No, You Are Not An Introvert

_{source: Huffington Post}

Being an Introvert or an Extrovert has to do with age, time and place and not about some intrinsic quality about ourselves. Our ass being glued on a chair, playing games days on end does not suggest introversion. Finding ourselves in college and being more outgoing in parties does not suggest extroversion. Situations enable a cocktail of behaviors, not the other way around.

No single person is either an introvert or an extrovert. No one can safely assume how much extroversion or introversion is adequate to safely label someone as such. Psychology, much like with everything else it mumbles about, assumes that the "average" behavior is the "normal" one. This hypothesis is erroneous. What is "average" when it comes to something as complex and dynamic as human behavior, is a statistical illusion. No single person exists in that spectrum. The entire narrative of introversion/extroversion is based on an abstract idea that has no basis to reality nor can it be scientifically falsified.

Technology, much like culture, has molded our behavior in ways we can hardly fathom. When we barricade ourselves and play games in front of the computer while chatting away in a group, we are still sociable. In other words, based on the proponents of this over-simplistic archaic theory, we are being extroverted while being introverted. It is nonsensical.

Chatting online is yet another form of communication. Conservative critics might argue that it is not a "genuine" one. This is though an emotional response, not an analytical evaluation. Even so, if one dares to delve into that spectrum, all forms of communication can subjectively have negative and positive aspects. None is truly authentic or valid. In much the same way, speaking on the telephone, texting or mailing letters still counts as an equally valid form of communicating. Communication, much like language, evolves. We cannot restrict ourselves into past definitions of communication in order to define our roles of introversion and extroversion. This is not only unscientific but also intellectually dishonest. Imagine for example early homosapiens that used mostly vowel based languages judging a modern culture for "spoiling" it with "too many" consonants.

The jungian narrative suggests that introverts get their energy from within themselves while extroverts get it from those around them. This is a false assumption since we are all social animals that need each other to survive. No matter who you are, you still need other human beings to get motivated. You might not have to talk or interact with them as much but surely you will use their tools and accomplishments (such as software and hardware) in order to give meaning to your own life. Your energy, whatever than means, still comes from others around you.

People like to pride themselves nowadays for being introverts — meaning that they are closed to themselves. Apparently this brings a level of self loathing into play since more and more people claim that nobody understands them. We forget that being misunderstood is rather something inevitable in a world that is governed by technology. Our devices redefine the way we communicate. Before the internet people used to get more or less the same kind of information and thus it was easier to relate to each other. Today, we are all using multiple sources of webbed information. Their combination creates extremely unique individuals that do not abide to generic forms or identity such as those who were previously palpated by religion, culture and politics. Evidently everyone feels more alienated. This is merely the result for being an individual.

There is no need to label onself with the epithet of introversion for such an act degrades the individual into a repackaged pop-psychology meme. We all need to belong somewhere and strive to define ourselves, but choosing such epithets is not the way to go. Admittedly, it is challenging to live in the communication revolution and we all might be a little confused. Even so, this should motivate us to be more vigilant with how we are defined rather than being so easily labeled.