I'm an introvert. That's probably not very rare in an online community like this, where the interface acts as a natural buffer between participants.
But I'm the kind of guy who takes books to parties where I don't know many of the other guests, prepared for the very real possibility that I'll spend long stretches of time disengaged from conversation entirely. And even when I end up talking with a group of people, it always seems to me like I'm more involved in the conversation than I really am -- actively caught up in the flow of what others are saying, only realizing later that I didn't contribute much in the way of real, actual words to the discussion.
I've consistently tested as an INTP in the dozen or so times I've taken versions of the Myers Briggs Type Indicator test in the past 15 years, whether or not this actually indicates much of practical value. But the personality traits the INTP designation comprise seem to describe me pretty well.
To sum it up, I like to watch. Whatever it is that I find interesting, I tend to stand back and observe. Participation, on the other hand, always gets short shrift.
A little over a year ago in The Atlantic Monthly, Jonathan Rauch (introvert extraordinaire) provided a glimpse into some of the whys and wherefores of introversion, including Sartre's quip that "Hell is other people at breakfast." I particularly dig this observation that, try as they might, extroverts just don't get introverts:
"Extroverts are easy for introverts to understand, because extroverts spend so much of their time working out who they are in voluble, and frequently inescapable, interaction with other people. They are as inscrutable as puppy dogs. But the street does not run both ways. Extroverts have little or no grasp of introversion. They assume that company, especially their own, is always welcome. They cannot imagine why someone would need to be alone; indeed, they often take umbrage at the suggestion. As often as I have tried to explain the matter to extroverts, I have never sensed that any of them really understood. They listen for a moment and then go back to barking and yipping."
I also relate to the bit about how "many actors, I've read, are introverts, and many introverts, when socializing, feel like actors". This rings true to me. If I appear to be at ease in a group of strangers, it's likely because I'm pretending . . .
You'd think that the type of people SG attracts would tend to be pretty extroverted, but I'm not sure that's the case. Extreme personalities can be a way of shielding innate shyness. Not to say that's a bad thing -- far from it.
But I'm curious... what about all of you? Are you an introvert? Outgoing? Are these labels too categorical? Irrelevant descriptors of the way you see yourself? I'd like to hear from you... while I sit back and observe the responses...
But I'm the kind of guy who takes books to parties where I don't know many of the other guests, prepared for the very real possibility that I'll spend long stretches of time disengaged from conversation entirely. And even when I end up talking with a group of people, it always seems to me like I'm more involved in the conversation than I really am -- actively caught up in the flow of what others are saying, only realizing later that I didn't contribute much in the way of real, actual words to the discussion.
I've consistently tested as an INTP in the dozen or so times I've taken versions of the Myers Briggs Type Indicator test in the past 15 years, whether or not this actually indicates much of practical value. But the personality traits the INTP designation comprise seem to describe me pretty well.
To sum it up, I like to watch. Whatever it is that I find interesting, I tend to stand back and observe. Participation, on the other hand, always gets short shrift.
A little over a year ago in The Atlantic Monthly, Jonathan Rauch (introvert extraordinaire) provided a glimpse into some of the whys and wherefores of introversion, including Sartre's quip that "Hell is other people at breakfast." I particularly dig this observation that, try as they might, extroverts just don't get introverts:
"Extroverts are easy for introverts to understand, because extroverts spend so much of their time working out who they are in voluble, and frequently inescapable, interaction with other people. They are as inscrutable as puppy dogs. But the street does not run both ways. Extroverts have little or no grasp of introversion. They assume that company, especially their own, is always welcome. They cannot imagine why someone would need to be alone; indeed, they often take umbrage at the suggestion. As often as I have tried to explain the matter to extroverts, I have never sensed that any of them really understood. They listen for a moment and then go back to barking and yipping."
I also relate to the bit about how "many actors, I've read, are introverts, and many introverts, when socializing, feel like actors". This rings true to me. If I appear to be at ease in a group of strangers, it's likely because I'm pretending . . .
You'd think that the type of people SG attracts would tend to be pretty extroverted, but I'm not sure that's the case. Extreme personalities can be a way of shielding innate shyness. Not to say that's a bad thing -- far from it.
But I'm curious... what about all of you? Are you an introvert? Outgoing? Are these labels too categorical? Irrelevant descriptors of the way you see yourself? I'd like to hear from you... while I sit back and observe the responses...
.
I consider myself to be a fairly extroverted person, I love socializing. Strangely, most of my friends have been introverts. At first I wasn't liking the qoute about extroverts but after thinking about it for a minute, it's accurate. I think that's why I've always had more introverts as friends, because I most extroverts annoy me. Maybe I'm just a screwed up introvert?