Introverts Have NOT Taken Over the World – II
Sigh. Another fallacious, offensive article about the supposed ascendancy of introvert behavior, post-pandemic.
An article in New Humanist, a UK magazine published by The Rationalist Association, announces in its headline “The Introverts Are Winning.” Its arguments differ from those in a Bloomberg article I previously critiqued, but with a similar main point: Because of lingering changes spurred by the pandemic, society has supposedly shifted from an extroverted pattern to an introverted one, with terrible implications for mental health and the well-being of society as a whole.
Let’s consider this article’s contentions one by one.
First, with its language of “winning,” the headline implies some kind of contest or competition between extroverts and introverts. Dramatic declarations of an unexpected winner might grab attention in today’s media environment, but are people with different personality inclinations really trying to prevail over one another? The introverts I know just want to be given space to be who we are. We’re not out to turn society upside down or to overrule extroverts in some way. The “winning” metaphor comes from a mindset that I don’t share.
Second, the author complains that it’s now harder for extroverts like herself to get friends out of the house for a pub crawl, a coffee at a sidewalk café or a shared meal at a restaurant. Homebodies have become the norm, unfortunately, according to her. She doesn’t provide convincing evidence backing that up. But in any case, people who like to spend time at home aren’t necessarily introverts. Some homes are as buzzing and full of social interaction as beehives! And introverts certainly enjoy going out – to hike nature trails, to window shop, to get together in a non-noisy place with people who are important to us. There are a zillion other possible reasons why the author has trouble with her invitations.
Third, she portrays introverts as fearful and unadventurous. She approvingly cites French thinker Pascal Bruckner as stating that “Our lives feel more dangerous than they once did, and we have collectively decided to deal with it by hiding out in our living rooms, safe and cozy in our cocoons.” In contrast to this impulse for a so-called stunted, fettered, incarcerated and shriveled life, Bruckner proclaims that “life means excess and profligacy or it ceases to be life.” At this I wrote “Wow” in my printout of the article. Only a spirit of devil-may-care exuberance deserves to be considered living? I strongly disagree, thinking especially of hardworking, visionary, risk-taking introverts I have profiled, including Charles Darwin, Marie Curie, Beatrix Potter, Florence Nightingale and Henry David Thoreau, none of whom personify “excess and profligacy.”
Fourth, she argues that dealing with people problems in person is essential for building resilience. This too is nonsense. When Newton and Einstein butted their heads alone against the mysteries of the universe and kept on trying, that counts as resilience. Peter Matthiessen trekking in the Himalayas through deep snow day after day and Richard Byrd struggling to survive during long months alone in Antarctica likewise exhibited resilience.
Last, the author claims that a healthy economy requires us to leave our houses and socialize. Staying home and ordering online, she charges, is selfish. Yet surely for every Main Street shop or restaurant that teeters on the edge of bankruptcy, other small businesses are meeting new needs or old needs in new ways. In effect, she exhorts introverts to contribute behaviorally and financially to the lifestyle she prefers.
So much twisted thinking! I hope I’ve unraveled at least some of this author’s mistakes for you.