Long overdue for the post I promised long ago…
The best definition I have ever heard of the different between introvert and extrovert… the definition I will swear by and offer up at any available opportunity… that definition is this:
An introvert will gain energy from being alone and lose energy when around other people. An extrovert will gain energy when around other people and lose energy when alone.
While we all fall somewhere along the spectrum – some of us along the middle, dipping into both characteristics and some of us deeply into the extreme ends recognized immediately as one or the other – but I think the definition works for everyone. And I, obviously, am an introvert.
The problem for me has been learning how to manage my own tendencies, and in that managing to include the expectations of others. For example, when I work a wedding I am not only spending eight hours with lots of strangers… but I am spending eight hours with lots of strangers on “the most important day of their lives.” About the time the ceremony is over I have to enter some kind of dualist zen-state where I am not quite myself any longer and actively putting from my mind, minute by minute, where I am and how long I have been there. But not only do I have to mange my own state of mind in that whole “I cannot yet collapse I cannot yet run away I cannot yet relax” but I also have to pretend that I am NOT doing just that. I have to be happy and excited and “at the ready” to jump in and take another photo, laugh with the bride and groom, and give compliments to the mother of the bride. It’s exhausting! So I spend that last three hours making a conscious and concentrated effort to be excited and pretend that I am still just as happy to be there. And it’s not easy, but I try… I guess sometimes I succeed more than others.
Holidays! Holidays are another example. I need my down time in order to function as a civil human being. But I can’t have it. So again, if I work hard enough I can create the dual mental-state of coping. I should patent that, and I might think about it if I had any assurance that I am actual successful at it. It’s one of those things where you can never be sure how well you are pulling something off because you’re biased from the beginning about how to interpret your own behavior.
One of the complications of being an introvert is that it seems to have an unnatural hold on my life. But I wonder if it only seems unnatural… and if the rest of the world is as actively conscious of their state as I am. Or maybe it is only as dramatic for those of us on an extreme end? In many ways I have to really pay attention to this aspect of my personality… Of course this showed up fairly obviously when I moved and didn’t know anyone. The only way to make a life in Raleigh was to constantly put myself out there in active social situations. Two years later I have a very small handful of good friends: Jessica, Lyndsay, and Holly in particular. These are my people! And really, they have been enough. I have not wanted much more. Unfortunately one of those wonderful ladies is moving far far away very soon. We are not thinking about that though, right Holly?
I am not sure what point I really had in mind when I started all of this… maybe I am just wanting to find out how weird I actually am and if any of the rest of the world actually thinks about these things or feels like their life is, in part, impacted by their spot on the spectrum.
Anyone?
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 26, 2007 at 1:07 am
Allan
Many of the greatest leaders of the planet have stepped outside their comfort zones, their defined personality spaces, in order to achieve greatness (for starters, reference Abe Lincoln).
The problem with ascribing your behavior (“your” and “behavior” both being generic definitions applicable to humanity in general) to your personality is that is makes behavior an inevitable result of a static, hard-wired trait. As such, you in turn recuse responsibility for the results of that trait, as you then argue you can’t help it – it’s just “who you are”. You argue above that you can “fake it”, but I argue that the very evidence of “faking it” implies that it is not an arbitrarily induced action from a defined personality set, but rather a learned behavior that can be modified.
After all, aren’t societal norms all about modifying innate behavior in order to conform to the greater good? Your problem is only that your behavior is not in violation of such norms, so you don’t have a lot of incentive to modify it – only the persistent longings of your heart and the niggling thoughts that maybe there is something more than this….
November 26, 2007 at 4:23 pm
re:patrick
i’ve heard and like that definition of introvert/extrovert. i am definitely an introvert–although not quite as much on the end of the spectrum as you are. i definitely find my energy in being alone–even being with Rhine is sometimes too much companionship!
But in public I function as an extrovert–I am not exceptionally shy or adverse to speaking to new people. It drains me–but i think that draining is a necessary part of some psychological cycle. 
November 28, 2007 at 5:50 am
Jenn
i begin to hyperventilate when i try to decide what kind of personality i have. what does that mean?
November 29, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Holly
I am honored to be one of your people! And Connecticut isn’t exactly “far far away.”
November 30, 2007 at 12:34 am
Melinda
I feel I must respond to Allan’s comment. Brace yourselves, the psychologist in me is certainly about to come out.
Allan wrote, “You argue above that you can “fake it”, but I argue that the very evidence of “faking it” implies that it is not an arbitrarily induced action from a defined personality set, but rather a learned behavior that can be modified.”
Before I begin, let me just remind everyone about the age old “nature vs. nurture” debate which has yet to be answered definitively. I doubt this will change the state of the debate, but I thought it would be fun to take a stab at it (especially since I actually fall more on the nurture side than the nature side and I am about to argue against personality as learned behavior).
Let’s get back to Allan’s comment.
While I agree that personality (introversion/extraversion in particular) may not be 100% biological, I do not follow the logic that the ability to “fake it” for a few hours implies it is a learned behavior that can be modified. At the end of those few hours, you are completely drained. Going off the definition Amanda presented (with which I heartily agree), an introvert draws his or her energy from time alone. Thus, for your implication to be correct, after “faking it” for several hours the introvert would have to be more energized and not completely drained… yet that is not the case. If your hypothesis were true, over time Amanda would become more extraverted (energized by others) as she spends time with people doing weddings. Or, I would become more introverted (energized by self) in graduate school as I spend less and less time with others. Yet Amanda is still very much an introvert, and I am still very much an extrovert.
By saying introverts can “fake it” for a few hours it only shows that we do not follow our basic tendencies 100% of the time… or at least that we do not have to follow them 100% of the time. It says nothing about the nature of those basic tendencies.
What say you?
November 30, 2007 at 1:54 am
amanda
WOOOOO!!!! I agree with Melinda!!!
Of course I agree with Melinda. I get that for you, Allan, it goes against the grain to think there is any part of ourselves that we cannot actually control and direct according to our fearsome wills, but I think there is a difference between being able to force myself into something that is atypical for me and what comes naturally. If it comes naturally it is part of my NATURE. Hence the word. And though I might be able to change it briefly it is not without cost NOR is it permanent. I would define natural as what comes easiest to me… the path of least resistance if you will… and it’s certainly not learned behavior of people growing up in my same society come out all along the spectrum instead of in one lump matrix.
YAY MELINDA!!!! Thanks for your comments.