E vs. I - it's about where you get your energy: either from the people around you, or from your internal world. The preferences and behaviors which are characteristic of Es and Is reflect their flow of energy gain and drain.
If you find these are true about you, then you are probably Extroverted:
You often feel the need to get out of the house and/or see someone at least once during the day, even if there's no where you actually need to go. This is because you need the outside stimulation.
When you spend time by yourself for a few hours, or maybe a whole day, you start to feel bored, antsy, or depressed and find yourself automatically seeking the company of others to get out of that state.
When you spend a long time with other people who you enjoy, you feel really revved up and full of energy, ready to keep going. (with some people you can almost see their energy level rise with the number of people present, but that's not all Es)
Doing something by yourself can be kind of draining, you're more likely to get frustrated or poop out too soon. However, you feel recharged if you take a break and talk to someone or if you get someone else to come work on it with you. Sometimes it almost feels like you have to have others to work with in order to keep up your motivation.
You generally feel that something is always more fun if you do it with a friend. 'The More the Merrier' is usually true for you and you often invite (or at least desire) others to join in when there's something you want to do. Cooperating with others, or simply having them nearby makes an activity more fun, more exciting, more satisfying.
You tend to need some kind of audience in order to really get into something and do a good job. If no one is going to see it, then you have less diving energy to really put your all into something. This is because the presence of others feeds a little more energy into you. It doesn’t have to be a big audience, or one filled with strangers, but you do tend to thrive on the feeback of others and can loose your steam if it seems like no one is noticing what you’re doing.
You feel dissatisfied with the day if you haven't really had any good interaction with people.
Being extroveted doesn't necessarily mean you're really confident, charismatic, or the life of the party, but social interactions are what recharges your battery, gives you energy, and keeps you going. Extroverts aren’t necessarily loud, and don’t have to have a ton of friends, it’s the ammount of interaction that puts them at their ‘peak performance’ which is the best indicator of this trait.
If you find these true about you, then you are probably Introverted:
You are usually content to remain in your own personal space, that’s where you feel most comfortable, focused, and energized. Going out is usually draining. When you do go out, you are more likely to have a specific purpose, and are less likely to spontaneously stay out longer, particularly on account of other people. While out, you’re more likely to stick to less populated places, and avoid unessessary conversation with strangers in order to minimize the energy drain.
Spending a lot of time with others leaves you feeling antsy, unsatisfied, or bored, and you automatically seek time alone with your personal persuits (hobbies, reading, contemplating, even chores) in order to regain a sense of satisfaction with the day.
When you’ve been out spending time with people for a while (a couple of hours, or even a whole day) you come home feeling tired, but your energy returns after some time alone in your own space. Even when it’s people you really enjoy, the interaction never-the-less begins to feel draining after a while and you feel like you require ‘winde-down’ time by yourself afterwards to help you process, recconect with yourself, and recharge your mental and physical energy.
You often find it hard to focus or get things done when other people are around. Groupwork may feel like a lot of ‘wasted’ social time to you. The task often feels more fun, and time passes more quickly when you are free to get into your own thoughts and just work without consulting with others - that’s when you feel like you’re really ‘on a roll’.
You tend to feel more happy and content doing things on your own. You don’t often think about inviting others to join you, or asking to join them. You feel perfectly comfortable doing things that others consider group activities by yourself (like going to the movies, eating at a cafe alone). You often look forward to doing something alone, or with one other person, and tend to be disappointed if others get involved because your rejuvinating session has just been turned into something draining. You may also feel less able to engage or enjoy the activity when there are other people involved.
It’s not exactly stage-fright, but the awareness of other people watching you can disrupt your ‘Flow’ and prevent you from doing as good a job as you are capable of. This is because the presence of others channels some of your energy away from what you’re doing, draining it. Also, your own personal evaluation of your work is what matters most to you, and you don’t necessarily need the feeback of others to feel satisfied with what you’ve done.
You feel frustrated or dissatisfied with a day that hasn’t allowed you any quality alone time, and you may feel slightly lost, uncentered, or out of tune with yourself and life.
Being introverted doesn’t necessarily mean you lack confidence and don’t like people, but interaction with others, particularly strangers, drains your energy reserves making you more conservative with how you spend your energy socially. Introverts can be great speakers and leaders, but they don’t thrive off social interaction. The ammount of alone time they require to be at their ‘peak performance’ is the best indicator of this trait.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Friday, July 1, 2011
Attention Span
You hear a lot about the Attention Span of children, but I think there are two other considerations in regards to someone's ability to pay attention: Depth and Breadth.
A couple of personal experiences have sparked this idea, the first being learning to drive. Personally, I know all the things I'm supposed to be paying attention to simultaneously while driving, but when it comes down to it I really cannot spread my attention across all of them.......or even very many of them. In a similar vein, one of my friends has trouble cooking an entire meal all at once. Instead she will cook the chicken, eat it, then cook the corn, eat that, then come back and fix the next item, and so on. Both of us seem to have difficulty with "multi-tasking" or paying sufficient attention to more than one thing at a time. This is what brought the idea of Attention Breadth to my mind. How much a person can pay attention to and notice at once can be an advantage or disadvantage in a busy fast-paced culture, but I don't think I would go so far as to assume that having broad attention is the ideal state of being for everyone.
In regards to breadth of attention, I have noticed that some people seem to notice more in their surroundings, and be able to interact competantly with more than one activity or conversation at once. They don't ever seem to be too engrossed in something to not notice other things going on around them, or to not remember something they know is coming up in the near future. Because of the wide area their attention takes in, I would immagine that some people may assume these people are easily distracted or 'have a short attention span.' But that's not really the case, they just seem to take in and process more things all at once, which can cause what they do or mention to others (who aren't taking in the same ammount) to seem scattered and hard to follow. On the other hand people with great breadth of attention may percieve others who don't notice as much as they do as being too 'out of it.' I think for some people who have this breadth of attention, it can even be necessary for them to have several things to do or think about at once so that they don't get bored or antsy, thus causing them to be at their peak when they have a lot going on.
Another observation I've had about people for quite a long time is that frequently when someone is chided for 'not paying attention' or for 'spacing out' it is not because their brains are vacant (as the assumption seems to be), but rather because they are so intensely absorbed in one thought or paying so much attention to one thing they are doing, that they simply don't have any attention to spare to notice that someone else is talking to them or something else is happening. This is Depth of Attention, and something which I believe is very valuable to people as a whole, in spite of the 'absent minded proffessor' style misshaps it may cause. I'm not sure that Depth and Breadth of attention are necessarily mutually exclusive, but that may be the case. It certainly seems that the ability to focus in depth on one thing brings with it the ability to 'tune out' the myriad of other things which might vie for attention. This intense 'deep' attention can cause everything else, not only in one's surroundings, but also in one's mind, to disappear for the time being from one's consciousness. This is merely assumption, but it would seem that with just one thing to process, the mental sharpness to analyse it with and the level of understanding gained would be much greater than when taking in a lot of things at once. Whether or not that is true, it does seem like some people have a natural inclination to be more thorough, detailed, or deep in their investigation or consideration of something that they have turned their attention to, while others tend to engage less fully with anything, regardless of how long they are paying attention to it.
It would seem logical if there was some connection between either E and I or S and N and having breadth or depth of attention, but I'm not sure if this actually plays out in real life or not.
A couple of personal experiences have sparked this idea, the first being learning to drive. Personally, I know all the things I'm supposed to be paying attention to simultaneously while driving, but when it comes down to it I really cannot spread my attention across all of them.......or even very many of them. In a similar vein, one of my friends has trouble cooking an entire meal all at once. Instead she will cook the chicken, eat it, then cook the corn, eat that, then come back and fix the next item, and so on. Both of us seem to have difficulty with "multi-tasking" or paying sufficient attention to more than one thing at a time. This is what brought the idea of Attention Breadth to my mind. How much a person can pay attention to and notice at once can be an advantage or disadvantage in a busy fast-paced culture, but I don't think I would go so far as to assume that having broad attention is the ideal state of being for everyone.
In regards to breadth of attention, I have noticed that some people seem to notice more in their surroundings, and be able to interact competantly with more than one activity or conversation at once. They don't ever seem to be too engrossed in something to not notice other things going on around them, or to not remember something they know is coming up in the near future. Because of the wide area their attention takes in, I would immagine that some people may assume these people are easily distracted or 'have a short attention span.' But that's not really the case, they just seem to take in and process more things all at once, which can cause what they do or mention to others (who aren't taking in the same ammount) to seem scattered and hard to follow. On the other hand people with great breadth of attention may percieve others who don't notice as much as they do as being too 'out of it.' I think for some people who have this breadth of attention, it can even be necessary for them to have several things to do or think about at once so that they don't get bored or antsy, thus causing them to be at their peak when they have a lot going on.
Another observation I've had about people for quite a long time is that frequently when someone is chided for 'not paying attention' or for 'spacing out' it is not because their brains are vacant (as the assumption seems to be), but rather because they are so intensely absorbed in one thought or paying so much attention to one thing they are doing, that they simply don't have any attention to spare to notice that someone else is talking to them or something else is happening. This is Depth of Attention, and something which I believe is very valuable to people as a whole, in spite of the 'absent minded proffessor' style misshaps it may cause. I'm not sure that Depth and Breadth of attention are necessarily mutually exclusive, but that may be the case. It certainly seems that the ability to focus in depth on one thing brings with it the ability to 'tune out' the myriad of other things which might vie for attention. This intense 'deep' attention can cause everything else, not only in one's surroundings, but also in one's mind, to disappear for the time being from one's consciousness. This is merely assumption, but it would seem that with just one thing to process, the mental sharpness to analyse it with and the level of understanding gained would be much greater than when taking in a lot of things at once. Whether or not that is true, it does seem like some people have a natural inclination to be more thorough, detailed, or deep in their investigation or consideration of something that they have turned their attention to, while others tend to engage less fully with anything, regardless of how long they are paying attention to it.
It would seem logical if there was some connection between either E and I or S and N and having breadth or depth of attention, but I'm not sure if this actually plays out in real life or not.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Mirror Mirror
In the old days before mirrors were invented people couldn't know exactly what they looked like. They had to rely on other people's descriptions and reactions. This is still true to a great extent when it comes to our personalities. Certainly we may introspect and evaluate our personal character. However, the way that people around us respond to us acts, in some capacity, as a constant mirror reflecting back at us a particular immage of ourselves, often distorted by the person sending the message.
In general, we seem to accept the immage of ourselves that people imply about us with their reactions, and are likely to question only when someone's oppinion of us varies drastically from the oppinions of everyone else. Of course there are many exceptions, but the point is that the impressions of us that are constantly being reflected back at us by other people does inform our own beliefes about ourselves so automatically that we can hardly realise how much influence they may be having on our self-perception.
Much of the time there is an element of 'the chicken or the egg?' with a personal trait triggering certain responces to us which then confirm and perpetuate that trait in ourselves both because we believe we are that way, and because people's expectations herd us in a certain direction. This may happen with both good and bad traits (as well as neutral ones).
For example, if parents are convinced their child is clumsy or irresponcible, they will react to him as if he is incapable and requires help. This sends a message to the child which he is likely to believe: "I am clumsy and irresponcible," or "I am needy". And by acting upon the expectation of their child's incompetance they will likely deprive the child of the opportunity to prove differently to himself. This may go for things such as selfishness or kindness, trustworthiness, perfectionism, shyness, wierdness, picky-ness, moodiness, liklihood to recieve recognition in life, creativity, maturity, independance, etc.
Along with the impressions of ourselves that people send us, there usually comes subtle indications of whether we ought to be the way they think we are or not. What are generally thought of as bad traits aren't always necessarily discouraged, and what may be good traits aren't always necessarilly encouraged, even if when asked straight a person would never claim they wanted us to be one way or another.
In some cases people can become so fixed on one idea of a person that even when that person acts in direct conflict to that expectation they continue to respond based on their prior idea rather than the available evidence. If someone feels 'pidgeon holed' by someone's expectations of them, they may try to cultivate the opposite trait. But notice! The assumption that you need to work on a particular trait assumes you are not already good at it, which shows that you do believe the assumption about yourself.
Frequently people do reflect back roughly a correct immage of our personality and character, and can be a very helpfull source of understanding ourselves. But it seems just as easy for them to relfect back a distorted immage. It seems worth taking a look at some of the assumptions about ourselves which we have always taken for granted. Have these traits been cultivated by other's expectations of us, or did they really orriginate within ourselves?
For example: Are you really nit-picky? (an assumption about yourself which may have both made you think more about paying attention to details, and made you feel guilty about it). Or did a teacher or parent in the past pin this trait onto you? perhaps based on a few uncharacteristic moments that made an impression?
How might your reactions towards others be shaping them?
In general, we seem to accept the immage of ourselves that people imply about us with their reactions, and are likely to question only when someone's oppinion of us varies drastically from the oppinions of everyone else. Of course there are many exceptions, but the point is that the impressions of us that are constantly being reflected back at us by other people does inform our own beliefes about ourselves so automatically that we can hardly realise how much influence they may be having on our self-perception.
Much of the time there is an element of 'the chicken or the egg?' with a personal trait triggering certain responces to us which then confirm and perpetuate that trait in ourselves both because we believe we are that way, and because people's expectations herd us in a certain direction. This may happen with both good and bad traits (as well as neutral ones).
For example, if parents are convinced their child is clumsy or irresponcible, they will react to him as if he is incapable and requires help. This sends a message to the child which he is likely to believe: "I am clumsy and irresponcible," or "I am needy". And by acting upon the expectation of their child's incompetance they will likely deprive the child of the opportunity to prove differently to himself. This may go for things such as selfishness or kindness, trustworthiness, perfectionism, shyness, wierdness, picky-ness, moodiness, liklihood to recieve recognition in life, creativity, maturity, independance, etc.
Along with the impressions of ourselves that people send us, there usually comes subtle indications of whether we ought to be the way they think we are or not. What are generally thought of as bad traits aren't always necessarily discouraged, and what may be good traits aren't always necessarilly encouraged, even if when asked straight a person would never claim they wanted us to be one way or another.
In some cases people can become so fixed on one idea of a person that even when that person acts in direct conflict to that expectation they continue to respond based on their prior idea rather than the available evidence. If someone feels 'pidgeon holed' by someone's expectations of them, they may try to cultivate the opposite trait. But notice! The assumption that you need to work on a particular trait assumes you are not already good at it, which shows that you do believe the assumption about yourself.
Frequently people do reflect back roughly a correct immage of our personality and character, and can be a very helpfull source of understanding ourselves. But it seems just as easy for them to relfect back a distorted immage. It seems worth taking a look at some of the assumptions about ourselves which we have always taken for granted. Have these traits been cultivated by other's expectations of us, or did they really orriginate within ourselves?
For example: Are you really nit-picky? (an assumption about yourself which may have both made you think more about paying attention to details, and made you feel guilty about it). Or did a teacher or parent in the past pin this trait onto you? perhaps based on a few uncharacteristic moments that made an impression?
How might your reactions towards others be shaping them?
Friday, April 8, 2011
Spontaneous Perceivers
Perceivers are supposed to be laid back, easy going, adaptable. And in general we are. But this doesn't mean that perceivers never get upset or flustered by a change of plans. This is something that I've wondered about for myself for quite a while and I think I've hit upon the key.
It seems to me like it all depends on WHY the change upsets you. It seems pretty obvious that no matter what personality type you are, if you were really looking forward to something and it gets canceled you're going to be disappointed and unhappy about the change. Some people may take such disappointment better than others, but the point here is that Judgers are more likely to be bothered by 'the principle of the matter' as much as they are disappointed by the loss of the positive expectation. The fact that someone would cancel, the fact that things aren't steady, the fact that they now have to think on the spot and make a new plan adds extra frustration on top of the disappointment. My guess is that a Perceiver will certainly be disappointed, hurt, or frustrated because their hopes have been dashed, but won't be terribly bothered by having to change the schedual itself.
I think changing something on a Judger strikes a deeper issue - a need to feel like they know what's going on, like they're not at the mercy of inscrutible forces bending their path willy nilly before them. Without a view of what's going to happen, of what they're heading toward, they have trouble figuring out what to do with themselves in the moment. A perceiver is much more comfortable discovering where the path will take them without knowing where that is ahead of time. So when someone cancels on a Perceiver they may be upset because of the current loss of the positive expectation, they may feel that a friend who always cancels doesn't really want to be with them, they may be disappointed they're not going to have the fun experience they were looking forward to, they may be impatient with having to wait even longer to have their curiosity appeased, etc. but all of their negative reactions have to do with the specific situation, not the fact of the change itself.
Because the perciever's reaction is based on the specific event and anticipation associated with it, their responce to change may be less predictable. It all depends on how much they were looking forward to the event, and whether or not they find something even better to replace the canceled event. If they end up having a good time, whether things went as planned or not the Perceiver will be perfectly satisfied. They aren't left with the same feeling of being betrayed, or lost without the plan that a Judger is likely to experience.
Of course it's not that Judgers aren't adaptable either, and if a better option turns up after something is canceled they can still appreciate it. However, with my mother at least, I've noticed that even with a better alternative, she can find it difficult to switch gears and really get into the spirit of the new plan, and it can be harder for her to notice that a better option is now open to her because she's too flustered by the loss of the orriginal plan.
Another difference I've noticed between my mother and I, a judger and perceiver respectively, is that I'm usually a lot more alert to what other options there may be, except when I really had my hopes set on something - then I'll stubbornly resist other options as a form of protest (not that this is a good thing). My mom on the other hand genuinely doesn't see the other options a lot of the time, and her trouble accepting the new plan doesn't appear to be a form of pouting. She has to process the new plan into her grand scheme of how everything is going to work out and get used to this new game plan before she feels ready to take another step.
It seems to me like it all depends on WHY the change upsets you. It seems pretty obvious that no matter what personality type you are, if you were really looking forward to something and it gets canceled you're going to be disappointed and unhappy about the change. Some people may take such disappointment better than others, but the point here is that Judgers are more likely to be bothered by 'the principle of the matter' as much as they are disappointed by the loss of the positive expectation. The fact that someone would cancel, the fact that things aren't steady, the fact that they now have to think on the spot and make a new plan adds extra frustration on top of the disappointment. My guess is that a Perceiver will certainly be disappointed, hurt, or frustrated because their hopes have been dashed, but won't be terribly bothered by having to change the schedual itself.
I think changing something on a Judger strikes a deeper issue - a need to feel like they know what's going on, like they're not at the mercy of inscrutible forces bending their path willy nilly before them. Without a view of what's going to happen, of what they're heading toward, they have trouble figuring out what to do with themselves in the moment. A perceiver is much more comfortable discovering where the path will take them without knowing where that is ahead of time. So when someone cancels on a Perceiver they may be upset because of the current loss of the positive expectation, they may feel that a friend who always cancels doesn't really want to be with them, they may be disappointed they're not going to have the fun experience they were looking forward to, they may be impatient with having to wait even longer to have their curiosity appeased, etc. but all of their negative reactions have to do with the specific situation, not the fact of the change itself.
Because the perciever's reaction is based on the specific event and anticipation associated with it, their responce to change may be less predictable. It all depends on how much they were looking forward to the event, and whether or not they find something even better to replace the canceled event. If they end up having a good time, whether things went as planned or not the Perceiver will be perfectly satisfied. They aren't left with the same feeling of being betrayed, or lost without the plan that a Judger is likely to experience.
Of course it's not that Judgers aren't adaptable either, and if a better option turns up after something is canceled they can still appreciate it. However, with my mother at least, I've noticed that even with a better alternative, she can find it difficult to switch gears and really get into the spirit of the new plan, and it can be harder for her to notice that a better option is now open to her because she's too flustered by the loss of the orriginal plan.
Another difference I've noticed between my mother and I, a judger and perceiver respectively, is that I'm usually a lot more alert to what other options there may be, except when I really had my hopes set on something - then I'll stubbornly resist other options as a form of protest (not that this is a good thing). My mom on the other hand genuinely doesn't see the other options a lot of the time, and her trouble accepting the new plan doesn't appear to be a form of pouting. She has to process the new plan into her grand scheme of how everything is going to work out and get used to this new game plan before she feels ready to take another step.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Pen & Sword, Book & Shield
Introverts are notorious for having their noses in books, not that we all actually do. I was recently reflecting on this though and realised that although I love reading, my habit of carrying a book with me wherever I go has a much more practical motivation. It acts as a shield.
Introverts generally dislike engaging others unessessarily, which of course includes all the random interactions one might have with other people while out and about during the day. Comments by others in line with us, small talk with the clerk at the register, people waiting with us at the cross-walk, in the break room, at the water fountain, in the hall, on the bus, before class starts, etc. etc. There are people everywhere, and most of them are extroverts who are wired to seek interaction, so they make eye contact, they smile, and they talk to whatever people they run into during the day. They think aloud to whomever is listening, and thus end up striking up conversations. They are focused on others around them and feel more comfortable when they can share the connection of conversation with them.
All these interactions tend to rattle and annoy Introverts. They are, in contrast, wired to not get involved, to respect personal space, to mind their own business. Most of us wouldn't dream of interrupting someone else's private thoughts or conversations, because to us that's just rude. We never assume someone else wants to be talked to, because we often don't. Whether we're enjoying staring at the scenery in silence, or busy thinking about things we're usually not very interested in being interrupted, particularly by someone we don't know and will never see again.
And that's where books come in so handy. Extroverts tend to interpret any unoccupied person as someone who is bored, lonely, and up for talking. Which can be very aggrivating to Introverts who enjoy going places alone and are perfectly happy just staring off into space on their own. So to fend off would-be talkers we avoid eye-contact, stare at our feet in a morose fashion, study the contents of our bag far too intently, and Read. We pull out our book and hold it up in front of our face, sometimes even when we don't even feel like reading, because this says "I'm busy" to all but the most decidedly extroverted people. While reading we can reasonably pretend not to hear others around us, even when they try to get our attention. When reading we don't have to smile at others, and we don't have to make ridiculously boring comments about the weather. A book provides a kind of invisible bubble aound us, separating us from the rest of the crowd, counting us out. With our book sheild we don't have to be rude by cutting short people's well meant efforts at conversation. A book generally deflects the attention of those looking for a conversation to pass the time and leaves us with blessed peace and relative solitude (if not of body, at least of mind).
And so we arm ourselves with a book when preparing to brave the masses.
It is also worth noting that the Introvert's dislike of conversation often extends even to his friends. Of course this isn't to say that Introverts don't ever enjoy conversation, they do most certainly with the right people at the right time. But Introverts also tend to really enjoy communication through writing. In writing one has a chance to stop and think about, and check and rephrase things, rather than just blurting them out before the conevrsation passes on. In writing everyone gets to say everything he intended to, because there is no interruption of a letter. In writing it may be easier to talk about 'deep' things, things other than the immediate surroundings and situation, things which might be harder to figure out how to express or explain. In writing one doesn't have to worry about how the other person is percieving your initial reaction. In writing you don't have to read, or respond, at the time chosen by the other person, you can choose a time when you're mind is ready to engage. In writing, the letters on the page are every bit as 'loud and clear' as anyone else's letters are, so there is no worry of being drowned out by a louder voice. Many introverts find it much esier to express their thoughts clearly in writing, rather than in on-the-spot conversation, and many find it easier to face a topic of controvesy or strong feelings through writing because in person they tend to be at a disadvantage with their quieter, meeker 'presence' which tends to cause them to be overlooked or disregarded. And so it is, that we write notes and type emails when others would just talk.
Introverts generally dislike engaging others unessessarily, which of course includes all the random interactions one might have with other people while out and about during the day. Comments by others in line with us, small talk with the clerk at the register, people waiting with us at the cross-walk, in the break room, at the water fountain, in the hall, on the bus, before class starts, etc. etc. There are people everywhere, and most of them are extroverts who are wired to seek interaction, so they make eye contact, they smile, and they talk to whatever people they run into during the day. They think aloud to whomever is listening, and thus end up striking up conversations. They are focused on others around them and feel more comfortable when they can share the connection of conversation with them.
All these interactions tend to rattle and annoy Introverts. They are, in contrast, wired to not get involved, to respect personal space, to mind their own business. Most of us wouldn't dream of interrupting someone else's private thoughts or conversations, because to us that's just rude. We never assume someone else wants to be talked to, because we often don't. Whether we're enjoying staring at the scenery in silence, or busy thinking about things we're usually not very interested in being interrupted, particularly by someone we don't know and will never see again.
And that's where books come in so handy. Extroverts tend to interpret any unoccupied person as someone who is bored, lonely, and up for talking. Which can be very aggrivating to Introverts who enjoy going places alone and are perfectly happy just staring off into space on their own. So to fend off would-be talkers we avoid eye-contact, stare at our feet in a morose fashion, study the contents of our bag far too intently, and Read. We pull out our book and hold it up in front of our face, sometimes even when we don't even feel like reading, because this says "I'm busy" to all but the most decidedly extroverted people. While reading we can reasonably pretend not to hear others around us, even when they try to get our attention. When reading we don't have to smile at others, and we don't have to make ridiculously boring comments about the weather. A book provides a kind of invisible bubble aound us, separating us from the rest of the crowd, counting us out. With our book sheild we don't have to be rude by cutting short people's well meant efforts at conversation. A book generally deflects the attention of those looking for a conversation to pass the time and leaves us with blessed peace and relative solitude (if not of body, at least of mind).
And so we arm ourselves with a book when preparing to brave the masses.
It is also worth noting that the Introvert's dislike of conversation often extends even to his friends. Of course this isn't to say that Introverts don't ever enjoy conversation, they do most certainly with the right people at the right time. But Introverts also tend to really enjoy communication through writing. In writing one has a chance to stop and think about, and check and rephrase things, rather than just blurting them out before the conevrsation passes on. In writing everyone gets to say everything he intended to, because there is no interruption of a letter. In writing it may be easier to talk about 'deep' things, things other than the immediate surroundings and situation, things which might be harder to figure out how to express or explain. In writing one doesn't have to worry about how the other person is percieving your initial reaction. In writing you don't have to read, or respond, at the time chosen by the other person, you can choose a time when you're mind is ready to engage. In writing, the letters on the page are every bit as 'loud and clear' as anyone else's letters are, so there is no worry of being drowned out by a louder voice. Many introverts find it much esier to express their thoughts clearly in writing, rather than in on-the-spot conversation, and many find it easier to face a topic of controvesy or strong feelings through writing because in person they tend to be at a disadvantage with their quieter, meeker 'presence' which tends to cause them to be overlooked or disregarded. And so it is, that we write notes and type emails when others would just talk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)