Archive for March, 2010

Do you like to be alone? You are not alone.

 | 

Let me be blunt: I’m a realist. I know that this blog is most likely never going to be read by more than a handful of people, though sometimes I would like it to be. Yet I feel that adding one more introvert perspective to the Internet could potentially make all the difference in the world to one person, and that alone makes posting this worthwhile.

I may not be that big on the human race as a whole, but I can be quite the fan of the individual.


It might has well have been yesterday.

On the first day on the playground in kindergarten, I found a quarter. A bicentennial quarter, in fact, by the easternmost set of swings. From then all the way through sixth grade, if we were allowed outside, that’s what I did just about every day: scour the playground in search of money, most often with one other person — that changed four times throughout the six years; I could still give you their names — who would join me. If you asked me then (yes, even as a five- or six-year-old), I would have told you I did it because it was profitable. It’s not that I didn’t enjoy the swings or the slide, nor is it that I didn’t want to be friends or play with my classmates… well, at least some of them. I truly enjoyed spending my time walking around the playground, and while it was nice having a little extra change for candy or baseball cards, I didn’t mind it much even on the days I didn’t find anything.

That was especially true the older I became, because I found I liked most of my schoolmates less and less. By the time I made it to middle school, there were two or three people I hung out with most of the time and maybe a total of seven or eight I liked enough to consider friends, but most everyone else I could take or leave, mainly leave. Once I got home, I made a beeline to my room. Not necessarily because I wanted to get a quick start on my homework, but because I wanted to be alone. It’s worth mentioning there were three people I liked hanging out with outside of school — a friend and two cousins about my age. The difference was that while I wouldn’t (and didn’t) have wanted to spend much more than the times at school with the friends there, I actually enjoyed spending whole days with them. They were the first people since third grade that I didn’t quickly run out of interest in being around them.

And that’s what made high school so strange. It was the first time where I had a true large group of friends. It was the first time that, even beyond them, I knew more than a handful of people I can truly say I liked and feel I could be more myself around. And, oddly, it was the first time I began to understand that I needed time away from other people, though I still didn’t quite get why… or how much.

College was somewhat different. I also had a surprisingly large number of friends in my eyes, but I was starting to feel that there were only a few people I could relate to and wanted to be around for any extended amount of time; in other words, I was coming to the realization I was an introvert. It was also about the same time I had learned of the concept of introversion itself.

One of the reasons I majored in psychology was because I had always felt — or had been lead to believe — there was something wrong with me. Whether I wasn’t social because I was quirky or whether I was quirky because I wasn’t social, it was evident to certain others that something was a bit off. Psychology may not have been the most useful major in my life as far as a career, but learning that there was an actual term for someone who preferred smaller groups and solitude to parties and crowds and that it was far from rare made me feel a lot better about myself.

However, it would still take another five years before I truly began to feel comfortable in my skin. And it was a bit longer still when I took the Myers-Briggs Personality Inventory and came to a realization I wish I had much, much sooner.

By that time, I knew that most people wore me out, but because I had the friends like I had in high school and the cousins/friend trio from my early adolescence, I hadn’t quite understood that tiring of others’ company was typical of introverts or of me.

Allow me to state that differently: I understood that being around other people was draining, and I would reach the point of needing solitude sooner or later. Yet I was under the impression there were exceptions, however uncommon they might have been. I realize now that while my patience meter may drain at different speeds for different people and different reasons, given constant exposure to someone — anyone — it will eventually run out, and it will be almost invariably sooner rather than later.

I can relate to this “Fart Party” comic (which has nothing to do with parties or actual farts, though Ms. Wentz does seem to be fond of the word “fart” itself) much like the number of other introverts who have come across it. However, I go through my cycles of desperately needing solitude and wanting company much quicker. (I only think I’ve lost one relationship due to that, but I can’t even say for certain I did.)

I’ll get tired of many people within hours (and much quicker still in lots of cases), most by the end of the day, and everyone in two or three days. However after recharging, I’m ready to hang out again, at least for a while, and then the cycle starts again.

Occasionally, that seventh panel in the comic applies and I crave company or I’ll find those rare people I feel an almost instant bond with. That bugs me for three reasons: I don’t want to scare the person away by seeming clingy or wanting, I don’t want to be clingy or wanting, and the fact it is inevitable that initial or renewed joy that person brings will eventually wear off or drop off dramatically, though I might not be quite sure when. The last part in particular is difficult to explain, and sometimes even more so to ignore.

Ms. Wentz’s “happy medium” is a dog in the comic (but a cat in real life; see the bio), but that wouldn’t work for me; most pets would annoy me just like people do with the “bonus” of being solely responsible for their care. If I did find a pet I truly liked, I would have a difficult time handling the end of its life. Hence, despite my own partial misanthropism, I prefer human interaction to that of animals. And if you can grasp the concept of being “together alone”, you’ll get a sense of what I consider an ideal companion.

I also agree with Jonathan Rauch and Mary Carpenter’s perspectives: Most extroverts just don’t get it. I might want company, but I don’t want just anyone’s company. I might want to go out sometimes, but not just to go out.

And believe or not, introverts don’t want to shun all outside human contact. We’ll come out to a social gathering every once in a while, and for those precious few we feel particularly close to, we’ll suffer through things we normally would rather not, like going to the mall or clubbing (Note: do not ask me to do the last one; I’ll hate you), but then we’ll disappear for a while behind our books, in front of our chosen screens or to gather our thoughts.

So, to those extroverts, allow me to tell you: When we delve into our own worlds, it’s not personal. Really. And chances are, we’re doing just fine, or at least no worse than normal. We’ll come back to you when we’re ready. Okay? Thanks. Now, if you’ll excuse us….

  

Impressed? Absolutely. Grateful? Not so much.

 | 

I would like to be an atheist. But I can’t.

The reason is that I can’t look at what I see — animals, plants, the Earth, outer space — and imagine that all of it came from an immense concentration of mass and matter that came from nowhere. Granted, the idea that everything was created by any number of supernatural beings that would have had to have emerged from that same nowhere is also preposterously ridiculous in my mind, but slightly less than everything working so well without planning.

That is, however, where I get off the creationist/creation “science” thought train. That I believe that a creative force is slightly more likely than not does not mean I am ready to swallow dogma on how to live my life or what my supposed “purpose” on this planet is. In fact, that belief in Grand Creation has made me less likely to ever accept deity-centered religion again, though I don’t see myself becoming a Buddhist any time soon either.

For whatever it’s worth, I would consider my beliefs a combination of dystheism and agnostic theism. Here’s why.

Atheism, as you know, means “a belief in no God”. Many atheists I have met, heard or read argue that in light of the bare reality they see, the God of the Bible, the “all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful and benevolent” God, cannot possibly exist. I agree. However, many atheists go on to then conclude there is no God. I, on the other hand, simply believe that particular image of God cannot exist.

I used to be a deist, believing in a distant creator (or consortium of creators; I saw no reason to say there was only one) who left it for humanity to discover how the world works. That changed one night about a year ago. As I was laying in bed, I realized that if humanity has the capacity to figure out Creation, to discover why the cosmos works the way it does, to rid the world of disease and famine, it would have had to have been placed there by some Creator. That in turn means that self-same Entity would have had the ability not to have allowed people to feel sorrow and suffer, but for whatever reason, chose to anyway.

Furthermore, that would mean if there was exactly one Entity responsible for Creation, as Judaism, Christianity and Islam would have you believe, He would have to be responsible for everything, since by their beliefs, He is omnipotent. If He is also omniscient as they claim, then he would, by definition, already know the fate of mankind. So all of mankind’s “sins” all the way back to the “Original Sin” of Adam and Eve, would have to have been Foreseen. All of His rules and commandments could have easily been rooted in human nature, yet most believers will readily tell you about man’s capacity to disobey God. God could have turned down the hormones in humanity, easily made pigs “clean” (or not created them at all), or given humanity a definite idea which religion (and which strain within the religion) to follow. In other words, the Abrahamic God seems to want worshipers to use their free will — the free will He gave them but not use it. If man “fell” eating off The Tree of Life Knowledge, he was destined to fall.

To put that another way, if God is either all-powerful or all-knowing, let alone both, he cannot possibly be completely benevolent.

However, atheism and monotheism are not the only two alternatives. I could perhaps accept, for example, that other deities were causing humans the troubles they face and a “merciful” God was saving to help humanity from the suffering more malevolent Beings were causing or leading humans toward.

If there were multiple gods of comparable power ruling the Universe, I would have a lot less trouble believing that (at least) one of them was on humanity’s side, saving people from the malevolence of other deities. If Christianity was a henotheistic religion or even a religion based on monolatry rather than being purely monotheistic, I would have a lot less trouble believing many of the things Christians and others of Abrahamic faiths claim their representation of God is. Unfortunately, the insistence that the Devil/Satan/Lucifer/Beelzebub/etc. is no more than at best a (very powerful) fallen angel eliminates that possibility. I’d argue it makes it worse: If God has the power to eliminate the Devil and help his supposedly precious humans, why doesn’t He do it? If the answer is “it’s part of His plan”, then humans are little more than some supernatural being’s playthings. (If you get comfort from the belief  “God is in control”, very well; just don’t expect me to.)

I could go on, but I think my point is clear: If there is one and only one Supreme Being with all other supernatural entities being less powerful, dystheism (and perhaps something close to, but not exactly, misotheism) is my only logical recourse. If there are multiple deities, then humanity may be lucky enough to have at least one that could be considered wholly good… but not necessarily.

It honestly makes me somewhat happy and relieved I don’t have any set notion on the origins of existence, especially given some of the tenets of the faiths that are out there.

But I really wish I could be an atheist.

  

In light of recent events (or, But I repeat myself…)

 | 

There are a couple of things I find absolutely amazing.

The first is that Washington politicians and political party adherents seem to think that earning slight majorities in the popular vote is a “mandate” for their policies.

To start with, if you get, say, 53% of the vote, that means 47% did not vote for you.

It isn’t even that simple. The way that the political system is set up, only Democrats and Republicans are easily seen and heard in elections, with alternate party candidates all but destined to be “spoilers” at best but, most likely, mere afterthoughts. Therefore, many people who do choose to vote may simply be doing so to throw the other party out or otherwise are selecting between what they see as the lesser of two evils.

Of course, in most elections, about half of people who are of voting age don’t vote. (Even the previous election, heralded as historic and crucial and a victory for the people and so on, failed to attract 40% of those eligible to vote.) So, whether it is apathy, disenchantment or whatever, well over one hundred million people don’t think much of what either (or any) candidate is offering them, therefore I would be quite hesitant to include them as anyone’s support. Hence, that means the “majority” becomes a plurality… of people essentially choosing “none of the above”.

Those might the type of numbers you’d choose a music superstar contest winner with, but the laws, regulations and policies of a country?

The second troublesome thing is that the populace, for the most part, is just fine with the first. Sure, Republicans/conservatives may be putting up a stink now about national health care, but when Bush 43 was in office, they were the ones shouting “He’s the President” at anyone who deigned to argue against the “War on Terror” and calling their opponents “traitors” and linking them with “hate” (”comforting the enemy” then, “racist hillbillies” now). And their “mandate” in 2004 was even weaker than Obama’s.

I would find all of this very amusing if it weren’t so sad. Well, that and if the whims of Washington didn’t directly affect all of us.

  

An open letter to males everywhere

 | 

As Ben Roethlisberger has apparently learned little either from Letterman, Governor Sanford or Tiger or even his own previous experience, I offer a reminder and a humble piece of advice for, well, pretty much all guys. It doesn’t matter what your orientation is; if you have gone through puberty, this applies to you.

Despite what females may think about us, the male mind *can* be a complex thing. But they are right in one thing: For most, if not just about every man, it can get shamefully — or shamelessly — simplistic.

I’m not sure if many of us quite realize when it’s happening as it’s happening, but there’s no mistaking it once the libido takes over. Situations that you would normally see as some combination of stupid, lame and impossible when you’re thinking clearly somehow seem plausible and possibly great. (The examples vary from man to man, but I’m sure you know what I’m talking about, so you know what yours are.)

So, if you’re considering whether or not you should try to hook up tonight, date someone, find yourself a mistress (or a dozen) or even go out to a club to hit on college women more than half a decade after you left campus, you might want to do yourself a favor. It might save you some trouble.

Find a magazine, a video or a website. Lock the door. And have some “alone” time.*

Afterwards, reconsider what you were thinking about doing before. If it still seems like a good idea, then it probably is. And if it’s not such a good one but you still want to do it, then maybe you’ll manage a little smarter about what you’re doing.


*If you have any religious objections to my suggestion, then, well, God help you. I don’t know how you’re supposed to survive if you aren’t supposed to have sex outside marriage or take care of it yourself.