And of course after all my hostility, I do appreciate some of insight offered by the Meyers Briggs assessment I had to take for a class the other day. It turns out I tested INFP rather than INTP, which is how I’ve tested before, but I came up borderline and I insist that I’m genuinely both, depending on context, and not one or the other as the administrator insisted must be the case. And that at least shows the limitations of the whole concept. It’s a compression of a complex system into four little letters and you can’t do that without throwing away information. Doing that to people (and then taking it seriously) pisses me off. And if you’re going to do it, at least write questions that aren’t #$%@ing nonsensical! (The previous post is user-level limited ’cause of the embarrassing amount of cursing in it.)
But yes, it does still provide some useful insight; I just can’t accept it as a voice of authority as some people seem to. More like a voice of a peer saying “hey this is cool, check this out.” I’m like, “Yeah, that’s kinda cool. Got some problems here and there, but pretty nifty!”
Anyway, today a metafilter post directed me to this interview of a fellow who wrote a short piece back in 2003 called Caring For Your Introvert, which has turned out to be enormously popular. It’s entertaining and cheeky, and there are definitely some things I agree with or identify with in there. Such as: “The only thing a true introvert dislikes more than talking about himself is repeating himself.” Heh. The kids I teach should be familiar with that one.
Other things I don’t identify with so much.
I don’t find people tiring, in general, I just rarely have anything I think is worthwhile to say. And then when I do say something, if I get a disinterested response, I stop talking. I do place a high value on the quality of interaction, and expect the same from other people. That probably makes me unfairly annoyed at people who don’t have a simliar expectation. I don’t take well to being cut off mid-sentence due to being ignored in “task-based” interaction, where I feel I have something valuable to add. When I say something, it’s ’cause I bloody well think it will be worth your while to hear it!*
Also I’m fine with dumb banter in non-task-based interaction. Kinda like this blog. But then it’s more like dance or play, and of course I prefer a compatible partner there, too. Similar backgrounds, interests, wit and speed, etc. Likes to dance to the same kind of music, as it were.
I like hanging out in groups of three or more and I do enjoy parties, to an extent. It’s actually the group of two — me and someone else — in which I feel the most “brain pressure,” as the author calls it. Depending on who the other is, of course. This can make dating in the traditional sense unfortunately a lot more work than it should be.
Also, you can take his antagonistic tone towards extroverts as tongue-in-cheek or not, but I wouldn’t expect any special treatment from extroverts, or special understanding. I take it as a personal challenge to be more balanced on the introvert-extrovert scale so I can screw with the MBTI there, too. It’s all about choice to me: being what you choose to be as appropriate. That’s freedom. Other people aren’t my responsibility.
Finally, grouping extroverts together and evaluating their character as a group is as bad as calling all introverts “depressed.” You can have thoughtless and obnoxious extroverts, but you can also have warm, fun extroverts who might actually have empathetic tendencies for introverts.**
See, now how is all of this subtlety captured by the letters I and E? It’s not.
* Okay:
usually. And foot-in-mouth moments aside, of course.
I’m reminded also that I’ve found myself getting seriously annoyed at people who don’t notice other peoples’ personal space or even existence. I’m pretty observant of other folks’ line of action and will get out of the way, at, say, a supermarket. People who are oblivious to my existence and don’t respect my personal space annoy the crap out of me.
** Again I’m increasingly convinced that thoughtlessness or assholeness is not correlated to any other “intrinsic” trait whatsoever: race, religion … Jungian type … this should be obvious but somehow it seems not to be.