When Introvert and Extrovert Marry

In this series of posts, I've been talking about introverts, people who are contemplative, reserved, and quiet, and how such people are often viewed as being maladjusted.  I am particularly aware of this phenomenon since I am an introvert.  Being married to an extrovert (35 years), I've also got a pretty good handle on the other half and what makes them tick.

Here is what I've observed over the years.  I need lots of time to myself, quiet time, without other people, without incessant talking, without blasting music, without traffic or other city noises....QUIET.  When there is a lot going on around me, I cannot concentrate, I cannot relax, I cannot recharge.  After being around people, especially loud people, I need quiet time to recover.  My husband is the opposite.  He is energized by other people, the more the better.  He needs the stimulation of being around other people and lots of activity and noise to be happy. He can appreciate a quiet evening alone, but after only a day or so, becomes anxious and needs to socialize.

Going to a party is quite a different experience for the two of us.  I usually dread it, much like someone would anticipate a visit to a dentist to have a root canal (we feel we should do it, but it's not going to be fun); he looks forward to it like a kid anticipating Disney World.  I'm anxious; he's giddy.  Once there, I'm usually fine and can carry on a decent, even enjoyable conversation with people.  On the way home, he usually points this out to me saying, "See, you had a good time." Yes, but I pay for it.  I'm drained emotionally and mentally. It may take several hours or even days to recover.  It really doesn't matter whether the stress is positive or negative; both are draining and take a toll.  The fact is, I often prefer to stay home, curled up with a good book in front of the fireplace.  I would have a much better time and would not be emotionally drained at the end of the evening.

As a couple, we've learned to compromise over our different needs for socializing.  I make an effort to do what he likes, and he does the same for me.  We spend quiet evenings together over a nice meal or watch a movie (at home–I finally quit going to the theater after acknowledging how much I hated the crowds).  We also go out to dinner with friends or have friends over; we go to plays or concerts (in small, intimate theaters).  He also does a lot of socializing without me...spending time at coffee houses, having lunch with his buddies, talking on the phone.  These extra activities help him feel socially connected.  I happily stay home and read or carry on some other solitary hobby.  When we travel, we take turns going to remote, natural areas to camp, hike, canoe, or swim and to cities with museums, restaurants, and bustling crowds. Sometimes, we manage both extremes during the same trip.

However, there is always an element of judgement regarding whose nature is "best".  My way is somehow viewed as being inferior, deficient, flawed, or maladjusted.  According to some, the extrovert is the ideal; it's what we should all be striving for–at least in the US this seems to be the case.  Apparently, many people who are naturally introverted also believe this and fake a more outgoing nature.  Even though they feel uncomfortable in social situations, they force themselves into social settings and can even fool other people into thinking they are extroverts.  Consider the poll I ran on this blog a while back (see very bottom of the page), asking scientists and non-scientists to rate themselves on a social scale: Social Butterfly, Congenial Comrade, Split Personality, Wallflower, Social Outcast.  I included, at the last minute, another category: Impostor (socially awkward, but able to fake social aptitude).  This category was selected most often, by both scientists and non-scientists.

Trying to "pass" as an extrovert may be a common behavior for some introverts, according to Susan Cain, author of Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking.  We feel pressured to spend more time socializing than is comfortable.  The pressure to be more social can be greatest from those closest to us--spouses, parents, or friends.

What this bias does to introverts and to society as a whole is explored in Cain's book. If you are interested in hearing her TED talk about these ideas, see the video link below.

Should Scientists Be Forced to Come Out of the Ivory Tower?

A commenter on an earlier post in this series brings up an important issue regarding scientists who are reluctant to be cheerleaders for science.  He argues that the days of scientists working in isolation in their laboratories and never having to bother with staff meetings, congressional hearings, or explaining their science to taxpayers are long gone.

I agree that we are in a different era in which there is an increasing demand for scientists to justify their research.  I do think it's important for scientists to communicate their work to a broader audience…which is why I’ve devoted numerous posts to talking about the importance of science communication by scientists (see the nav bar-- Science Communication).  Many argue that scientists can no longer afford to stay in their laboratories and never communicate with the ultimate end-users…policy-makers, land managers, and the general public.  Personally, I’ve done a complete about-face from being a scientist who does her research in isolation (never talking to the public) to actively promoting the value of my work….developing information products (fact sheets, videos) describing my research and its importance to the general public. I talk to grade-school students about science and about wetlands. I founded and edit a non-technical publication (articles written by scientists) with the purpose of encouraging scientists to directly engage the public.  I started writing this blog.  In other words, cheerleading for my own work and talking about what it's like to be a scientist.

As I've also pointed out in previous posts, however, there are dangers to speaking out in the public arena....just ask any climate scientist (see Who's Got Our Backs? and Sagan's Rejection).  Science communication also takes time and resources, which may not be available to the average scientist.  Such costs should be balanced against the need for science communication.  We should also understand that good science communication takes training and effort and is not typically taught to scientists (although this is changing).  We must also acknowledge that not everyone has the talent for science communication (see Don't Be Such a Romulan).  Many people who are attracted to science are often workers who are quiet, contemplative people and are just not very comfortable dealing with the public. 

The point of my series is to consider the hypothesis posed by the book, Quiet: The Power of Introverts...i.e., that introverted people are unfairly judged and should not be prodded to be more like extroverts.  These are people who are thoughtful, who weigh their words carefully before speaking, and who process information differently from those who are more verbally facile.  In the hypothetical example I gave, Jennifer is a young introvert with a lot of potential as a scientist.  There are many like her in science, both male and female, who need help and encouragement to feel confident in their inherent nature, not criticism for something they cannot easily change.  Such people often do just fine in one-on-one interactions, but find it difficult to speak up in larger groups, especially ones dominated by loud know-it-alls. Their reluctance to speak up is often misinterpreted and mishandled by teachers, mentors, and supervisors who fail to recognize how different introverts are.

We can try to encourage such people to become more verbally skilled, but expecting an introvert to testify successfully at a congressional hearing or participate in a public debate (without extensive training) is perhaps not reasonable (or wise).  Not everyone is cut out to be a good science communicator, nor should everyone be forced to be one. We can help such people improve their verbal communication skills through focused training and similar means, but there will be a limit to how much one can change an inherent way of thinking and feeling.  Scientists who are strongly introverted can be encouraged instead to develop non-verbal communications with the public (writing popular science articles, producing/directing science videos, hosting science blogs, for example). 

The point of my series is to explore the mind-set of introverts and how they differ from extroverts and to consider how this dichotomy relates to scientists.  We are perhaps better off taking advantage of the introverted scientist's natural skills rather than forcing them to change.  We can teach students the importance of communicating their science, try to provide them opportunities to hone their communication skills, but emphasize that they can select whichever communication mechanisms best fit their nature.  Over time, we'll hopefully end up with a science community in which there are a lot of good communicators, but who go about it in diverse ways.

Jennifer's Solution

In this series of posts, we are talking about introverts and the problems they face in a society that idolizes extroversion.  In the last post, I began analyzing a hypothetical situation that a young scientist and introvert, Jennifer, is facing.  Her supervisor has called her into his office and accused her of "hiding in her shell" and not being a "team player".  I explained that his words were in fact a verbal attack, which requires a specific response to counter effectively.  I pointed out that the specific charges Jennifer's boss has leveled at her (hiding, not a team player) constituted the "bait".  Jennifer fell for the bait and responded by defending her "quietness" and desire to work things out on her own before sharing with others.  This was a mistake because it opened the door for further unfair characterizations (lone wolf).

In this post, I will reveal the "presupposition" contained in the supervisor's attack.  The presupposition is the real attack, but is one that usually remains unspoken by the attacker.  The victim of a verbal attack should address only the presupposition and ignore the bait.  In this case, the presupposition is that Jennifer's innate nature (introversion) is not compatible with the job she was hired to do (scientist).  This is a more complex presupposition than we've considered in previous examples and is perhaps a bit more challenging to counter.  But let's try.

How can we state a response that addresses the charge (Jennifer's apparent lack of essential skills) and also effectively counters a bias against introverted people?  Successful responses to a presupposition should be stated in the form of a question. Jennifer might say,

"When did you begin thinking that work involving individual contemplation and concentration was not good?"

Such a response ignores the bait and restates Jennifer's mode of working in positive terms (individual contemplation and concentration)--in direct contrast to the negative, inappropriate terms her supervisor used (hiding, not a team player).  Her supervisor will likely be caught off guard by her response (in fact, I would bet on it).  People who use verbal attacks to control other people are often completely thrown off their tracks by this because they are accustomed to defensive responses.  They usually either completely abandon the attack or they are forced to provide a more specific example, which is easier for the victim to counter.  Let's assume instead that Jennifer's supervisor is a bit faster on his feet and replies:

"Unnhh. I didn't mean that I think solitary work, concentration, and thought were not good. I just think you are too quiet."

Now the supervisor is on the defensive and may continue in this vein for a bit--protesting that he was only talking about her quietness.  He's brought up her quietness as a negative again, however.  Her response might be:

"I'm glad to hear that you appreciate the fact that many scientific tasks require quiet contemplation, without distractions, to most efficiently accomplish them.  Why then would someone who works well this way be criticized for it?"

Jennifer has now directly challenged the idea that "quietness" is a sign of failure and pointedly asked why she is being criticized for it.  Her supervisor might respond,

"Well, when you are so quiet at meetings, your coworkers will think you are hiding something from them or that you don't have any ideas at all."

Now the supervisor is being forced to be more specific and to justify his original charge with examples.  In reply, Jennifer might ask which coworkers think this?  Her supervisor will not likely name anyone (whom Jennifer can later easily ask).  By now, it should be clear that it's not really Jennifer's coworkers who have a problem with Jennifer's quietness; it's her supervisor. She should key in on this and continue to ask for reasons why someone who is quiet might be "hiding something" or might not have "any ideas at all".  Jennifer can continue guiding the conversation toward more specifics and ask for clear justifications for his criticism.  The key is that she should not apologize for her quietness or for her way of working and processing information.  If she responds in a quietly forceful, but professional, manner, she will get her point across.

Hopefully, over time, her supervisor will come to appreciate Jennifer's introspective nature.  If not, she may need to find another position that is more in line with her natural way of thinking and working.