Introverted/extroverted (or ambiverted, I GUESS): Everybody falls under one of those categories, right? So what causes the ease of social interaction and general friendliness associated with extroversion, or the social discomfort and shyness associated with introversion? Generally people will give you a lot of different answers, but according to most psychologists personality traits such as these are mostly determined biologically. You're born with your quick wit and charisma (or a lack thereof)--life experiences might change these to some degree, but generally what you're born with is what you get.
Right?
I'm no so sure.
I think culture and prevailing principles can affect how well people interact to a significant degree. I have narrowed it down to three ideas that might influence how people get along in modern society.
1. Every man for himself=OK..
This might only be characteristic of individualistic cultures (and American culture more specifically), but it's a general principle in modern society that the goal of most endeavors is personal happiness. From taking a class at a community college to making connections at a party to buying groceries, the goal is straightforward get what you need in order to satisfy yourself. Think about it: how often have you been in a chemistry class where people will talk comfortably with the people surrounding them--EVEN SITTING RIGHT NEXT TO THEM--without being practically forced to? If they need help with a question or a study partner, it's not even guaranteed then that there will be any interaction then. Individualist instinct seems to dictate that if something can be done alone, it should be, for as long as possible, until this begins to interfere with performance/grades/happiness. When the goal is self-gratification, there's really no need for excessive interaction with others, right? It becomes difficult to justify random friendliness or starting a non-practical conversation.
2. Cliques=havens=OK.
This may seem confined to a high school environment, but look closely and you'll see it in many surprising places: clubs, churches, cubicles--anywhere where there are a lot of people sharing one environment for a common purpose, there will be cliques. Why? Because of a strange conflict of needs--the human need for social support, and the individualist need to serve only oneself. The individualist in most people will not initiate contact with the "new kid" at work or school partly because of diffusion of responsibility (I'm sure someone else will do it, why should I?), but partly because it doesn't even come to mind. In order to "get ahead", it is necessary to stay focused on your own goals. This leaves little room for being friendly with the new guy or eating lunch with the kid sitting all alone. The solution to this? Cliques. They require little commitment, but give you people to eat with at lunch or work with on presentations to avoid awkward "loner" status. Cliques form as havens from the self-centeredness of people who don't know you and therefore will not interact with you. They also help economize on how many people you have to interact with every day, narrowing it down to the three or four necessary for support without excessive socializing. If you have a few people for the important stuff, there's no need to worry about making new friends or starting random conversations, right?
3. Criticalness=being blunt=OK.
This may not figure as strongly into causing introversion as the previous two. But currently our culture is very accepting of criticalness and at times downright cruelty, as long as it is under the guise of "bluntness" or "honesty". Someone trying to converse or make friends in a new environment may not realize this overtly, but knowing this can make taking those kind of risks terrifying. You can be brutally shoved off, criticized or just ignored quite easily if you attempt to talk to the wrong person. There are all kinds of excuses for this: "It takes him a while to warm up to people." "She's very blunt." But that doesn't lessen the fear that the possibility of such responses instills in people. Few situations are more vulnerable than being new and not knowing anybody--fear of rejection is very high and desire to take risks lowers as a result. It comes down to this: social interaction has become more difficult because it's not as "safe" to talk to people you don't know anymore. The risk of receiving rancor in return for your efforts has greatly increased.
I feel that introversion (mild to severe) has increased as a whole in modern society for many reasons, with current culture being a prevalent one. Whether these actually play a role is uncertain, but I think the evidence points toward it.
What about the role of technology in causing introversion in our societies? Advances in communications, from Internet chatting (and blogging?) to text messaging separate people and no longer make it necessary for me to SEE and personally interact with you in order to exchange ideas or express wants and needs. I think the classic image of the computer nerd sitting in front of his computer all day is the perfect example of technologically-induced introversion. He can make a living online, get an education online, call his grandparents online, and he can even order a pizza online these days. There's no need for him to ever interact with real humans, and he probably wouldn't want to. And I think this trend is just going to get worse.
HAHA! you are right.
I purposefully avoided that, actually, because ONE--i feel like it has been addressed a lot and TWO, that would make this entry really, really long.
That is definitely a valid point. I just chose to focus on these three things.
you're not dead yet so live like you could be.
There's no need for him to ever interact with real humans, and he probably wouldn't want to.
Actually, I completely disagree that those of us whose interactions are primarily on the computer are not getting any sort of human interaction. I also disagree that we wouldn't want human interaction.
Most of us actually have extensive networks of friends and acquaintances that we interact with on a daily or near daily basis. What's more, these people are, or can be, all over the world.
For example, I live in Ohio, and one of my closest friends lives in Maryland. I have another friend that lives in California, and two more that live in Europe (one in England and one in the Netherlands). And yes, I consider them friends.
Is it the same as having local friends that you see in person? Certainly not. I can't just call up one of my abroad friends and go hang out at the park like I can with my local friends, but I can sit and talk with one of my abroad friends for hours on end better and more comfortably than I can with a local friend (in part because of personality differences between the people, which naturally comes when you have a larger pool of people to pick from).
Many online relationships are quite casual, yes. For example, I've lost touch with a number of people that I used to play World of Warcraft with extensively because I no longer play with them and it was the primary context in which we hung out together. However, I find little difference between this and the people I met at the hookah bar two months ago or the friends I had in high school and have since lost touch with. Why? Because the context that connected us no longer does so.
Going to school online also requires an extensive amount of interaction, and actually, when it comes to human interaction, it's actually significantly more challenging than classroom classes (but also has a number of advantages). There are still actual classes, but they are online and typically "asynchronous," or forum-based. This means that the discussions that would go on between students or between students and teachers go on in a forum environment, where everyone can submit their input when they have time. One of the challenges, then, comes from the need to do things synchronously, such as project group meetings. Not only does the group have to work around people's schedules, but they often also have time zones to contend with. For example, one of my project groups had people that were in Mountain Time, people that were in Eastern Time, and the online portion of the school runs on Central Time (which affected deadlines and submission windows).
All that said, what's the difference between online interactions and talking with a person over the phone, or pen pals?
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
and I have also given this problem a lot of thought and came to similar conclusions. The genetic vs. environmental distinction is critical because *we can fix* our surroundings. The natural followup question is *how* can we fix them?
I think direct mental effort leads to progress. Consciously attempt to break down awkward silences, and avoid the temptation to pretend you're better off alone. Remind yourself that anyone who rejects your fledgeling attempt at conversation is a douche, or maybe having a bad day, so who cares? Personal experience tells me that honestly reaching out and chatting usually elicits a positive response. It makes people more comfortable. By engaging those around you, you will be happier yourself.
That covers (1); I think (2) is trickier because havens aren't all that bad. Common interests and beliefs may define or reinforce a 'group identity' and thereby exclude others. I think this is essentially good, as long as you and your friends have friendly interactions with others. The problem isn't group identity, so much as group isolation as suggested by 'clique'. The solution is similar to that for individual isolation: consciously attempt to include people in your group; avoid thinking your group is 'better' than others (even if you know it is). Solid friends are important, but cliques get boring.
(3) is also debatable. Bluntness can provoke, but done right it can make people laugh and put them at ease. To help other introverts we should encourage tact and be mindful of their feelings, but also respond to bluntness as though it was meant with good intent. Bluntness can help identify the causes of social failure. Even mean-spirited jabs can be transmuted into progress if you use them to recognize and overcome your own faults. Anyone expecting you to react with indignation will be impressed by a naive but serious request for advice. If no useful advice is given, the cruelty of the offense will be obvious.
All of them are debatable, of course. :) You make some good points with 3. In certain situations, bluntness actually can put people at ease. It definitely depends on the context and what was actually said.
you're not dead yet so live like you could be.