The term “introversion” was first coined in order to distinguish it from
its counterpart, extroversion, or “extraversion” as it was then called. One of
the founding fathers of this type of thought was Carl Jung, who described
introverts as shy, contemplative, reserved, and tending to have difficulty in
adjusting to social situations. Furthermore they were prone to excessive
daydreaming and--the striking similar word--introspection. For Jung, an introvert
focused mainly upon his or her own thoughts and feelings while an extravert
focused outward, toward other people and the outside world. Naturally then,
this personality trait was extrapolated into narcissism and melancholy. Russell
went so far as to refer to it as a malady, saying introverts focused only upon “the
emptiness within.” Furthermore, he said we must not take the introvert’s
unhappiness to be anything grand. The clear implication then is that introverts
must be unhappy. However, this is false.
Susan Cain, author of Quiet: the
Power of Introverts in a World that Can’t Stop Talking, proposes a new kind
of introvert. Rather than manufacturing introversion as the antithesis to the
gregarious and cheerful extrovert, she presents two different models for
processing stimulus. Whereas extroverts crave a lot of stimuli, their brains
inherently wired to take in large amounts of it, an introvert’s mind stimulates
itself. Because the thoughts are turned inward, whole worlds can be generated
from within themselves as evidenced by famous introverts like Tolkien.
Therefore it is only natural for someone like Russell, an obvious
extrovert who prefers zest and adventure, to perceive an introvert’s proclivity
for seclusion as a malady. If he craves the outer world for new interests and
adventures, he has no choice but to believe only emptiness resides within. To him,
cultivating one’s inner world instead of exploring the outer one must seem like
deprivation and denial. In this way, extroverts cannot be happy with large
quantities of silence and solitude but introverts cannot be happy without it.
This is not to speak in extremes, saying introverts must only exist in
isolation and extroverts only in explosive environments but rather that each
person, according to where he or she falls upon the introvert-extrovert
spectrum, must strike his or her own healthy balance in order to achieve the
different sorts of happiness available to all, whether it be found in the affluence
of externality or the richness of internal galaxies.
"Internal galaxies" is a wonderful phrase, and introverts have more Happy resources than are dreamt of in Russell's philosophy.
ReplyDeleteThe whole intro/extro distinction is suspect. Check out the Wired essay under "links": "Introvert, extrovert, or actual human?"