Introverts of the world, speak out!

February 20, 2006 8:33 AM

"Don't talk to me. Don't speak to me. Stay with me."Three years later, the author of Atlantic Monthly's most popular essay sits down for an interview.
posted by empath (113 comments total)

If he's such an introvert what's he doing giving an interview? Man, the same thing happened in Animal Farm.
posted by mowglisambo at 8:48 AM on February 20, 2006

Shouldn't this be in metatalk?
posted by srboisvert at 8:51 AM on February 20, 2006

Hmm... criticises extroverts for being who they are? Yeah right, you'll be getting respect from me. Why don't you deal with us?
posted by Dean Keaton at 8:53 AM on February 20, 2006

What makes that the most popular essay? Was it chosen by some group or something?
posted by graventy at 8:57 AM on February 20, 2006

That article pretty much describes my entire personality.

Which is either sad or striking or both.
posted by Target Practice at 9:02 AM on February 20, 2006

No. There's no introvert "gay-dar" that I can tell. One reason is that a lot of introverts are actually very good at being social. It just takes a lot of work for them. I'm like that.

Sounds to me like they're just lazy!

Although, I'm kind of the same way, I'm just socially lazy, but I do enjoy talking with people, just yammering on and on and on. *shrugs*. I guess my 6,000+ mefi comments are a testament to that...
posted by delmoi at 9:09 AM on February 20, 2006

I've revisited the essay at least five times and passed it along to everyone I knew. Most popular Atlantic essay? I believe it.

Oh god, please don't turn this comment into a conversation.
posted by honeydew at 9:12 AM on February 20, 2006

Anyone who knows me in RL would call me an introvert.

That said, I think this guy is just feeling sorry for himself, imagining all these wrongs the rest of the world casually perpetrates against him.

There's no obligation to make small talk.

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.

Us introverts are particularly susceptible to self-pity and self-obsession of all kinds.

I don't see the attributes he outlines here as being more common among introverts, but introverts are more likely to devote cycles to asking themselves whether or not they are "more intelligent, more reflective, more independent, more level-headed, more refined, and more sensitive" than the rest of the folks in the world out there.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:24 AM on February 20, 2006

I too keep the article bookmarked and share it with lots of folks.

That said, I strongly doubt a "Introvert's Rights revolution." I mean, who would show up?

Now leave me alone.
posted by sdrawkcab at 9:31 AM on February 20, 2006

First they came for the introverts. And I didn't say anything, because I was one of the introverts, and just didn't feel like talking and stuff...
posted by qvantamon at 9:35 AM on February 20, 2006

graventy: it's the most read essay on their site-- in terms of hits...
posted by empath at 9:35 AM on February 20, 2006

Sounds to me like they're just lazy!

Lazy? It's hardly being lazy... and the fact you love to yammer on and on shows that you're one of those extroverts who doesn't get it.

Yammering on and on isn't what introverts do best. I love going to parties, but more to observe others, see what happens, hear the conversations, but I really can't hold a 5 minute conversation with anyone unless the topic is something more than the normal boring chit chat. And nothing is more exhausting to me than a work party where everyone is talking about the breakfast buffet or the weather.

Lazy? Go read the article again, and hold your comments until you do.

Us introverts just don't have the patience.
posted by AspectRatio at 9:39 AM on February 20, 2006

And on The Atlantic's Web site, it drew (and has continued to draw) more traffic than any other piece we've posted.

Especially interesting given that it's the 33rd Google result. Perhaps introverts are also less given to activities that boost PageRank? (In 2001 I would have said that most bloggers are introverts, but I suspect that may not be true today.)

Us introverts are particularly susceptible to self-pity and self-obsession of all kinds.

In a way this is true, but it's also true that extrovert behavior is valued by society, and encouraged as a sign of psychological health. I'm not going to go so far, here, as to assert that's an inappropriate bias, but I think it's worth wondering about.
posted by dhartung at 9:56 AM on February 20, 2006

AspectRatio, I think what is going on is that introverts are misunderstood - for reasons that are beyond their control but are easiluy construed as rude or "holier than thou" to an extrovert, such as myself. Don't get me wrong though: I have known very polite and understandable introverts and I have respected their wishes. Otherwise, coming off as an asshole doesn't get you favors.
posted by Dean Keaton at 9:56 AM on February 20, 2006

Introverts of Mefi, unite!


Or sit here and read together, I don't know, do what you want, I'm not going to force you to be chatty.

I'm going over here to play solitaire. Let me know if anything interesting is said other than "yeah, I'm an introvert, too".
posted by daq at 9:57 AM on February 20, 2006

I think some people didn't read the article very well...
posted by marikob at 10:02 AM on February 20, 2006

empath : "it's the most read essay on their site-- in terms of hits..."

*peruses second article*
*quietly hides in corner*

posted by graventy at 10:02 AM on February 20, 2006

ROFL, mowglisambo!
posted by the quidnunc kid at 10:07 AM on February 20, 2006

Introvert is the new hipster.
posted by xmutex at 10:12 AM on February 20, 2006

Introverts are economically selected against between team work is more valuable than individuals for the majority of industries. Having an introvert in the office who refuses to mingle, doesn't laugh at jokes, and is generally selfish and cares only about herself can destroy the entire team dynamics. Introvert discrimination is an economic phenomenon, the product of the all-knowing, beneficient invisible hand, and so it's perfectly ok.
posted by nixerman at 10:14 AM on February 20, 2006

Wow, interesting article, I hadn't seen it before. I can't tell you how many times I've been told that I'm intimidating. I'm just a misunderstood introvert!

many introverts, when socializing, feel like actors

That's spot on.
posted by amro at 10:16 AM on February 20, 2006

Mm, rang several bells for me.

Introverts of the world, unite and take over...

Doesn't have quite the same ring to it. Back to shoplifting, I guess.
posted by ludwig_van at 10:23 AM on February 20, 2006

I'd be curious to know what Jonathan thinks about the effect of a lifetime spent in front of the TV with regards to introverted orientation.
posted by telstar at 10:24 AM on February 20, 2006

Hi. I'm djeo and I'm normal. Now leave me alone.

I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of introverts out there that think there is something wrong with them because they feel asocial. It would be nice if wiser, more experienced introverts would mentor introverted children (and adolescents) with the goal of helping them understand that they are just fine the way they are. Self-acceptance of introverted tendencies can make all the difference in how someone like me views their place in the world. I'm going to try and keep this in mind when I interact with my nieces and nephews (and eventually my own offspring). I wish someone had done this for me.
posted by djeo at 10:27 AM on February 20, 2006

I don't think of myself as an introvert as much as I think other people are annoying.
posted by elwoodwiles at 10:30 AM on February 20, 2006

Yeah, that's me as well.

My favorite part of this introvert deal is when extroverts ask what I like to do for fun. I tell them. They ask again, what do you do for fun? I absolutely cannot make some of them understand that anything involving huge amounts of alcohol and strangers is slightly less enjoyable than a Pap smear.

Hell, at least when I'm sitting there freezing my lower extremities off waiting for the doctor, it's quiet.
posted by cmyk at 10:34 AM on February 20, 2006

After reading the original article it appears I don't actually know any introverts or extroverts, as he describes them. In fact both these groups he's categorizing seem in need of therapy, and come off quite self absorbed and egotistical. Both of them. So apparently according to this guy's definitions all the people I know fall somewhere in the middle, with traits from both sides. In other words they're normal. Balanced individuals who have the need to sometimes be gregarious and surrounded by friends, and other times to pull back and spend quality time alone.

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.

This guy is hilarious!

I performed exhaustive research on this question, in the form of a quick Google search

Uhm, hmmm. OK.
posted by zarah at 10:40 AM on February 20, 2006

This guy should document all this introspection and quiet suffering in song on a concept album and call it... oh I don't know.. howz about "The Wall" or something.
posted by tkchrist at 10:43 AM on February 20, 2006

The number one fear in America is public speaking, which, believe it or not, outpaces even the fear of death. And I suspect that's what Rauch is getting at here: a much larger epidemic that we have only empirical evidence to start talking about. Some extroverts can light up a room and socialize almost effortlessly. For introverts, it's a challenge that is as ominous and as backbreaking as taxes. Most extroverts I meet simply cannot understand this. Some people require more alone time than others. It's not that they hate people or that they're lazy or that they care only about themselves. Far from it. They're just probably more introsepective or perhaps not on the same wavelength and are thus considered aloof or "intimidating" by contemporary standards.

The current attitude, particularly expressed by some of the posters in this thread, is that one is expected to adapt one's self to uncomfortable circumstances without succor. And while a case can certainly be made for tough love in certain circumstances, I think it's pretty thoughtless not to consider the obverse: offering support, encouragement or understanding to those who might find socializing or "fitting in" a considerable challenge.
posted by ed at 10:47 AM on February 20, 2006

o please. if it is such a drag for this author to deal with the rest of the world, maybe he could do a bit of self-help instead of whining. I know an extreme introvert who is also an extreme misanthrope, and it is not just a "misunderstanding".
Such extreme introverts are difficult to be around, and I can see how they can be seen as unbalanced, as they certainly don't seem to be striving to find a way to balance between these 2 orientations.

this line just kills me "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." I would call that arrogance.

Maybe it is most read article because it is so freakin funny.
posted by tarantula at 10:51 AM on February 20, 2006

many introverts, when socializing, feel like actors

Serious advice for introverts: just stop thinking about it. Stop asking yourself whether or not you would have said this or that were circumstances different, or how tired you feel, or whether or not you are being treated fairly. Just stop talking to yourself sometimes.

Meditation can help you learn to do this if you find it difficult.

You know where all your energy is going? It's not being spent on these extroverts. It's all going into your internal dialogue. If you learn to turn off your chattering internal voice, you will find that you can spontaneously speak and it will not tire you. You will also find that you will not feel so inauthentic when speaking this way.

You have to work on yourself, not just expect the rest of the world to bend for your personal comfort.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:59 AM on February 20, 2006

Back when it first came out, I printed up multiple copies of the original article, and passed it out to extroverts of my acquaintance, expecting them to have an "aha!" moment, and that it would all become clear to them, and that they would, (As the Nellie McKay album has it) "Get Away from Me." But guess what. Extroverts don't give a shit. They don't care whether you're an introvert, aurally handicapped, mentally retarded, or lying in the street dying in agony. All they care about is their BIG MOUTHS, and the need to keep them flapping constantly.
posted by Faze at 11:00 AM on February 20, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

wow FAZE. you must really dislike a lot of people.
posted by tarantula at 11:03 AM on February 20, 2006

ed: Some extroverts can light up a room and socialize almost effortlessly. For introverts, it's a challenge that is as ominous and as backbreaking as taxes.

I wouldn't go that far. But I will say that after a few hours of mingling, I'm more interested in finding a nice book or game than finding a club to extend the party for a few more hours. And with close intimate friends, I can socialize for hours.

sonofsamiam: You have to work on yourself, not just expect the rest of the world to bend for your personal comfort.

Well, personally, I really don't care what the rest of the world does.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:20 AM on February 20, 2006

Well, you are probably a better-adjusted guy than the essay author. You shouldn't care.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:22 AM on February 20, 2006

tarantula and zarah: You just proved Rauch's points, although I assume you did not notice.

Are introverts arrogant? Yes, and I don't think Rauch owns up to that. Yet there's a reason for this arrogance: 98% of what comes out of most peoples' mouths is unthinking verbal pap that serves no purpose. It's meaningless noise. And I see this in both your comments, which are chatty, off-the-cuff, seemingly lacking any gravitas or focus. Introverts, I think, prefer their speech to be of consequence.

While there's a bit of excess vitriol in FAZE's post, I think it's essentially accurate; and other than my wife, I didn't share the original article with people I consider "problem extroverts"; I knew doing so would have no meaningful result.

Thanks for posting this followup, empath.
posted by Floach at 11:22 AM on February 20, 2006

It's not that the guy's an introvert, it's that he's allll about the introversion. He's Introvert Man. Come to save the day and crap. It's his big media role now. That's why he comes across as annoying in the interview. But I guess when it comes to asshole extroverts we're all used to that sort of thing. Whatever. Bored. Gonna go hide now.
posted by furiousthought at 11:24 AM on February 20, 2006

From 2nd Article, page 2: We love people—we're not misogynistic for the most part.

Forget Jung, that's a Freudian slip if there ever was one!

How'd it make it past the editor?
posted by blackvectrex at 11:34 AM on February 20, 2006

Nice, sonofsamiam. So we introverts have to fix ourselves, eh? Doesn't matter that Introversion and Extroversion appear to be neurochemical biases, not training. (Link to article citing the effects of neurochemicals on I/E behaviour)

That's the I/E gulf, right there. As an introvert, I don't see the point in the sort of content-neutral verbal handshaking extroverts continually engage in, so there's something wrong with me that I should fix. Nice.

Practice might camouflage introversion (and make you extroverts more comfortable around us), but it's how we're wired.

An introvert you've convinced to "relax a little" is wearing a mask. You've just convinced them to decrease the intimacy between you. There's still a calculating, measuring introvert behind the mask, and they're probably a little dissappointed you asked them to take a step back.
posted by Crosius at 11:35 AM on February 20, 2006

rock on FURIOUSTHOUGHT. The author (and FAZE) seem to convey that a lot of time and energy goes into hating extroverts, while struggling with the desire to just be understood. And I don't think that extroverts go around being constantly annoyed by introverts.

I personally swing both ways-spending hours and hours and hours alone, not talking, enjoying all the delightful things of solitude, but also enjoy the company and converstaion of friends and strangers alike.
posted by tarantula at 11:36 AM on February 20, 2006

I thought that the author of the introvert article was overstating the repression and judgment of introverts. Until I skimmed this thread and saw this completely uncalled-for outpouring of scorn, arrogance and hypocrisy.

What the hell is the matter with you people?

Dean Keaton: Hmm... criticises extroverts for being who they are? Yeah right, you'll be getting respect from me. Why don't you deal with us? ...coming off as an asshole doesn't get you favors.

Just how do you suppose you're "coming off" right now? Don't expect any favors. Free clue: introverts do deal with you. All the live-long day.

delmoi: Sounds to me like they're just lazy!

The article was written because some people do not get it. Clearly, some people are also immune to having it explained to them. What was your thought process here? "I still don't understand, therefore I will simply consider these introverts to be defective?" Doesn't that sound a little, oh, I dunno... lazy? Would mental laziness be the same as "stupid?"

tarantula: if it is such a drag for this author to deal with the rest of the world, maybe he could do a bit of self-help instead of whining.

That's classic. This guy writes a funny, insightful article in an attempt (arguably against his nature) to reach out to others, and you consider it "whining." And then you treat us all to your own bitching about his "whining." If irony is dead, it's because too many people think it's normal.
posted by Western Infidels at 11:44 AM on February 20, 2006

Crosius: I did not recommend training to act like an extrovert. I recommended training to handle your own reactions for the inevitable times you must deal with extroverts.

As an introvert, I don't see the point in the sort of content-neutral verbal handshaking extroverts continually engage in, so there's something wrong with me that I should fix. Nice.

The verbal handshaking may seem content-neutral to you. To someone more attuned to sub-verbal cues, it is not so. There is a world of non-verbal discourse. It took many years for me to realize this, but it is a good thing to keep in mind.

If you think I said there is something wrong with introversion, please re-read what I wrote.

The point is not that introverts are incorrect and extroverts are correct. The point is that your own reactions to dealing with extroverts are the real source of your discomfort. They cannot help they way they are any more than you can.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:50 AM on February 20, 2006

Some people seem to be having a hard time grasping that the original piece was intended as humor. Yes, he was making a serious and important point, but (to quote from the interview) "Another motivation was, basically, that I thought it would be funny." So those of you who think you're catching him in some sort of telling contradiction ("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. This guy is hilarious!") are not only missing the point, you're on the other side of town from it. Go catch a taxi and tell the driver "Take me to my sense of humor, and make it snappy!"
posted by languagehat at 11:55 AM on February 20, 2006

I don't quite understand, please explain WESTERN INFIDELS-
what is dead? humor, irony- or what is normal? I don't understand your last sentence.

I guess one thing I did not realize is that extreme introverts have such a difficult time navigating thru life.
posted by tarantula at 11:55 AM on February 20, 2006

Introverts are expected to alter their behavior to accomodate others, but extroverts are not asked to do the same. Regardless of the author's arrogance, I can appreciate that.

I enjoy spending my time in ways that would bore other people. I like to sit quiety and read, or listen to music. I don't watch TV. In my thirties, I have more self assurance than I ever had before.

I've had enjoyable conversations with strangers who've asked what I do for fun, and I joke, "I'm boring." They've asked for my phone number, and I explain that I hate talking on the phone and give them an email address.

I love one my introverted friends. He comes over to visit and we sit together and read. Having such a companion means a great deal to me.

I find the idea of an introvert pride group to be silly and egotistical. I wonder if people can accept and accomodate others without all the silly ego boo?
posted by bleary at 11:59 AM on February 20, 2006

What am I?

My former boss (who is quite insightful and knew me pretty well) described me as having a "loner" personality. Other friends have called me "stoic" and "recalcitrant." People I've only known for a short while have described me as "charismatic" or "charming." I have a deep fear of public speaking. I frequently go for days without talking to anyone face-to-face. I often feel self-conscious around strangers. I'm an enthusiastic party-goer. I have no trouble making small talk and am fairly good at it. I enjoy "shooting the breeze" almost as much as deep conversation.

So which camps' newsletter should I be subscribing to?
posted by justkevin at 12:02 PM on February 20, 2006

To me those words sum up the introvert impulse. We love people—we're not misogynistic for the most part.

I should hope not. And I assume he meant misanthropic.
posted by orange swan at 12:10 PM on February 20, 2006

bleary: Introverts are expected to alter their behavior to accomodate others, but extroverts are not asked to do the same. Regardless of the author's arrogance, I can appreciate that.

When did introversion/extraversion became a "behavior?" Honestly, I don't feel that I'm expected to alter my behavior. I don't have to accept invitations to parties, wild or mild, and I don't have to spend more time at a party than I'm comfortable. In my conversations with more extroverted people I've found that they are comfortable letting me listen and enter in the conversation when I feel comfortable.

There are some things that of course are "work" like public speaking. But I've found these things are "work" for extroverts as well.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:15 PM on February 20, 2006

I think this guy's whole premise is BS. For every example he cites where extroverts are favored, I can come up with a counter-example where introverts are favored.

The school and corperate worlds just LOVE people who can sit down and shut up. As an extrovert, my lifelong inability to do these things has set me back on many occasions.

People make assumptions about introverts? People make assumptions about extroverts, too - like assuming that we're always happy or comfortable in a given situation just because we're extroverted. Sometimes, we're freaking out on the inside, just like the introverts.

The grass is always greener...
posted by Afroblanco at 12:32 PM on February 20, 2006

And as well, I see nothing wrong with being polite nodding acquaintances with people whose idea of a good time is incompatible with my own, and I don't see it as a great loss if they just consider me a nodding acquaintance either.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:36 PM on February 20, 2006

KirkJobSluder: When did introversion/extraversion became a "behavior?"

It's easier to measure behavior than internal mental states (should brain imaging even be considered a measurement of an internal mental state? it's a picture of a brain state, but connecting that with an internal mental state is another matter).

An introvert exhibits behaviors that are associated with introversion, and an introvert could adopt extroverted behavioral traits to be considered socially well adjusted.


Honestly, I don't feel that I'm expected to alter my behavior. I don't have to accept invitations to parties, wild or mild, and I don't have to spend more time at a party than I'm comfortable. In my conversations with more extroverted people I've found that they are comfortable letting me listen and enter in the conversation when I feel comfortable.

That's fine. I also turn down invitations, though sometimes I regret not going to a music show in a bar because the enjoyment of the music might allay the annoyance of the bar but I'm not sure which way things will go that night.

I think introverted traits are more pathologized than extroverted traits. I will rethink that, now. (*ponders*)
posted by bleary at 12:49 PM on February 20, 2006

bleary: Well yeah. I'm just questioning what I see to be a rather simplistic mars/venus like breakdown.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:56 PM on February 20, 2006

My worst experiences as an introvert have been at the hands of other introverts. Because they presume to know me (I mean, clearly we're all exactly the same and of the exact same degree of introversion, right?) two introverts have involved me in two of the most painful social interactions I've ever known.
posted by birdie birdington at 12:57 PM on February 20, 2006

There are some people who take the idea of "Introverts' Rights" pretty seriously. They call themselves Aspies, but i don't think they've got WMD yet.

I am, personally, acutely aware of "the business world" being a system that privileges extroverts, and will readily admit to having felt underappreciated and disenfranchised because of my own astonishing lack of tact and charisma at times. In an introverts' world, success would always be earned by merit rather than social performance. (But if the whole system of expectations and behavioral norms dictated by extroverts suddenly vanished, i'd probably just keep hermiting most of the time anyway - albeit with much lower anxiety levels.)

What would a system that rewarded and made use of both sets of traits and skills look like?
posted by xanthippe at 12:57 PM on February 20, 2006

And on The Atlantic's Web site, it drew (and has continued to draw) more traffic than any other piece we've posted.

Only because they don't write about horse sex.
posted by homunculus at 1:06 PM on February 20, 2006

"Why Should Extroverts Make All the Money?: Networking Made Easy for the Introvert"

Fortunately, I'm in an introvert-friendly profession.
posted by Faze at 1:09 PM on February 20, 2006

Afroblaco wins. This guy is making too many excuses and wild conclusions bsed on experiences drawn nearly exclusively from his "inner world". I call bullshit, too.

98% of what comes out of most peoples' mouths is unthinking verbal pap that serves no purpose.

!Oh fer chri... ! 98% of modern LIFE serves no purpose. I mean jeez, dude: You go to movies? You read SciFi? You collect HappyMeal toys? You post on Metafilter? I dunno. What fucking purpose does it serve? Basically to fill time.

It is precisely that kind of shit that MAKES culture and civilization interesting and life worth living.

You serve no purpose? Heck. Better kill yourself now. Or join the Borg.
posted by tkchrist at 1:22 PM on February 20, 2006

Some people seem to be having a hard time grasping that the original piece was intended as humor.

Yes, I totally missed that. But you have to admit that there's a dearth of folks who feel that put upon and that superior to everyone else around them. It's pretty easy to miss the humour when you see people taking their precious selves *cough, Floach, cough* so very, very seriously. Am I not to take the author's extroverts & introverts at face value, is he mocking these two groups and portraying them in the extreme to make... what point exactly? Both 'verts come off as total boors in the article, and like I said, I'm grateful I find more balance in the people I deal with.
posted by zarah at 1:30 PM on February 20, 2006

I hated this essay when I first read it. Hate it now. I think it's a scam. Of course everyone identifies with it--that's what he's trying for--the language is intended to persuade. He rearranges the meaning of introvert to mean just what he wants it to mean, taking out any objectively negative aspects and turning it into flatterly--you're not shy, socially awkward, cranky or impatient, you're very special, very misunderstood, very superior, and oh-so persecuted. He writes a bunch of vague things that nearly everyone feels to some degree at some time in their lives, claims this state of mind sums up your entire character, and then he tells you that you're surrounded and abused by people who are too loud, stupid and crude to appreciate you. And funny--he's promoting himself as the only one who understands and can speak for you. He gives you an label, an excuse, an enemy. Rather than the words "introvert/extrovert", read "virgo/aries", "cat lovers/dog lovers", or, more controversially, "aryan/jew" or "women/men". Blah, okay, I've got that off my chest now.
posted by tula at 1:33 PM on February 20, 2006

Wow. All the angry extroverts in this thread are doing an awesome job of proving the dude's point.

Sure, everyone has to find some kind of public/private balance if they want to live their lives in a productive way. But the balancing act is much harder for people who don't fit the social norm, and in American society those abnormal people happen to be the introverts.

Our norm values teamwork and socialization for its own sake. Our norm does not value solitary people who "waste" their time by failing to make lots of money or produce a theory of relativity. The point is not that introverts aren't capable of conforming to the norm; the point is that it's a major personal sacrifice for introverts to do what comes naturally to many extroverts.

It's really a unique kind of hell to be an introvert who is also very adept socially. Because then you have lots of extrovert friends! Who think you're SO MUCH FUN! They want you at all their parties! If you decline, they demand that you have an excuse. And not just any excuse but a REALLY GOOD excuse involving corpses and/or projectile vomiting! They get offended when you let the machine pick up the phone. But that doesn't stop them from calling, OH NO, they see it as a challenge!

They are simply not capable of understanding that you like them, you really really like them, but you... need... more... space. A lot... more... space. If you try to explain this they get upset and offended and decide you're an aloof whiner who doesn't deserve to be invited to their parties EVER AGAIN because you think you're SO DAMN SPECIAL but really you're not special at all, no, and what makes you happy does zilch for the happiness of the almighty group and therefore your worthless little "inner world" is full of BULLSHIT, you loser!

Ahem.

For more reading on this topic, I would suggest "Party of One" [excerpts] by Anneli Rufus... but that book actually celebrates loners and would further piss off the extroverts who think introverts just need to turn off those "chattering inner voices" (we like to call them "brains" but hey, potato-potahto) and let our every random thought gush freely into the eagerly waiting ears of the extrovert universe. No, I'd better not mention it.
posted by naomi at 2:01 PM on February 20, 2006

I'm really quite suprised by the venom this generated. I had thought the guy talking about persecution of introverts was exaggerating, but some of you are people I'd never want to deal with face to face.

Some people would just rather be left alone unless you have something important to talk about.

Some people would rather be with other people, even if they nothing to say.

Why is that so hard to understand and deal with? People are different. It doesn't mean they're sick or pathological or need to change.
posted by empath at 2:19 PM on February 20, 2006

How exactly is superimposing extroverted behaviour on social interractions decreasing the introvert's discomfort?

I can see how it decreases an extrovert's anxiety, since the introvert would be acting "more normal," from their point of view, but the introvert winds up with two potential sources of anxiety: their innate, introverted nature chafing at the proscribed limits of the extroverted behaviours, and the pressure to give a convincing performance of said patterns.

Additionally, the payoff for successfully "playing the extrovert," would be increased social interraction, requiring more role-playing, which is not what an introvert wants. Introverts want social interractions to conclude with some sort of positive end-condition, only extroverts want them to continue in a feed-back loop.

For an introvert, the result (win/lose, pass/fail) is the prize. For an extrovert, it's the game-play that brings joy, the result is anticlimactic.
posted by Crosius at 2:23 PM on February 20, 2006

Serious advice for introverts: just stop thinking about it. Stop asking yourself whether or not you would have said this or that were circumstances different, or how tired you feel, or whether or not you are being treated fairly. Just stop talking to yourself sometimes.

Meditation can help you learn to do this if you find it difficult.

You know where all your energy is going? It's not being spent on these extroverts. It's all going into your internal dialogue. If you learn to turn off your chattering internal voice, you will find that you can spontaneously speak and it will not tire you. You will also find that you will not feel so inauthentic when speaking this way.

You have to work on yourself, not just expect the rest of the world to bend for your personal comfort.

See, what you seem to be saying here is that if introverts just relaxed and acted more naturally that they would become more comfortable making smalltalk, or rather, that they would become more like extroverts. I can tell you taht the opposite is true, when an introverted person isn't thinking hard about keeping up with a conversation and isn't spinning his mental gears coming up with the expected thing to say, he or she simply becomes even quieter and less engaged.

In short, for an introvert, acting natural and being yourself means being quiet and, well, introverted.
posted by Space Coyote at 2:34 PM on February 20, 2006

Crosius: great description (the game analogy).

For introverts, a hint: It's easy to end useless chit chat. Just answer in monosyllables (sp?). Not rude, or uninterested, just answer "yes" or "no", or otherwise short answers. People will just get annoyed and give up.

Now, to KEEP a conversation going when you need to (that is, an attractive person of the opposite sex, or the situation would otherwise be awkward if both parties stayed quiet), that's more difficult. If the other party is an extreme extrovert, you can just add "how about you?" at the end of every monossylable, and they'll be happy that they get to talk even more. For more moderate extrovert or introvert people, if you have some hint, please tell me.
posted by qvantamon at 2:37 PM on February 20, 2006

from original article:
The only thing a true introvert dislikes more than talking about himself is repeating himself.

Are either of those things true? Really?
posted by es_de_bah at 2:41 PM on February 20, 2006

es: No. I'm introverted, and I quite enjoy talking about myself. I do hate repeating myself, but I don't think that has anything to do with introversion.
posted by empath at 2:42 PM on February 20, 2006

The reason introverts can seem arrogant is that they give off the impression that they're too good to talk to you. And with this "98% of everything you say is crap" attitude it seems like that's not that far off the mark.

Also the 'lazy' thing was a joke. But I wonder what makes it so tiresome to just chitchat. I bet it's all chemical, and someone would come up with a pill that makes you want to yammer on like a 16 year old cheerleader.
posted by delmoi at 2:47 PM on February 20, 2006

es_de_bah:
I do hate talking about myself, mostly because I don't know the answer to many questions (more abstract) or don't know how to answer some without looking arrogant.

As for repeating myself, that's one of the few situations where I can get mad at someone. About the third time I have to repeat something, I'll usually withdraw from the subject, and preferrably withdraw from the conversation to chill up and avoid being rude.
posted by qvantamon at 2:50 PM on February 20, 2006

'Sartre as far as to say "Hell is other people at breakfast." '

Oh so true. And so funny.
posted by msjen at 2:51 PM on February 20, 2006

Space Coyote: that is not what I am saying. I am saying that if introverts find interaction with extroverts unpleasant or strenuous, they can take steps to alleviate that stress.

The point is not to act like an extrovert. The point is to quit thinking about what you are acting like, to quit fighting the interaction, and let it take its course without putting forth any effort. This is orthogonal to how apparently extroverted you might seem to your interlocuter.

This is not a criticism of introverts. This is advice from a formerly nearly pathological introvert.

If you find these kinds of interactions tiring, there is something you can do about it. You can find repose even in noisy or very populated environments, if you have to.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:57 PM on February 20, 2006

I wonder what makes it so tiresome to just chitchat.

If chitchat means just going blah-blah-blah -- just letting a stream of consciousness come out of your mouth -- then I don't know how to do it. I don't think people who do it are stupid or trivial. In many ways I envy them. But still, I can't do it. I think about everything I say before I say it.

I don't do this on purpose. I don't do it because (consciously, at least) I'm afraid of looking stupid. I don't know why I do it. I just do it.

You say something to me. I think of a reply. I say the reply. If I can't think of a reply, I don't say anything.

UNLESS I'm faking it. I do know how banter is SUPPOSED to sound. And I CAN fake it, just like I can fake a French accent. I fake it by COMING UP WITH inconsequential things to say and then saying them. People don't know that these blah-blah-blahs are premeditated, so they assuming I'm chit-chatting. But since they ARE premeditated, and since constant premeditation takes energy, I can only keep it up for so long before I get tired.

Does that make sense?

As a side note, it's always interesting to me when someone throws some smalltalk my way. I scroll through a rapid-fire array of thoughts and feelings:

Total-stranger-in-elevator: well, I can tell you one thing -- I'm hungry.

Me [thinking: why would he think I'm interested in whether or not he's hungry? Oh, that's uncharitable! He's just trying to put me and himself at ease by saying something inconsequential that I -- as a human who has also been hungry -- can relate to. Or is he? Maybe it's just a reflex action. He's in a small space with someone so he HAS to talk. But what made him say the specific thing he said? There are so many equally banal things he could have brought up: the weather, his commute, the slowness of the elevator... How did he choose hunger? Why can't I choose a random, silly thing to say? How could I possibly pick one, knowing that all banalities are pretty much equal? Also, how could I possibly say something that I was AWARE would be unimportant to him? What's wrong with me? Shit. I better say something or he'll think I'm rude.]: Uh. Um. Yeah. Me too, I guess.


I wonder if introverts tend to be really fast thinkers. I think FRIGHTENINGLY fast. This doesn't mean I'm smart. It just means that thoughts A, B and C -- smart or dumb -- will flip through my head really, really fast. I'm SURE I think faster than average. So between the time you speak and I answer, I am GOING to have 50 thoughts -- like it or not.
posted by grumblebee at 3:10 PM on February 20, 2006

sonofsamiam, this is what an introverted person is doing when he's just listening without interjecting. If people don't consider this behavior to be rude or standoffish then that can be very comfortable for him or her, unfortunately doing this rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Which is the point of the article in the first place, that people need to understand that this tendency is natural.
posted by Space Coyote at 3:15 PM on February 20, 2006

I remember the whole "omg I can't speak to strangers at parties" bit. Then I discovered alcohol abuse and don't remember anything about parties I attend. But I hear I'm quite talkative.
posted by Sparx at 3:29 PM on February 20, 2006

Labels obscure more than they reveal. People are not so simple, and do not fit into neat boxes, no matter how much one might want them to.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:45 PM on February 20, 2006

The point is to quit thinking about what you are acting like...

And how does one do this?
posted by grumblebee at 3:47 PM on February 20, 2006

delmoi:
I bet it's all chemical, and someone would come up with a pill that makes you want to yammer on like a 16 year old cheerleader.

Sparx:
I remember the whole "omg I can't speak to strangers at parties" bit. Then I discovered alcohol abuse and don't remember anything about parties I attend. But I hear I'm quite talkative.

Case solved. Alcohol works pretty well. Except for the inability to form phrases, tongue-numbness and "I love you all people, group hug!" bit.
posted by qvantamon at 3:51 PM on February 20, 2006

Re: alcohol. It does work for me, but there's a very narrow zone I have to hit. If I don't drink enough, I'll stay introverted. If I drink too much, I'll just feel sick or sleepy. Right at about two glasses of wine, I become chatty and charming. (At which point I must IMMEDIATELY stop drinking or I'll tip over into sleepy/sick.) It's really hard to gauge exactly how much to drink, since different beverages contain different amounts of alcohol.
posted by grumblebee at 4:12 PM on February 20, 2006

One of the biggest problems for introverts though, before they can reform themselves to either "stop thinking" (how does that work? sounds neat) or "act the part" is the image that other people see of them. They can be seen as stuck up, arrogant, mean, unpleasant, just because they are uncomfortable in social situations where they are forced, and inevitably fail, to make small talk. This is just something that is not easy to do for introverts and it can be a source of much stess and self-loathing (why does it come so easy to others, what is wrong with me, etc.). As many have pointed out, being introverted or extroverted is not a binary state, there are many that can cope better than others but blaming those that can't is like blaming someone with debilitating depression for not only being mildly depressed (exaggeration but people should not be faulted for their own mental state).

The whole structure of this argument, it's not even an argument he's a self-diagnosed introvert pointing out things he's noted and giving advice in a humorous way, is that introverts are just misunderstood. When extroverts are in their default state lighting up around people, being the life of the party the negative consequences are not that apparent. However for an introvert, their default state gives others a negative view of their personality. This article doesn't state that introverts are more intelligent, more level-headed (that was a humorous attempt to pat himself on the back for those of you that didn't get it) than extroverts, its more about someone trying to make others aware that this type of person exists, introverts and extroverts alike. A person that is an introvert and doesn't know that there are other people who share his or her temperament just end up thinking there is something wrong with him or her. Social situations are dominated by extroverts so it is pretty easy to fail to notice the quiet guy standing in the corner.

Take it easy guys, nobody is trying to say one is better than the other, the article just wants to improve awareness. Phew, that was tough, now everyone give me my space as I sit and read quietly.
posted by crashlanding at 4:14 PM on February 20, 2006

Chit chat is an art form. We elevate people to iconic status who do it well. Think Dorothy Parker or Will Rodgers. It's called conversation. And all conversation has to have an entry - a segue. THAT is chit chat.

My old man is a marvel at it. He can make ANY kind of person feel at ease and open up and talk. He can find common ground with rednecks or punk-rockers, young or old. The man has a library of colloquialisms and story's that keep people affable and entertained.

And with this "98% of everything you say is crap" attitude it seems like that's not that far off the mark.

No kidding. Look at the anger here. It isn't self-professed extroverts venting. What is interesting is how angry the self professed introverts are in this thread.

Seriously. Read this thread again. Sure some of us are calling this guy out on his premise BOT look at where the ANGER is coming from. The original essay is ripe with it.

I think there is no mystery as to why serial killers and spree killers all always described as "quiet, kept to himself" type people. Y'all bottle shit up and then go nuts. Sheesh. Just look at Naomi up there. She's FIRED-UP. Da-aaaamn.
posted by tkchrist at 4:16 PM on February 20, 2006

On preview: A lot has been said since I started composing this at 11:57 PST. Most of it has redeemed the thread from its interval of stupidity, removing some of the context that caused it to get so long in the first place -- most particularly the need to note how poorly Rauch gauged his audience and the need to restate his good points non-suckily. But I'm not gonna rewrite the post at this point. I'll just add, by way of contributing a data point, that (a) I hate both repeating myself and being repeated to, (b) I love to talk about what I'm doing but hate to talk about me, and (c) if somebody put me on delmoi's hypothetical cheerleader pill, I would weep nightly at the monster I'd become. I like being on comfortable terms with my nonverbal side.

Still on preview, grumblebee is right on the money about faking it, and qvantamon is pretty close with both the monosyllables and the 'You?' trick. Two qualifications: First, when the monosyllables fail, usually an honest 'I don't much feel like talking right now' does the job. Though you may have to follow it up with 'No, nothing's wrong.' Most people are pretty decent and will let you alone without taking offense. (And if one does take offense, congratulations, you've made a hypersensitive dickhead dislike imposing on you. You still win.) Second, if you do need to keep things moving, there are several options. Best bet is know a little about everything so you can ask an intelligent question about their specialty. Also good is be prepared to lecture briefly and engagingly when they ask you about something that you're passionate about. This gives them lots of openings to comment on something related that they know; then see 'best bet' above. If they don't comment at all, I'm not ashamed to say '...and that's what I geek out about. What do you geek out about?'. You can also acknowledge up front that you're about to ask a random question, and then ask them about their earliest childhood memory, or what kind of invertebrate best represents them, or whatever (see 'faking it' a la grumblebee). Or get them onto a dance floor; if you're a good dancer it's legal to be quiet. Or let the silence run, and if it drives them off you weren't going to get along very well anyway. Sigh.

OK. No longer on preview. As mentioned, the context of this post is now a little old.

(Poster's prologue: I don't know whether I should take heart that there are people like Western Infidel and languagehat who can explain these things so clearly, or whether I should just be worried because they have to. A nod of the head to Floach and djeo, as well. These four will find few surprises in the remainder of this post.)

I am an introvert who loves people. I am an introvert who loves the stage. I have no freaking trouble whatsoever with public speaking. And extroverted friends of mine, when I have disclosed my, er, orientation, have replied, 'Nuh-uh! Go on!' They have been under the impression, as many posters here are, that introversion has something to do with shyness, social phobia, misanthropy, ineptness, selfishness, or some such thing. Nope. Uh-uh. Not related. And don't you dare impute that introverts are oblivious to nonverbal cues.

Introversion, taking terms from the interview, is a matter of small talk vs. big talk. Other people's well-being is big talk, and so I have learned the graces, including tropes of conversation, that let me look out for my friends. Meaningful theatre is big talk (and a lot of fun). I will accept opportunities to speak in public precisely to the extent that I can say something important -- i.e., big talk. Also qualifying as big talk are interesting ideas in just about any field. Big talk is talking about; small talk is simply talking around.

I can and do make small talk (Where are you from? What are you studying? What do you think of the music?) but only as a road to big talk (Is the culture different here? Which do you prefer? What is on the cutting edge of your field? What can you tell me about this related matter? Did Miles Davis go uphill or downhill after Kind of Blue? How can a person dance to the mid-tempo R&B that they're cloning in all the vats nowadays?). But I do not find small talk innately satisfying, and overbearing extroverts keep trying to tell me that I'm nuts / a moron / evil / cheating myself because of it, and I'm tired of that. If I'd rather chew food than gum, what's it to you? That, dear readers, is the introvert's point.

OTOH, I realized something when I read the article last year. My initial reaction was, 'Yeah! About time somebody explained it! I'm showing that to everybody!' But as I thought about how I would introduce it, set the context for its reading, and avoid giving the wrong impression, I couldn't escape noticing how hard Rauch makes it to listen to his point. His winking self-compliments are borderline masturbatory, and his gratuitously abrasive, condescending treatment of extros is certain to turn off a lot of people -- not only the intrusive ones who really deserve being told to cram it, but a lot of potential sympathizers and innocent bystanders too. You treat people that way, they'll stop parsing content and read only rhetoric, at which point you can't teach them anything. Keep it up, and they'll stop reading entirely. I concluded then that the article could only be well-taken within the intro community -- who, of course, don't need to be told -- and I labeled it 'Unfortunately, Almost Good' and forgot about it.

Reviewing it now, I'd go further. Rauch has let rhetoric control his discussion, instead of measuring his statements against what he means to say. Not saying what you mean is wasteful, but so is saying more than what you mean; here, he's preemptively derailled his own argument. (As suggested by the thread here, some people's prejudice was going to preclude their discussing his actual point anyway; but he didn't have to screw it up for anyone else. Yes, it's the reader's job not to be a bozo; but before that, it's the writer's job not to encourage him.) I've also got to say his editors missed the boat. This is the Atlantic Monthly in the U.S., not the Honest Democratic Gazette in the People's Republic of Introvertia. Did they really think this article was going to make a difference? Did they really think it was well-conceived? Did they even read it?

(Regarding the phrase, 'the intro community': Neither a typo nor an oxymoron. Just because we don't have the same contact rituals as extroverts doesn't mean we don't communicate. Dogs don't have the same contact rituals as extroverts either, but you know they communicate. I have no official comment on the relative appeal of theirs vs. the extroverts' methods. (Oh! The snarks just write themselves! Thank you, I'm here all week...))
posted by eritain at 4:16 PM on February 20, 2006

For an introvert, the result (win/lose, pass/fail) is the prize.

Every introvert is unique, so I'm sure some do think of conversation as a win/lose game. I don't. Just like extroverts, I enjoy playing more than winning. For me, the ideal conversation is me and ONE other person, talking seriously and meaningfully over a long, leisurely dinner. We know each other well and have a lot of common ground.

I only connect to with the win/lose thing at parties. I "win" when I get to go home.
posted by grumblebee at 4:18 PM on February 20, 2006

I am an introvert who loves the stage. I have no freaking trouble whatsoever with public speaking.

Me too. I work as a teacher, and I get a ton of praise for being gregarious and student-oriented in the classroom. This isn't hard for me. I LOVE talking to students when I'm teaching. On the other hand, before I start teaching, at the beginning of the day, while I'm drinking my coffee, I HATE it if a student comes in early and tries to chat with me. And at the end of the day, I zip out of classroom before anyone can invite me to go out for a drink. Speaking in front of total strangers -- as a teacher -- comes naturally and easily to me, and it's fun. Socializing with strangers is agonizing.

I also work as a director and actor. I LOVE working with actors; I love performing in front of an audience. But when the performance is over, while the other actors enjoy mingling with the audience and receiving congratulations on their performances, I hide in the dressing room. And I LOATH cast parties.

I think part of my problem is that I only like acting when I'm ACTING. I HATE putting on a role when I'm socializing. That feels like work, not relaxing. Social relaxing, for me, means talking with someone to whom I can say anything. If I can't tell you I have a thing for green-skinned women and I once fell down a flight of stairs, got up, walked across the landing, and then fell down another flight of stairs ... then I don't want to talk to you.

I suppose many people LIKE social tension. They like all the danger and possibility. Not me. I like it AFTER you already know for sure someone is your friend -- and you can have long, deep conversations.
posted by grumblebee at 4:34 PM on February 20, 2006

Every introvert is unique

I'm not.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:02 PM on February 20, 2006

Chit chat is an art form. We elevate people to iconic status who do it well. Think Dorothy Parker or Will Rodgers. It's called conversation. And all conversation has to have an entry - a segue. THAT is chit chat.

I'd say there's a huge chasm between 'chit chat' and 'conversation'. Somebody who can go on and on about a lot of different topics is a conversationalist. Someone who goes on and on about things nobody really cares about (weekend plans, television shows, etc...) is making chit chat.

I would be glad to talk to the former (I like meeting interesting people), but not the latter (small talk is a burden and I run out of things to talk about).
posted by crank at 5:05 PM on February 20, 2006

Every introvert is unique

I'm not.

LOL. I just fell off my chair.
posted by tkchrist at 5:11 PM on February 20, 2006

I would be glad to talk to the former (I like meeting interesting people), but not the latter (small talk is a burden and I run out of things to talk about).

That is why I said it was an Art Form. It's not easy to do well. It takes practice. It takes an acceptance of the "useless" before you get to the interesting. It's a universal to talk about the weather in almost every culture. It's called an "ice breaker" - but it's a two way street, right? You're feeding somebody entry into the dynamic. If they don't take a chance on talking chit chat - you got nothing to work with.

You know on piano you got to do hours and hours of scales before you go to the Fugue in E Minor.

You have to practice the mundane to go on to the sublime. Art above ANYTHING else takes a willingness to be bored to tears before you get results.

Conversation is like that.
posted by tkchrist at 5:18 PM on February 20, 2006

Space Coyote: I can tell you taht the opposite is true, when an introverted person isn't thinking hard about keeping up with a conversation and isn't spinning his mental gears coming up with the expected thing to say, he or she simply becomes even quieter and less engaged.

Oh, I may be quiet, but that doesn't mean that I'm not engaged in the conversation, it means that I'm listening to what the other person has to say. I suspect that a part of my introversion comes from the fact that I was trained out of a stutter as a kid, and learned to rehearse my words before saying them.

qvantamon: If the other party is an extreme extrovert, you can just add "how about you?" at the end of every monossylable, and they'll be happy that they get to talk even more. For more moderate extrovert or introvert people, if you have some hint, please tell me.

"What do you think about..." frequently works. And I don't have a problem maintaining a conversation if I find a shared point of common interest. Also in party situations, I tend to look for the groupings that are open to a third or fourth person stepping into the conversation. Then I can listen on the edges until I find an opportunity to engage.

eritain: I am an introvert who loves the stage. I have no freaking trouble whatsoever with public speaking.

Public speaking is great because you have structure and purpose. And you are talking about something you care about and want to share with other people.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:23 PM on February 20, 2006

I HATE putting on a role when I'm socializing.

So don't. Who says you have to? Sure, professional functions - or more often - your SO's professional functions are boring. But see it as a challenge to connect to people.

Sure, sometimes your just plain tired of dealing with people at the end of the day, but you don't have to make any more work than it is if you don't want to.

I am actually fairly shy. And much like you described yourself. I love to perform. Have ZERO fear of public speaking. I used to love doing Martial Arts demos - the riskier the better. Yet at parties I was sometimes withdrawn. It took practice, but I really love socializing now.

I didn't like hanging out with my wife's professional peers at functions. Some times it was because they really were snobs or social nerds themselves. But I changed my attitude about it when I saw how important it was to her. I made it a goal to make close friends (in as non-stalkerish way as possible) with at least one person at a function. And it worked.
posted by tkchrist at 5:29 PM on February 20, 2006

I think there is no mystery as to why serial killers and spree killers all always described as "quiet, kept to himself" type people. Y'all bottle shit up and then go nuts. Sheesh. Just look at Naomi up there. She's FIRED-UP. Da-aaaamn.

You know who was a good communicator?

Hitler.
posted by Space Coyote at 5:31 PM on February 20, 2006

I HATE putting on a role when I'm socializing.

So don't. Who says you have to?

I think this is naive. If I'm being me, I will have long conversations with people about atheism, Shakespeare, psychology, etc. This does NOT go over well at dinner parties and loud bars -- at least in my experience.

I don't watch much TV, I don't like sports and politics. So what AM I supposed to talk about when people are trying to "keep it light"?

When I was on vacation in Jamaica, I took a math book with me to the beach each day. It was my way of relaxing. But it REALLY upset this guy sitting next to me. He kept suggesting I put away the "homework" and read a mystery or something. My form of relaxation made him think of work. I should have just moved, but I was comfortable -- and I was with my wife who didn't want to move. I actually did feel for the guy, so I put the book down. But it WAS what I wanted to do on my vacation.

tkchrist, I DO socialize for my wife, because it's important to her. I do it to please her. But that doesn't make me like it.
posted by grumblebee at 5:56 PM on February 20, 2006

I think this is naive. If I'm being me, I will have long conversations with people about atheism, Shakespeare, psychology, etc. This does NOT go over well at dinner parties and loud bars -- at least in my experience.

Also if your being "you" you may also take shits, fart, masturbate and sit on the couch naked. We all have to filter ourselves a little. Though, I have attempted to go to cocktail parties nude. And it wasn't as bad as you'd think. For me anyway.

I'm saying there are ways to look at it as enjoyable if you try, and not expect everybody else to make the effort for you.
posted by tkchrist at 6:19 PM on February 20, 2006

You know who was a good communicator?

Hitler.

Not true. He was actually painfully shy and hated and avoided parties. Though the Fuhrer did know one good joke he would tell at gatherings.

"Mine dog haz no nose"
"How does he smell?"
"Terrible."
posted by tkchrist at 6:22 PM on February 20, 2006

tkchrist, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I actually do a ton of socializing -- because I have to. I hate it. I don't enjoy hating it. I don't take a superior attitude ("I shouldn't HAVE to do this.") Hating it hurts no one except me (especially since I'm fairly good at faking enjoyment). I've spent years TRYING to enjoy it or at least make it less horrible. I've never found anything that works. I'm still willing to try to make it better, but it really just seems antithetical to my nature. (And I say this as someone who hates it when people say, "That's just the way I am.")

I DO go into these situations trying to play the "aren't people fascinating" game. I try to keep in mind how happy it makes other people when I socialize with them. And this DOES help. For about 10 minutes. But as the evening wears on, it's harder and harder to bask in the glow of "I'm doing a good thing" when I SO want to be home reading a book.

Part of the problem is that I (a) spend a lot of time trying to figure out ways to make socializing easier for myself and (b) trying to figure out ways to avoid socializing. And these two goals are hard to reconcile.
posted by grumblebee at 7:10 PM on February 20, 2006

Going to bed, I dont have time to read all these undoubtably interesting comments.

I am an introvert by by nature, but I took as my occupations teaching, acting, and playing music on stage. Perhaps an unconsicous self-therapy course of action? (Although I'm sure many of the above comments defend intorversion as a way of life...and I applaud them.)
posted by kozad at 8:09 PM on February 20, 2006

Count me in the crowd of introverts who love to perform. It's the mingling component that I'm wary of, in large part because in order to be socially acceptable, I DO have to pretend to a certain degee. Of course, I despise being a phony. But I've become better over the years finding that middle ground between being genuine and being socially acceptable, but it's not something I relish. So I generally just smile and nod and try and steer some extrovert's monologue about himself and wish him a happy day.

In those rare social situations in which I am completely myself, outside of some of the geek circles I'm a part of, in conventional social settings, most people simply aren't interested in what I have to say. Because in their eyes, I'm either a bore or a strange person. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. That's not arrogance. Nor do I begrudge these folks. It's just that I have the social appeal of a cult movie: a small but loyal following. And I'm perfectly fine with that.

There's one component to this thread that nobody here has really factored in: to what extent is an introvert a distinct individual? And since extroversion is clearly prized here, I'm wondering how much being a social butterfly comes at the expense of being unique or distinct.

Are extroverts complaisant conformers?
posted by ed at 9:03 PM on February 20, 2006

"Stay with me."

'Speak to me. Why do you never speak? Speak.
'What are you thinking of? What thinking? What?
'I never know what you are thinking. Think."

Hey, I have I told you how much I loathe Connor Oberst? Boy, do I loathe that guy ...
posted by octobersurprise at 9:31 PM on February 20, 2006

> Are extroverts complaisant conformers?

Count me in as a rare extroverted nonconformist.

For me, being extroverted isn't a choice - it's just my nature to be up-front and outspoken. However, since I'm kind of an oddball, this means that I frequently voice unpopular opinions, make jokes that other people don't get, and generally say things that people don't expect.

Often, this puts me at a disadvantage, and I wind up being as self-conscious as many of the introverts in this thread, albeit after the fact. Fortunately, I've been able to develop my "filter" to the point where I don't put my foot in my mouth too often. Sure, I've found myself wishing that I could keep more of my thoughts to myself, but hey - that's just the way I am. At least I'm aware of the problem, and hopefully, ten years down the line, I'll be even better at "holding back."

I would agree that very few people fit neatly into either category. To be honest, I really only know one "dedicated introvert," and even though I'm pretty sure that this person hates me and everybody else we know, we manage to stay out of each others' way, and I can't say that we have any real problems with each other.

For that matter, I'd really like to know if there's any real basis at all for the whole "introverts vs. extroverts" meme. Conversation, like everything else, is a delicate balance of risk vs. reward, and I've found that most introverts are satisfied to take smaller social risks, and recieve fewer rewards.

People like myself who aren't completely happy with where they fall in the whole "introvert/extrovert" spectrum can make minor tweaks over the course of their lives, and eventually wind up closer to where they want to be.
posted by Afroblanco at 9:39 PM on February 20, 2006

Another introvert data point: I don't mind talking about myself, provided it is talk about externalities. I don't usually talk about my interior life person-to-person. I hate repeating myself and I absolutely despise being interrupted.
posted by Ritchie at 10:30 PM on February 20, 2006

Afroblanco: For that matter, I'd really like to know if there's any real basis at all for the whole "introverts vs. extroverts" meme.

I suspect that it's highly exaggerated to the point of becoming a point of self-fulfilling folk wisdom. I don't think you can really tell much about where a stranger falls on that spectrum on the basis of a casual encounter. If I'm comfortable with the social situation and in a good mood, I can talk your ear off for a solid two hours, and then find an excuse to knit or read in a corner somewhere. Even people who are strong extroverts can clam up if they are not feeling well, tired, or not comfortable with the social setting.

Both introverts and extroverts tend to adapt their behavior to whatever social settings or activity they happen to find themselves in. Most introverts can mingle and chit-chat, and most extroverts can just hang out or walk. IME most introverts are content to spend the majority of a conversation listening, and most extroverts are content to spend the majority of a conversation talking.

And I'm wondering if there is another dimension to this that we have not considered. I read a paper (*) that proposed that boys and girls are both emotionally intimate with each other, but have different ways of expressing that intimacy. Girls (according to this theory) express intimacy through verbal disclosure, while boys express intimacy through shared experience. (As rough generalities of course.)

I'm wondering if this is an alternate way of viewing extroversion vs. introversion. I'm certainly not anti-social. I go nuts if I have to spend more than 48 hours in my own home. But many of my preferred social activities involve long periods of minimal conversation: hiking, working out, reading at a coffee shop, movies, physical volunteer work, cook outs, museum visits, long car rides. I'd love to have the time and money to learn a new musical instrument and play in a small ensemble again.

(*) McNelles, L. R., & Connolly, J. A. (1999). Intimacy between adolescent friends: Age and gender differences in intimate affect and intimate behaviors. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9 (2), 143–159.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:42 AM on February 21, 2006

A friend of my mother's took a personality test as part of her work and was very dismayed to find she was actually an extrovert. All her life she had defined herself as an introvert, and she said "this makes no sense, all my friends are introverts, introverts are my people."

To which I pointed out that introverts don't have "people".
posted by Space Coyote at 4:18 AM on February 21, 2006

To which I pointed out that introverts don't have "people".

Interesting. I've always felt like I was from Mars (or maybe everyone else was) because I've never belonged to a group (and I've never wanted to belong to one). My father feels like he's part of the "Jewish" group, by which he means that he's somehow connected to all Jews -- even Jews he's never met. This is unfathomable to me. How can I possibly have a connection to someone I haven't met?

But I realize I'm odd this way. Most people I've meet feel like they're a member of "Men", "Women", "Christians", "Jews", "MeFites", "Democrats", "Republicans", "Americans"... I can certainly say, "I AM an American. I AM a man" -- but I certainly don't feel a default connection with other, random American men." Those labels feel merely descriptive to me. I only feel connections to people with whom I've forged close friendships.

I'd really like to know if there's any real basis at all for the whole "introverts vs. extroverts" meme .... I suspect that it's highly exaggerated to the point of becoming a point of self-fulfilling folk wisdom.

I'd agree with this to a point. My personality is a bit extreme, but I'd imagine most people fall somewhere between extreme gregariousness and extreme shyness. And most people have quite a bit of plasticity -- sometimes they are shy, sometimes they are sociable.

But I DO think they terms are useful. It IS useful to describe extremes -- even if most people don't veer towards them.
posted by grumblebee at 5:34 AM on February 21, 2006

And how does one do this?

Practice, really. Just keep trying to stop the internal voice. The more you try, the easier it is. You may or may not found it easy. I have found it helpful in avoiding the stress and tension I used to get at parties and things like that. Not to say they are my favorite places to be now, or anything, but I can now more often relax and actually enjoy myself.

YMMV, of course!
posted by sonofsamiam at 5:44 AM on February 21, 2006

I think there is no mystery as to why serial killers and spree killers all always described as "quiet, kept to himself" type people. Y'all bottle shit up and then go nuts.

Okay, so I can either stay bottled up and watch the extroverts decide among themselves that introverts are not legitimately different from extroverts, but just lazy and stuck-up and antisocial...

OR

...I can be a crazy serial killer! Awesome!

*revs chainsaw, cackling madly*
posted by naomi at 6:11 AM on February 21, 2006

The I/E split that Myers-Briggs and Jung are working from is not "shy vs. social." It's where you get your energy from.

How do you feel after spending long periods of time with a big group of friends? Do you need a nap, or are you revved up and wanting to take on the world?

How do you feel after spending long periods of time by yourself or with one or two very close friends? Are you content and full, or are you itching to get out and meet up with lots more people?

In my experience, simply trying to get my more extroverted friends to realize that as much as I enjoy socializing, it doesn't *energize* me is a big step. I love hanging out with people, I talk to random people on the street, I'm not great with small talk but I understand and appreciate its importance -- and I consistently test about 90% on the introverstion scale. It's just that after expending all that energy -- joyfully, freely, non-resentfully -- I need some time alone, people, or I get cranky and depressed.

And for what it's worth, in the US the I/E split is usually about 1/4, so about 75% of the population is extroverted. And there's a pretty even gender split in both camps.
posted by occhiblu at 9:14 AM on February 21, 2006

...and watch the extroverts decide among themselves...

Yeah! Because it's extroverts vs. introverts! FIGHT!

...that introverts are not legitimately different from extroverts

Legitimately? Oh. Jeez. Nobody here said this.

As a matter of fact, as an oft-times (more than not) introvert myself, all most people are saying is that socializing takes practice and it's not all about YOU.

It's mostly about being a good listener, something introverts supposedly claim to be. But from the response of the supposed introverts on this thread I would say the opposite.

From this author of the piece we read and what some describe about them selves - you cant' be "you" if everybody else doesn't do, or say, or behave, the way YOU want.

That's narcissism not introversion. Something you shoudl think about if you find your self there instead of lashing out at everybody else and blaming them for why you don't get on.

The point is the skill of polite chit chat and group socializing are crucial to a deeper understanding of humans. And it takes practice. For some more than others. We have to practice things... even if we don't like them to get results. Think weight lifting or what ever.
posted by tkchrist at 9:22 AM on February 21, 2006

I'd just like to note that after reading the essay and interview, I was absolutely shocked at the hostility in this thread.

I simply can't fathom how so many of you can get so angry about somebody's social preferences. And I say that as a certified asshole.
posted by I Love Tacos at 10:05 AM on February 21, 2006

occhiblu nailed it. It has very little to do with one's skill of polite chit chat and group socializing.

In fact, I suspect that it's quite possible for an extrovert to be a complete dud. While the introvert who is bad at socializing is called a wallflower, the extrovert who is bad at socializing is called a boor. The fool who tries to insert his or her unwanted presence into every conversation is a stock character of both William Shakespeare and Jane Austin.

tkchrist: From this author of the piece we read and what some describe about them selves - you cant' be "you" if everybody else doesn't do, or say, or behave, the way YOU want.

Well, I don't read it that way. What I see is some calls for accommodation and compromise. I'll give you some chit-chat time if you give me time to hang out in a quiet corner of the action. I won't dismiss you as pushy for trying to make light conversation, if you don't dismiss me as arrogant for my quiet.

What bothers me in this discussion is how "chit-chat" is put on a pedestal, and other forms of socializing are dismissed as neurotic.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:12 AM on February 21, 2006

We have to practice things... even if we don't like them to get results. Think weight lifting or what ever.

This is very true. And we can break the people who practice into two groups (which I have taken the liberty of naming and describing, below):

1) Attitude Changers. These people start out disliking something, practice it, gain mastery over it, and -- with mastery -- THEY COME TO ENJOY IT. Or at least they don't hate it. Perhaps what they hated was the their ineptitude -- not the task itself. I think most people fall into this category.

2) Attitude Immobiles. These people dislike doing something, practice it, gain mastery over it, and STILL HATE IT. There is a disconnect between mastery and enjoyment. These people really do just hate the task, regardless of how good or bad they are at doing it. I think such people are rare. Most people like something if they are good at doing it.

(Naturally, most people will fall a little into both categories. One might hate taking out the trash, even with mastery, yet enjoy knitting -- maybe even without mastery.)

Alas, I fall into category two, and I've never figured out how to change this. tkchrist, your weight lifting example is a good one. I don't lift weights, but I ride a stationary bike for an hour every morning. I hate it. I started doing it about four years ago. I hated it then. I hate it now. That doesn't stop me from doing it. I DO like the results. But I still hate it with a passion. I keep waiting for those endorphins -- or whatever they are -- to kick in and give me that exercise "high" that people talk about. I never feel it.

Same with parties. I've been going to them for years and years. I've always hated them. I don't want to be defeatist and say "I will always hate them," but I don't know how to even start myself down the path of enjoying them. I go because not-going hurts people I care about. I am pretty good at "doing" parties, by which I mean I can appear to be having a good time. (On the rare occasion when I admitted, later, that I was unhappy, the general response has been, "Well, you sure LOOKED like you were having fun.) But I'm actually deeply unhappy and uncomfortable -- longing to leave.

People's advice about "learning to like something" is pretty much always, "keep doing it until you master it." And that IS good advice -- most of the time, for most people.

It's SO hard to keep doing something that you suspect will always make you unhappy. I do it by developing a sort of Protestant Work Ethic. Life isn't ABOUT being happy. It's about Getting Things Done and Doing Them Well. At times I can't stop myself from rebelling.
posted by grumblebee at 10:27 AM on February 21, 2006

and other forms of socializing are dismissed as neurotic

Are we reading the same thread? I don't see that anywhere in here.
posted by tkchrist at 12:55 PM on February 21, 2006

if you don't dismiss me as arrogant for my quiet

I would never, nor have I ever, done this. I doubt many people would do this.

There are some people with whom having a conversation is like pulling teeth because they don't try to participate. But you just smile, thank them and walk away.

I would dismiss you as arrogant if you, say, thought talking about Sienfeld, was just too beneath you. And you only deem a conversation about lofty important topics like, say, Proust, worthy of your time.
posted by tkchrist at 1:02 PM on February 21, 2006

At times I can't stop myself from rebelling.

You go!

Now see that would make an interesting ice breaker.

"Hi. I'm Tom. Part of the Work Ethic rebellion you've probably heard so much about."
posted by tkchrist at 1:05 PM on February 21, 2006

i was very excited about reading this article. now i'm irritated.

note to jonathan rauch: please stop helping.

all you had to say was, "some people are quiet, and find social niceties strange and physically taxing." in other words, people are different, be sensitive. but that wouldn't have made your article the atlantic's most poular, would it? much more compelling to flagrantly pathologize people on both sides ("sides" which are themselves pretty arbitrary), evincing only pity or contempt for quiet folk (many of whom probably don't give a damn about artificial categories like "introvert"), blurring the distinction between inborn traits and insecurities, and creating an artificial affinity among a range of people who would rather not deal with the fact that not every social interaction they have is going to go the way they would like.

as someone who is often rather "introverted" (except when i'm not), i'd like to say i'm not nearly as much of a dickhead as this guy, and most of "us" aren't. we just want folks to understand that some people have a harder time socializing in contexts which others might find very liberating (while probably flourishing in some contexts in which others would wither - though these are usually not the ones that are privileged in society), and that we are willing to work at it if others do the same.

by turning this in to "we're super special because of how we interact" rather than examining how society encourages spectacular interaction while discouraging thoughftulness, thereby making everyone a bit of a social idiot - just in widely divergent ways - rauch has done everyone a disservice.
posted by poweredbybeard at 8:35 PM on February 21, 2006

poweredbybeard --yes, yes, yes! Exactly!
posted by tula at 10:14 PM on February 21, 2006