Why introverts don't get social validation and other thoughts regarding Introversion

[Ex-User (14663)]

I just had a couple of thoughts about this. I am mostly referring to introversion in the popular sense here (being non-talkative etc) – not necessarily the Jungian interpretation or whatever.

Why are outgoing people actively liked while introverts mostly ignored in a social setting? It just hit me that is an absurd question, because being ignored is the raison d'etre of introversion – it's actually exactly what this adaptation of behavior is supposed to achieve. How can this be an adaptation? Well, it might have something to with the fact that introversion is correlated with an analytical mindset. This is an interesting notion in itself – usually we seem to think that introversion is just some weird side effect of being extremely analytical. I suggest introversion is the desired adaptation to being analytical because of the following: human behavior entails a balance between risk-taking and risk-aversion in the social sphere. Being outgoing, chatting up a wide range of people, saying funny stuff and drawing attention to oneself is a social risk – you might make a mistake and make someone angry, make enemies and so on. But you are obviously gaining a great benefit from taking this risk. If, on the other hand, you are very analytical and have a track record of gaining benefits from being clever, then your brain will tell you that you don't need to take social risk – you can instead simply outlive the extroverts or somehow gain social power though more non-apparent tactics, and it will adjust your behavior accordingly.

As a side note, if the above reasoning is true, then there is a method for becoming an outgoing introvert: take social risk and receive social validation over and over. This will prove to your brain that the risk is worth taking, yet it won't affect your analytical mindset at all.

I welcome you all to critique these ideas and share your thoughts on the topic.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that introversion/being ignored is an evolutionary trait derived from adaptation to risky social environments?

Wouldn't that mean introversion was a recent and rapidly developed trait given modern humans have only been around for a few hundred thousand years?

As a side note, if the above reasoning is true, then there is a method for becoming an outgoing introvert: take social risk and receive social validation over and over. This will prove to your brain that the risk is worth taking, yet it won't affect your analytical mindset at all.

Isn't this basically saying: If you want to stop being X, then just stop being X ? I'm not sure how one is supposed to apply this.

Also are outgoing people truly liked? I'm sure you could make the case that people commonly persist in being social despite no one liking them / repeated failure. Assuming your theory is accurate I guess I'd rather say that extroverts care less about the risk that introverts are worried about, and in that sense it's not really a risk to them.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that introversion/being ignored is an evolutionary trait derived from adaptation to risky social environments?

Yes, or simply any social environment.

Wouldn't that mean introversion was a recent and rapidly developed trait given modern humans have only been around for a few hundred thousand years?

Well, I think the only two assumptions you need is that 1) there is risk in any social environment (risk of getting rejected by your community, risk of getting harmed etc), and 2) that intelligence can be used to increase one's survival fitness.

Isn't this basically saying: If you want to stop being X, then just stop being X ? I'm not sure how one is supposed to apply this.

I don't see how it is feasible to just turn into an extrovert by means of pure will. It's probably possible to fake it in certain situations and over short periods of time, but becoming a more outgoing person as one's modus operandi, and being comfortable with it, is something completely different. What I mean by this "method" is that this is a way to condition your own behavior via certain experiences.

Also are outgoing people truly liked? I'm sure you could make the case that people commonly persist in being social despite no one liking them / repeated failure. Assuming your theory is accurate I guess I'd rather say that extroverts care less about the risk that introverts are worried about, and in that sense it's not really a risk to them.

That of course depends on what you mean by "liked". I would certainly suggest that they reap a lot more benefits from the social scene by being extroverted. But by "risk" I mean risk in the objective sense – at least as it existed in prehistoric times. The reason it would be advantageous to ignore this risk at this point is indeed because we live in a different social environment. For example, you can go to a nightclub and have zero stakes in being rejected by every single person there, because they are complete strangers to you.

 

[JR_IsP]

Nice thoughts above, agree with the most of it, I just want to add a couple things. In fact, this by itself it's a theory of my own which I've thinking for a while (even before knowing what an INTP is).

First, leaving all Jungian definition aside, from my own personal experience, ther are three kinds of introverts, all with common lonely behaviors, but very different to each other (idk if this applies as well to extroverts).

1. The thinkers: the kind of introvert you described above. Too busy thinking about potential risks of social interaction to actually get involved in them, most of INTPs would fit in here (including myself).
2. The shies (or whatever you write the plural of shy): Unlike the thinkers, shies don't get used in social forms due to his lack of self confidence and fear to what other people would do. The thinkers may fake social behaviours for a while, but this is too hard for shies. This have nothing to do with Jungian Thinkers or Feelers, for me, shyness is just the lack of confidence to get involved in social situations.
3. And the arrogants: First, this is not intended to be an insult, I just can't find another word for them (if you find a new word feel free to answer). These are introverts not for overthinking the results of social situations or for having low self-confidence; they just don't want to get involved in social situations. They are strongly independent, and they don't care about being alone or not. I assume IxTJs would fit in here.

Now, regarding to "liking" outgoing people, there is a simple answer to that: social pressure. In order to actually be accepted by society, people must follow social rules determining its behaviour, as thinkers we may be kinda inmune to this (and arrogants just give a f**k), but outgoing people and shies are strongly influenced by these rules.

Part of those rules involve rejecting the introversion and intelligence. You need to be docile and relaxed, follow the people. That's why independent introverts may be rejected (and by this also making them more introverted) while extroverts are accepted by the most.

That's what I think, I'd like to see what you guys think of it.

 

[Cogitant]

It is in my observation that society favours extraversion.

We live in an increasingly fast-paced world, where the showy bright lights of throw-away society trump the demure and the humble.
Disneyfied commercial ideas are favoured over original thought.
The media is super-saturated with gaudy imagery of superficial gregariousness which is portrayed to represent the cultural norm.
Perhaps, on a more carnal level, extraversion might suggest promiscuity and virility, such as displayed by the peacock's plumage.
Since the shift towards secularization, people have been further encouraged to express their sexuality, and this has led to louder, bigger, brighter and more superficial culture.

The glorification of the extrovert is inescapable.

From the earliest viable age, primary socialization instils extravert values.
For example, a child may be rewarded for playing harmoniously with others, and encouraged to interact more strongly if they demonstrate shier tendencies.

At school, the behavioural code is reinforced.
Children are motivated toward group activities, toward having similar ideas and interests, rewarded all the way.

An introvert scenario (my own)

(Please note, I'm more at the unusual end of the spectrum)

I enjoyed books, astronomy, fossils, science, identifying and understanding flora and fauna.
I seemed 'weird' to the other kids, since I was more interested in, say, the anatomy of a Dor beetle, to Barbie.
So I was quickly labelled as a freak and made a pariah by the other children, who did not include me in their games.
A catch 22 situation evolved:
They didn't want to play with me, I didn't want to play with them.

By my teenage years, most of my friends were the nerdy boys who sat on the back bench. They included me as the 'token female' (I never quite fitted in anywhere). The pool of consciousness included reading fantasy and sci-fi, watching Blackadder, Red Dwarf, Star Trek and Monty Python and playing the board game Warhammer.
I enjoyed these activities greatly, and chose science subjects for my 'A' levels.
But identifying with this subculture defined me as a 'nerd'; a beta type.

Different types of Introvert

As observed in the previous post, there are many variants of introvert.

Indeed, furthermore, there are many shades of introversion and introversion =/= lack of popularity in a lot of cases.
There are many introvert types who are simply quiet and self-contained in comparison with their more exhibitionist peers.

I am an analytical loner type, my INFP friend is a shy quiet type (she mixes with and truly cares about people). We act differently, but we both far prefer the sanctity of our own space and our own minds.

Some of us are loners, who might like to talk, but rarely, and to only a few close people.
Some of us might be far more social and outgoing but extremely shy and quiet.
Some of us might be both loners and shy quiet types, or anywhere in between.

Then there are pseudo introverts (go figure)

Introversion =/= intelligence, but intelligence tends towards introversion, perhaps because of social exclusion factors connected with intellectual difference as I have illustrated with the childhood example of choosing bugs over Barbie.
-Coupled with the fact that intellectuals might value personal development over social advancement.

ENTx proves that intellect is not reserved for introverts, but I'd assume that introverts spend far more time engaged in intellectual pursuits.

Spoiler

[bimgx=450]https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-eb1cd0ce0c7b7d737b04f4bf52fe4201[/bimgx]

The societal advantage of the introvert

Evidently introvert behaviour must serve some function in society, although as discussed, society does not value those qualities.

"This takes us back thirty years, when the APA proposed adding the more blatantly pathologizing diagnosis, "introverted personality disorder"
-https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/self-promotion-introverts/201008/giant-step-backward-introverts

But introversion is the key to social and cultural advancement, so it seems...
Society needs introverts to invent the next best thing...

The wise advisors, the stoical scientists, all the late great minds that came up with the biggest cutting-edge breakthroughs- all (well, mostly) introverts.
Because most extroverts are too involved in social networking to hone their thoughts or to create literature.

And it's ironic how society idolizes the very type of person that they ostracise (the 'nerd')
It's also ironic how those introverts do not value the fame or attention they might receive for their 'brilliance'.
A 'brilliance' that is largely unattainable for the otherwise socially engaged extravert.

I accept myself as I am.
I don't wish to change me, I don't see any advantages in extraversion.

 

[The Gopher]

Now, regarding to "liking" outgoing people, there is a simple answer to that: social pressure. In order to actually be accepted by society, people must follow social rules determining its behaviour, as thinkers we may be kinda inmune to this (and arrogants just give a f**k), but outgoing people and shies are strongly influenced by these rules.

Part of those rules involve rejecting the introversion and intelligence. You need to be docile and relaxed, follow the people. That's why independent introverts may be rejected (and by this also making them more introverted) while extroverts are accepted by the most.

That's what I think, I'd like to see what you guys think of it.

Okay, have you thought about who's creating this social pressure? Who's creating the rules?

 

[AndyC]

Understanding is a mutual phenomenon between two individuals. Only some features need to be understood, some features may not be understood but they be sufficient to imply what is necessary to predict the other's basic behaviors.
Understanding is necessary for stability in social contexts, it follows a basic principle of communication that arises as a result of evolution.
Introverts often do not display behaviors that allow them to be understood, neither display behaviors that suggest they understand the other individual.
Introverts therefore will have more trouble creating stability in social contexts.

Enhancing understanding will make more the world more equal, that is why I believe that as language becomes more expansive, people will come into better terms with each other.

 

[Jennywocky]

1. And the arrogants: First, this is not intended to be an insult, I just can't find another word for them (if you find a new word feel free to answer). These are introverts not for overthinking the results of social situations or for having low self-confidence; they just don't want to get involved in social situations. They are strongly independent, and they don't care about being alone or not. I assume IxTJs would fit in here.

I tend to equate those to the instinctual variant of Self-Preservationist -- they build internal resources that allow them to not need to interact with others and are perfectly satisfied without a ton of interaction, if any. Your SO and SX types, regardless of main enneagram type, are wanting something from other people (whether it's a network by which to communicate and share expertise, or something far more intimate).

I just had a couple of thoughts about this. I am mostly referring to introversion in the popular sense here (being non-talkative etc) – not necessarily the Jungian interpretation or whatever.

Why are outgoing people actively liked while introverts mostly ignored in a social setting? It just hit me that is an absurd question, because being ignored is the raison d'etre of introversion – it's actually exactly what this adaptation of behavior is supposed to achieve. How can this be an adaptation? Well, it might have something to with the fact that introversion is correlated with an analytical mindset. This is an interesting notion in itself – usually we seem to think that introversion is just some weird side effect of being extremely analytical. I suggest introversion is the desired adaptation to being analytical because of the following: human behavior entails a balance between risk-taking and risk-aversion in the social sphere. Being outgoing, chatting up a wide range of people, saying funny stuff and drawing attention to oneself is a social risk – you might make a mistake and make someone angry, make enemies and so on. But you are obviously gaining a great benefit from taking this risk. If, on the other hand, you are very analytical and have a track record of gaining benefits from being clever, then your brain will tell you that you don't need to take social risk – you can instead simply outlive the extroverts or somehow gain social power though more non-apparent tactics, and it will adjust your behavior accordingly.

Well, I can identify with that, although I had an analytical and creative bent originally, to be honest -- I was a quiet baby, a quiet child, and would occupy myself alone for hours when I was only a few years old. I taught myself to read because it was a mystery to decipher and then empowered me to engage other mysteries (AKA BOOKS).

The social thing was always terrifying because of a lack of confidence and an inability to perceive the rules as quickly -- it wasn't a one-size-fits all, everyone I met was different and a huge enigma who could prove threatening. I also often felt incompetent/humiliated at my incompetence. For a long time I only focused on the independent analytical stuff, because it was safe and I was good at it; but the more I figured out "life stuff," the easier it became to develop some expertise with people and get those skills in place, and I started to reap some rewards from those exchanges and saw some value in them... even if that was usually offset by a lot of anxiety.

As a side note, if the above reasoning is true, then there is a method for becoming an outgoing introvert: take social risk and receive social validation over and over. This will prove to your brain that the risk is worth taking, yet it won't affect your analytical mindset at all.

At this point in life, I am still an introvert, but around people I feel are "safe" or who I have vetted somehow, I am an "open" introvert... sometimes I can initiate exchanges for awhile even if I'm a little clumsy with it, but I'm very responsive to folks I trust or find interesting. I have found that I like knowing people and interacting. It's just that no matter how much I like someone, my energy reserves are quickly drained and I can only handle a certain period of time before I need to be alone and do something else.

IOW, I would agree with this inasmuch as the word "introvert" is still the main-descriptor. Having good experiences after taking some social risk builds skill and confidence, and you can accrue some positive benefits from socializing and engaging others. But as I noted, this doesn't change my "battery charging." Being around people -> batteries get depleted. I'm still a "sit back and figure things out" person, and someone who likes to have my mind engaged. When my batteries run dry, that's where I go. It is an easy place for me, and it is a comfortable and intuitive place. I can often feel happy just sitting and observing/listening to people talk, if I know they know me and accept me for that.

---

I guess the interesting thing reading all this is just tracking my own position on the map over the years. First I felt isolated (although I was often happy in that it was a safe and interesting place with maximum independence).

Then I kind of felt oppressed by the extroverted world and like I had to justify my introversion / express all the good things about being an introvert. (Notice quite a number of comments in the thread justifying why introverts are "valid" so to speak, and what we have to offer.)

But once you get that figured out and can really accept that, yes, you have value and a place, and your way of life is as authentic as anyone else's (Why are we that way anyway? Because we've often felt society beating down on us or telling us we aren't what we "should be"?), then you can kind of let that go and just be whoever you are. There's not as much need to cling to the identity of a solid introvert to find security, and you can risk doing some extroverted and/or social things even in a clumsy way, if you enjoy it or find the experience valuable or if it helps you meet some other goal. And I kind of stopped seeing extroverts as threatening or having something I didn't; the great ones are enlightened as well, realizing the strengths and weaknesses of extroversion and appreciating the introverts in their lives. IOW, even being different, we kind of become similar and meet more in the middle with more awareness of who we are.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

The glorification of the extrovert is inescapable.

From the earliest viable age, primary socialization instils extravert values.
For example, a child may be rewarded for playing harmoniously with others, and encouraged to interact more strongly if they demonstrate shier tendencies.

At school, the behavioural code is reinforced.
Children are motivated toward group activities, toward having similar ideas and interests, rewarded all the way.

I was thinking about a scenario the other day. Let's say some extrovert who doesn't know you that well asks you what you did during the weekend, and in turns out you spent Saturday evening reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Would you be completely comfortable with saying exactly that? Or would you maybe try to make the story more extrovert-friendly, like "I was a bit tired so I chilled out, ya know". I want to live so that not a single atom in me would hesitate about exposing my true predilections.

Actually, I'm gonna try out this exact experiment out in practice. Anytime someone asks me what I did during the weekend, I'll say I was reading Critique of pure reason. And not in some snotty, wannabe-intellectual way, but just like it's the most normal thing to do in the world.

 

[washti]

there is a method for becoming an outgoing introvert: take social risk and receive social validation over and over. This will prove to your brain that the risk is worth taking, yet it won't affect your analytical mindset at all.

I tried this play. You can only receive social validation when you already good with people. If you lack this skills you have to be very resilient when building them. During that time you are not reciving validation. Often what you will get is negative feedback. And if you not contribute some vital sacrifices - no one cares. So no warm fuzzy feelings.

This made me change my mind - risk partaking is not worth that pile of effort. But I'm not persistent. When my current comfort depends on social acceptance I can muster some strentgh to achived it. Barely. But as you wrote - introverts have better, not so depleting tactics.

 

[Jennywocky]

Actually, I'm gonna try out this exact experiment out in practice. Anytime someone asks me what I did during the weekend, I'll say I was reading Critique of pure reason. And not in some snotty, wannabe-intellectual way, but just like it's the most normal thing to do in the world.

You'll need to file a full report when you have enough data. I wanna see what kinda responses you get.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

You'll need to file a full report when you have enough data. I wanna see what kinda responses you get.

I certainly will

 

[JR_IsP]

I tend to equate those to the instinctual variant of Self-Preservationist -- they build internal resources that allow them to not need to interact with others and are perfectly satisfied without a ton of interaction, if any. Your SO and SX types, regardless of main enneagram type, are wanting something from other people (whether it's a network by which to communicate and share expertise, or something far more intimate).

Well, this sounds pretty interesting, do you have any links regarding this? I'd like to read about that.

Then I kind of felt oppressed by the extroverted world and like I had to justify my introversion / express all the good things about being an introvert. (Notice quite a number of comments in the thread justifying why introverts are "valid" so to speak, and what we have to offer.)

I think that as introverts (made pariahs by society) we need to explain why we behave in such a different way. Maybe that's why this thread is becoming popular, introverts want to know theirselves better, think about it, the most people who takes the MBTI or any other personality test are introverts; and as you say a little bit after that, we need to accept ourselves, there is no problem with being an introvert, in fact, I find it more interesting than extraversion.

Being enigmatic may be cool sometimes (even for extroverts).

----------

Okay, have you thought about who's creating this social pressure? Who's creating the rules?

-writen by The Gopher-

It's hard to know who created these rules, but these rules change as time goes by. In the 1940s, society was much more conservative and quiet, maybe more "introvert", while now we're living in the "extraverted era".

Eras like that may be asocciated with generations and influent events in the colective behaviour, for example, in the 1960s, the hippie movement and the social revolution were created by young people, raised by parents who lived both world wars and were quiet and conservative, these made the young rebel against the establishment, making them raise their own children (borned from the 80s to early 2000s -aka millenials-) much more liberal and extroverted. Also the dawn of new technologies (such as the internet) helped them to be a more conected generation.

However, with events like the 9/11, the economical crisis, global warmimg (when it became known) and so on, people borned in the last years may be a little more silent than the millenials, but this will only last until the millenials have children of their own.

Of course there are A LOT of exceptions (see introverts around the globe), but since we live in an each day more and more extrovert era, social rules will follow the global trending.

--------------

About the Kant's experiment, I've made somehing like that (but with Hawking's A Brief History of Time), there would be two kinds of reactions, on one hand (the most people) will see you as a freak, but there would be little people actually interested on the book, but again, it's unlikely.

 

[Jennywocky]

Well, this sounds pretty interesting, do you have any links regarding this? I'd like to read about that.

I just Googled. You can probably pick up a ton of links in general that way.

http://theenneagram.blogspot.com/2007/09/instinctual-variants.html
https://www.enneagramworldwide.com/instinctual-subtypes/

It's more about level of connection needs / relational energy flow.

Self-Pres (SP)
Social (SO)
One-to-One (formerly "Sexual" -- SX)

it's useful to explain variations in the same type, since a self-pres will prioritize certain needs versus a social, for example. In regards to INTP, a self-pres INTP is far more likely to be the person who hides in their room, doesn't eat much, lives pretty spartanly, does not depend on others and doesn't feel a need to engage others in a casual and/or face-to-face way. However, a social INTP would more like the collegiate expert/professorial type who enjoys regularly engaging professional peers, sharing knowledge, having a platform from which to share their knowledge, etc.

 

[JR_IsP]

Thanks