Nature of Introversion

I've always considered myself somewhat of an introvert. If the Myers-Brigg assessments can be trusted, I've been anywhere between 80%-100% introverted on all of the assessments save the most recent one, which, if the MyType application in Facebook is too be believed, then I am hardly an introvert, but somewhere on the border between introversion and extroversion, leaning ever so slightly towards the side of introversion. One of my greatest shortcomings is that I can be something of recluse, I easily, and readily, and often subconsciously alienate myself from other people and various social situations. I still do sometimes. It's something that I have been working on extensively for the better part of the last 5-6 years. However, I am still more inclined to believe I am a major introvert as opposed to the fact that I have changed drastically. Of course, then that comes to the question of what is the nature of introversion and extroversion, which I hope that some of my theorizing may illuminate the perspective by which I view things.

I believe that Myers-Brigg falls somewhat short in that it attempts to assess personality via simple behavioral patterns (I know I likely oversimplify it, but that is how I see it), and while generally an accurate measure, it has by my experience, not really captured the essence of who we really are. It's a quantitative approach at something that is better measured qualitatively. Not to say that Myers-Brigg is completely invalid, however, I believe that relying on it alone would be very poor judgment of any person's character. While introversion and extroversion are measured very much on a behavioral standpoint, I believe that there has been a large misconception of equating such with what I will simply call social competency. The general premise being that extroverts are naturally more socially adept than their introverted counterparts. To some extent this is true, but however, I believe that the nature of introversion and extroversion are not the proficiency with which one handles a social situation.

I speak more from experience than from any intensive study of the matter, but I know many people who have been somewhat surprised that I claim to be as introverted as I am, but I personally have no doubts regarding my own introversion. I am somewhat shy and reserved, but I have no qualms about speaking in public, about taking initiative, about being around people, about being the center of attention, I however, still consider myself extremely introverted. I believe introversion to be a matter of preference rather than ability. I think that social grace (at least to the extent of being around many people and carrying on a conversation) is like a language that can be learned, it comes more naturally to the extroverts than to introverts. That is not to say that introverts cannot be experts in the language, but they must work that much harder to express themselves thus. My primary language is English, I am very comfortable in almost any sort of exposition so long as it is in English, however, when you move the language to Chinese, a language I can speak fluently but am less proficient in, it becomes a greater chore and requires much greater effort for me to express myself with the same effectiveness as I would in English. Likewise (I can only speak for introversion as I am not an extrovert), an introverted person would require that much more effort to be a more "social" person. Not to say that he/she would not be able to carry himself/herself perfectly fine in a more "social" environment but that it would simply require more effort and would be more taxing (as I've found) both mentally and physically. Some of the most socially adept people I know are actually introverted. I just believe that many of them (introverts) do not actively practice this "language" and thus the correlation is created, whereas extroverts continually put themselves in said situation and are very much comfortable and at ease given the circumstances.

So is there an application to all of this? For one, the tried and true rule of not being able to judge anyone or anything simply on appearances. Additionally, I think for perhaps friends and family and loved ones understanding perhaps that though they appear to be handling themselves well in a social situation it may be more taxing than it appears. It's hard to be conscious about that, but now we know, and at the very least it's something. It requires a lot of energy for an introvert to be around people, especially for a long period of time. Not to say they don't get lonely and can live without company indefinitely, but understanding that they recharge by taking a break from people for a little bit. It's not that they don't like it, it's just that it requires more energy from them than it does of the extroverts. When an athlete stops to rest between games, it's not because he/she hates the sport, the athlete is just tired.

Current Reads

Well, I've been going through books fairly rapidly recently, and I thought, why not up and discuss what I like and dislike about them here, in the event anyone was looking for a good read. So here goes:

Recently Read:

The Name of the Wind
Patrick Rothfuss

So I finished this pretty recently, and I had read online that it was supposed to be like one of the best books ever. Apparently the internet and I have some differing opinions on what is considered excellence in the realm of fantasy writing. Rothfuss does create a very interesting world and all, however, I believe that there are better things to be had. The bulk of the novel entails a man recalling a life and something of a legacy that he left behind. I won't say more for risk of spoiling the story, it's an interesting story, however, it's not quite the thing that I really look for. The protagonist tends towards those that are incredibly lucky and/or overly capable to do anything and everything that is set before him. The narrative is good, it maintains a good flow, however, it's nothing that I would go out of my way for. Likely something I would finish in terms of the story and the other books in the forthcoming series, however, I wouldn't consider it a must have in your library.

The Obsidian Chronicles
Dragon Weather
Dragon Society
Dragon Venom
Lawrence Watt-Evans

I recently finished this sereis and have to say, that Watt-Evans is one of the more pleasant finds I've come across recently, his narrative and story development are interesting. The worlds that he builds, in this case, specifically the world known as the Lands of Man, are believable and he wanders with some intriguing ideas as to what a fantastical world should look like and operate. I thoroughly enjoyed this series, again, something of a quick read, not one to keep through the years in your collection.

Annals of the Chosen
The Wizard Lord
The Ninth Talisman
Lawrence Watt-Evans

I think this is the first series of Watt-Evans that I stumbled upon, or rather I stumbled upon The Wizard Lord specifically. It's an interesting concept and a fun story to read through, despite the one-dimensionality of almost all of the characters. There are more interesting ideas to be had here, Watt-Evans I believe is one of the more imaginative authors I've come across recently.

Currently Reading:
The Jackal of Nar
John Marco

The story seemed interesting enough through the first half of the novel. Now I'm slogging through the second half, and honestly, my assessment of the novel continues to drop. It's not a bad write, and I'm hoping that his other works are a little more original. To me it's like a 750 page written remake of the musical Ms. Saigon in a fantasy world, and it's losing me by the page.

The Man: Who Really Makes the Rules?

I'm not sure why, but I've been pondering these things more and more, specifically the idea of who we answer to on a moral level. The idea of whether or not there is such a thing as morality and such, and where it comes from, how our ethics are determined, etc... I'm not really here to discuss the existence of morality and ethics and the like, however, I believe in order for us to really get anywhere with this sort of discourse, it is required that we take a slight line of tangency and first discuss the merits of morality, ethics, what they are, and how they affect us. So let us begin there.

Now there are several definitions of morality or morals that we can draw from, but for extensive purposes let us use the following:

"1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical"

Then what is ethics? Let's see, it is redundantly defined thus:

"the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group"

I'm not sure of any official definition, but for all extensive purposes, we will assume that the definitions above provided by www.dictionary.com are indeed sufficient for our needs. If I may, I am going to truncate the definition to a fragment of what is above mentioned, that fragment being, "the distinction between right and wrong".

I like trying to appeal to one's intuition because intuition is a very strong thing, granted, our intuitions may fail us, but mostly we don't want our intuitions to be wrong. Now, I believe that the concept of right and wrong, good and bad, in essence, morality is a very intuitive thing. Sure we need laws and regulation to tell us the specifics, such as what punishments are merited if you do something wrong, and what specifically is wrong about what you do, however, the feeling of whether or not that is right or wrong is inherently there without the regulation or legal trappings.

Inherently we make a decision determining what is right and what is wrong, what is better and what is worse, in every crossroad we come across, it'll be that sort of decision, even if we can't explain it, and it's just some "hunch". What I ultimately want to come across is that there is a certain degree of universality that is inherent in morals of mankind. If there is no objective standard, there is no perfection, there is no good, there is no bad, there is no right, there is no wrong. Middle Eastern terrorists have every right to slam planes into civilian buildings in the claim of Islamic Jihad, and they're not wrong, because if morals are man made then no one has any more of a legitimate claim on what is right than anyone else, save that perhaps one is stronger than the other. We trust the opinion of a doctor because he has studied the body and understands how it functions, not because he made up how the body functions. Likewise, if a man is to be an expert on morals it cannot really be because he "made it up", otherwise, we're all experts and we're all perfect people.

Absolutely Confusing

So, I've been thinking a lot about these random existential questions, and there comes to mind a question that I've been asked previously, and only recently did I recall how to work out the solution. The question being; "What is wrong with the statement; 'There are no absolutes except for the fact that there are no absolutes.'?" Which in appearance seems to be a legitimate statement. However, if we look at it from a logical standpoint, I think we can firmly diffuse the statement has being somewhat self-contradictory. For the sake of brevity, assume that when I use the phrase "there are no absolutes" that the exception is implicitly included.

Let's start with an easy statement. Let us for the sake of argument assume that the statement, "There are no frogs" is true. Therefore it logically follows that the statement "Kermit is a frog" would therefore be false. If we were then to assume that the following carries over into the realm of absolutes, then perhaps it works out. So if the statement; "There are no absolutes" is true, then therefore the statement; "This is an absolute" would be false. For the sake of simplicity I have used the idea of an absolute the same as frog, therefore the generic statement; "This is an absolute" is sort of a representation of any absolute that we can think of, such as; "gravity is absolute". The same logic carries over, right? Just as Kermit cannot be a frog in a world without frogs, "this" or gravity cannot be an absolute in a world without absolutes. Yes, but here is where the comparison falls apart; consider the nature of the word absolute, or rather just what does absolute mean? The statement; "there is no absolute", in short, can be summed up to mean that nothing is always true. If that's the case then, we come to something of a conundrum. In this "absolute-less" world, we know that the statement; "this is an absolute" is false, however, in a world without absolutes, does this mean that the statement can also be true? Here is where our logical mind cannot reconcile the statement. If the statement were to be true, at least sometimes, then that means that "this" is in fact an absolute, be it only sometimes, meaning that there are absolutes outside of there being no absolutes. However, if the statement were always false, then the statement "the statement 'this is an absolute' is false" is always, or absolutely, true, another absolute. By claiming an absolute, it logically defeats the premise that there are no absolutes, I really don't see a way it can be logically reconciled, therefore, I think the statement, "there are absolutes" must be true.

Humanism vs Intuition: The Moral Dilemma

In recent history the debate regarding the origin of the world has come and gone, and continues through today. I believe that in the current day, we have boiled all the arguments down to two possible options; complete random chance (that is to say evolution) or purposed creation (intelligent design). There has been heated arguments from either side regarding who in fact has the scientific backing to support his/her cause, and I could tout various scientific findings, theorems, and postulates and whatnot in favor of one or the other. However, the issue I want to address is more at the core of the debate. Some people might be indifferent, stating that we're here now, regardless of how we got here, however, I would argue that knowing where we come from is a crucial or at the very least largely insightful part of understanding and knowing who we (collectively as human beings) really are. However, I am not here to argue in terms of science, but of something I think more people can relate to, which is intuition, the intuition of morality, which I believe is insufficiently addressed by any proponent of evolution.

Firstly, I want to make something very clear. I believe that the idea of evolution is ultimately trying to sell to people the a lifestyle or worldview, which some have called humanism and which is a term that I will aptly adopt. Humanism, basically holds that we are here more or less because we "just happen" to have been created. By some series of mutations and adaptations life was both created and eventually evolved into us. Therefore, ultimately, the only accountability we ultimately have is to ourselves, while we may put ourselves in positions of accountability to others, the boss, the one who has the ultimate say, the be-all, end-all, is the individual. This sort of fits then with the common post-modern philosophy of relativism. The idea, that everything is not only permissible, but also right, each person has his/her own truth, and that each truth is equally truthful. Reality, in essence is defined by each individual. Ultimately, the phrase "there is no absolute truth except that there is no absolute truth".

Now, let us consider the implication of evolution. If we assume that we were indeed created by random chance, then obviously there is no higher order, words such as "good", "bad", "right", "wrong" are all somewhat arbitrary concepts that ultimately are subject to be relative to the definition of each individual. The simple fact that we were the product of dumb-luck, the remote possibility of the right chemicals mixing at the right time, concludes that we therefore are ultimately the bosses of ourselves. At the basic definitive level of things, there would be confusion. Who is to say that the sky is blue? Why can't it be pink? Why can't the sky be A# major 9th? I may think it's blue, but it would be perfectly alright for my neighbor to believe that it's minty. It's a silly example, but, in order for this idea of evolution to be feasible, would that not be what would ultimately happen? Yet, it is universally agreed that the sky is blue.

Moving to another example, let us consider the implications of morality within a hypothetically functional society built from evolved beings. Since we answer to no one but ourselves, ultimately, what my purpose in life is, is to do what makes me feel the best. As the theory of evolution must conclude, we're here "just because" and therefore there's nothing afterward, so logically we need to make the most of what's here now. There is no compunction for what we call "good behavior" or what is socially accepted because there is no benefit from it. Certainly I want to live a comfortable life within the rules and regulations of a social norm, where a government structure will protect me from lawlessness (all this being somewhat contradictory to relativism to begin with, but assuming), I have no reason to be altruistic or the sort. While I may be willing to give up some of my freedoms so that the ones I value may be protected as well, the question then remains, what about those things that we consider good outside the strictures of legality? What about true altruism? Other than a warm and fuzzy feeling, what's there to get out of it? Why bother?

We live in a world of absolutes, and quite simply, if there is a definition of "right" and "wrong" to be had, it must have been determined outside of humanity. I don't think that there is any intrinsic merit to what any man has to say. We trust people's expertise because they have painstakingly studied their area, we trust that astronomers know what they're talking about when they speak of the stars, that a botanist is knowledgeable in a discourse on plant life, a mathematician in the theorems and equations that make up what we know as math. Yet, did the astronomers make the stars? Did the botanist create the plants which he studies? Does the mathematician create the foundations that enables his equations to balance? I would argue that no, these don't happen, and therefore morality and ethics cannot be a simple product of human thought, as humanism would have us believe.

I have yet to meet a person who has not used the word "should" or "ought". As soon as these words are used an absolute is formed and the idea that each person is judged by his/her own standard is thrown completely out the door. I think people will agree with me when I say that the world ought to do away with slavery. If I were to ask or be asked why, I believe a large part of the answer would be along the lines of, "To make the world a better place." In a humanistic society, the idea of better or worse cannot exist, if I were to believe that I define my own truth, that there is no greater being to answer to than myself, then there is only yours and mine, not better or worse. Intuitively we understand that there is something that we can call "good" and "bad", actions that we can call "right" and "wrong". Author Chuck Colson gives this example; there is an elderly woman standing at the corner waiting to cross the street, you have three options; a.) help the woman across, b.) ignore the woman, c.) push her into oncoming traffic. Most people would agree that (a) is the "good" thing to do, and (b) while not "wrong" is still "worse" than (a), and finally that (c) is the obviously wrong thing to do. For someone to say that he/she has never felt guilt, I believe, is for that someone to tell a lie. So, if I were to define what is right and wrong in my life, then how can any of my actions be wrong? More importantly, how can we say that the people who opt to push the lady into oncoming traffic are wrong? Intuitively there just seems to be something about it that seems unjust, downright, I say it again, wrong.

I have heard that perhaps it is the strictures of society, and the laws that govern us within our society that determines what is right and wrong. Let us look at another simple example; there are several young school children lining up to get lunch, right before one child is about to ask the cafeteria working for food, a larger boy shoves the child aside and takes his place in line. Perhaps the shoving could be legally termed as assault and battery, but point is, is that inherently, we feel that the larger boy, who did not wait his turn, has done something wrong. The teacher may not have seen it, and thus may not have done anything about it, but, the child whose place was taken inherently understands that what happened to him was unfair, was wrong. We don't need society to tell us that when something is taken from us that we have been wronged. The concepts of evolution, humanism, etc.. don't answer why that feeling is there. Intuitively we live that there are ways things should and should be, ways that are outside of us. I don't think that this would occur if we all just happened to pop out of some primordial soup. Intuitively, I feel that humanism, specifically the explaination of our origin via evolution addresses the moral quandry that we so often find ourselves in.

To me the logical explanation then becomes, there is some standard that has been set outside of humanity that we're supposed to meet. Logically, the being that set that standard, is the one who made us. Think of a car manufacturer, there is a performance standard that each car has to meet before being sent out on the roads, likewise, we have moral standards that we were designed to meet. I don't know that this answers questions that have been there age long, but it's just my 2 cents when thinking about it.