The Number of Social people vs. Independent People

[Puffin]

This is just something I was thinking about today. I know many people, but most of them are fairly social. They tend to have a lot to talk about, and are happier around other people. I only know a few people who like to spend time with only a few friends and are just as happy alone; sometimes large social situations tire them out. They're not shut-outs or anti-social, but they're just very reflective. I myself am this type of person. I've observed that there are far more "social" people than "independent" people. This includes both in school and globally. My question to you is, why do you think this is? Unless you think otherwise.

[Maria92]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ntrovert/2696/ "First, recognize that it's not a choice. It's not a lifestyle. It's an orientation." "I'm an introvert. You are a wonderful person and I like you. But now please shush." I'm an introvert, and I'm damn proud of that.

[Speesh]

We definitely seek rapport as a species, it appears to be hard-wired into our evolutionary circuit. I think what it comes down to is that some people seem to crave it biologically more than others, hence the introvert-extrovert personality classifications. As for a percentage, it certainly appears that there's more socially minded people out there. I've read before that its around 70%-30%, though I doubt there's any truly definitive research on the subject.

[The Cusp]

I've observed that there are far more "social" people than "independent" people. Annoying, isn't it?

[Puffin]

Ah, those are the words I was looking for. Introvert and extrovert. From reading what you posted Speesh, I'm curious now as to what the numbers actually are. Annoying, isn't it? Very.

[Maria92]

The article I posted said it was 75% extro to 25% intro, roughly. That ratio keeps cropping up...we are a rare species. The minority of the normal population...but a majority of the gifted population.

[Phion]

I believe being "social" and "independent" is a false dichotomy. I, like many who post on the internet regularly, tend to be more introverted and comfortable being alone, but I am in not way dependent on another person to sustain the manner in which I live.

[Invader]

My question to you is, why do you think this is? Unless you think otherwise. Societies have been more successful at surviving than have individual human beings. Societies are more productive. A single human being will never construct a 747, or a skyscraper, or a massive particle accelerator. If they do, it'll be through the use of machines that were designed and built by many other people before them. This is just social behavior in general, so to see people who are actively engaging in mass social activities isn't surprising. The desire for social encounters is in the blood of the human species. But consider how ironic it is that the individuals who spend more of their time alone may also end up contributing more to the whole. A musician, engineer or surgeon who spends more of their time working on what they love as opposed to spending more time with other people will become better at their occupations (more study, less "play"). Obviously there are exceptions; the lazy loner and the outgoing go-getter. If anything I think it's best to have a taste for both worlds. Socialize with other like minded people (or unlike minded, your preference), and enjoy your alone time when and where you find it. There's not as much going for an introvert who can't (or wont) communicate well with others, or a social person who spends all of their time hanging around with friends and doing nothing "productive"... But everyone chooses to live the way they wish, and life really boils down to living in the way you find most satisfactory.

[Maria92]

Fun fact: a lot of actors are actually introverts. Because of the society we live in, there is exceptional pressure for people to be outgoing and communicate well...a policy no doubt thought up by extroverts. Introverts just naturally don't like that so much, and many report that they feel as if they're acting in public situations. Introverts are able to communicate quite well...it just isn't who they are. I personally hate to answer questions and work with the public, but it won't kill me to do so when needed.

[Invader]

What pressure is there to be outgoing? And what policy was thought up by so called extroverts? Also, the ability to communicate has little to do with this. Plenty of social people have trouble conveying some thoughts, and plenty of "introverts" communicate to the public through the internet: social networking sites and/or forums. Dreamviews is a good example of this. So where does someone draw the line? When I read the article for the first time a few years ago I loved it. As time passed however I felt it was a bit, err, overdramatic. Granted the ideas it's sharing still hold true, but the language used to expressed them is really over the top. I've had some experiences, and none of them could have matched up to what the author was saying. A simple "No thank you," or "My idea of fun is a little different," or some other variation thereof will suffice. Others will sooner or later understand that you don't get the same experience out of a big party that everyone else does. In those positions you just end up being very aware of the way you behave and constantly monitor everything you do, so yes, it gets to be like acting... So don't do it. Or do, and get used to it, and eventually the odd feeling wanes. It's like being the guy who has trouble talking to girls. Is that really an integral part of who they are, or are they just not used to it? You understand.

[DuB]

I think it's less that there actually are more "social" people in the world and more that the social people are more visible and connected, so we encounter them more often. Think about it: mustn't that be true by definition? If it wasn't true then they wouldn't be social people.

[Maria92]

What pressure is there to be outgoing? And what policy was thought up by so called extroverts? Also, the ability to communicate has little to do with this. Plenty of social people have trouble conveying some thoughts, and plenty of "introverts" communicate to the public through the internet: social networking sites and/or forums. Dreamviews is a good example of this. So where does someone draw the line? If you aren't outgoing, amiable, social, etc. you will not be chosen in a job interview over an extrovert with the same credentials. It's in our language...words like outgoing, affable, etc. all have positive connotations. Being a "people's person" is a compliment. By contrast, words used to describe introverts: loner, guarded, taciturn, private, and so on all have negative connotations. I like commenting through the internet because it gives me plenty of time to respond to people at my leisure. People aren't demanding I come up with a verbose response in a narrow amount of time. I can't sit there and think about something forever, after all. It also doesn't require me to physically use my voice, which for some reason drives me insane. When I read the article for the first time a few years ago I loved it. As time passed however I felt it was a bit, err, overdramatic. Granted the ideas it's sharing still hold true, but the language used to expressed them is really over the top. I've had some experiences, and none of them could have matched up to what the author was saying. A simple "No thank you," or "My idea of fun is a little different," or some other variation thereof will suffice. Others will sooner or later understand that you don't get the same experience out of a big party that everyone else does. In those positions you just end up being very aware of the way you behave and constantly monitor everything you do, so yes, it gets to be like acting... So don't do it. Or do, and get used to it, and eventually the odd feeling wanes. It's like being the guy who has trouble talking to girls. Is that really an integral part of who they are, or are they just not used to it? You understand. The article is a bit over the top, but honestly, I hate going out to parties. I really honestly hate it. It is not fun. My idea of fun is jumping on the internet or watching a bit of TV either alone or with one or two people. I could get used to it, sure. I CAN go to parties without it killing me. I can even appear to be having a good time. But it's all an illusion, and not who I am. In that regard, I do have to at least appear to be outgoing and enjoying the company of others. I'm being pressured to act like an extrovert. I could not go...but that's how you earn the reputation of being a sad sack. At some point, you do have to go interact with the public, and when you do so, it's damn near impossible to look like a decent human being if you act like an introvert. You can't tell someone who is yakking on for the third straight hour about how cute her dog is to just shush, but that same person can interrupt your peace and internal dialogue and rape your ear.

[Alric]

I think people really are different depending on the group they are with. A shy and quiet person who is talking with good friends or family, can be as out going as any extroverted person. That reminds me of a job I had in the past though. I wanted to be promoted to a more manger type position, and I think I deserved it. I always did a really good job, I knew what I was doing. However I applied for the position multiple times and I got turned down multiple times and the reason they generally gave was basically because I wasn't extroverted enough. They didn't say it like that of course, and instead gave vague answers like You need to be more out going, or you need to talk more and stuff like that. I ended up quiting that job, and when I did they started offering me raises and stuff to try to get me to stay. I just turned them down though and left. I really don't like random chit chat. If a person is going to look down at me because of that, well its their loss. Its kind of stupid in the job world because people who spend all their time in idle chit chat don't get anything done. I am currently doing work for the census, which involves walking up to strangers door and asking them personal questions. I have no problem socializing or chating with people in general. I think in the end that is what makes a person introverted or extroverted. One talks in order to communicate and that is it. The other obviously talk to communicate but often talks just for fun as well.

[juroara]

Social or Independent? Nah, that's not quite right! You can imagine the extreme extrovert. The person who parties hard every weekend with total strangers, gets wasted, and wakes up in a strangers apartment. Sure, they're social. But let's face it. They're getting wasted every weekend because they have some sort of emotional problem. This extrovert, while social, probably doesn't have healthy social relationships. Partying less and doing more introverted things, like meditating on their need to get wasted, will actually help them find more satisfying relationships, and healthier ways of hanging out that don't lead to scary monsters like - flesh eating crabs. I don't care if a person thinks of them self as an extrovert. Everyone should be able to enjoy some solitude. If they can't, they're just avoiding the voices in their head What's the extreme introvert? It's also a person who's depressed. Except they deal with their depression by hiding from the world and living in their parents basement. Not wanting any type of relationship with another human being is also a clear sign there is something wrong with you. Anti-social is just anti-social, not introvert. Introverts aren't less social. They just have different social needs. The social needs are strong with introverts, driving them to find like minded individuals.

[Xyn]

This is just something I was thinking about today. I know many people, but most of them are fairly social. They tend to have a lot to talk about, and are happier around other people. I only know a few people who like to spend time with only a few friends and are just as happy alone; sometimes large social situations tire them out. They're not shut-outs or anti-social, but they're just very reflective. I myself am this type of person. I've observed that there are far more "social" people than "independent" people. This includes both in school and globally. My question to you is, why do you think this is? Unless you think otherwise. If you really think about it your not really unsocial. You have 1,000 posts on this forum and you seem pretty talkative. But I know what you mean i'm the same way.

[Hidden]

Lol Xyn. Being social online is very different than being social IRL.

[Philosopher8659]

Actually, you have to look deeper. Let us use a Two-Element Metaphysics. (Historically lost-but set theory is a dwarf child of it.) Some environmental acquisition systems of a living organism abstracts materioal difference, some abstract form. Or, what you learn in set theory, there are only two ways to construct a set, enumeration and definition. There are two fundamental psychololgical types, most people learn by enumeration, very few by definition. These are the only two possible abstractions-the Two-Elements of every thing. These two types really are not comfortable around each other--in many respects very opposed. Those who learn by definition really do not have schools for them, or peer groups--and must learn how to think on their own. And often they end up a mess because they do not understand why they are different. Not having the material to learn by, means they go undeveloped, unless they are really brilliant to rediscover a great deal. That is one of the reasons I do the audio-books on Plato and dream of an internet resource center. Or, if you want Biblical terms--the human mind is not yet functional in terms of judgment (definition.) This text is interesting for many reasons, one is that it is claimed that this "God" took man as a creature living by memory and is evolving it to live by judgment. If you could see how it is constructed, it just may scare you. Or so it seems. This may explain why, in the one class their gods are all different, while in the other what ever it is, it is the same.

[Maria92]

Post in English, goddamnit! My puny, underdeveloped brain can't handle that kind of jargon.

[Hidden]

You speak my mind, Mario.

[Black_Eagle]

Philosopher, what exactly do the two ways of learning, enumeration and definition, entail?

[ArcanumNoctis]

This is just something I was thinking about today. I know many people, but most of them are fairly social. They tend to have a lot to talk about, and are happier around other people. I only know a few people who like to spend time with only a few friends and are just as happy alone; sometimes large social situations tire them out. They're not shut-outs or anti-social, but they're just very reflective. I myself am this type of person. I've observed that there are far more "social" people than "independent" people. This includes both in school and globally. My question to you is, why do you think this is? Unless you think otherwise. Most likely, they don't have much in common to talk about when socializing with each, which creates the perceived divide. Small talk, big talk. The 75/25 or 80/20 ratio presented in this thread is reflective in Psychology when it comes to obeying authority. Around a quarter are typically free thinkers, which they exhibit leadership potential. In my opinion, I think dangerous sociopaths (Hitler etc.) can be grouped into the free thinkers, though it may be something like 0.3% of 25%. A very small percentage yes, but highly dangerous when left unchecked due to the capacity of mobilizing the majority to kill off any potential competition.

[Philosopher8659]

Philosopher, what exactly do the two ways of learning, enumeration and definition, entail? One of the things it entails is just what has been noticed in the psych books already. Those who think by definition manipulate information differently. They are psychologically different. Study Kohlbergs stages of moral development. In every stage except the last stage, the psychology is parroting peer groups. The last stage one abstracts a definition and uses the definition to make judgment. There is no peer group in the last stage, there is in fact funtionality distinct from previous groups. Study Plato, if you can understand, you will find a great deal there. I think it is in the Republic, Plato explains a bit of the psychological defragmentation that happens when the advanced psychology is not not trained correctly also. Oh, if you are a historically careless reader--Plato's did not construct a Utopia--his last republic was, as was told, the worst hell he could imagine. The best of men in the worst of circumstances. Testing for the psychological distinction by the written word can and has been done. The Judeo-Christian Scripture-as is noted in the text itself-a very good example. It is not sealed by an secret code-it simply uses principles of manipulation that are not functional in the common man. Plato used the method also. Because the psychological types process differently, one reads by the principles of language--the other does not. In ordinary books of logic, the authors cannot help contradict themselves, they do not, can not, find a way to avoid it. It is a biological barrier between two distinct psychological types. One will find a range between the two--as is to be expected. The evolutionary progress of man is determined by linguistic functionality--i.e. how the brain processes information. In Scriptural terms, when man learns judgment. It has nothing to do with mysticism.

[Maria92]

Study Kohlbergs stages of moral development. Study Plato, if you can understand, you will find a great deal there. I'm still lost, and now I have a homework assignment.

[Philosopher8659]

I'm still lost, and now I have a homework assignment. Well, whenever I am lost, I look for my shoes, I often find myself in them.

[kookyinc]

Well, whenever I am lost, I look for my shoes, I often find myself in them. I lol'd. Anyway, I'm more of the "independent" person. I don't have many friends and I spend most days indoors not talking to people. Also, I'm technically an actor, so I fit into the "a lot of actors are actually introverts" thing.