Why Introverts Are Misunderstood

As I learned what it means to be an introvert, I found myself wondering why introverts are misunderstood. Since introverts comprise roughly half the population, why is it that we feel marginalized? Why are extroverts often treated as “normal” while introverts can be treated as odd or somehow inferior? I have a few theories as to why this might be, and the sad truth of the matter is…

It’s natural. It’s natural, and it could very well always be this way. Hopefully there will be improvement – and I am already seeing improvement, what with books on the subject sold in mass markets such as Target, and TED talks being produced about introverts) – but I believe it is a conundrum that will always be an issue to some degree. This isn’t pessimism, it’s a realistic look at our nature.

Extroverts are louder. I do not mean that as an insult, but as a simple matter of fact. While the extrovert is more prone to speaking, the introvert is more inclined to listen, or at the least less inclined to talk as much. So as a whole, the extroverts say more, talk more, and thus are heard more, in a sense leaving the introverts in the dust. The internet has been changing this dynamic in a way nothing else could (for example, see this very blog), but away from technology, in a more direct setting, still the extroverts appear dominant. And why do the introverts get pushed aside? Because we do not interrupt as much, because we are less insistent, because we do not care to contribute to the incessant din that bombards us at every turn; we are more interested in listening than talking, . By our very nature, introverts are less seen and less heard, and thus become relegated to some sort of inferior state of being by sheer virtue of being drowned out.

Furthermore, we see successful people in the spotlight and idolize them, which inadvertently leads us to shunning that which isn’t like them. We worship extroverts, making them an ideal, thus making extroversion ideal. The celebrities, the athletes, the rock stars, the people who are always the center of attention and love it. We admire these people and raise them up as some sort of image of perfection, completely overlooking the positive traits others have that prevent them from the spotlight. Our society does not praise authors the way they do other celebrities (why aren’t Stephen and Tabitha King known as the power writing couple Stevitha?). America does not laud mathematical and computer programming skills the way they do guitar prowess and singing (imagine how different our society would be if we did!). As long as the extroverted are the ones who get the majority of the attention– and they love the attention the way the introverted often do not, so I fear this will always be the case– then I feel extroversion will always be elevated as superior, or at least somehow preferable.

Introverts and extroverts alike both desire and require social interaction. But on average, extroverts tend to lean toward more socializing more often, while introverts favor quality over quantity. Since humans are social beings, desiring less socialization (and at times, longing for no social interaction) can understandably be seen as contradictory, aberrant behavior. If practiced in a healthy manner, this is hardly aberrant, but it is understandable where that presumption might come from.

The average introvert does not like the spotlight, does not want attention. Being the center of attention can be overwhelming for an introvert. Even being noticed can often be more than we desire. This makes it difficult– unlikely, even – that we will ever fully overcome the great divide, but we can make great strives toward bridging that gap.

We don’t want to expend our energy on small talk, on interacting with people we will probably never talk to again; we want to act with purpose, and have conversations that will matter, affecting one or more of the people involved in some significant way. This can mean being selective about when we talk, and who we talk to, again leaving us unnoticed and a lesser known part of events. But an introvert who only says a few words in a large group might steer the conversation far more than a group of extroverts talking, or can get more personal more easily, and thus leave a greater impression on events than anyone might really know.

In the end, introverts are not seen as much as extroverts, putting extroverts in the spotlight and disproportionately tilting the scales in their favor. In truth, the scales are balanced, but introverts go unnoticed so often that this can be difficult to perceive.

What an Introvert is Not

What an Introvert is NOT

In the process of trying to explain what an introvert is, it would be a good idea for us to go over what an introvert is not. My primary intention in writing this blog is to overcome misconceptions of introverts, because they frequently lead to hurtful (but often well-intentioned) statements born of ignorance.

As I outlined in my previous post, What is an Introvert?, the term introvert is a way of describing how a person functions. This can be extremely diverse, allowing for no uniform description. Nevertheless, many stereotypes persist, painting introverts in an unnecessarily negative light. Many people look upon introverts as anti-social, loners, awkward, depressed, damaged, deprived, selfish, weird, abnormal, and so on. While any one of these are certainly possible for an introvert, it isn’t necessarily the case that any of them will apply.

Unfortunately, the common definition of Introvert perpetuates many of these misconceptions. Google’s definition, for example:

Google’s outdated definition of Introvert, consistent with other dictionaries, but inconsistent with modern psychology’s use of the word.

“A shy, reticent, and typically self-centered person.”

Honestly, I find that definition quite offensive. It suggests a selfishness that would hardly be the case, and for me personally, I don’t fit either shy or reticent, yet I readily describe myself as introvert.

To be fair, many different places have a similar definition. In some cases, it is described as “inward focused,” which I believe to be a more accurate description. But in definitions pulled from many sources, selfishness and being self-centered play a common role. Much of this is likely due to the origin of the word (coined by Carl Jung, a psychologist), where introversion and selfishness were fairly synonymous. Nowadays, psychology doesn’t use it this way at all (at least, not that I could find), but still the older, antiquated definition persists. This is a poor definition, though, as introverts are as diverse as anyone. To point, two of the most selfless people I know are introverts, and some of the most selfish people I know are extroverts. This definition is clearly inaccurate and should be retired in favor of a more modern one, something that focuses on function rather than morality of ethics of a personality type.

Now there certainly can be a greater tendency toward certain negative traits as a result of being introverted. An introvert is more likely to be reticent (inclined to be uncommunicative or unwilling to express themselves) than an extrovert, but that is not a universal truth about all introverts, and extroverts can experience this as well. Likewise, introverts can be more prone to isolating themselves, to being anti-social, or socially awkward, or to not expressing themselves frequently enough. But a greater propensity towards such problems does not mean they must be present, and it does not mean people of a different disposition can not deal with the same issues.

Inversely, extroverts also have their own set of problems that they will be more prone to, but are no more universal than those of the introvert. Extroverts are more likely to interrupt someone while in conversation than an introvert, but introverts can do it as well, and many extroverts are quite deft at waiting for their chance to speak. While introverts might have a greater tendency to withdraw from the world and isolate themselves from others, extroverts can have a greater tendency to busy themselves in the world and isolate themselves from themselves by constantly being with others. Both have their unhealthy tendencies they are more inclined toward, but to run the point into the ground, they are hardly universal.

I am an introvert, but I don’t feel I am very shy anymore. I am certainly not anti-social. I am unafraid to share my ideas, or even be open about my thoughts and feelings. I don’t want to hide anything anymore. I readily put myself out in the open to be observed and scrutinized, and I am unafraid. I actively seek to help those that I love, including people I don’t know very well, with no thought to what I might receive in return. I don’t fit Google’s definition of introvert (not to pick on Google; that is a woefully standard definition), but functionally, I am anything but extroverted.

I think it’s high time we begin eradicating the negative connotations from the word introvert and begin seeing it for what it is: a way of identify the way a person functions, in order that we might better understand one another.

By the way, this isn’t just me. I know plenty of other people feel the same way as I do. For another introvert’s musings and self-reflection, check out Viel’s blog post on being an introvert, and check out the book she recommends, “The Introvert Advantage” by Marti Olsen Laney, Psy.D. I haven’t read it yet, but I definitely plan on doing so.