| | For those who liked the article, thanks for the kind words.
One problem with addressing a topic like this is that everyone has different views of what the two words mean. That's because they're very broad generalizations attempting to fit everyone into simple categories for description purposes, and that means abstracting away a whole lot of information. I wasn't attempting to refute every possible meaning thrown at the two words, but to show why I thought they're not very useful descriptions.
Now, for more specific comments. Cass's first claim is that introvert/extrovert is about "energy orientation". Let's be more concrete. We're not plants who gather energy from sunlight. We don't magically gain "energy" from being alone or being in a group. Put it into Objectivist terms. We seek values. Some values are more rewarding than others. Some situations have larger amounts of stress, or otherwise increase the cost. There are a whole slew of values that are related to the ideas of introvert and extrovert. There's companionship, visibility, sharing of ideas and learning new things from people. All of these are objectively valuable, but depending on a whole list of variables, they will vary in their importance. You may really enjoy positive attention, but if you're used to being around people who are critical of you, it won't be relevant. Similarly, you talk about "being drained" in groups, but that's completely based on what kind of group it is. Clearly if you're uncomfortable in a group, it's going to be draining.
There are other values as well. You need to relax sometimes, for instance. But again, what is relaxing? It's not spending time in a hostile environment. It's not competing for attention with people who are much better at it. But does that make someone an introvert? No. Finding values alone is more reliable and safer, but they may not be as rewarding. How about finding a powerful romance? Energizing? How about finding a really good groups of friends (like some of the people here on SOLO) and spending time with them? Can that be a powerful "energizer"? At the end of the first SOLO conference, nearly everyone (maybe everyone) was energized and on top of the world, and most of these people would be considered introverts by any measure. The fact that in their normal day to day lives they pick being alone as the easiest form of relaxation or entertainment says little about their actual values. It only says something about the possible choices.
Using the term "introvert" obscures all of this information. It tries to lump in completely different people driven by completely different motivations under a single banner. And it tries to do some kind of generalization when none is needed. Most people are driven by both sets of values. Relationships are important, as is introspecting, spending time alone, and working on a hobby. You can take averages, such as which do you practice more often, or which values would energize you the most if you had access to them. But even that obscures the truth. Lots of values overlap. Just because someone is around doesn't make it all about them. Having an intelligent conversation with a close friend can be mostly about your own introspection, or your own problem solving skills. Using terms like introvert and extrovert focuses on one element of the environment in which you pursue values, as if that were the most significant thing to say about the values.
And as for Cass' deduction that Roark is an introvert, you'd also have to keep in mind that he would stay up till dawn with his friends, or that when he goes on vacation he goes with Wynand on his boat, or that when he's had a bad day he goes to see Dominique. Classic extrovert.
Bevan doesn't like the idea of these being passive predispositions. I agree. It reminds me of the Objectivist argument against "instincts". Saying something is an instinct just says you don't understand the cause. It's descriptive, not explanative. Saying someone spends their time alone does not answer the question of why they do. And if you start thinking that it's a natural tendency, you're just excusing it and putting it out of the reach of rational analysis. Saying "it just happens" is not an explanation.
Now Joe M and a troll doesn't like me using Roark as an example, since he's fictional. At the risk of offending, this is a bit rationalistic, don't you think? The point I made with Roark is a valid one. People do vary in how much they care about the opinions and thoughts of the people around them. That Roark is an embodiment of that idea makes him a useful tool for explaining it. Unless either of you are willing to suggest that everyone cares about the thoughts and opinions of everyone else to the same degree, then what's your complaint?
The troll has a couple other comments worth mentioning. He says I'm guilty of "rejecting a theory while forgetting the existence of empirical data confirming it". I don't consider the introvert/extrovert description to be a theory. There's no causal explanation. It's descriptive. If one tried to argue that introvert/extrovert tendencies were caused by some predispositions, then I would argue against the theory in a number of ways, as Bevan did above. But since these terms are descriptive, and used to convey information, I approached it from the point of view of how useful is the information you get from it, and whether it causes more confusion than knowledge. And of course, I suggested an alternative.
He also said "or refusing to look at what experts have said so that one can properly understand what he is refuting". Coming from a troll who shows up on an Objectivist forum without even understanding the philosophy, and proceeds to try to argue against it, I find that amusing. But his point is that I haven't explained the data, as if I'm refuting a scientific theory. I don't think that I am, as I've already stated. There is no theory. The terms are used for descriptive purposes, and not as causal explanations. Even the quotes he listed verify that they're not intended to explain why people do the things they do. That's why they say things like it's not universal, and everyone has moments where they exhibit the other qualities. These are tendencies, which is a descriptive function.
But something else to keep in mind here is that I'm not addressing these scientists, or even this particular view (although my arguments apply to it as well...something lacking in the criticism). If you think the scientists are the only ones who use these terms, you're wrong. They're in the culture, and they're accepted as valid distinctions. Ask someone one the street what an introvert is, and they'll give you an answer. These are the ideas that need to be understood and dismissed when they're wrong. I'm not concerned that somewhere, someone may mean something entirely different by the terms and my argument won't be valid against them. It's the concepts that are important, not the words you use.
I'll add that the troll didn't argue against any point in my article. He just thinks I should cite people who he says are of the opinion that introvert/extrovert isn't a very useful distinction anyway. Lot of bark, but no bite.
Cameron, thanks for the comment. I think you're right that in the mainstream culture, extrovert is considered the good way to be. But what about in a place like SOLO, where we're dealing with people who are mostly introverts. I think then there's a tendency to idolize introverts, and dismiss extroverts as second-handers, Peter Keatings, social metaphysicians, and otherwise too scared of being alone. At some point it starts sounding like an excuse for not having friends. Sounds like the distinction was made by introverts as a way of insulting those people who are more popular. It certainly is treated that way.
Like all false dichotomies, it's used to make judgments about one group by saying they're not another group. If you're not a quiet intellectual who is deep and profound, you must be a shallow social butterfly. If you're not always hanging out with others, you must be a shy, unhappy nerd who can't get a date. And it's used to rationalize one's bad habits by suggesting you'd be giving up your good qualities if you went to "the other side".
|
|
