Comments on: Introverts R Us

Introverts R Us

grumblebee — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:59:30 -0800

We Introverts make up 40% of the population. So we make up a large portion of the market. We learn differently than extroverts (NSFW). We appear calm, but that may be an illusion . In fact, we need special care and attention. We like to read, write, and test software, but we're afraid of networking. We have spiritual needs (scroll down). If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you smile at us, we may surprise you. Some of us read Metafilter.

By: drezdn

drezdn — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:01:30 -0800

I would post to this thread, but the attention makes me anxious.

By: Gyan

Gyan — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:04:56 -0800

They also attempt humor, more clumsily.

By: mrs.pants

mrs.pants — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:05:52 -0800

I'm not sure which I am.

By: Goedel

Goedel — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:09:55 -0800

grumblebee, Your Yahoo link says quite clearly that introverts are not necessarily retiring or submissive, yet you link to a bunch of pictures of people who seem to be shy more than anything else. I point this out because I'm an introvert, and there's absolutely nothing shy about me whatsoever - you'll certainly never catch me shielding my face from a camera lens.

By: rainbaby

rainbaby — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:16:12 -0800

Introvert Pride!

By: chuq

chuq — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:26:22 -0800

I demand Introvert Rights! Um ... sometime ... pretty soon ... I guess. *hide*

By: NotMyselfRightNow

NotMyselfRightNow — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:33:00 -0800

Actually, Gyan, I think our humor tends to be sharper, not clumsy. And I'm with Goedel--introverted doesn't mean shy at all. I think the choice including a ton of photos of people hiding from the camera is right on for a stupid and incorrect stereotype. My favorite piece on the matter came from The Atlantic in March 2003: Caring For Your Introvert.

By: peacay

peacay — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:33:04 -0800

I like the post. Thanks grumbleBee.

By: wendell

wendell — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:36:21 -0800

Some introverts post comments to MeFi with ridiculous usernames, but the really introverted have handles other people think are their real names... not that I know anybody like that. BTW... heheheh... they said Asspergers...

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:37:03 -0800

Introverts sure are getting uppity these days. Time to rewrite the social rules again, just so they don't start figuring them out and get too comfortable.

By: donut

donut — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:41:13 -0800

Good post! If you would like to know more ...

By: graventy

graventy — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:42:36 -0800

I'm...uh...just going to sit over here on the side and listen.

By: sdrawkcab

sdrawkcab — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:43:45 -0800

I'm tired of you people. Now leave me alone so I can think for a bit. Atlantic article....brilliant.

By: gurple

gurple — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:46:29 -0800

So, the takeaway here is that introverts are all shy and extroverts like to flash their boobs? Nice pictures and all, but kind of odd characterizations. I tend to sit right in the middle of the I/E spectrum on the Myers-Briggs test, so whenever someone points a camera at me I'm conflicted -- hold my hand in front of my face or whip my shirt off and flash my man-boobs?

By: heavy water

heavy water — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:50:15 -0800

As someone who does research on extraversion, let me point out a couple of things. First, the MBTI is an unreliable measure of personality for several reasons. Chief among these is the artificial dichotomization of extraversion and introversion into discrete categories. Like most major personality traits, extraversion is normally distributed in the population. Which means that roughly two-thirds of people fall relatively close to the mean--they're neither particularly extraverted nor particularly introverted. So the 40% statistic is inaccurate, and the MBTI does a disservice to people who, say, are just a little below the mean but are informed in no uncertain terms that they're introverts. Second, most of the claims made in the FPP concerning what introverts like or dislike are, at best, only partially accurate. There are many traits people lump in with the extraversion-introversion dimension that actually don't belong to it. For example, shyness (i.e., social anxiety) has only a low-to-moderate correlation with extraversion; i.e., there are lots of people who are introverted but not shy. These are people who don't dislike social contact, they just aren't as sensitive to social reward as extraverts are. Third, while it's always nice to see more discussion about personality, a lot of the links are to anecdotal reports, which aren't a reasonable basis to base a theory of extraversion on. There's an enormous literature out there of rigorous, peer-reviewed studies on extraversion; anyone with access to PsycINFO (and to a lesser extent, the free PubMed service) can look some of them up. Finally, some of the links provide flat out misinformation that is, unfortunately, often supported by pop culture notions of personality. For example, it simply isn't true that "a majority of the gifted population" are introverts. There is no correlation between intellectual ability and extraversion, nor between creativity and extraversion. A lot of people seem to have a stereotype of the brilliant, retiring scientist in their mind when they think of introversion, but it ain't so. Many of the most brilliant and successful people in academia, as in other domains, can attribute their success in no small part to their interpersonal skills and ability as collaborators.

By: gorgor_balabala

gorgor_balabala — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:53:07 -0800

i've been scrolling up and down thinking for something to say. i like the way wendell uses his ellipses...with a space after the first two. i wonder if he was tempted to hit the space bar after the third set, even though it would not be seen by anyone... there, i just wrote more so that i could hit the space bar... just one more time... [space] SHUT UP YOU KIDS!!! now where was iSfP.

By: Zed_Lopez

Zed_Lopez — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:58:42 -0800

Introvert anecdotes. One of my frustrations in this world: pretty much everyone knows that programmers (a disproportionately introverted bunch) tend to be more productive in private offices. But the business culture is so attached to the idea of private office as privilege, only to be doled out by rank, that we're stuck in noisy, public cubes and have to work odd hours for any real productivity. Frightening true tales of the introvert: My first girlfriend, in college, was a level 5 clinger, but I had no basis for comparison at the time. I just found myself growing increasingly anxious and agitated, and I had no idea why. It came to me in a flash -- I needed time alone. Previously, I had had no idea this was the case -- I'd always just lived my life in a way that got me plenty of it, and never thought about it. This was the beginning of a long career of attracting/being attracted to clingy women in relationships in which it was a hard-fought struggle to have time alone. Then I met a woman who could deal with my needing time alone without taking it as an affront, and I married her. Faking it: Strange, but true, I performed in an improv troupe for a while. It was liberating to prove to myself I could do it, but I really needed a bunch of time alone to recharge the next day after a performance. I linked to the Atlantic article on my blog when the article came out. I actually looked it up to mention it in this thread before I saw grumblebee had included it. Good article -- we need introvert identity politics. Now who's going to organize us and act as our spokesperson? Hello? Anyone? Note to extroverts: Please be quiet.

By: brain_drain

brain_drain — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:04:31 -0800

By: mania

mania — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:10:01 -0800

Are there people in the middle? What do you call someone that isn't an extrovert or an introvert? This either/or stuff always bothers me.

By: BigVACub

BigVACub — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:12:19 -0800

I don't like the introvert = quiet and shy, extrovert = outgoing fun partier descriptions. The latest explanation that I read was that introverts and extroverts re-charge their internal batteries differently. Extroverts re-charge energy levels by being around other people, they use other people energy to re-charge themselves. Introverts re-charge by being along; they re-charge from within.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:13:07 -0800

this really does seem misunderstood, no? If you take a profession like acting, for example, you will find that the overwhelming majority of people in that profession are introverts. From gurple's link, it's all about where you find your energy, IT HAS NOTHING to do with shyness or being socially awkward:

Where, primarily, do you direct your energy? If you prefer to direct your energy to deal with people, things, situations, or "the outer world", then your preference is for Extraversion. This is denoted by the letter "E". If you prefer to direct your energy to deal with ideas, information, explanations or beliefs, or "the inner world", then your preference is for Introversion. This is denoted by the letter "I".

By: plep

plep — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:17:43 -0800

Are there people in the middle? I recall reading a description of these people as 'ambiverts' (like 'ambidextrous'.....)

By: shepd

shepd — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:19:17 -0800

Good lord is this article insulting. Answering the points: 1. Introverts I know (including myself) do not get unlisted numbers and hang up immediately on telemarketers. Most, if they are like me, are polite with the telemarketer and eventually tell them they aren't interested. After the call we get a bit worked up inside and then in a few minutes forget about it. 4. Introverts have plenty of personality. I'd say anyone that meets me thinks I'm odd. If that's not a personality I don't know what is. And we do value personality. We just tend to value the personality that can stay quiet longer and not waste our time with useless words. :-D 5. Well, at least that's dead on. I'd say the same things too. It strikes others as odd I'm not impressed because someone looks good on film? Wow... 7. Humiliation due to public incompetence actually doesn't affect certain people? Again, colour me wowed. 9. I really don't care if you use your cellphone in public. It's more HOW you use it that can bother me. It's insulting to me if you're trying to use it as a status tool ("LOOK AT ME! I'M TALKING ON A CELLPHONE AND THEREFORE I'M l33T!") If you're using it to phone in a grocery list or chat with a friend, be my guest, as long as the venue is appropriate for it (Restaurants, public streets, your home, whatever). 10. That only works if you're asking the question in private, you know that... right?

By: Civil_Disobedient

Civil_Disobedient — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:26:06 -0800

NSFW Yay, boobies!

By: Zed_Lopez

Zed_Lopez — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:27:15 -0800

mania: What do you call someone that isn't an extrovert or an introvert? Ambivert. (on preview, what plep said.) shepd: 1. Introverts I know (including myself) do not get unlisted numbers and hang up immediately on telemarketers. I have an unlisted number, and hang up on telemarketers. 4. Introverts have plenty of personality. The author was making a lame joke, smiley included, in suggesting that introverts didn't. The point I think she was making, clumsily, that introverts are turned off by anything resembling the smarmy outgoing salesperson schtick, is true for me.

By: grumblebee

grumblebee — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:29:06 -0800

Your Yahoo link says quite clearly that introverts are not necessarily retiring or submissive, yet you link to a bunch of pictures of people who seem to be shy more than anything else. Point taken. I thought it was cool that there were so many photos online of people covering their faces, so I snuck them in. Maybe I should have made those photos a separate thread.

By: mania

mania — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:39:03 -0800

Many thanks plep and Zed_Lopez.

By: trondant

trondant — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:45:27 -0800

My first girlfriend, in college, was a level 5 clinger I dated a 4th level facehugger once. At least you could see where you were going.

By: Aoede

Aoede — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:52:13 -0800

Thank you for the article! It was very interesting! I'm going to have to read up on this some more...

By: snoktruix

snoktruix — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:34:25 -0800

I tend to question the existence of traits such as introversion. I suspect there are so many *kinds* of introvert the term has no meaning, other than "vaguely, less good socially". For example, there may be many different reasons people avoid various social situations. There is not likely to be a gene complex for social ability. But there will be genes for verbal dexterity, ability to read emotional cues, level of emotional response, quickness of response to verbal stimuli, etc. etc. All these complex traits mingle to give some average social ability, on a continuum. It's borderline meaningless to lump it all into two categories.
Similary, I hate the word "smart"? This is another term that tries to lump people into two broad categories, stupid and smart, when the reality is it is ridiculous to give an individual such a label, since an individual is a hugely complex amalgam of diverse traits. If someone says, "duh..." when you ask them something, but then goes home and writes the next chapter in his brilliant novel, is he stupid or smart? (I'm not a novelist, but I do say "duh..." a lot...)

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:37:55 -0800

1. Introverts I know (including myself) do not get unlisted numbers and hang up immediately on telemarketers. Most, if they are like me, are polite with the telemarketer and eventually tell them they aren't interested. After the call we get a bit worked up inside and then in a few minutes forget about it. I figure I'm doing the telemarketer a favor by politely saying up front, "I don't do this kind of business off of a cold call, thank you," and hang up. Why waste my time and theirs? 9. I really don't care if you use your cellphone in public. It's more HOW you use it that can bother me. It's insulting to me if you're trying to use it as a status tool ("LOOK AT ME! I'M TALKING ON A CELLPHONE AND THEREFORE I'M l33T!") If you're using it to phone in a grocery list or chat with a friend, be my guest, as long as the venue is appropriate for it (Restaurants, public streets, your home, whatever). It depends. I get annoyed if I've scheduled my time to talk to someone, to be interrupted by a phone call. Then when they get off the call, we have to backtrack 2-5 minutest to pick up the thread of conversation. If it's a casual outing, I don't care that much.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:38:22 -0800

By: snoktruix

snoktruix — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:41:03 -0800

I should clarify that I realize "smartness" is a continous parameter. People are said to be very smart, smart, less smart, etc. I say such one dimensional characterizations are irrational. People are too complex to be remotely adequately described by a small set of scalar values.

By: -harlequin-

-harlequin- — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:41:08 -0800

From what various actors and drama students have told me, a lot of people get into acting because they're shy. I hear "overcoming shyness" far more often than anything about extra/introverted, so I'm inclined to think that if actors lean towards introversion, it's a secondary effect of having so many shy people. Question: The thread has established that not all (or even most) introverts are shy. Are all (or most) shy people introverts?

By: -harlequin-

-harlequin- — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:43:49 -0800

People are too complex to be remotely adequately described by a small set of scalar values. It would be nice if this were true. /Not saying it isn't true, just that it would be nice if it was :)

By: psmealey

psmealey — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:48:16 -0800

the term has no meaning, other than "vaguely, less good socially" Horseshit. I know tons of extroverts who are incredible obnoxious bores the people cringe to be around, and more than a few introverts who more often than not, rise to be the life of the party. Again, the whole introvert/extrovert dichotomy has nothing to do with sociability/likeability.

By: snoktruix

snoktruix — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:49:23 -0800

I think it would be nicer if it weren't true, at least for psychologists and cognitive scientists, but it is (I think, very obviously) true for the reasons I outlined. :)

By: snoktruix

snoktruix — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:55:38 -0800

psmealey, I guess my characterization of introversion as "vaguely, less good socially" is probably off from the usual perception. But I am basically saying I don't think "introverts" as a group exist really. It's like trying to group people into "assholes" and "non-assholes". The term is ill-defined, somewhat perjorative and depends subjectively on cultural stuff, and people who are inarguably assholish in some respects are probably not in others.

By: gorgor_balabala

gorgor_balabala — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:56:34 -0800

Horseshit. *sigh*--such good analysis, such poor tone. to predicate one's opinion on social refinements with such a word can only suggest animal abuse.

By: -harlequin-

-harlequin- — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:30:33 -0800

snoktruix: It sounds like you don't believe in introverts because you have a mistaken idea of what they are, and you're assuming it's a MBTI-style dichotomy, which Heavy Water above explains. So it's not like grouping people into assholes and non-assholes, it's like grouping people into three groups - "noticably tall", "noticably short", and "not noticably tall or short" The article linked above seems to give a reasonably testable (if introvert biased :-) description: "Extroverts are energized by people, and wilt or fade when alone. They often seem bored by themselves, in both senses of the expression. Leave an extrovert alone for two minutes and he will reach for his cell phone. In contrast, after an hour or two of being socially "on," we introverts need to turn off and recharge." In my experience, it is indeed the case that while many people are "not noticably either", many people lean very solidly into one camp or the other, and always have, and always will. Being an asshole is something you can change. Something that is fundamentally up to you. That's completely different.

By: snoktruix

snoktruix — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:51:10 -0800

Most simply I' m suggesting that these groupings (three if you say so) are just somewhat arbitrary divisions on a continuum. If you take enough human beings there will always be a continuous range of values for any "characteristic" you want to focus on. But if the characteristic is so broad that it is affected by many, many separate factors in the totality of a person's physiology, brain chemistry, and development then it becomes a useless average. For example if you tabulated every American's height in cm plus their weight in pounds, you would find some distribution. There would be the "heavy-tallers" at the top and the "light-shorters" at the bottom of the continuum. Does this tell you something interesting? No, you averaged together unrelated things producing an essentially meaningless number. Similarly I think it's inevitable that a personality test, which seeks to take the unbelievably complex human brain as an input and then output a single value, is bound to combine many psychological traits into one grand, useless value. Similarly for IQ, which many respected scientists think is useless on similar grounds.

By: -harlequin-

-harlequin- — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:02:52 -0800

snoktruix: I disagree. It is not meaningless whether someone is tall or short - there are often signficant career ramifications for example. Likewise with introversion, it is a very clear-cut easy-to-identify state with large ramifications, and just like being tall, from a practical perspective it is irrelevant what mix of complex factors produced the trait, but it does matter that you are stuck with the trait. You argue that the aggrigate grouping of people in categories is not useful, but that is simply not relevant to the idea that the distinction is without merit. THe distinction of being tall is real-world useful, as is the distinction of introversion.

By: heavy water

heavy water — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:04:58 -0800

I tend to question the existence of traits such as introversion. Well, personality traits are obviously abstractions. You can't see extraversion; it's not an object, it's a description, much like 'funny' or 'weird'. The advantage of a dimension like extraversion over many other terms people throw around is that extraversion is operationally defined. If you want to know what an extravert is, take a look at an extraversion scale. On most people's accounts, extraverts are gregarious, active, assertive and socially adept. Far from having no meaning, extraversion scores are pretty good predictors of all sorts of things, including career choices, happiness levels, reactions to positive events, etc. For example, there may be many different reasons people avoid various social situations. There is not likely to be a gene complex for social ability. There doesn't have to be. Extraversion is a descriptive label that has some predictive power. It's not an explanatory construct; it doesn't tell you what genes or neurobiological systems dispose individuals toward displaying introverted or extraverted patterns of behavior. Extraversion as a description is orthogonal to more specific traits (which some people conceive of as 'facets' or 'subordinates'). But there will be genes for verbal dexterity, ability to read emotional cues, level of emotional response, quickness of response to verbal stimuli, etc. etc. Uh, no. It's exceedingly unlikely that there are single genes coding for any of these things. All of the examples you gave are highly complex phenomena and it's not at all clear that there's any more specificity associated with them than with extraversion. For what it's worth, there are a number of genes (in particular, dopamine coding genes, e.g., DRD4) that are associated with levels of extraversion. They're tiny associations, but that's equally true for virtually all genes that have been identified with any of the above phenomena. Simply put, there are very few instances where individual genes code for anything. An isomorphic relationship between genes and behaviors is a lousy criterion for whether a construct is 'real' or not. All these complex traits mingle to give some average social ability, on a continuum. It's borderline meaningless to lump it all into two categories. Fair enough, but if it's borderline meaningless, you should also stop using terms like 'emotion', 'dexterity', 'ability to read emotional cues', and so on. These are equally complex phenomena. I should say though that if you go down this path, you're going to be left with virtually no descriptive adjectives to apply to people. Similary, I hate the word "smart"? This is another term that tries to lump people into two broad categories, stupid and smart, when the reality is it is ridiculous to give an individual such a label, since an individual is a hugely complex amalgam of diverse traits. Again, you seem to think these views are in tension with each other. They're not. Most people who work on both personality and intelligence see things in terms of differing levels of abstraction. It's well established empirically that the vast majority of so-called forms of intelligence load heavily on a single factor (which people have dubbed 'g', for 'general' intelligence). So in a very real sense, yes, it's perfectly reasonable to say that one person is smarter than another. G predicts all sorts of important outcomes, e.g., income, occupational status, etc. It'd be foolish to pretend the term 'smart' has no meaning. On the other hand, does that mean G captures everything we care about with regard to intelligence? Of course not. There are lower-order abilities which, depending on the context, may make more sense to talk about. Depends entirely on what your purpose is.

By: Hal Mumkin

Hal Mumkin — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:46:40 -0800

I don't have an unlisted number or hang up on telemarketers; most of the time I just let the phone ring without answering... sometimes I don't bother answering door either.

By: scarabic

scarabic — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:10:28 -0800

Great post, grumblebee! I'm an introvert, and there's absolutely nothing shy about me whatsoever - you'll certainly never catch me shielding my face from a camera lens. I agree with this. I'm also quite introverted, yet difficult to describe as shy, and when it comes to pictures, if anything, I'm vain.

By: Sparx

Sparx — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:11:34 -0800

My levels of intro/extro are dependent on whether I'm stoned/drunk. I'm ambi-wasted.

By: Eamon

Eamon — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:14:15 -0800

Count me among those whose eyes were opened after first reading the Atlantic article. It tied together a bunch of things I already knew about myself. Suddenly, the way I've felt all these years finally made sense. My son is fairly introverted too. Understanding that he shares my need for down time -- and that there's nothing wrong with being this way -- has made me a much more effective parent. If anything, allowing him the chance to "recharge" at home has made it a lot easier for him to socialize than it was for me at his age.

By: Zed_Lopez

Zed_Lopez — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:54:15 -0800

This call for the non-existence of introverts and extroverts reminds me of the call for the non-existence of human races in other threads. Just because a group isn't homogeneous, the traits associated with the group exist to different degrees (or not at all) in given individuals, and the borders of membership are fuzzy doesn't mean that the group doesn't really exist.

By: vetiver

vetiver — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:23:25 -0800

snoktruix, your mention of shyness sent me off on a brief google; I had the vague impression that shyness was a personality trait that was strongly heritable. The most interesting yet comprehensible article I found is a specific application of heavy water's very elegant framework. Of course you resist labels — we all do, especially labels that seem to shove us into limiting, rigid, and undesirable boxes. (MeFi is a bastion of nerd pride, which much of the rest of the world is not.) But there's no way to talk about people without talking about the characteristics we all share, to varying degrees. You're right to be wary of deterministic you-are-your-genes formulations, but that doesn't mean genes play no role at all. It's fractal, not linear.

By: jeanmari

jeanmari — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:27:48 -0800

I love opportunities to clear up misunderstandings about these types of assessments (I'm certified to administer these things...life is funny.) A pencil and paper test that could sum each person up sounds awfully intriguing to many folks. Something that can explain the word clearly? Unfortunately, it is so clear :) 1) Myers-Briggs and other personality-type instruments are best NOT used for diagnosis...they are best used for dialogue. Human beings are much too complex and have too many variables in their lives/histories to be summed up by a self-report, pencil-and-paper test. 2) The words used to describe the elements on the four Myers-Briggs scales are frequently misinterpreted. They aren't useful in understanding the intended meaning of the distinctions. As has already been pointed out, the MBTI "Introverted" is not the same as the traditional dictionary definition of "introverted." The same with the other labels on these scales: those with preferences for "thinking" do not lack "feeling", for example. "Judging" does not mean "judgemental." Etcetera. 3) In regards to the scales, everyone has all elements within them to different degrees. In MBTI terms, you do not lack extroversion if you score highly for introversion. Everyone has EVERYTHING within them: extroversion, introversion, intuition, sensing, feeling, thinking, judging, perceiving. I'm sure there is more I could wax on about, but this stuff gets a bit dry after awhile. I guess, in summary, when it comes to any assessment, proceed with caution.

By: jeanmari

jeanmari — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:28:41 -0800

That should be "unfortunately, it is NOT so clear." Long day, tired, sorry.

By: Eamon

Eamon — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:37:07 -0800

jeanmari: I'm sure you meant to say, "My day has a strongly expressed 'length' element."

By: brandz

brandz — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:23:05 -0800

well, i've taken MB 3 times over the past 10 years and have scored as an ISFJ each and every time.

By: UseyurBrain

UseyurBrain — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:10:52 -0800

Great Post. As a life-long misunderstood introvert, I am happy to find I am not alone. I married a raging extrovert who just can't understand 'down time'. My previous professions of ministry and teaching used to leave me exhausted by the end of the day (one reason I left the ministry) Oddly, I now work for a large corporation surrounded by extroverts. Lucky for me I am an analyst and there-for expected to be quiet and thoughtful, and also lucky for me we all took the Myers-Briggs and my co-workers learned how to work with someone like me (sometimes, give the quite, contemplating guy a chance to speak at meetings).

By: dreamsign

dreamsign — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 12:17:34 -0800

For those of you unwilling to read the larger blocks of text in this thread: introverted does not mean shy. I married a raging extrovert who just can't understand 'down time'. In my experience, this problem never gets solved because the extrovert, though they may try, or pretend to understand, does not will not come to realize that spending time with people is draining and that one shouldn't take offence because that includes them.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 19:47:08 -0800

My inner introvert demurs. My inner introvert runs away. My inner introvert fidgets and twitches. My inner introvert lashes out at all of this here noise. My inner introvert is a Unitarian but lusts after the Southern Baptist proclivity to murder. My inner introvert digs a foxhole and stages a preemptive strike.