You continue to speak as if extroversion is the norm and introversion is an aberration, and as if more extroversion is good. Not everyone agrees; don’t assume that you’re saying obvious things here. For example:
If they aren’t allowed to even try to know you better, then you are undoubtedly missing out on some amazing people who would contribute a lot to your life
Well, I guess that’s my own problem then, isn’t it? Do you suppose I might resent the idea that you (the extrovert) can just decide that I (the introvert) have this problem (“missing out on some amazing people”) and undertake to fix it for me by inserting yourself into interactions with me? Do you think maybe I’m the one who should be deciding whether this is a problem at all, and whether/how I should fix it?
I’m trying to point out that when you really get involved, you stop thinking you’re so fucking right, stop being so short-sightedly involved in your immediate problems, and start looking at things in a more neutral, realistic way; And that’s priceless, something that EVERYONE needs.
Great. Maybe everyone does need it. But kindly do not take it upon yourself to force this wonderful thing on people by interacting with them against their will. (This, by the way, is a general principle, applicable far more widely than introductions.)
Only in a very isolated point of view is introducing yourself to someone nearby an invasion. The rest of the world regards it as an ordinary action. Saying that you’ve got a different temperament does NOT excuse you from being an ordinary human being who can handle other people doing socially normal things that you have not yet explicitly okayed.
I note that the social norms are written (so to speak) by the extroverts. So maybe reconsider reasoning from “this is a social norm” to “this is okay” or even to “a supermajority of humans, even most introverts, believe this to be okay”.
In general, savageorange, you seem to be well-intentioned; but I read in your posts a whole lot of typical mind fallacy and also a heavy dose of being oblivious to the experience of introverts. I don’t mean to be hostile, but given that most introverts prefer not to protest (being introverted and all), I think it’s best that I speak up.
You are claiming to speak for all introverts, which turns this into an “introvert v extrovert” discussion. In other words, you are saying that half the population is forcing themselves onto the introverted half of the population. In reality, introverts are often the MOST happy that someone else initiated a conversation that they would be too shy to start themselves.
In reality, the situation is more like “NTs v non-NTs”, and you are speaking for the non-NT part of the population. The same way you say half the population shouldn’t force their preferences on the other half, I’m sure you can agree that 5% of the population shouldn’t force their preferences (of non-interaction) onto the other 95%. Especially when the cost of nobody ever initiating conversations is significantly higher than the cost of being momentarily bothered by another person.
Actionable advice (for stopping an unwanted interaction): Answer in monosyllables or “hmm..” sounds. DON’T look at the person and smile. Maintain a neutral expression. Pull out your phone or a book, and direct your attention towards it, instead of the person.
Ways to end the conversation in a polite way: Say “Well, it’s very nice to meet you.” then turn your attention to your book/phone, OR add “but I’m at a really good part in this book, and I want to see what happens next....I really need to get this done… I’m really tired and was hoping to rest on the flight...etc.” It’s alright if the reason is vague. It is generally understood that providing a weak excuse is just a polite way of saying “no”, and everyone plays along.
In reality, introverts are often the MOST happy that someone else initiated a conversation that they would be too shy to start themselves.
Not all introverted people are shy, and vice versa. Personally, I do not have a degree of shyness that holds me back from the level of social contact I want.
Ways to end the conversation in a polite way: Say “Well, it’s very nice to meet you.” then turn your attention to your book/phone, OR add “but I’m at a really good part in this book, and I want to see what happens next....I really need to get this done… I’m really tired and was hoping to rest on the flight...etc.” It’s alright if the reason is vague. It is generally understood that providing a weak excuse is just a polite way of saying “no”, and everyone plays along.
… But I feel uncomfortable lying to disengage with another person. As a general policy I prefer to tell the truth lest I lapse in holding up a deception, and this is definitely not a case where everyone recognizes a falsehood as a white lie to disengage politely which should not be taken as offensive if uncovered.
Data (“data”?) point: I test reliably as NF (ENFP, specifically) and SaidAchmiz’s objections seem quite similar to my father, who is clearly (by both of our estimations, and tests) NT (INTJ). I can think of another relevant person, who tests as INFP and seems to be at pains to encourage interaction, and yet another who is also ENFP and similarly tries hard to encourage interaction. So I was rather surprised to see you painting SaidAchmiz’s objections as non-NT.
My current model suggests that what I am promoting is F values (possibly NF, but I don’t know any SF’s well enough to compare) with an extraverted slant
(but not as much of an extraverted slant as SaidAchmiz seemed to think, I agree that even if at the time being drawn out of ourselves is an unpleasant experience, everyone, extraverted or introverted, gains something of real worth if they really attain that level of self-detachment regularly.)
In reality, the situation is more like “NTs v non-NTs”, and you are speaking for the non-NT part of the population.
Perhaps. Would you agree that there is much heavier overlap between “NT” and “extrovert”, and “non-NT” and “introvert”, than vice versa?
The same way you say half the population shouldn’t force their preferences on the other half, I’m sure you can agree that 5% of the population shouldn’t force their preferences (of non-interaction) onto the other 95%.
“half the population shouldn’t force their preferences on the other half” is an inaccurate generalization of what I said; my claims were far more specific. As such, no, I can’t agree the 95% / 5% thing. The point is that it depends on the preference in question. You shouldn’t force your desire to interact with me on me; conversely, it seems perfectly ok for me to “force” my desire not to interact with you, on you. The situation is not symmetric. It is analogous to “why are you forcing your preference not to get punched in the face on me?!”
Actionable advice [...]
First, I’d like to say thank you for bothering to include concrete advice. This is a practice I endorse. (In this case, the specific advice provided was known to me, but the thought is a good one.)
That said, it is my experience that the kind of people who force interactions on strangers very often ignore such relatively subtle hints (or consider them rude if they notice them at all).
The point is that it depends on the preference in question. You shouldn’t force your desire to interact with me on me; conversely, it seems perfectly ok for me to “force” my desire not to interact with you, on you.
The problem here is that this is a difference between saying ‘you can do this’ and saying ‘you can’t do this / I have a right to be left alone’.
You CAN arrange to be left alone. I CAN notice some genuine, reliable cue that you want to be left alone, and leave you alone. I CAN attempt to interact with you. You CAN reject that attempt (either rudely or with some tact). As soon as you get into saying what you CAN’T do or what I CAN’T do, that shows that you’ve stopped trying to genuinely support your own position and switched to attacking the opposing position. As far as I can see, that is inherently a losing game, just like the way hatred and revenge are losing games.
(and no, it is not, in any way, comparable to preferring not to be punched in the face. More comparable to preferring not to exercise, or perhaps preferring not to vote.)
I… don’t really understand what you’re saying here, I’m afraid. I’m having trouble reading your comment (the parts about “can” and “can’t” and such) as a response to what I said rather than a non sequitur. Would you mind rephrasing, or...?
that shows that you’ve stopped trying to genuinely support your own position and switched to attacking the opposing position.
Huh? I was making an “ought” statement. Supporting one’s own position and attacking the opposing position are the same thing when only one position could be the right one.
and no, it is not, in any way, comparable to preferring not to be punched in the face. More comparable to preferring not to exercise, or perhaps preferring not to vote.
Those analogies don’t make any sense. Consider: in the “punch in face” case, we have:
Alice: Wants to punch Bob in the face. Bob: Doesn’t want to be punched in the face.
If we support Alice, then Alice has her preferences satisfied and Bob does not; Alice’s preferences (to punch Bob) are forced upon Bob, causing Bob to experience preference non-satisfaction. If we support Bob, then vice versa; Bob’s preferences (to not be punched by Alice) are forced upon Alice, causing Alice to experience preference non-satisfaction. (Generally, we support Bob in such a case.)
The “exercise” or “vote” case bears no resemblance to this. In both cases, we simply have:
Alice: Doesn’t want to vote.
If we support Alice, then Alice has her preferences satisfied. There is no Bob here. There is also no dilemma of any kind. Obviously we should support Alice, because there is no reason not to. (Unless we hate Alice and want her to experience preference non-satisfaction, for some reason.)
The “interact with strangers” case is isomorphic to the “punch in face” case, like so:
Alice: Wants to interact with Bob (i.e. wants to introduce herself to Bob who is her seat-neighbor on a plane). Bob: Doesn’t want to be interacted with.
If we support Alice, then Alice has her preferences satisfied and Bob does not; Alice’s preferences (to interact with Bob) are forced upon Bob, causing Bob to experience preference non-satisfaction. If we support Bob, then vice versa; Bob’s preferences (to not be interacted with) are forced upon Alice, causing Alice to experience preference non-satisfaction.
Supporting Alice in the “interact with strangers” case is a little like saying, in the “punch in face” case: “Yeah, well, if Bob doesn’t want to be punched, then he ought to just block when I throw a right hook at his face. I’ll get the hint, I promise!”
If we support Alice, then Alice has her preferences satisfied. There is no Bob here. There is also no dilemma of any kind. Obviously we should support Alice, because there is no reason not to. (Unless we hate Alice and want her to experience preference non-satisfaction, for some reason.)
False. Even if all things considered you prefer that Alice not be compelled to vote there are reasons to do so. Voting is a commons problem. Compulsory voting (or, “compulsory attendence of the voting booth at which point you can submit a valid vote or not as you please”) can be considered analogous to taxation, and happens to be paid in time (approximately non-fungibly). If a country happens to get adequate voting outcomes purely from volunteers then that may be a desirable policy all things considered. However, compelling people to vote does not imply sadism. Merely a different solution to said commons problem.
Yes, I considered this objection, thank you for bringing it up. Upon consideration, it seems to me that “compulsory attendance of the voting booth”, while probably not literally inspired by actual sadism, is perverse to the point of being indistinguishable from sadism.
If a country gets “inadequate voting outcomes” (what does that mean, exactly?) from volunteer-only voting, compelling people to vote seems to be exactly the wrong solution for many reasons. (Voting is a “commons problem” to the extent that it is a problem — but it’s not clear to me that “few eligible voters are actually voting” is, in fact, a problem.)
However, the more relevant-to-the-conversation response is that “society’s” interests in this case are far too diffuse and theoretical to serve as any kind of relevant analogue to the case of “one very specific person (i.e. Bob) doesn’t want unpleasant experiences inflicted upon him”. That’s what makes it a poor analogy.
Upon consideration, it seems to me that “compulsory attendance of the voting booth”, while probably not literally inspired by actual sadism, is perverse to the point of being indistinguishable from sadism.
Avoid inflationary use of terms. “Sadistic” does not mean “a policy that I disapprove of”. Being unable to distinguish the two is a failure of your own comprehension, nothing more.
If a country gets “inadequate voting outcomes” (what does that mean, exactly?)
That means that the writer refrained from prescribing preferences to outcomes or making any claims about the merit of any particular election and left it to the readers judgement. Some examples of things that could be inadequate would include too few people voting, if the selection bias of only aggregating the preferences of people who have nothing better to do at the time than voting rather than the preferences of everyone resulted in inferior candidates or if the psychological impact of the practice is somehow sub-par.
However, the more relevant-to-the-conversation response is that “society’s” interests in this case are far too diffuse and theoretical to serve as any kind of relevant analogue to the case of “one very specific person (i.e. Bob) doesn’t want unpleasant experiences inflicted upon him”. That’s what makes it a poor analogy.
You are proposing a general cultural rule for how people must behave (don’t introduce yourself to strangers on planes) for the benefit of Bob. This amounts to a large cost in lost opportunity and freedom that is paid by the people you consider “too diffuse and theoretical” to deserve consideration to suit the convenience of Bob who is important enough for you to make up a name for him. All the other people who have Bob’s particular psychological disorder presumably warrant your consideration despite being diffuse and theoretical.
(And by ‘psychological disorder’ I refer to whatever condition results in Bob taking damage equivalent to the physical and psychological damage most people take from being punched in the face.)
Avoid inflationary use of terms. “Sadistic” does not mean “a policy that I disapprove of”. Being unable to distinguish the two is a failure of your own comprehension, nothing more.
I assure you, that was not an inflationary use on my part. I meant precisely what I said.
You are proposing a general cultural rule for how people must behave (don’t introduce yourself to strangers on planes) for the benefit of Bob. This amounts to a large cost in lost opportunity and freedom that is paid by the people you consider “too diffuse and theoretical” to deserve consideration to suit the convenience of Bob who is important enough for you to make up a name for him. All the other people who have Bob’s particular psychological disorder presumably warrant your consideration despite being diffuse and theoretical.
You misread me, I think… the cost in lost opportunity and freedom in the “interact with strangers” case, just as in the “punch in face” case, is paid by a very concrete person: Alice. She is certainly neither diffuse nor theoretical. I specifically commented on her preferences, and the satisfaction or non-satisfaction thereof.
What is too diffuse and theoretical is “society’s” interests in the “vote” case. That is why the “vote” case makes a poor analogy for the “interact with strangers” case.
I assure you, that was not an inflationary use on my part. I meant precisely what I said.
I’ll repeat with emphasis that being unable to distinguish between a policy decision that you disapprove of and sadism is a significant failure in comprehension. It is enough to make whatever opinions you may express about what social norms should be lose any hope of credibility.
There is, however, also a difference between lack of comprehension and disagreement, which you seem to not be recognizing. There are plenty of policies that I disapprove of without considering them to be sadistic. Also: “perverse to the point of being indistinguishable from sadism” does not mean “I actually think this policy was motivated by sadism” (a distinction to which I alluded in the post where I made this comment). In general, I think you are reading me quite uncharitably here.
Non-compulsory voting has the disadvantage that certain people will refrain from voting just because of the inconvenience of going to the voting booth and others won’t, which may bias the result of the election if the extent to which voting would be inconvenient correlates with political positions for whatever reasons.
tl;dr:
“CAN” is about a person’s ability or capability. This helps them to take responsibility
“CAN’T” is about what you(or society) can prevent them from doing. This helps them evade responsibility.
BTW, there is a Bob. Bob is society in the voting case and .. well, if you think about it, also society in the exercise case (but ‘the part of you that values wellbeing over comfort’ would also qualify there).
tl;dr: “CAN” is about a person’s ability or capability. This helps them to take responsibility “CAN’T” is about what you(or society) can prevent them from doing. This helps them evade responsibility.
I really don’t understand what you’re saying here. :(
BTW, there is a Bob. Bob is society in the voting case and .. well, if you think about it, also society in the exercise case (but ‘the part of you that values wellbeing over comfort’ would also qualify there).
“Society” can’t have rights, nor can “society” have preferences, or the satisfactions or non-satisfactions thereof. There is no good but the good of individuals; there is no harm but the harm to individuals.
The idea that “society” has rights, or that “society” can be benefited or harmed, independently from the good or harm to any individuals, is one of the most destructive ideas in human history.
As for ‘the part of you that values wellbeing over comfort’ … rights do not accrue to internal aspects of self. “Rights” are about interpersonal morality. (But actually I would prefer we not go off on this particular tangent here, if that’s ok; it’s rather off-topic.)
The idea that “society” has rights, or that “society” can be benefited or harmed, independently from the good or harm to any individuals, is one of the most destructive ideas in human history.
Sure, savageorange could have found a telephone book and tried listing everyone individually. But saying ‘society’ seems more efficient. It refers tot he case where many unnamed but clearly existing individuals who need not or can not be named would be harmed.
Yes, that’s the implied assumption, but it’s usually a way to mask the fact that were we to try and find any actual, specific individuals who are concretely benefited or harmed by whatever-it-is, we would have quite the hard time doing so.
My brain always flags this as an error (instead of the correct “by accident”) and gets annoyed. Am I being too sensitive? Googling tells me that “on accident” is a minority usage that probably doesn’t actually count as an error...
To put things briefly, it looks like you’ve reversed most of the things I said.
I’m talking about “you” (as in, any given individual that finds themselves in a situation where they think they are too self-involved). I can’t fix anything for you and I don’t want to. I’m just saying, this seems to be one of the things that needs to be done. By me. By anyone who thinks they are too self-involved (and by anyone who doesn’t think that but still IS too self-involved). Certainly if they are aware of a sense of excessive self-involvement and they want to change that, the only way to do so seems to be, well.. doing something that moves their locus of attention away from themselves :)
It’s what I’ll do because I want to be less self-involved, and if anyone else wants to be less self-involved, I believe that this is an effective course of action and hope that they try it. And yes, I believe that people being less self-involved (among many other necessary improvements) is essential to a better society. That’s all.
Do you think maybe I’m the one who should be deciding whether this is a problem at all, and whether/how I should fix it?
Totally. That’s what the entire thing is about! It is your own problem if you have it, and this is a way that you can address it! And others have it too ( I will absolutely maintain that excessive self-absorption is a problem every human being faces), so seeing you taking action to remedy it in yourself can also encourage them to change their actions.
Social norms are definitely written mostly by extraverts. The only way that’s going to ever change is if somehow extraverts decide collectively to be less involved in socializing.. and introverts decide to be -more- involved in socializing. (I’m stating this as a logical necessity, because AFAICS the reason that social norms are written by extraverts is essentially self-selection.).
I recognize this and that’s why I’m promoting taking responsibility for saying ‘no, I don’t want to talk right now’ as well as promoting getting involved—because as far as I can see, there is no alternative that preserves the possibility of people being able to develop relationships beyond merely what is expected in their environment. I’m not saying it’s easy to say no, I’m saying it is your responsibility to do so at times, just as it’s your responsibility to solve the problem of self-involvement if you have it. You seem to agree with this principle, seeing as you identify as an introvert and are speaking up :)
I’ve read and discussed temperaments in general, and introverts/extraverts in specific, a lot. I can recommend Dorothy Rowe’s books on the subject (eg. ‘The successful self’), as they seem to be the only ones that manage to strike precisely at the heart of things.
I am quite familiar with the fact that introverts have difficulty saying no, or to put it another way, being impolite. Also with the fact that they spend a lot of time inside their own head. If you want to see that I can appreciate their good points, I can say that they typically are better at methodical thinking and in general anything that’s highly structured, they tend to have a stronger sense of self, and are better at deciding on and following principles. They tend to have fewer relationships but be more invested in the ones they do have. A majority of artists and writers are introverted. Naturally I don’t have experience with what it is exactly like to be an introvert, but I do understand that for introverts, essentially the thing that scares them the most is losing control over themselves, so they spend a lot of time honing that control (largely by carefully maintaining and building on their internal meaning-structures). I recognize that being interrupted in this process can be quite jarring. I do maintain that if a person then experiences seething rage or other extreme emotions after being interrupted, that’s a problem in their thinking they need to fix.
This seems correct. American culture is definitely, in many ways, more extraverted than Russian culture (the only other culture I have significant experience with), despite (somewhat paradoxically) the greater emphasis on collectivity in Russian culture, and a somewhat lesser attention paid to many classes of social faux pas than American culture. “Familiarity” is a greater social sin in Russian culture than it is in American culture.
As a corollary to this, people raised in the Russian culture generally view American social interaction as “fake”.
I remember discussing today how ‘constant improvement’—a classic introvert value—is an everyday concept in Japan. So, yes. I do think that there’s a general self-selection effect regardless of culture, where introverts don’t get as much of a say in social norms precisely because they are usually less involved in socializing, but that’s just speculative currently.
Also, it occurs to me that there is indeed irony in what you’re saying: you think forcing your interaction on others… makes you less self-involved?
Or am I misunderstanding you yet again? If so, then I kindly request that you actually spell out, in detail, just what it is you’re advocating, and why.
“forcing” is your framing. To be completely blunt, I reject it. The point is that when two people manage to really genuinely communicate, something is created which transcends either of them, and this draws them both out of their own preconceived frames.
Human social interaction, more specifically talking, is ordinary. Force enters the picture after someone has clearly said “No, I don’t want to do this / I’m not interested / etc” and not before.
Otherwise, you’re trying to make the person approaching you responsible for your internal state—A frame I similarly have no compunction about utterly rejecting. You’re responsible for your state, they are responsible for theirs. You don’t communicate perfectly, so if you’re trying to (implicitly, not explicitly) communicate ‘not interested’ and they are receiving a different message, well, chances are your communication failed. Which is primarily your responsibility.
Overall my impression is that you have this axe to grind about being ‘forced’ but really no-one except you is talking about force here.
Otherwise, you’re trying to make the person approaching you responsible for your internal state—A frame I similarly have no compunction about utterly rejecting. You’re responsible for your state, they are responsible for theirs.
People affect each other. I’m dubious about the moral frames which say that people ought to be able to do something (not be affected in some inconvenient way) when it’s so clear that few if any people can do that.
I can see what you mean, but I’m afraid that the furthest I can go in agreement is to say that few if any people do do that (or have any idea how)*. We’re certainty poverty-stricken WRT tools for taking responsibility for our own thoughts and emotions. I would argue though that that does not change what responsibilities we do have.
* BTW in a strict sense I don’t think it’s actually that important how you feel in response to an event, as long as you respond appropriately, just that it’s useful to treat “experiencing disproportionate emotions” as a flag that one of your habits of thinking is disjuncted from reality.
Human social interaction, more specifically talking, is ordinary. Force enters the picture after someone has clearly said “No, I don’t want to do this / I’m not interested / etc” and not before.
This would only be true if there did not exist social norms which discourage such responses. But there are, so what you say is not true. In fact, you introducing yourself to me on a plan in the manner described near the top of this thread is inherently forceful, even if you do not recognize it as such.
Otherwise, you’re trying to make the person approaching you responsible for your internal state—A frame I similarly have no compunction about utterly rejecting. You’re responsible for your state, they are responsible for theirs.
People are “responsible for” my mental state in the same sense they are “responsible for” my physical state: if someone punches me and then, when I protest, says “Yeah, well, I’m not responsible for your state!”, that’s rather disingenuous, don’t you think?
You don’t communicate perfectly, so if you’re trying to (implicitly, not explicitly) communicate ‘not interested’ and they are receiving a different message, well, chances are your communication failed. Which is primarily your responsibility.
That’s certainly a very convenient position to take if what you want is to be able to force interaction on others and not incur social disapproval. “What’s that? He didn’t want me to accost him and start chatting him up? Well I guess he should have communicated that better, now shouldn’t he?”
Look, it’s true that we often communicate badly; illusion of transparency and all that. But to take this as general license for plowing ahead and leaving behind any attempt to consider your fellow human beings’ preferences until such time as they expend significant emotional energy to make them clear to you — that is simply inconsiderate, to say the least. (And this is coming from someone on the autism spectrum, who, I assure you, understands very well the difficulty of divining the mental states of other humans!)
Overall my impression is that you have this axe to grind about being ‘forced’ but really no-one except you is talking about force here.
Not talking about force does not magically cause there to not be any force.
Finally, I once again note...
when two people manage to really genuinely communicate, something is created which transcends either of them, and this draws them both out of their own preconceived frames.
… that you talk about social interaction as if it’s this wonderful and amazing thing that, obviously, everyone should want, because it’s obviously so wonderful.
People are “responsible for” my mental state in the same sense they are “responsible for” my physical state: if someone punches me and then, when I protest, says “Yeah, well, I’m not responsible for your state!”, that’s rather disingenuous, don’t you think?
What it is is an absurd equivocation. Punching someone in the face is not the same as introducing yourself to them.
Of course it’s not the same. But the framing of “Is it ok to interact with a person in this way I find enjoyable if they might not.” is the part that’s important. I am currently seeing a person who is masochistic. When she was a child, she literally had NO IDEA that punching people was not ok because they did not enjoy it the way she would. Said is overemphasizing but the point that a social interaction can be negative and stressful for someone EVEN if you think it’s always an awesome thing is an important thing to recognize. I think on net most introductions are probably +value but the original over the top example is a perfect pointer to what NOT to do if you want to introduce yourself but also care about not ruining an Introvert’s day.
I’m just saying, this seems to be one of the things that needs to be done. By me. By anyone who thinks they are too self-involved (and by anyone who doesn’t think that but still IS too self-involved). … It’s what I’ll do because I want to be less self-involved, and if anyone else wants to be less self-involved, I believe that this is an effective course of action and hope that they try it.
(By “this”, I take it you are referring to “talking to other people” and “introducing yourself to people on planes” and so forth.)
So you think you need to be less self-involved. And doing so requires that you force your interaction on others.
That makes your hapless seat-neighbor on the plane your victim, a victim of your self-improvement strategy.
That’s what the entire thing is about! It is your own problem if you have it, and this is a way that you can address it!
The point is that I don’t think it’s a problem and don’t see any need to address it. Me missing out on the amazing contribution you might make to my life is not a problem for me. (I speak here in the general case; no personal judgment intended.)
Social norms are definitely written mostly by extraverts. The only way that’s going to ever change is if somehow extraverts decide collectively to be less involved in socializing.. and introverts decide to be -more- involved in socializing.
Since that is, by definition, rather unlikely, extraverts have a moral obligation to consider the wishes of introverts to a much greater degree than they currently do, especially as far as making and enforcing social norms goes.
as far as I can see, there is no alternative that preserves the possibility of people being able to develop relationships beyond merely what is expected in their environment.
Why on earth are you talking as if this possibility is so obviously and uncontroversially a good thing?
I do understand that for introverts, essentially the thing that scares them the most is losing control over themselves, so they spend a lot of time honing that control
You continue to speak as if extroversion is the norm and introversion is an aberration, and as if more extroversion is good. Not everyone agrees; don’t assume that you’re saying obvious things here. For example:
Well, I guess that’s my own problem then, isn’t it? Do you suppose I might resent the idea that you (the extrovert) can just decide that I (the introvert) have this problem (“missing out on some amazing people”) and undertake to fix it for me by inserting yourself into interactions with me? Do you think maybe I’m the one who should be deciding whether this is a problem at all, and whether/how I should fix it?
Great. Maybe everyone does need it. But kindly do not take it upon yourself to force this wonderful thing on people by interacting with them against their will. (This, by the way, is a general principle, applicable far more widely than introductions.)
I note that the social norms are written (so to speak) by the extroverts. So maybe reconsider reasoning from “this is a social norm” to “this is okay” or even to “a supermajority of humans, even most introverts, believe this to be okay”.
In general, savageorange, you seem to be well-intentioned; but I read in your posts a whole lot of typical mind fallacy and also a heavy dose of being oblivious to the experience of introverts. I don’t mean to be hostile, but given that most introverts prefer not to protest (being introverted and all), I think it’s best that I speak up.
You are claiming to speak for all introverts, which turns this into an “introvert v extrovert” discussion. In other words, you are saying that half the population is forcing themselves onto the introverted half of the population. In reality, introverts are often the MOST happy that someone else initiated a conversation that they would be too shy to start themselves.
In reality, the situation is more like “NTs v non-NTs”, and you are speaking for the non-NT part of the population. The same way you say half the population shouldn’t force their preferences on the other half, I’m sure you can agree that 5% of the population shouldn’t force their preferences (of non-interaction) onto the other 95%. Especially when the cost of nobody ever initiating conversations is significantly higher than the cost of being momentarily bothered by another person.
Actionable advice (for stopping an unwanted interaction): Answer in monosyllables or “hmm..” sounds. DON’T look at the person and smile. Maintain a neutral expression. Pull out your phone or a book, and direct your attention towards it, instead of the person.
Ways to end the conversation in a polite way: Say “Well, it’s very nice to meet you.” then turn your attention to your book/phone, OR add “but I’m at a really good part in this book, and I want to see what happens next....I really need to get this done… I’m really tired and was hoping to rest on the flight...etc.” It’s alright if the reason is vague. It is generally understood that providing a weak excuse is just a polite way of saying “no”, and everyone plays along.
Not all introverted people are shy, and vice versa. Personally, I do not have a degree of shyness that holds me back from the level of social contact I want.
… But I feel uncomfortable lying to disengage with another person. As a general policy I prefer to tell the truth lest I lapse in holding up a deception, and this is definitely not a case where everyone recognizes a falsehood as a white lie to disengage politely which should not be taken as offensive if uncovered.
Data (“data”?) point: I test reliably as NF (ENFP, specifically) and SaidAchmiz’s objections seem quite similar to my father, who is clearly (by both of our estimations, and tests) NT (INTJ). I can think of another relevant person, who tests as INFP and seems to be at pains to encourage interaction, and yet another who is also ENFP and similarly tries hard to encourage interaction. So I was rather surprised to see you painting SaidAchmiz’s objections as non-NT.
My current model suggests that what I am promoting is F values (possibly NF, but I don’t know any SF’s well enough to compare) with an extraverted slant
(but not as much of an extraverted slant as SaidAchmiz seemed to think, I agree that even if at the time being drawn out of ourselves is an unpleasant experience, everyone, extraverted or introverted, gains something of real worth if they really attain that level of self-detachment regularly.)
I think it was NT as in NeuroTypical (not on the autism spectrum), not NT as in intuitive-thinking.
Haha, that makes sense.
… Only on LessWrong :)
I think science fiction fans (or at least the ones I know) could also have managed the correction.
NancyLebovitz’s correction is accurate, but here is another “data” point, because why not:
I test as INTP (strongly INT, with a closer to even split between P and J, though reliably favoring P).
Perhaps. Would you agree that there is much heavier overlap between “NT” and “extrovert”, and “non-NT” and “introvert”, than vice versa?
“half the population shouldn’t force their preferences on the other half” is an inaccurate generalization of what I said; my claims were far more specific. As such, no, I can’t agree the 95% / 5% thing. The point is that it depends on the preference in question. You shouldn’t force your desire to interact with me on me; conversely, it seems perfectly ok for me to “force” my desire not to interact with you, on you. The situation is not symmetric. It is analogous to “why are you forcing your preference not to get punched in the face on me?!”
First, I’d like to say thank you for bothering to include concrete advice. This is a practice I endorse. (In this case, the specific advice provided was known to me, but the thought is a good one.)
That said, it is my experience that the kind of people who force interactions on strangers very often ignore such relatively subtle hints (or consider them rude if they notice them at all).
The problem here is that this is a difference between saying ‘you can do this’ and saying ‘you can’t do this / I have a right to be left alone’.
You CAN arrange to be left alone. I CAN notice some genuine, reliable cue that you want to be left alone, and leave you alone. I CAN attempt to interact with you. You CAN reject that attempt (either rudely or with some tact). As soon as you get into saying what you CAN’T do or what I CAN’T do, that shows that you’ve stopped trying to genuinely support your own position and switched to attacking the opposing position. As far as I can see, that is inherently a losing game, just like the way hatred and revenge are losing games.
(and no, it is not, in any way, comparable to preferring not to be punched in the face. More comparable to preferring not to exercise, or perhaps preferring not to vote.)
Note that certain polities have compulsory voting and others don’t.
I… don’t really understand what you’re saying here, I’m afraid. I’m having trouble reading your comment (the parts about “can” and “can’t” and such) as a response to what I said rather than a non sequitur. Would you mind rephrasing, or...?
Huh? I was making an “ought” statement. Supporting one’s own position and attacking the opposing position are the same thing when only one position could be the right one.
Those analogies don’t make any sense. Consider: in the “punch in face” case, we have:
Alice: Wants to punch Bob in the face.
Bob: Doesn’t want to be punched in the face.
If we support Alice, then Alice has her preferences satisfied and Bob does not; Alice’s preferences (to punch Bob) are forced upon Bob, causing Bob to experience preference non-satisfaction. If we support Bob, then vice versa; Bob’s preferences (to not be punched by Alice) are forced upon Alice, causing Alice to experience preference non-satisfaction. (Generally, we support Bob in such a case.)
The “exercise” or “vote” case bears no resemblance to this. In both cases, we simply have:
Alice: Doesn’t want to vote.
If we support Alice, then Alice has her preferences satisfied. There is no Bob here. There is also no dilemma of any kind. Obviously we should support Alice, because there is no reason not to. (Unless we hate Alice and want her to experience preference non-satisfaction, for some reason.)
The “interact with strangers” case is isomorphic to the “punch in face” case, like so:
Alice: Wants to interact with Bob (i.e. wants to introduce herself to Bob who is her seat-neighbor on a plane).
Bob: Doesn’t want to be interacted with.
If we support Alice, then Alice has her preferences satisfied and Bob does not; Alice’s preferences (to interact with Bob) are forced upon Bob, causing Bob to experience preference non-satisfaction. If we support Bob, then vice versa; Bob’s preferences (to not be interacted with) are forced upon Alice, causing Alice to experience preference non-satisfaction.
Supporting Alice in the “interact with strangers” case is a little like saying, in the “punch in face” case: “Yeah, well, if Bob doesn’t want to be punched, then he ought to just block when I throw a right hook at his face. I’ll get the hint, I promise!”
False. Even if all things considered you prefer that Alice not be compelled to vote there are reasons to do so. Voting is a commons problem. Compulsory voting (or, “compulsory attendence of the voting booth at which point you can submit a valid vote or not as you please”) can be considered analogous to taxation, and happens to be paid in time (approximately non-fungibly). If a country happens to get adequate voting outcomes purely from volunteers then that may be a desirable policy all things considered. However, compelling people to vote does not imply sadism. Merely a different solution to said commons problem.
Yes, I considered this objection, thank you for bringing it up. Upon consideration, it seems to me that “compulsory attendance of the voting booth”, while probably not literally inspired by actual sadism, is perverse to the point of being indistinguishable from sadism.
If a country gets “inadequate voting outcomes” (what does that mean, exactly?) from volunteer-only voting, compelling people to vote seems to be exactly the wrong solution for many reasons. (Voting is a “commons problem” to the extent that it is a problem — but it’s not clear to me that “few eligible voters are actually voting” is, in fact, a problem.)
However, the more relevant-to-the-conversation response is that “society’s” interests in this case are far too diffuse and theoretical to serve as any kind of relevant analogue to the case of “one very specific person (i.e. Bob) doesn’t want unpleasant experiences inflicted upon him”. That’s what makes it a poor analogy.
Avoid inflationary use of terms. “Sadistic” does not mean “a policy that I disapprove of”. Being unable to distinguish the two is a failure of your own comprehension, nothing more.
That means that the writer refrained from prescribing preferences to outcomes or making any claims about the merit of any particular election and left it to the readers judgement. Some examples of things that could be inadequate would include too few people voting, if the selection bias of only aggregating the preferences of people who have nothing better to do at the time than voting rather than the preferences of everyone resulted in inferior candidates or if the psychological impact of the practice is somehow sub-par.
You are proposing a general cultural rule for how people must behave (don’t introduce yourself to strangers on planes) for the benefit of Bob. This amounts to a large cost in lost opportunity and freedom that is paid by the people you consider “too diffuse and theoretical” to deserve consideration to suit the convenience of Bob who is important enough for you to make up a name for him. All the other people who have Bob’s particular psychological disorder presumably warrant your consideration despite being diffuse and theoretical.
(And by ‘psychological disorder’ I refer to whatever condition results in Bob taking damage equivalent to the physical and psychological damage most people take from being punched in the face.)
I assure you, that was not an inflationary use on my part. I meant precisely what I said.
You misread me, I think… the cost in lost opportunity and freedom in the “interact with strangers” case, just as in the “punch in face” case, is paid by a very concrete person: Alice. She is certainly neither diffuse nor theoretical. I specifically commented on her preferences, and the satisfaction or non-satisfaction thereof.
What is too diffuse and theoretical is “society’s” interests in the “vote” case. That is why the “vote” case makes a poor analogy for the “interact with strangers” case.
I’ll repeat with emphasis that being unable to distinguish between a policy decision that you disapprove of and sadism is a significant failure in comprehension. It is enough to make whatever opinions you may express about what social norms should be lose any hope of credibility.
There is, however, also a difference between lack of comprehension and disagreement, which you seem to not be recognizing. There are plenty of policies that I disapprove of without considering them to be sadistic. Also: “perverse to the point of being indistinguishable from sadism” does not mean “I actually think this policy was motivated by sadism” (a distinction to which I alluded in the post where I made this comment). In general, I think you are reading me quite uncharitably here.
Non-compulsory voting has the disadvantage that certain people will refrain from voting just because of the inconvenience of going to the voting booth and others won’t, which may bias the result of the election if the extent to which voting would be inconvenient correlates with political positions for whatever reasons.
tl;dr: “CAN” is about a person’s ability or capability. This helps them to take responsibility “CAN’T” is about what you(or society) can prevent them from doing. This helps them evade responsibility.
BTW, there is a Bob. Bob is society in the voting case and .. well, if you think about it, also society in the exercise case (but ‘the part of you that values wellbeing over comfort’ would also qualify there).
I really don’t understand what you’re saying here. :(
“Society” can’t have rights, nor can “society” have preferences, or the satisfactions or non-satisfactions thereof. There is no good but the good of individuals; there is no harm but the harm to individuals.
The idea that “society” has rights, or that “society” can be benefited or harmed, independently from the good or harm to any individuals, is one of the most destructive ideas in human history.
As for ‘the part of you that values wellbeing over comfort’ … rights do not accrue to internal aspects of self. “Rights” are about interpersonal morality. (But actually I would prefer we not go off on this particular tangent here, if that’s ok; it’s rather off-topic.)
Sure, savageorange could have found a telephone book and tried listing everyone individually. But saying ‘society’ seems more efficient. It refers tot he case where many unnamed but clearly existing individuals who need not or can not be named would be harmed.
Yes, that’s the implied assumption, but it’s usually a way to mask the fact that were we to try and find any actual, specific individuals who are concretely benefited or harmed by whatever-it-is, we would have quite the hard time doing so.
What of minority rights? I think you’ve come to a pretty repugnant conclusion on accident.
My brain always flags this as an error (instead of the correct “by accident”) and gets annoyed. Am I being too sensitive? Googling tells me that “on accident” is a minority usage that probably doesn’t actually count as an error...
Perhaps paper-machine said ‘on accident’ by purpose...
To put things briefly, it looks like you’ve reversed most of the things I said.
I’m talking about “you” (as in, any given individual that finds themselves in a situation where they think they are too self-involved). I can’t fix anything for you and I don’t want to. I’m just saying, this seems to be one of the things that needs to be done. By me. By anyone who thinks they are too self-involved (and by anyone who doesn’t think that but still IS too self-involved). Certainly if they are aware of a sense of excessive self-involvement and they want to change that, the only way to do so seems to be, well.. doing something that moves their locus of attention away from themselves :)
It’s what I’ll do because I want to be less self-involved, and if anyone else wants to be less self-involved, I believe that this is an effective course of action and hope that they try it. And yes, I believe that people being less self-involved (among many other necessary improvements) is essential to a better society. That’s all.
Totally. That’s what the entire thing is about! It is your own problem if you have it, and this is a way that you can address it! And others have it too ( I will absolutely maintain that excessive self-absorption is a problem every human being faces), so seeing you taking action to remedy it in yourself can also encourage them to change their actions.
Social norms are definitely written mostly by extraverts. The only way that’s going to ever change is if somehow extraverts decide collectively to be less involved in socializing.. and introverts decide to be -more- involved in socializing. (I’m stating this as a logical necessity, because AFAICS the reason that social norms are written by extraverts is essentially self-selection.).
I recognize this and that’s why I’m promoting taking responsibility for saying ‘no, I don’t want to talk right now’ as well as promoting getting involved—because as far as I can see, there is no alternative that preserves the possibility of people being able to develop relationships beyond merely what is expected in their environment. I’m not saying it’s easy to say no, I’m saying it is your responsibility to do so at times, just as it’s your responsibility to solve the problem of self-involvement if you have it. You seem to agree with this principle, seeing as you identify as an introvert and are speaking up :)
I’ve read and discussed temperaments in general, and introverts/extraverts in specific, a lot. I can recommend Dorothy Rowe’s books on the subject (eg. ‘The successful self’), as they seem to be the only ones that manage to strike precisely at the heart of things.
I am quite familiar with the fact that introverts have difficulty saying no, or to put it another way, being impolite. Also with the fact that they spend a lot of time inside their own head. If you want to see that I can appreciate their good points, I can say that they typically are better at methodical thinking and in general anything that’s highly structured, they tend to have a stronger sense of self, and are better at deciding on and following principles. They tend to have fewer relationships but be more invested in the ones they do have. A majority of artists and writers are introverted. Naturally I don’t have experience with what it is exactly like to be an introvert, but I do understand that for introverts, essentially the thing that scares them the most is losing control over themselves, so they spend a lot of time honing that control (largely by carefully maintaining and building on their internal meaning-structures). I recognize that being interrupted in this process can be quite jarring. I do maintain that if a person then experiences seething rage or other extreme emotions after being interrupted, that’s a problem in their thinking they need to fix.
Fair?
I believe this is more true of America than a number of other cultures.
This seems correct. American culture is definitely, in many ways, more extraverted than Russian culture (the only other culture I have significant experience with), despite (somewhat paradoxically) the greater emphasis on collectivity in Russian culture, and a somewhat lesser attention paid to many classes of social faux pas than American culture. “Familiarity” is a greater social sin in Russian culture than it is in American culture.
As a corollary to this, people raised in the Russian culture generally view American social interaction as “fake”.
I remember discussing today how ‘constant improvement’—a classic introvert value—is an everyday concept in Japan. So, yes. I do think that there’s a general self-selection effect regardless of culture, where introverts don’t get as much of a say in social norms precisely because they are usually less involved in socializing, but that’s just speculative currently.
Also, it occurs to me that there is indeed irony in what you’re saying: you think forcing your interaction on others… makes you less self-involved?
Or am I misunderstanding you yet again? If so, then I kindly request that you actually spell out, in detail, just what it is you’re advocating, and why.
“forcing” is your framing. To be completely blunt, I reject it. The point is that when two people manage to really genuinely communicate, something is created which transcends either of them, and this draws them both out of their own preconceived frames.
Human social interaction, more specifically talking, is ordinary. Force enters the picture after someone has clearly said “No, I don’t want to do this / I’m not interested / etc” and not before.
Otherwise, you’re trying to make the person approaching you responsible for your internal state—A frame I similarly have no compunction about utterly rejecting. You’re responsible for your state, they are responsible for theirs. You don’t communicate perfectly, so if you’re trying to (implicitly, not explicitly) communicate ‘not interested’ and they are receiving a different message, well, chances are your communication failed. Which is primarily your responsibility.
Overall my impression is that you have this axe to grind about being ‘forced’ but really no-one except you is talking about force here.
People affect each other. I’m dubious about the moral frames which say that people ought to be able to do something (not be affected in some inconvenient way) when it’s so clear that few if any people can do that.
I can see what you mean, but I’m afraid that the furthest I can go in agreement is to say that few if any people do do that (or have any idea how)*. We’re certainty poverty-stricken WRT tools for taking responsibility for our own thoughts and emotions. I would argue though that that does not change what responsibilities we do have.
* BTW in a strict sense I don’t think it’s actually that important how you feel in response to an event, as long as you respond appropriately, just that it’s useful to treat “experiencing disproportionate emotions” as a flag that one of your habits of thinking is disjuncted from reality.
This would only be true if there did not exist social norms which discourage such responses. But there are, so what you say is not true. In fact, you introducing yourself to me on a plan in the manner described near the top of this thread is inherently forceful, even if you do not recognize it as such.
People are “responsible for” my mental state in the same sense they are “responsible for” my physical state: if someone punches me and then, when I protest, says “Yeah, well, I’m not responsible for your state!”, that’s rather disingenuous, don’t you think?
That’s certainly a very convenient position to take if what you want is to be able to force interaction on others and not incur social disapproval. “What’s that? He didn’t want me to accost him and start chatting him up? Well I guess he should have communicated that better, now shouldn’t he?”
Look, it’s true that we often communicate badly; illusion of transparency and all that. But to take this as general license for plowing ahead and leaving behind any attempt to consider your fellow human beings’ preferences until such time as they expend significant emotional energy to make them clear to you — that is simply inconsiderate, to say the least. (And this is coming from someone on the autism spectrum, who, I assure you, understands very well the difficulty of divining the mental states of other humans!)
Not talking about force does not magically cause there to not be any force.
Finally, I once again note...
… that you talk about social interaction as if it’s this wonderful and amazing thing that, obviously, everyone should want, because it’s obviously so wonderful.
Not everyone feels that way.
What it is is an absurd equivocation. Punching someone in the face is not the same as introducing yourself to them.
Of course it’s not the same. But the framing of “Is it ok to interact with a person in this way I find enjoyable if they might not.” is the part that’s important. I am currently seeing a person who is masochistic. When she was a child, she literally had NO IDEA that punching people was not ok because they did not enjoy it the way she would. Said is overemphasizing but the point that a social interaction can be negative and stressful for someone EVEN if you think it’s always an awesome thing is an important thing to recognize. I think on net most introductions are probably +value but the original over the top example is a perfect pointer to what NOT to do if you want to introduce yourself but also care about not ruining an Introvert’s day.
I endorse this formulation. Well explained.
(By “this”, I take it you are referring to “talking to other people” and “introducing yourself to people on planes” and so forth.)
So you think you need to be less self-involved. And doing so requires that you force your interaction on others.
That makes your hapless seat-neighbor on the plane your victim, a victim of your self-improvement strategy.
The point is that I don’t think it’s a problem and don’t see any need to address it. Me missing out on the amazing contribution you might make to my life is not a problem for me. (I speak here in the general case; no personal judgment intended.)
Since that is, by definition, rather unlikely, extraverts have a moral obligation to consider the wishes of introverts to a much greater degree than they currently do, especially as far as making and enforcing social norms goes.
Why on earth are you talking as if this possibility is so obviously and uncontroversially a good thing?
Uh… what.