The benefits of being an introvert
This post is a continuation of:
What it means to be an introvert (Part II)
So, finally, onto the last post of this series on introversion. Anymore on the subject and you might begin to think that I am both introverted and obsessive :-)
***
I think I speak for many introverts when I say that I have succumbed to the draw of being a bright, bubbly crowd-pleaser in order to fit into the West's culture of personality – the culture that spawned social directives such as those found in Dale Carnegie's How To Win Friends and Influence People.
Although I have nothing against stretching my comfort zone by taking on a less frigid exterior in front of a crowd - indeed, I have profited handsomely from doing so - the pressure to conform to The Extravert Ideal (about which you'll find in Parts I & II) nonetheless has the danger of leading some of us down the path of self-denial, even self-negation. That is, in our efforts to stand out and be listened to we may come to ignore or dismiss the very qualities that make us worth listening to in the first place.
So this post is about why introverts should stop worrying about being loud and talkative and to start valuing themselves for their own innate qualities and tendencies.
Tune in, turn on, drop out
In Part II, we saw how introverts are generally more sensitive to their environments than extroverts are. To use a bad analogy from cooking, if extroverts are lightly-fried vegetables blithely canvassing a Teflon-coated pan, introverts are hunks of slow-cooked pork that have soaked up the juices of the other ingredients in a crock pot.
Because they take in a lot from their environments, introverts tend to be observant of the subtleties of what is going on around and within them. For example, they may notice a person's mood shifting or a lightbulb that is burning a touch too brightly. They may also react more profoundly to sublime experiences, such as a piece of classical music or a sunset, than a typical extrovert (who is too busy talking to notice LOL).
In Part I, I touched on how introverts may have a creative advantage over extroverts because of their preference and ability to work alone. Working alone seems to provide a ripe environment for achieving flow - that sweet spot of losing all sense of time when engaging in an activity that fires up the heart. An introvert's highly observant natures no doubt also fuels their creativity. Picture the stereotypical poet, painter or novelist contemplating his surroundings and emotional makeup, or the scientist engaged in solving a problem that arose from her own observations.
Unsurprisingly, the internal lives of introverts are also likely to be more pronounced than that of extroverts. They tend to dream vividly and experience exceptionally strong emotions. This might explain why introverts are more likely to be philosophically or spiritually minded rather than materialistic or hedonistic.
Quiet survival
If the tale of evolution is powered by the 'survival of the fittest', how could such highly sensitive creatures compete with more aggressive alpha types in a Hobbesian prehistoric world in which life was short and brute?
Susan Cain, in her bestselling book Quiet, seeks an answer in the research of noted psychologist Elaine Aron. According to Aron, the personal quality of high sensitivity was not itself selected for “but rather the careful, reflective style that tends to accompany it.” Quoting Aron, Cain writes:
“The type that is 'sensitive' or 'reactive' would reflect a strategy of observing carefully before acting... thus avoiding dangers, failures, and wasted energy, which would require a nervous system specifically designed to observe and detect subtle differences. It is a strategy of 'betting on a sure thing' or 'looking before you leap.'”
In line with this, some researchers think that the child who is 'slow to warm up' in the playground could actually be studying the interpersonal dynamics at work from the sidelines to see where he or she fits in.
In contrast, extroverts or low reactive types tend to act before they have received complete information or assessed the attendant risks of taking action.
The findings of evolutionary biologists, most notably David Sloan Wilson, seem to confirm Aron's theory. In the animal kingdom more than a hundred species have been found to be divided into what Cain calls the “watch and wait” types and the “just do it” types. As if this isn't astonishing enough, as in the human species (see Part II), the watch-and-wait group makes up about 20 percent of any given species population while the just-do-it group makes up the rest.
Needless to say, each 'personality' group bears radically different survival strategies, with their own pros and cons. This is known as the 'trade-off' theory whereby each survival strategy is neither all good nor all bad. As Cain explains: “Shy animals forage less often and widely for food, conserving energy, sticking to the sidelines, and surviving when predators come calling. Bolder animals sally forth, swallowed regularly by those farther up the food chain but surviving when food is scarce and they need to assume more risk.”
The trade-off theory certainly applies in the human world. For instance, it's been shown that extroverts tend to have more sexual partners than introverts, which is probably a good thing for a species wishing to expand and conquer; but they also commit adultery and divorce more, which is probably not such a good thing if the objective is to raise kids.
Jung was cognisant of this fact when he wrote: “the one [extroversion] consists in a high rate of fertility, with low powers of defense and short duration of life for the single individual; the other [introversion] consists in equipping the individual with numerous means of self-preservation plus a low fertility rate”.
The bottom line, then, is that there is a place and need for both introverts and extroverts on this earth.
They are less likely to say the wrong thing at the wrong time
As we've seen, an introvert's comfort in hanging back with her thoughts and observations means that she's more likely to think before she acts. This normally includes thinking before speaking!
Recent studies have shown that introverts not only take in more information about their surroundings than extroverts, they also think more deeply and in more complex ways.
This means you're unlikely to find many introverts who like small talk. As psychologist Aron explains, “If you're thinking in more complicated ways, then talking about the weather or where you went for the holidays is not quite as interesting as talking about values or morality.”
This is where I confess that, in this regard, I'm no longer a pure introvert. Even though I remain pretty observant (I love people watching!), I have become a lot lazier in my thought processes than when I was at university (as a philosophy major). From journalism to editing to teaching, the careers that I have since dabbled in have all required a) a cursory knowledge of many subjects and b) pretty advanced social skills (ironically). On a purely practical level, deep and elaborate thinking in these fast-moving professions seemed at best, indulgent, and at worst, a waste of time.
Unfortunately, I now feel the pernicious effects of losing it for not using it, having spent the better part of the last decade habitually taking mental short cuts – what psychologists call heuristics [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic ] - when solving a problem or making a decision. To be sure, for quick decisions with trivial consequences (such as where to have dinner) this approach has been more than adequate. But for significant decisions requiring more than a shade of analytical thinking (such as dealing with a difficult landlord), I have often found myself impatient to delve into the pros and cons and contingencies of a decision. Fortunately, for better or worse, I have had my other half, M, to intrust the task of difficult deliberation because he's such a natural at it. (On a side note: it is absolutely fascinating seeing the outward signs of his mind at work. He falls silent and his eyes start moving from side to side as if he's in a state of REM sleep. Incidentally there is a proven connection between daydreaming and creativity.)
They are less likely to eat the marshmellow and gamble away their life savings
Back in the early sixties, Walter Mischel tested a group of four-year-olds on their ability to hold off eating from a plate of marshmellows for 15-20 minutes with the knowledge that they would each be rewarded an extra marshmellow for their patience. The study showed that the children who were able to restrain themselves for the full 20 minutes – that is, to delay gratification – grew up to be more academically successful as teenagers as well as more emotionally stable and less stressed than the children who dug in before the time was up.
Unfortunately for extroverts, introverts tend to be better at delaying gratification. This may be because extroverts are more enthusiastic reward seekers, a phenomenon that has been demonstrated at the neuroscientific level.
As in one's primal fear-based responses, the pleasure circuit also involves the amygdala in the primitive mid-brain region.
Cain writes: “Just as the amygdala of a high-reactive person is more sensitive than average to novelty, so do extroverts seem to be more susceptible than introverts to the reward-seeking cravings of the old brain.”
Typical rewards are external, including money, sex, cocaine, chocolate, expensive handbags, top dog status and human connection.
Cain goes on to state the astonishing fact that, “some scientists are starting to explore the idea that reward-sensitivity is not only an interesting feature of extroversion, it is what makes an extrovert an extrovert.”
The reason extroverts may be more enthusiastic reward seekers is that they experience more pleasure and excitement from rewards than introverts do because the pleasure circuit in their brains - mediated by the neurotransmitter dopamine - is more active.
“The more responsive your brain is to dopamine, or the higher the level of dopamine you have available to release, some scientists believe, the more likely you are to go after rewards like sex, chocolate, money, and status”.
What's more, reward seeking behaviour isn't just driven by heightened pleasure to rewards. An exaggerated response to the mere possibility and anticipation of a reward also counts for a lot. This is essentially the basis of impulsiveness. The child who isn't able to resist the marshmellows feels more acutely the sweet temptation than the child who is able to resist. But once the impulse is satisfied, the high often vanishes too. (That's a warning to all retail therapists!)
As in fear-based responses, impulsive behaviour is ultimately a product of a contest in which the dopamine pathway in the 'old' midbrain triumphs over the seat of willpower in the 'new' prefrontal cortex. Indeed, research has shown that less impulsive people tend to display more activity in their prefrontal cortex. What after all stops a person from demolishing another slice of chocolate cake?
All this suggests that people who have hyperactive dopamine circuits have drawn the short straw: they need to have more will power to stay away from the chocolate cake than people who are more dopaminergically placid.
Also, while there are positive aspects to 'feeling buzzed' while bouncing along the pleasure circuit, buzz can also lead one down the paths of disaster and self-destruction, especially if one also has an unhealthy penchant for risk-taking. Fact is, pleasurable stimulation of any kind and the accompanying feelings of euphoria dampen our ability to assess the dangers and risks of action. That's why people are more likely to do stupid things when they are drunk or drugged. While the consequences can tickle the sadistic funny bones of onlookers (epic fail LOL!), they can also wreck wholesale catastrophe -- as in what happens when you put a bunch of alpha types in a room with a lot of money to play with.
They are less likely to lie, cheat, steal and kill
As Cain writes, “It's as if [introverts] have thinner boundaries separating them from other people's emotions and from the tragedies and cruelties of the world.”
The empathic nature of an introvert is linked to them having strong social consciences, which in turn makes them more acutely aware of the consequences of their own and others' misbehaviour.
They have more grit
During my formative years (the 80s and 90s), the reigning belief about one's potential for success pretty much came down to how clever you were born to be. Parents who had the means rushed to get their child's IQ tested so that they could determine what sort of 'intervention' would be needed to give their child the best possible start in life. Fortunately, the past decade has seen a sea change in the thinking of what makes some children more successful than others. Innate intelligence is still a significant determiner but it is no longer considered the be-all and end-all. Instead a lot more focus – at least in psychology circles and increasingly in education too – is now placed on cultivating personality characteristics and emotional intelligence. With this new understanding, we can see why the lazy genius with an IQ of 140 will do less in his life than the diligent and determined so-and-so with an IQ of 120. This topic is explored in detail in Paul Tough's 2012 book How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character.
So how does character relate to introversion? Well, in line with the finding that introverts are better able to delay gratification than their extroverted peers, they are also more persistent and resilient in the face of challenges. Because they are less focussed on the reward at the end of solving a problem or working on a project, but instead value more the process of the work or activity, they are less likely to abandon it when they hit roadblocks than someone who craves immediate gratification.
How to raise an Orchid child
As we've seen, because of their highly reactive nervous systems (see Part II for details), a sensitive child tends to have a strong social conscience, be better able to empathise with other people (and animals), and to 'reform' if they've made a mistake or done something they know they shouldn't have.
To encourage these virtuous qualities in a highly reactive child, however, requires a stable, nurturing environment. High reactive children are otherwise more prone than their low reactive peers of becoming depressed and guilt-ridden.
Here Cain mentions David Dobbs' 'Orchid Hypothesis'. The idea is that high reactive children are like orchids who wilt easily in suboptimal conditions but can otherwise bloom and thrive under the right conditions. In other words, these children tend to have an exaggerated response to both bad and good environments. In contrast are children who are more like 'dandelions' as they are better able to adapt to a variety of environments.
Citing one prominent proponent of the Orchid Hypothesis, Jay Belsky, Cain writes that an ideal parent to a high reactive child is someone who “can read your cues and respect your individuality; is warm and firm in placing demands on you without being harsh or hostile; promotes curiosity, academic achievement, delayed gratification, and self-control; and is not harsh, neglectful, or inconsistent.”
Although this is good advice for all parents, it is essential to raising a high reactive kid.
Needless to say, the question of parenting is also crucial when it comes to raising fearless low reactive children. These children who are not so easily fazed by novel situations, if brought up in a nurturing environment and given the opportunity to channel their fearless, bold energy into productive activities such as performance, sport and leadership, can shine like the Richard Bransons of the world. If, however, they are raised in challenging environments without consistent adult care and good role models, they could well be headed for a life of antisocial behaviour and crime.
This is certainly a thought I had about an 11-year-old girl I recently mentored on a youth project. The girl has an unmistakable leadership streak and fierce charisma. However, she rejects almost all authority, and is unaffected by punishments such as 'time out'. To combat this, the project leader and I decided to give her activities that we felt would especially interest her, such as the opportunity to write a short script and then act it out with some of the other young participants in the programme. This turned out to be a pretty good idea as the activity played to her strengths and interests and kept her out of trouble (for a day, at least).
Cain dedicates an entire chapter on raising introverted children. Even if you don't have kids, it makes for interesting reading just to see how different children develop in different ways depending on a complex mix of genetic endowment and the home environment. You'll then come to appreciate the immense power and responsibility that parents and caregivers have in shaping the lives of their brood.
Moral of the story: there seems to be significant differences between extroverts and introverts. Each have their own strengths and preferences, and for the world to function more optimally, whether in the workplace or at home, both personality types need to be given their moment to shine. To balance the loud with the quiet.
