Take Your Introvert to Work Day

Actual conversation at a new job:

Supervisor: "Hi M____. I'm just going to say hello. We don't need to have an awkward morning conversation.
Me: "Are you sure? I have a minute."
Supervisor: "No, I think we're good."

I could be wrong, but I think he was referencing our "checking in" conversations wherein he would say encouraging, nice things about this being a new job and all and I would look at him quizzically.

In case you hadn't noticed, I am an introvert (an INTP if you want to get technical).

Dammit. Secret's out. No one will ever hire me to do anything even remotely extroverted, like greet shoppers at Wal-Mart or sell used cars.

My life is over.

But seriously, have you ever noticed how many job descriptions contain the words, "must be outgoing"? I like to call this the extrovert-bias. I give you the opening of an actual job ad on Craigslist:

"Are you a quiet person? DO you consider yourself an introvert? Do you often keep your thoughts, ideas and opinions to yourself? If you answered YES to any of these questions, now is the time to stop reading this job description. No really, stop reading and please take a minute to forward this along that overly passionate, ambitious & outgoing friend of yours."

Because introverts are never passionate, ambitious or expressive. No. Of course not. If I have ideas or thoughts, I like nothing more than to keep them to myself. Always. Yep. No opinions here. 

Incidentally, Carl King wrote a great blog titled "10 Myths About Introverts." Go read it. 

This is my version of that article, with a special emphasis on the introvert at work. Perhaps you are either an introvert who works or you know a few introverts that do. Consider yourself educated on this important issue. 

To start with definitions: You are an extrovert if you get energy from socializing and being around other people. You are an introvert if you get energy, in other words you recharge, by being by yourself.

Just because I'm introvert doesn't mean...

That I hate people.

In fact, I'm usually a fan. You're a person? Awesome! Me too. I like people, especially singly. I need to be around people just as much as I need time alone. Sometimes, I don't like being around large groups of people. This is not because I don't like people. It's because large quantities of them can be overwhelming and all I can hear in my brain is "RETREAT, RETREAT."

This applies to interpersonal relationships too. That introverted girl at work? She doesn't hate you either. Unless you're a jerk. In which case, she probably does hate you.

That I don't like to talk.

Ha. Hahahaha. I can see anyone who's ever really gotten to know me rolling their eyes at this very second. I pity the person stuck with me in a car for 4-18 hours. I will start talking about the meaning of life. Try and stop me.

Admittedly, I'm more likely to talk if the other person is really listening (or has no choice, see road trip example above). Often, I'm trying to develop a thought or idea and I want the other person to stay with me on that contemplative highway until we either A) come to a preliminary conclusion, B) take a snack break.

A friend once told me that I'm a good conversationalist. I think what she meant is that I have an agenda (something I want to talk about) and I attempt to steer the conversation in that direction.

I tried this at a speed dating event once. After a few rounds of telling people "what I do" and hearing about their exciting jobs in retail, I decided that we were going to talk about what I wanted to talk about. I asked each guy I was paired with the same question, listened, responded, and enjoyed myself immensely while also gathering new data for one of the research projects currently going on in my mind.

That I'm shy.

This comes and goes for me. I know that not all introverts are shy. The problem with being quiet or reserved is that people tend to project characteristics onto your personality that don't necessarily apply. Such as,

That I'm insecure.

This can be true sometimes too. But sometimes, I'm insanely confident in my abilities. Maybe a little too confident.

That I'm judging you.

I get this one a lot. Let me just state for the record that I enjoy "that's what she said" moments almost as much as the next person. I'm not judging you. I'm just not chiming in. I never quite know what to say to stuff like, "Wow, you must think we're all really weird." Yes, I do?

That I'm socially awkward.

I've been thinking about this one a lot. I've certainly had my awkward moments (see above), but I'm not sure if this makes me socially awkward.

I have this theory that socially awkward moments are all about timing. I see you and say, "Hi." Two seconds go by. You say "Hi" back. Something feels off. I start wondering whether or not you like me. Is there spinach in my teeth? Those two seconds opened up a tiny, awkward gap in the social infrastructure, exposing the fear and insecurity that lies beneath.

Okay, that was a little bit too deep.

Phone conversations are almost always awkward for me, mostly because I can't seem to get the pauses and timing right. Apparently, I pause too long before saying something, probably because I'm thinking about what I'm about to say. The gaps in speech make it awkward.

I find that after I've been deeply absorbed in something introspective or solitary, my social timing is all screwed up. I need to stretch, socially speaking, before I'm ready to engage.

That I'm smart. 

I'm kidding, of course. It does mean that. Except replace "smart" with "a smart ass."

That I'm a pushover.

Introverts are not necessarily meek and easily manipulated, as I'm sure many extroverts have discovered to their chagrin. And I'm not just talking about passive-aggressive behavior or a stubborn refusal to go clubbing. Introverts can kick some serious butt, especially if you threaten their family, friends or pet projects (or pets, now that I think of it).

So there you have it. Introverts are people too.

Who I Am v. Who I Wish To Be

“Before I can tell my life what I want to do with it, I must listen to my life telling me who I am.” 

-Parker J. Palmer, Let Your Life Speak

I read (most of) an intriguing little book by Parker J. Palmer called Let Your Life Speak. It's a book about calling, vocation and listening as a means to discovering calling and vocation. 

Part of letting your life speak is separating who you are from who wish you were.

To give an example: I wish I were more of a technical/visual filmmaker than I am. I wish I could get excited and nerd out about new technology. I wish I cared about the visual style of David Fincher or John Ford. I wish I intuitively understood the difference between different video codecs.

Zadie Smith wrote a great essay about ideal readers and the authors they do not choose (rather, the writing of that author chooses you). She writes of E.M. Forster:

It happens that I am E.M. Forster's ideal reader, but I would much prefer to be Gustave Flaubert's or William Gaddis's or Franz Kafka's or Borges's. [...] Rightly or wrongly, I feel I get all his jokes and appreciate his nuances, that I am as hurt by his flaws as I am by my own, and as pleased when he is great as I would be if I did something great. I know Morgan. I know what he is going to say before he says it, as if we had been married thirty years. But at the same time, I am never bored by him. You might know three or four writers like this in your life, and likely as not, you will meet them when you are very young. Understand: They are not the writers you most respect, most envy, or even most enjoy. They are the ones you know. (from The Best American Nonrequired Reading 2003) 

I love this idea of writers and readers meant for each other like soul mates. Again, it's not about who you wish you were drawn to but about who you actually get, I mean really get. I can remember having feelings like this whilst reading Jane Eyre, though I'm not sure who I am the ideal reader for. I suppose I wish I were the ideal reader for Henry James.

I admire writers who can write for miles, days, pages and pages, but I am not that kind of writer. I struggle to reach page and word counts. When I write, I often skip over a bunch of explication and get straight to the point (or at least that's what one professor said). Am I leaving things out because I assume they are obvious? Am I just too lazy to properly set things up? Is this just the way that I write?

In a similar vein, to go back to filmmaking, I wish I had the compassion of a director like Cameron Crowe or Brad Silberling. I wish I cared about my characters the way that they do. I wish I had that kind of empathy, which is to imply that I don't.

All of this is to say a lot about who I am not--not technical, not obsessed with visuals, not given to torrents of words, not empathetic. I know less about what I am. I think that's where the listening comes in. Or the just doing. Relaxing into vocation.

If I'm hearing correctly, I think my life might be saying that I don't write/create within a social vacuum. Filmmaking is always collaborative and I enjoy that aspect of it. I create with my friends and the quality of the work reflects the quality of my relationships. I used to see that as a liability, because if the relationship fell apart, so would the project. But maybe it's more of a gift than a liability.

What about you? Is there a gap between who you are and who you wish you could be? 

New Year's Resolutions: The Who, What, Where, and When

1. Read more.

One Hundred Years of Solitude
The Wings of the Dove
Tropic of Cancer
The Grass is Singing
Anna Karenina
Art and Madness
Bleak House
The Rings of Saturn
Possession
TBA

In coming up with a reading list, I realized that I want to read "the classics" less than I thought I did. Maybe this is because there are relatively few "classics" (intellectual snobbery alert)  that I have neither read nor attempted to read. I have an especial distaste for books that I have--more than once--tried and failed to finish. (I'm looking at you, Slaughterhouse-Five and Huckleberry Finn.)

I find myself drawn more to memoirs, essay collections and literary theory.

The thing about a childhood spent reading is that it's extremely difficult to live up to as an adult, at least for me. I despair of being able to replicate the wonder and delight of reading certain books at a certain age. More than I want to read more great books, I want to re-experience reading the great books of my past. Am I doomed to an adulthood of literary nostalgia?

Of course, there is always re-reading. But there's something risky about re-reading a book you once adored. It might not stand up the second time around, which is why I've probably never reread a certain book I read at age eleven. I want to preserve the sacred memory of that first reading.

2. Write more.

Specifically, I'd like to be published in 10 places other than this blog--this can include web or print. One down, nine to go. (update 1/25: At least one of these must be in print)

3. Think less.

This is a difficult one. How does this even work? I suppose the only way to plan on thinking less is to plan on doing instead of thinking. So far, I've tried to put this into practice with mixed results.

A few days ago, I read:

"Try an experiment today: What would happen if you did NOT conceptualize everything before taking action?" (Understanding the Enneagram, 93)

What does that even mean? Do people really do that? 

I'm kind of kidding. 

I have recognized a tendency to read about doing things (like writing a screenplay) rather than actually doing them. That madness has got to stop. 

4. Participate. 

Anyone up for some beer pong?

5. Shoot more. 

One short film per month.

Pretty is not dead--it's just taking an intergalactic nap

Someone, somewhere (Pat Archbold) wrote an essay on "The Death of Pretty." In it, he opposes the two values of "pretty" and "hot," lamenting the death of the former and the cultural ascension of the latter. Girls today, he alleges, want to be hot, not pretty.

The Problem with Pretty

Archbold defines "pretty" or "the pretty" as "a mutually enriching balanced combination of beauty and projected innocence."

Given this definition, I think I understand the putative girl's problem with pretty, especially if you replace "pretty" with "cute." "Cute" is so innocuous. Hot turns heads; Cute gets a pat on the head. Teenage girls naturally don't want to be cute, implying as it does a patronizing "Aw, you're so cute!" when what they want to hear is "you are an attractive, grown-up woman."

And this incidentally, is my primary problem with the author's definition of "pretty." It's infuriatingly infantilizing. The writer conflates "girls" with "women," although from what I can tell, his message is only aimed at women young enough to be considered conventionally "hot" (he cites Taylor Swift, Megan Fox, Lindsay Lohan and Miley Cyrus, none of whom is over the age of 25).  Does a woman ever outgrow pretty? Must a woman of 50+ be primarily concerned with projecting innocence? I hope not. Innocence is not something I aspire to project now, let alone after I qualify for the senior discount at Denny's.

In fact, only young women (and possibly teenagers?) seem to be implored to embrace the pretty. If only they would stop being so enticing! The more I think about it, the more conflating perceived innocence with youth and physical beauty just seems weird and creepily objectifying. So you're saying that my perceived level of sexual experience dictates whether or not I'm "pretty"? Ew.

Pretty and hot are simply opposite sides of the same coin--a woman's attractiveness being contingent upon perceived sexual experience or knowledge.

(see also http://bit.ly/snb0mJ)

If I'm wearing a push-up bra, will you let me get mauled by bears? 

Predictably, I find the tone of this essay particularly patronizing. Pretty is pleasing. Pretty is unthreatening. Pretty is passive. Pretty begs to be protected and rescued, or as Archbold puts it,

"By nature, generally when men see this combination [of beauty and innocence] in women it brings out their better qualities, their best in fact.  [...] the pretty inspires men to protect and defend it."

In other words, pretty never kicks ass. Rather, it inspires men to kick ass. 

And what are these women/girls innocent of, exactly? Grand theft auto? Confusing "your" with "you're"? No, Archbold is referring to sexual innocence or the appearance thereof. [Interestingly, pretty is about projected--not real--innocence. Probably because this is the only kind of "innocence" we can pretend to objectively judge--based on how a woman dresses, of course.]

Now, I could be wrong here, but I doubt that the writer is advocating the kind of chivalry that protects and defends a woman in need of protecting or defending only if the clothes she happens to be wearing at the time are sufficiently modest. (Oh, and to qualify as "pretty," she must be beautiful too.)

If I'm in the process of getting mugged, I hope the passerby's first thought is not "Gee, I hope this girl appears both sexually innocent and beautiful, so I can feel compelled to save her--oh wait, she's wearing stripper heels." 

Or worse: "Well, she is dressed like a commodity (read: whore) and we all know that consumables are meant to be 'used up and thrown away.' I just don't feel like stepping in." 

Nonsense. True chivalry defends the defenseless regardless of either their perceived sexual history or their level of attractiveness. 

Which is all to say, the writer confuses the state of a man's heart with the state of a woman's dress. Pretty, "that special combination of beauty and innocence," can inspire more than just the noblest qualities in a man's heart. It can inspire lust, fear, hatred. It really depends on what is in his heart in the first place. 

Speaking from personal experience, wearing revealing or tight clothes is not a prerequisite for being harassed, groped or otherwise treated like a commodity in public. Ask any woman--you don't need to put on your "hot" clothes in order to be objectified. Sometimes all it takes is walking out the front door in jeans and a T-shirt. 

Furthermore, innocence can be an attractive quality to a predator--the less she knows, the less experience she has, the easier it will be to take advantage of her. 

All the pretty in the world will not turn a predator into a protector. 

Pretty, Pretty Pedestal

Pretty girls, it would seem, have the magical ability to bring out the very best in men as long as they remain safely perched upon the pedestal of passive prettiness. I submit that they would be happier descending from said pedestal and excelling at academics, sports, a career, relationships, life. Men are ultimately responsible for their own hearts, their own actions. That's not a burden girls should feel compelled to bear.

No woman--hot, pretty, cute or any other looks-related value--should be treated like a commodity (read: prostitute). Not because of how she looks or dresses, but because it's wrong to treat a person as if she were a thing.

I still remember a speaker in chapel (Phil's dad) quoting from the movie version of Les Miserables. His voice broke as he recalled Jean Valjean's words to Fantine, the prostitute: "In God's eyes, you have never been anything but an innocent and beautiful woman."

The blog that got me a date and the followup post

[These blog posts are from 2009 and may or may not reflect my current views.]

Blog 1 

Readers of this blog may know that passive guys drive me crazy--and not in a good way.

To be completely straight, dear reader, I have been burned. And I am not, nor will I ever be, a neutral commentator on the passive male phenomenon. In fact, I probably have nothing new to say. 

"Blah, blah, blah, passive guys suck." 

Nonetheless, here are a few thoughts: 

1. Everytime I/somegirl criticizes passive men, I/they feel compelled to add something along the lines of, "But we really shouldn't be too hard on the poor emotionally stunted wimps, because then they will simply retreat even further into the narcissistic void of lapsed masculinity." 

2. Criticizing passive men is a remarkable waste of time. 

3. Men are passive (eg "hanging out" instead of "asking out") because it benefits them. This isn't rocket science, but at its heart, the whole "asking out" system of male pursuit benefits women, not men. 

Women get to feel wanted. Men get to be (potentially) rejected. 

"Just hanging out" benefits men (or should I say "boys"?). All of the benefits of female companionship without a) Having to pay for anything, and b) The possibility of rejection. 

The girl eventually gets hurt by his (passive) rejection, and he moves on to hang out with someone else. What's not to like? 

4. Until we have a dating culture that stops rewarding passivity, nothing will change. 

5. I have figured out that if a guy isn't willing to risk rejection with me, then he isn't worth it. 

Blog 2

(This is part of an email to a (guy) friend who read my previous blog)

I agree, it's a complex issue. Often for girls the guys they don't want to ask them out do, and the ones they do don't. So when a girl complains about a passive guy, the issue could really be that she likes him, but he doesn't like her. 

Also, would you rather a girl "give you a chance" or tell you upfront that you don't have a chance (if that's the case)? Just as guys have trouble getting rejected, girls have trouble doing the rejecting while trying not to hurt the guy's feelings. 

Also, some girls have no problem whatsoever with more passive guys. These are usually girls who know what they want and are more than willing to control/direct nearly every aspect of the relationship. I'm just not that kind of person. It sounds exhausting. 

Also, although it seems like it's the guy doing all the work, usually the girl non-verbally "asks" the guy to ask her out before he does so. You know, body language and such. 

(I've done this with several passive guys, and though it took them long enough, they did ask me out. It's really a seize-the-moment kind of thing. Wait too long and duck season may be over.)

Also, creepy guys can be a lot of things, but they are rarely passive. 

Also, it's not just asking her out, it's how you act on the date. I had one guy ask me out to the movies. He kind of made a big deal about it. On the evening of the actual date, he acted like he would rather be doing LSAT logic problems. 

He acted like he didn't care. And despite the fact that I know he did care--probably a lot--I couldn't reconcile myself to being with a guy who would rather appear nonchalant than wait for me before walking out of a building. 

Even now, when I picture him, I see his back. 

He's walking away. 

New Year's Resolutions

1. Read more.

In 2011, I rediscovered the audiobook, which is all well and good. However, I'd like to actually read a few books this year, eye to page, balls to leaf, etc.

2. Write more.

Maybe I should specify: write more for public consumption. I write a fair bit--I can't imagine NOT writing. It's part of who I am. A delightful cocktail of perfectionism and procrastination keeps me from writing for persons other than myself--I'm always looking for the perfect title, idea, opportunity.

So yeah. I'd like to write a feature length screenplay, and you can hold me to that. And more blogs.

3. Think less.

In the same category as thinking: talking about it, reading about it, writing about it. Write more, think less--sounds paradoxical, but there is certainly an element of writing that does not come from thinking but from putting pen to page. In other words, just do it. Less theory, more praxis.

4. Participate.

Sometimes, this means playing beer pong.

5. Shoot more.

Ideally, at least one project per month. Starting tomorrow.