a line, let them, and kindly get the fuck off our case!