Atheists untie

Or whatever that call would be.

A conversation that has emerged in some prominence over the last few years, and which I see favorably questioned and discussed in circles of secularists is something like "how do we get along with religious people?". Not just "person who believes in some deity or other and occasionally quotes a sacred text", but like "those religious people". The ones who think we all ought to be of their chosen variety of faith, praying in schools, and so on. And not just "get along with to get by" but things like "date, or have or sustain fulfilling relationships with". These are more common questions because the volume of interfaith and non-faith relationships have accelerated over the last couple of decades.

This variety of question has baffled me. I don't think it makes sense to try to sustain a close intimate relationship with someone where a worldview is diametrically opposed. You can have long-lasting friendships which are formed around other elements besides your worldview shaping concepts of existence. Things like "we both like pizza and football, let's watch football games and eat pizza", and that kind of relationship can co-exist with the bizarre confluence of other interests that you never share or never need to share. Supposing out of a hypothetical couple that one person is a vegetarian for moralistic reasons (animals shouldn't be bred and slaughtered for consuming them would be their stance, so not just they shouldn't eat meat, but no one else should be doing so either), and one person has a high regard for the taste and consumption of bacon, such that they will want to consume bacon and other meats with some frequency and delight. That isn't going to go very well if they're going to try to live together or even occasionally have breakfast. Maybe there's ways to make that work. But why is it necessary to bother? Isn't it potentially simplified for the moralising vegetarian to find someone who is willing to eat much less meat (if at all), and the bacon-lover to find a fellow traveler who desires the consumption of meats and shares their joy in doing so? This would make somewhat more sense if atheists or atheist tolerant persons were rarer than they are for pair-bonding purposes. They're not as rare or difficult to find as one thinks. If you know 20 people, you will know at least 1 or 2 and if one is an atheist, chances are good that of the 20 people you know at random, more than that will fall into the category. Maybe that's not enough of a sample size to select interesting partnerships and friends, but it is a bigger starting sample than many people get (devout Muslims in America for instance).

Even expanding the pool, supposing that one person doesn't eat meat for health reasons (they prefer a vegetable based diet, but may or may not be 100% scrupulous about whether they avoid animal fats in their diet) and the other person doesn't really care that much if they have bacon all the time. That combination should be able get along famously, or at least figure out how to get along reasonably well without much guidance at resolving this "worldview disparity". This describes what many people's interfaith (or non-faith) relationships are like. Religion rarely comes up because neither person takes it that seriously in assessing the other person and their identity, and when they do, it is possible to find ways to work around it.

I suppose one explanation is my experience as an atheist is distinct from the norm. I was never around a heavy religious treatment as a child or teenager. Because I found it absurd from an early age, it wasn't forced to me or compelled upon me. What religion was around from family appears to have been Catholics, but fairly non-compulsory and non-invasive in acting upon me as a disinterested observer of their practices. When I came up on these "questions", of existence, etc, as a matter of course, investigating the texts themselves (as one does when one is an atheist who enjoys philosophy and is willing to consider that maybe other people have figured these things out), generally leads toward a rejection of those texts as sensible guides for life and happiness. They are absurd when read as a critical outsider, and at best offer metaphorical guidance in some passages that is sensible but surround it with a lot of nonsense as with any fiction.

This outsider perspective wasn't also very often a well-known or regarded element of my persona. I wasn't interested in expressing it widely not because I found it shameful but because it wasn't an interesting characteristic (to me at any rate). It also wasn't an obvious characteristic in the persons I chose to associate that they either were or were not overtly religious or "nones". I made my associations for fairly practical reasons; we liked playing basketball or video games or discussing history and politics. Religion doesn't come up much in these venues (necessarily at any rate, it comes up more noticeably as I've gotten older). It wasn't a feature of my identity nor one that I placed much interest in the identity of others. This allowed for at least casual relationships with other people to form, which for both of us are likely enlightening as to the outlook of secularists and religious worldviews alike even as we often have staunch disagreements.

What appears to be the experience of many atheists is that they were raised in an environment of often "extreme" faith, where that faith was a feature of their identity and interaction and presentation to the outside world. In such environments, the pressure of conforming socially is very high, the pressure of adopting certain worldviews is also, and that abandonment of those views and behaviors carries significant costs. If it carries risks and costs, it is assumed that people will want to maintain those relationships that came before this change in their own worldview to reject belief in some deity (or to adopt a strong belief in the absence of previous belief) in order to minimize the damage. Family, lovers/spouses, friends, all being at risk at once can be a daunting position to find one's self on top of reconciling questions over your own identity and the epistemological and empirical questions of existences and ethics that inevitably circle overhead.

In my view, it is probably better not to bother in many cases. If I had had these kinds of troubles with family for example growing up, I wouldn't bother associating with family now, nor have much interest in reconciling those affairs later on. But I carry a degree of comfort with anti-social behavior that many are not comfortable with. Rather than fight with people with whom I share little or nothing in common, and rather than expend a lot of energy building or searching for common ground if none is apparent, I find it usually better to disappear and go to try my own thing. There are ways to communicate or reach many people across these divides, just as there are ways to explain evolutionary theory or global warming to creationists. But I don't have that much patience with human beings generally to be very concerned about trying.

So perhaps what forms the largest portion of bafflement is why people would spend that much time and energy trying to get along with people who have deemed it important to hate or fear you when there are a lot more people who don't care that much one way or the other about us, or who are open and tolerant of a wide variety of views in their associations, or who enjoy the same outlooks as you already and can readily get along without much adjustment at all (maybe someone snores, or has a higher sex drive, or doesn't like a variety of music someone enjoys, but these are more practical problems than diametrically opposed systems of considering the world). Clearly being hated bothers us more than I'd considered. If we're hated or enjoy the threat of hate from someone we had considered with love and affection, I could see how that would be difficult and require some variety of resolution to move on. Indifference is a far more common course of action though than hatred. In general, in America, other people are not concerned with what you are and what you believe and won't spend that much time trying to change it. There will be random missionaries show up at your door whilst you try to piece together a sandwich, and political causes that pop up now and again with a clearly religiously motivated position. These are more sideshows and amusements for the atheist than the introduction of this volatile mixture into a personal space and the amount of energy invested into the latter rather than the former suggests that people want to care a great deal more than I do about these problems. For reasons that do not make much sense to me.

morality v religion

This should not be terribly surprising. There doesn't appear to be a big difference in reported moral behavior for the religious from non-religious populations.

What appears interesting out of it so far
1) Haidt's moral framework of distinct moral values and the ideological or religious faultlines over which are held in higher regard is rather clearly demonstrated in what people self-report as moral violations or achievements. Religious (conservative) people often identified different things as immoral than the secular (liberal) population. This probably explains a large measure of why non-religious persons are often regarded as "immoral" by religious people, because they do not identify much of their behavior as morally and ethically questionable where the religious person does. This does not mean that non-religious and secular persons have not considered these questions or that they avoid these moral quandaries in order to do things. Instead it usually means they don't find it very important to judge themselves or others on these questions and may regard them as matters of personal taste; Coke v Pepsi style or rap v country rather than intractable social questions.

2) People report hearing about immoral behavior much more often than moral behavior. This is the traditional transmission vector for morality, getting other people to gossip about your misdeeds. I suspect religious people are more vulnerable to negative gossip (from within "their" group). Most secular persons I am familiar with are vulnerable to negative gossip, but mostly because they may try to ignore it until it has already caused a problem for themselves. Paying attention to the opinions of others is tedious, and often a waste of time, but sometimes carries benefits.

3) Religious people experience more guilt or shame over moral questions. This does not appear to lead them to avoid these actions however. It means they feel worse about it. My off-the-cuff impression is that non-religious people experience less guilt mostly because the moral behaviors that religious persons identify are more common (purity or disgust violations) and easy to identify. Non-religious person's ethical codes are more likely to identify most behaviors that are non-harmful (to others) and consensual acts to be acceptable and experience little guilt over these versus other actions where other persons were harmed, which are less likely to occur or be observed in a daily or weekly pattern. If they feel guilty over drinking too much the night before, it's probably because of the hangover and not because they violated some decree, as an example.

A brief note of the self

I have written here for a long period. I rarely speak much of myself. This is a place I use to dump my thoughts on other things. My time for self-reflection is rare, mostly because I find it often poisonous to point the microscope for too long a time at anything. Myself included.

The problem with being me is that I don't really have a way to aim it away either. Once my thoughts get into the mirrored universe that is my own self, the brain bounces around there for a long time like it is a rubber room. Eventually it begins to drain, and drain, and drain some more. It drinks my milkshake. Or something to that effect (old meme recycling is easier than keeping up with new ones).

It is really the cycle of being and becoming depressed. The amount of mental energy it takes to process and break this torturous routine takes time. Which, like other humans, I don't have a limitless supply. An outside observer to this brain dumping place can see readily what the impact is: there's less production being deposited here for later use. My thoughts become more scattered. I become content to make small comments and share articles that other people have produced words on a topic, and there to leave it and often never to return to it again. Or not to refer back to it in the easy way afforded me here. Whatever wise or clever thoughts are shared with other people I become indifferent to. Whatever terrible or foolish thoughts are shared, are likewise, an indifferent property. They are all words. Just words. No longer distinguished for the quality of thought I tried to put behind them, or the capacity of argument being raised or the kinds of arguments being made, or for the dismissal of the thoughts of others that I find too often I can do.

They're just words. Before long, it gets harder to assemble more words to go with them. It becomes a set of bullet points. And then a list. And then nothing at all. There are still many dastardly and amazing things going on in the world. I still think about them. I still have things to say about them. But I didn't always feel like sharing them with other people anymore. Or even sharing them with myself. It may not be the same burning passions that people feel for each other or for things they care deeply about, but I am typically possessed by a desire to think about things, to understand them, to know what I am talking about when exploring and writing about a subject I have encountered and twirled around in my own head. That is my nature and my most at ease state. Even at my most inert and incapacitated, my brain wants something to do in this respect. Unfortunately it turns toward me if I do not feed this beast distracting shiny objects of thought. And eventually it wears down that other topics are more difficult to use. It becomes an addiction to thought, and it presses on, and on, and on more still, demanding ever more and more until there is no energy to do even the most basic of things that it commands may need doing. Like eating or sleeping or exercising. It is a heavy weight depressing and darkening all things even further from the resting point of cynical realism that I usually carry around with me as my perspective on all life and existence.

This ultimately impacts my relations with other human beings, often negatively, and it inevitably cycles inward deeper, without route or chance for escape. A mental impairment like this is not generally visible to others that they will understand it in the same way that other pains and challenges of the body are. Many view it as just something you are supposed to get over on your own rather than complicating it with requiring them to listen to you once in a while, if you can even manage to speak. It is not a process that makes it easy or simple to explain or to ask for or seek out help from others. Explaining what value I have to them, why it is that they would or should bother to listen to me rambling on in the first place, is a difficult task that I don't fully understand even in my lighter states of mind. I do not easily see myself as a terribly practical friend to have around for the people I find myself affected toward. The best I manage is an acceptance that they do think so despite myself or perhaps an altered mental state that isn't as intimately concerned with these existential questions, for a temporary measure of social lubrication. In a heavier, weighted state, it becomes impossible.

This is, basically, where I have lived for the last two years. The analogy of a cave works to describe the desire I feel getting up in the morning, or sometimes the afternoon if I've no reason to get up and as is usually the case, could not sleep at a "normal" human time, withdrawing and retiring to a place of solitude. Partially this is a place of comfort or safety. Partially this is a result of my more anti-social tendencies at times; I do not enjoy the company or attentions of most people even within the confines of being socially lubricated. And mostly this is a result of often really not wanting to subject people to my existence for a time and feeling as a burdensome task for their daily time than an desirable interlocutor. I can look around at the world and see immediately 50 things worth thinking about, or doing something about that individually people would have more reward or progress than dealing with me and my concerns and thoughts. So why should they bother. My relative indifference to humanity likely poisons the well further. In my lighter state, it's easier to see that the concerns toward other people we find appealing, however minimally at times, are indeed worth more to us than those other 50 things. Because they return to us more easily than the abstractions of aid that I see as far more beneficial to humanity or to each other, as friendship and its associated affections provide us a great deal more meaning, joy, and safety as individuals than most anything else we can do. Adam Smith's great paragraph of insight indicates both that there are things out there worth our concern and that our daily concerns are what in fact matter to us more anyway.

In a heavier stage of thinking, this too becomes impossible to see.

I am consistently impressed upon with the idea that other people find me more interesting or at least the idea of me more interesting than I find it myself. That is that I am considering objects of thought that are not me, if at all possible, and that this task is rarely demonstrated as the contemplation of other people as individuals and their concerns and needs. Abstractly, and as abstractions, yes. Applied to the ideas and attentions of others, something I have more difficulty doing, it becomes certain that they too find it necessary to either avoid thinking of themselves and others. Or, by more common observation, note that that appears to be all they are concerned with is themselves. Neither perspective lends itself to the notion that they are concerned with me, individually.

The great advantage of this perspective is that it appears to be accurate in assessing the amount and quality of attention other people pay to each other and toward random interactions. We don't usually care or pay attention at all, not nearly to the degree we believe they are. It is not necessary to temper the self or to avoid confrontation over an idea or principle, avoid entering into any ensuing debate of the issues and so on, observations or behaviors that may be contentious can be made openly without regard for whether people will think negatively of you. Because mostly they will not care or not take such things personally that they will greatly alter a potential friendship or work environment. It is also not necessary to be afraid of other people, or become fearful or protective for others in our charge either (as many parents do), as most people will politely ignore us rather than plot odious harms to our safety and happiness. This too is a great advantage.

The great disadvantage is it is blinding where people are paying attention and to what. Or why they pay attention to this instead of that. Much of what people pay attention is tedious and wasteful signalling games for status. Expensive objects and shiny things have their evolutionary purpose, for birds or apes, and of course including the human animal. And which I am loathe to participate in if I can avoid them. There are others that are surprising in their attentiveness. Which inevitably drags back the question of why. I can only reasonably conclude that however deranged and abnormal a state was required, another individual deemed it worthy of their time and effort to provide the noble gesture of paying attention to someone other than themselves for a moment and that at some level I must have done something to attract this gesture. I find that curious.

But maybe encouraging. Maybe. A definite perhaps that is.

This.. would explain a lot

This your brain, if you're a libertarian brain

"Typically, conservatives scored lower than liberals on the Harm and Fairness scales and much higher on Ingroup, Authority, and Purity scales. In this case, libertarians scored low on all five surveyed moral dimensions. Libertarians share with liberals a distaste for the morality of Ingroup, Authority, and Purity characteristic of social conservatives, particularly those on the religious right" - There's a good reason why we're not conservatives. And there's a good reason why there's a group of Americans who consider themselves "libertarian" who are really just conservatives. They'd still score pretty high on things like authority or ingroup dimensions or morality.

"are therefore likely to be less responsive than liberals to moral appeals from groups who claim to be victimized, oppressed, or treated unfairly." - I suppose this is true. If the claim is valid, I'm willing to entertain it. But when people just start screaming I tend to want to know what the hell is going on first rather than start taking sides.

"Libertarians put higher value on Hedonism, Self-Direction, and Stimulation than either liberals or conservatives and they put less value than either on Benevolence, Conformity, Security, and Tradition." - Hedonistic calculus is definitely a big factor in all this. If it's pleasant to someone else, I don't particularly care as long as it's not correspondingly unpleasant to someone else who is directly involved. Conformity and security and tradition are certainly bleh. Benevolence I find goes a long way, but without some self-direction, you're still not going very far with it I should think.

"Like liberals, libertarians put less value on Power, but like conservatives they value Universalism less. Universalism is defined as “understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection of the welfare of all people and nature.” All three put high value on Achievement. Taking these results into account, Haidt concludes that “libertarians appear to live in a world where traditional moral concerns (e.g., respect for authority, personal sanctity) are not assigned much importance.”" - This is basically correct. Respect is earned, and personal sanctity is up to the individual, and not really up to the overall function of society. If someone does not wish to conform, it seems pretty pointless to make them unless they're actually doing something dreadfully wrong to others.

"Haidt and his colleagues eventually recognized that their Moral Foundations Questionnaire was blinkered by liberal academic bias by failing to include a sixth moral foundation, Liberty..... And guess what? The researchers found that libertarians dramatically outscored liberals and conservatives when it came to putting a high value on both economic and lifestyle liberty. Most dishearteningly, liberals scored two full standard deviations below libertarians on economic liberty." - That last part is a big problem. I constantly have to argue over economics and free markets. Even with so-called free market conservatives, but much more so with liberals on which I tend to have very high correlations valuing social liberties.

"libertarians scored lower than conservatives and liberals on Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Extraversion." - Definitely true. I score very low on agreeableness and extraversion. Conscientiousness is mixed. "low scores on Agreeableness indicate a lack of compassion and a proud, competitive, and skeptical nature" - ahh skepticism. My good friend... "....libertarians are not generally Neurotic, tending to be more secure, hardy, and generally relaxed even under stressful conditions. And like liberals, libertarians scored high on Openness to New Experiences, indicating that they have broad interests and are very imaginative." - Right.

"The low level of disgust sensitivity found in libertarians could help explain why they disagree with conservatives on so many social issues, particularly those related to sexuality. Libertarians may not experience the flash of revulsion that drives moral condemnation in many cases of victimless offenses." - It's really hard to disgust me. I do experience it. But it's largely accompanied by a "to each his own" reaction, or some appreciation for nature's curious diversities, even if I don't care for everything in nature. As was asked by Bailey "What wisdom does the reflex of repugnance offer?" I mean, it might tell us not to drink spoilt milk or eat rancid meats, which is probably wise for our health, but why would assigning a value to disgusting things that we have no interest in consuming and hence placing a moral basis in that disgust matter at all?

Here's the kickers for me.
"The scale measures the tendency to empathize, defined as "the drive to identify another person's emotions and thoughts, and to respond to these with an appropriate emotion," and to systemize, or "the drive to analyze the variables in a system, and to derive the underlying rules that govern the behavior of the system." Libertarians are the only group that scored higher on systemizing than on empathizing—and they scored a lot higher." - I am a huge systems person. It's not that I don't experience empathetic responses. I do. But if I'm left to my own devices, I'll take a system for understanding something or someone over emotional connections to it 9 times out of 10.

"In fact, the researchers find that libertarians are more likely to resolve moral dilemmas by applying this utilitarian calculus than are either liberals or conservatives." - And this is basically why we arrive at libertarianism in the first place. Utilitarian calculus seems like a huge motivating feature for saying "live and let live" most of the time and for removing most governmental interferences, particularly those which reduce individual mobility and freedoms with no corresponding freedoms being gained (controlling criminal acts designed to commit harms against other individuals or their property, be they murder or fraud, for instance gains us freedom to conduct our affairs in relative peace and prosperity).

"On the Different Types of Love scale, it turns out that libertarian independence from others is associated with weaker feelings of love than liberals or conservatives have for friends, family, romantic partners, and generic others. The authors note that libertarians also report slightly less satisfaction with life than do liberals and conservatives. The researchers report that libertarians “score high individualism, low on collectivism, and low on all other traits that involved bonding with, loving, or feeling a sense of common identity with others.”" - This one is hard sometimes. I tend to get the feeling "we" prefer to be understood and perceived as useful (as part of that utilitarian calculus). But being introverts, don't like to venture out much to get too attached to someone, and vice versa is really scary. I can speak to being relatively indifferent to various types of this. I'm not that close with family, I'm not very motivated by the idea of children, and most people, strangers, I'm completely indifferent to at best. Even most friendships tend to be really strange by comparison.

"Libertarian morality, by rising above and rejecting primitive moralities embodied in the universalist collectivism of left-liberals and the tribalist collectivism of conservatives, made the rule of law, freedom of speech, religious tolerance, and modern prosperity possible" - I would not go so far as this perhaps, but I would say that it does lend itself to a very peculiar set of moral foundations that are uniquely valuable for a culture of diverse individuals. Indeed, it's hardly likely that a culture of diverse individuals could exist at all without these values being shared and enforced and practiced by enough of them because the natural diversity of humanity is so bizarre and so frequently gives rise to these wise digressions of disgust or disdain and hatred.

In which I discuss self-loathing

"People see themselves as more neurotic and open to experience compared to how they are seen by other people. External observers generally hold a higher opinion of an individual’s conscientiousness than he or she does about him- or herself. As a rule, people think that they have more positive emotions and excitement seeking but much less assertiveness than it seems from the vantage point of an external observer"

"A relatively strong negative correlation (r = −.53) between the average self-minus-observer profile and social desirability ratings suggests that people in most studied cultures view themselves less favorably than they are perceived by others"

That's not all that shocking really. I'm constantly amazed that I've made favorable impressions. Or that people think I have some sort of diligence. I could see how most people would have a vantage of high excitement seeking (we don't like to think we are "boring"), but my impression was that "openness" was also describing exposure and openness to new ideas in addition to new experiences. I'd guess most people are not "turned on" by a new idea quite as much as a new hobby, but still, I'd like to pick this apart more and see where this gap comes in.

expounding a point

on the nature of personal social choices, made by me.

It should come as little surprise to anyone that I tend to be a highly introverted person. Part of this is that I have a long-standing relationship with theories, facts, observation, and so on, that tend to require a wide degree of time within reflection and the avoidance of messy personal complications that come with having many friends and associates. I think the average person (since the average person is an extrovert) would say this is a complicated way of saying I have no life and spend too much time reading. But in truth, I do try to from time to time to have a life. There are some complications however that make it harder.

1) Most people do not relate easily to people who have complicated thoughts and express them in preference to small talk. I do learn something about people by observing their stories and how they react to things like weather or how they get around town and how much attention they pay to people who are not in the room with us as topics of interest, but these are trivial conversations most of the time. And in general, I only learn something useful in relation to observing a story that I do not automatically relate to, say, a story that was of something done many years ago without my presence to corroborate and connect myself personally into the equation, by relating it to other parts of a person's narrative that I am more acquainted with. Thus if other people are talking in way which resembles an inside joke, I don't get it until I know anything about the people involved and tend not to respond or contribute anything, or be all that concerned about observing. I also tend not to be that bothered about other people's work environments and jobs. Unless they are very excited about their work and thus interesting and not simply a person who is easily impressed (ooo look a blue car!) or someone working in sales, which is still boring no matter what face I would put on it and puts me on a defensive role immediately on the assumption that they will try to sell me on something instead of engage in a conversation. In general since most people at random gatherings must fulfill these very basic conversations before they start plunging away arguing over political viewpoints (with any seriousness, and not mere ill-considered and easily mouthed platitudes) or the intricacies of the pick and roll defence, it's pretty hard to find a random person to get along with and become acquainted.
2) In general even beyond these boring and tedious small talk rituals, people tend to have stories with which I cannot relate to. I don't have a kid and haven't really thought about it. My parents weren't divorced (I can cheat a bit here because I've had some friends who had). I don't drink. I don't watch and follow football or nascar or ufc unless it's on while at some public gathering that I have dragged myself into. And so on. Certainly there are very common topics on which I can converse (basketball or baseball or sexuality for example), but my conversational methods are sort of uncasual in these subjects. That is, I've probably over-analyzed it relative to the casual observer. A topic which I cannot relate to, or have very limited frame of reference again increases the difficulty curve of me wanting to put up with a person.
3) If I already know a person reasonably well from previous encounters, then new data like distinct interests from my own can be parked in the box where I store everything else about a person. This assumes I had some common frame of reference formed already. This also implies that there was some degree of interest such that I actually want to learn these random tidbits and file them away for potential use someday. Again, without much overlap, it's pretty hard for me to acquire a new interest in something I hadn't previously simply because some random person recommended it to me. A history puts such recommendations in context so that if I hear a movie was good or a book or a restaurant, then I can put some stock in these experiences. I don't tend to advertise these to random people on this reasoning that hearing that a strange person liked X isn't really an inducement to go and experience X if you haven't before. Hearing that interesting person (or friend) Y liked X might be.
4) In general a group of people beyond about 8 is pushing my limitations of tolerance for personal space violations that must occur as a consequence of knowing many more people who have demands and wants of their own. And no less than 4 or 5 seems adequate to provide me with plenty of diversions (I've gone many years with a number less than that, at least locally and frequently accessible). Most days I am quite content to sit around in contemplation or actually, I don't know, work, with very minimal distractions made available from whatever it is I've focused on for the day. If I were to do nothing social whatsoever 5 or 6 days per week, many weeks out of the year that would be grand. Where I am interested in social contacts, it seems necessary to have a sufficient number of core people I can draw upon reliably to "have fun". In some sense, part of the fun is discussing whatever it is I've come into contact intellectually over the week or month or however long it's been. If it is a book, a movie, or a bit of news, it has to be broken down and its component parts fought over or engaged in at least some discourse to insure my brain isn't sitting there passively taking something in and not processing it (I do enjoy some simple things from time to time, but these are different kinds of experiences than cultural creation). This is a large reason why I started blogging, so I could toss my thoughts into a big bag and other people could encounter them at their leisure and whim instead of me cornering them with a debate on Kant and evolutionary psychology. Still, that sort of contact only accounts for some, not all, of my social habit or demand, and often does little to satisfy other people's demands on my time, which may be more complex or demanding than simply discussing objects in space or the latest police shooting during a drug warrant search. Like say, attentively playing a game, talking in actual conversation, and so on.
5) These demands are more arduous without being very cautious with the selection of company, people who are more amusing, more clever, and have a wide enough variety of interests and experiences to provide a broad base of conversation and back and forth on which for me to relate to or at least to observe vicariously (ie, if other people have done something together, their story can be related to me without me being too concerned that I was not included in cool thing X, Y, or Z. At least on the assumption that I did not ask to be included). I do not tend to have stories of my own to relate to others such that they could understand me and find me likable through that, much less keep tabs on what I've been doing in their absence. Instead, most of my interactions are limited to references to better known cultural aspects (comedians, movies, art, books, etc), on the basis that people will readily understand the analogies and I'll get to see what people were talking about without exposing anything or making anything clearer about my own life story.
6) In general this makes me highly selective about company and people. Most people are less so and when they make plans for their gatherings they often include people who are less interesting (to me), but maintain their own private even mutual interests with each other. I don't find this offensive in the slightest, but it does often mean that there are many gatherings where I may be less useful for the occasional remark or observation that I would ordinarily contribute to the group dynamics and which it may therefore be best that others have their fun without me.
7) In general the people I've chosen, over time, to express a little bit of myself toward in actual forms rather than through indirect methods, tend to be rather fascinated (by me) or mystified about the choice (of them). I suspect this is that I've chosen very well (which is usually true) or that its very unclear to others what my interests are in the first place, including themselves. I don't consider myself very complicated, but I've seen this "criticism" applied over and over by well-meaning people who may otherwise be considered as friends or associates. Such people are often very surprised that I am not more open or expressive toward others, as though this is a desirable action. There are some good reasons, such as that it's time consuming to deal with people, particularly the average person where much activity has to be sifted through to find common ground. And some less good reasons, such as that it's risky to be open and trusting of others.
8) Computers have made it easier to keep tabs or communication with people who are far flung across a continent. But since a good chunk of my interactions with people consist of non-physical conversations concerning ideas and activities, it's very difficult to get through to my head that I need to make some local associations with whom I can do actual things with more regularly if need be. I have decided that is a problem that requires a solution, at least minimally.

So I could
1) Take vacations to where people of interest live or work
2) Move. More long term that one though.
3) Figure out how to put up with more people and meet them in more non-specific forums.
4) Write about less dense topics and encourage people to read and catch them in the web that way.

I'm leaning toward some combination of 3 and then 2. Some factors involved may push 2 upward or backward though. I'll see I suppose.

Another possibility is to expand my narrow band of interests slightly.
For example, I like music, but don't like dancing (or do any of it). Music can be easily (and often best) enjoyed in private. But there's options to exercise it with company. Of course, that does little to attract attentions that I'd like to exercise in all cases either. But the example suffices.

This was kind of neat

Prick us do we not bleed!

Bloggers are apparently people too for all their lack of humors as broadcast through a digital medium.

"More neurotic bloggers used more words associated with negative emotions; extravert bloggers used more words pertaining to positive emotions; high scorers on agreeableness avoided swear words and used more words related to communality; and conscientious bloggers mentioned more words with achievement connotations. These were all as expected. More of a surprise was the lack of a link between the Big Five personality factor of 'openness to experience' and word categories related to intellectual or sensory experience. Instead openness was associated with more use of prepositions, more formal language and longer words.

The sheer size of the data set at Yarkoni's disposal allowed him to look not only at links between personality factors and broad word categories (as past research has done) but to also zoom in on the usage of specific words. Among the most strong and intriguing correlations were: Neuroticism correlated with use of 'irony' and negatively correlated with 'invited'; Extraversion correlated with 'drinks' and negatively correlated with 'computer'; Openness correlated with 'ink'; Agreeableness with 'wonderful' and negatively correlated with 'porn'; and Conscientiousness correlated with 'completed' and negatively correlated with 'boring'."

For some basis of comparison
I typically score(d) on the "big five" test:
Around 80 on openness (roughly the same percentile score)
Around 60 on conscientiousness. (lower half)
Around 20 on extraversion. (roughly the bottom 2 percentile)
Around 30 on agreeableness. (bottom 5 percentile)
Around 35 on neuroticism. (about average, a little below).

I don't sadly use the word "ink" very often. But "porn" has been used on here many times along with some other choice four letters when needed. And "boring". "Drinks" has not been used very often at all.

In general, I write the way I think and to some extent act in public settings, so it should surprise no one if they meet me that I have random sometimes disagreeable or unpopular opinions and no compunction about expressing them openly and argumentatively with others. But also almost zero interest in engaging the average random passerby with such debates.

I also am sort of curious why its a big surprise that "openness to experience" correlated so poorly with word categories like "thinking" or "sensory experiences". I should think that people who have a blog in the first place would use such things generally liberally enough that it would be noise statistically. What you're really looking for I should think to distinguish such things is somebody who has enough openness to have careful expressions that they want other people to take with some seriousness (even the sillier ones are crafted) and who uses writing and blogging both as an art and as a form of communication.

Not the best habit to have

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."

The reverse is also true of course. In the sense that dealing with a monster can lead you to blame yourself instead.

A private amusement.

which is funny to watch.

Like "personality types" (MBTI, etc) or even criminal profiling, the problem with these things is that they're prone to a lot of affirmative biases. The information is so general, so vague, and so disconnected from the usual peaks and valleys of an actual individual that it's pretty much useless in reality. The crucial part is that they're so vague you could swap them for one another and nobody really notices the changes. You get hits because those peaks and valleys are noticed when they are right. The misses are so small that nobody cares.

With horoscopes at least, it's sort of like praying. I don't do any of it obviously, but what the hell? Knock yourself out if it seems like you're making sense of something that wasn't making sense and you're attributing that to something other than your own mind seeking its own "clarity" or perspective on an issue or a person or a job. The more amusing part to me is watching people go through them and trying to decide which parts they'll think "hit" and/or which parts become actionable behavior influenced at all by a perception of moods and impressions given off. And, of course, which parts were thrown away and largely ignored.

If there's money involved, as with "psychics" of any kind, then it's troublesome. Otherwise, it seems like a bit of harmlessness that, like people and popular culture with their incessant references to "souls", gives me a bit of pleasure tweaking their day by poking their thoughts a little and then going back to the dark shadows with the best views to people watch. If it ever gets me anything in life, the issue is less blaming a vague list of attributes and generalities for the day and more "blaming" any person who assessed that list positively with me in mind.

In the good sense of the term, apart from the potential inconsistency that they may also look upon such a thing with negativity and see what they want to see with me in mind also.

A funny game of class

Here

When walking, assuming that other people will get out of your path. - I usually weave, but people do get out of my way because I appear to be walking with a purpose in mind and am rather tall (and apparently intimidating).

Making eye contact while speaking. - I do this on occasion. Rarely. It apparently annoys people that 1) I don't do it more often and 2) when I do it

Not checking the other person's eyes for a reaction to what you said. - Only matters in a poker game. So I get one finally.

Having no visible reaction to what the other person said. (Imagine saying something to a typical Clint Eastwood character. You say something expecting a reaction, and you get--nothing.) - Definitely a good thing. People eventually figure out that I have buttons. But they're not always the ordinary buttons and you have to push them in an unconventional way or out of the typical order. The most typical is to insult my argument or intellectual capacities however, which is really a very weak point in the armor. Half a point I think.

Speaking in complete sentences. - How else do people speak? 2.5.

Interrupting before you know what you are going to say. - This is not the best plan in the world. I sometimes don't know where what I am going to say will go next when I say it. But that merely means that I will have to listen for a minute.

Spreading out your body to full comfort. Taking up a lot of space with your body. - Impossible not to when your body has a great deal of physical space to occupy. Though I find I end up seated with my legs folded up frequently rather than lounging all the time (this does not typically happen in the presence of others however). 3 total.

Looking at the other person with your eyes somewhat down (head tilted back a bit to make this work), creating the feeling that you are a parent talking to a child. - Don't consciously do this at all. The lack of eye contact is usually because I'm unfocused on them at all.

Talking matter-of-factly about things that the other person finds displeasing or offensive. - Definitely do this. I see no reason to avoid topics of discomfort. 4

Letting your body be vulnerable, exposing your neck and torso to the other person. - I don't do this I think. But it's funny to picture a person as like a puppy or a cat.

Moving comfortably and gracefully. - Probably not. Don't know how I would be described as walking.

Keeping your hands away from your face. - Gesticulation carries the hands where they go. I try not to do the Nash gesture from Beautiful Mind too often, but the Rodin pose comes into play often.

Speaking authoritatively, with certainty. - Probably. 4.5 (Probably is used on purpose here. I write and think with far less certainty than I talk).

Making decisions for a group; taking responsibility. - Avoid doing this mostly because I rarely have a group to be responsible for.

Giving or withholding permission. - I will do this when I have to. 5

Evaluating other people's work. - Ditto. 6

Speaking cryptically, not adjusting your speech to be easily understood by the other person (except that mumbling does not count). E.g. saying, "Chomper not right" with no explanation of what you mean or what you want the other person to do. - That's what the poem posts are for. 7

Being surrounded by an entourage, especially of people who are physically smaller than you. - Definitely not.

A "high-status specialist" conveys in every word and gesture, "Don't come near me, I bite." - Definitely so. 8
--------
Low status
------
When walking, moving out of other people's path. - Probably canceled out by the people getting out of my way on balance.

Looking away from the other person's eyes. - I don't do this deliberately. I just don't make eye contact at all in the first place. -1

Briefly checking the other person's eyes to see if they reacted positively to what you said.

Speaking in halting, incomplete sentences. Trailing off, editing your sentences as you got.

Sitting or standing uncomfortably in order to adjust to the other person and give them space. Pulling inward to give the other person more room. If you're tall, you might need to scrunch down a bit to indicate that you're not going to use your height against the other person.

Looking up toward the other person (head tilted forward a bit to make this work), creating the feeling that you are a child talking to a parent. - who does this? Or who does the opposite? Never even noticed this as an issue.

Dancing around your words (beating around the bush) when talking about something that will displease the other person. - Euphemisms are often in scare quotes to show the disdain I have for such things. Sometimes they're funny or clever. Usually they're a waste of time.

Shouting as an attempt to intimidate the other person. This is low status because it suggests that you expect resistance. - What does shouting accomplish?

Crouching your body as if to ward off a blow; protecting your face, neck, and torso. -1.5

Moving awkwardly or jerkily, with unnecessary movements. -2

Touching your face or head. -3

Avoiding making decisions for the group; avoiding responsibility. -4

Needing permission before you can act. - On the other hand, I tend to ignore the permission of the group or leaders if they present rules which are unsupported by reasonable requirements. For example: why raise your hand to be called upon to speak if you have something to contribute to the conversation?

Adjusting the way you say something to help the other person understand; meeting the other person on their (cognitive) ground; explaining yourself. E.g. "Could you please adjust the chomper? That's the gadget on the kitchen counter immediately to the left of the toaster. If you just give it a slight rap on the top, that should adjust it." - I don't do this very well I think. I'm accustomed to an audience that understands thinking and unaccustomed to an audience that doesn't know much. Even around children I speak with a peculiar intent.

A "low-status specialist" conveys in every word and gesture, "Please don't bite me, I'm not worth the trouble." - This is not a good idea. Better to be feared.
-------

Raising another person's status

To raise another person's status is to establish them as high in the pecking order in your group (possibly just the two of you).
• Ask their permission to do something.
• Ask their opinion about something. - Do indirectly. By voicing my opinions I expect others to do the same.
• Ask them for advice or help. - Doesn't happen.
• Express gratitude for something they did. - This happens.
• Apologize to them for something you did. - This doesn't
• Agree that they are right and you were wrong. - Happens. On occasion.
• Defer to their judgment without requiring proof. - Doesn't happen often.
• Address them with a fancy title or honorific (even "Mr." or "Sir" works very well). - Don't know anybody who requires this of me.
• Downplay your own achievement or attribute in comparison to theirs. "Your wedding cake is so much whiter than mine." - This happens frequently. I am a much stronger critic than most other people are of me.
• Do something incompetent in front of them and then apologize for it or act sheepish about it. - I recall doing this when I didn't do something that I could easily have done. I don't tend to do things that I am actually incompetent at.
• Mention a failure or shortcoming of your own. "I was supposed to go to an audition today, but I was late. They said I was wrong for the part anyway." - Happens
• Compliment them in a way that suggests appreciation, not judgement. "Wow, what a beautiful cat you have!" - Not sure how appreciation is different from judgment. Positive judgments are basically appreciation then?
• Obey them unquestioningly. - very unlikely. Anti-authoritarian streak is high
• Back down in a conflict. - happens. Mostly because I got bored or was unable to find a reasonable level of common ground on which to continue the conflict without violence.
• Move out of their way, bow to them, lower yourself before them. - happens
• Tip your hat to them. - Don't wear hats much.
• Lose to them at something competitive, like a game (or any comparison). - this happens
• Wait for them. - This happens. But not when it's "supposed to" I think.
• Serve them; do manual labor for them. - Very rare that I do manual labor for me. Much less for someone else.

Lowering another person's status

To lower another person's status is to attack or discredit their right to be high in the pecking order. Another word for "lowering someone's status" is "humiliating them."
• Criticize something they did. - I criticize constantly. At least I am myself vulnerable to its effects.
• Contradict them. Tell them they are wrong. Prove it with facts and logic. - Why else would you tell someone they are wrong?
• Correct them. - And how else could you correct someone?
• Insult them.
• Give them unsolicited advice.
• Approve or disapprove of something they did or some attribute of theirs. "Your cat has both nose and ear points. That is acceptable." Anything that sets you up as the judge lowers their status, even "Nice work on the Milligan account, Joe." - I guess you can phrase judgments in a way that sounds judgmental and this is what they're referring to with the "appreciation" business up there.
• Shout at them. - Not raising your voice when you get angry I find scares people more.
• Tell them what to do.
• Ignore what they said and talk about something else, especially when they've said something that requires an answer. E.g. "Have you seen my socks?" "The train leaves in five minutes." - This would be funny. I'll have to try it more often.
• One-up them. E.g. have a worse problem than the one they described, have a greater past achievement than theirs, have met a more famous celebrity, earn more money, do better than them at something they're good at, etc. - Ack.
• Win: beat them at something competitive, like a game (or any comparison).
• Announce something good about yourself or something you did. "I went to an audition today, and I got the part!" - I try not to do this but I think the blogging is in effect this practice.
• Disregard their opinion. E.g. "You'd better not smoke while pumping gas, it's a fire hazard." Flick, light, puff, puff, pump, pump. - Happens with opinions that are unsupported. That sort of opinion isn't likely to show up as unsupported.
• Talk sarcastically to them. - Hmm. Wonder why that is..
• Make them wait for you.
• When they've fallen behind you, don't wait for them to catch up, just push on and get further out of sync. - Why wait?
• Disobey them.
• Violate their space.
• Beat them up. Beating them up in front of other people, especially their wife, girlfriend, and/or children, is particularly status-lowing. (note it's also of low status itself)
• In a conflict, make them back down.
• Taunt them. Tease them.

We would worry a lot less about what other people thought about us if we knew how little they think about us at all

So I read that quote a couple days ago and it reflects rather flexibly and perfectly the social attitudes I've conveyed and experienced.

1) I am consistently surprised that I have made any impression upon other people such that they would seek me out for contact, consultation, or amusement. So to me, the idea that I am ever on the minds of others is surprising.

2) Other people are consistently surprised that they appear as characters in my narrative of life, or my dreams for what may be characterized as the mundane, or as desirable companions for more than a few moments in passing. Probably even for the random and absurd commentary I feed off of to provide for the usual amounts of social life I have, even though it is never clear that my variety of commentary is desirable.

3) I'm guessing the relative detachment and misanthropy makes it difficult to assess what level of sociability I am willing to have, much less what level I would wish to have and have conveyed (which I find I generally have communicated that level to others).

4) That this sort of quote is therefore most applicable to other people such that they need to get a grip. I am fully aware of just how self-important I am that when another person surfaces in my consciousness as a subject of consideration, or they may shudder to see, affections, it is a topic worth making conversation over (with them). Inversely, there are so many barriers in the way that it seems perfectly likely that if I do occur to other people, it is not merely in the surprising sense that I take it as for the rarity of experiencing it and for reasons that I am probably aware of if I were to spend any time considering why I might make favorable or at least unique impressions upon the lives of others. That is to say: that other people are probably less self-important than I take them to be.

5) Also, consuming a lot of food is still good. Just thought this needs to be confirmed at least a couple times per year.

Introverts anonymous

I figured I'd just post this whole thing. Because I liked it. And it seems to fit for the most part.


Do you know someone who needs hours alone every day? Who loves quiet conversations about feelings or ideas, and can give a dynamite presentation to a big audience, but seems awkward in groups and maladroit at small talk? Who has to be dragged to parties and then needs the rest of the day to recuperate? Who growls or scowls or grunts or winces when accosted with pleasantries by people who are just trying to be nice?

If so, do you tell this person he is "too serious," or ask if he is okay? Regard him as aloof, arrogant, rude? Redouble your efforts to draw him out?

If you answered yes to these questions, chances are that you have an introvert on your hands—and that you aren't caring for him properly. Science has learned a good deal in recent years about the habits and requirements of introverts. It has even learned, by means of brain scans, that introverts process information differently from other people (I am not making this up). If you are behind the curve on this important matter, be reassured that you are not alone. Introverts may be common, but they are also among the most misunderstood and aggrieved groups in America, possibly the world.

I know. My name is Jonathan, and I am an introvert.

Oh, for years I denied it. After all, I have good social skills. I am not morose or misanthropic. Usually. I am far from shy. I love long conversations that explore intimate thoughts or passionate interests. But at last I have self-identified and come out to my friends and colleagues. In doing so, I have found myself liberated from any number of damaging misconceptions and stereotypes. Now I am here to tell you what you need to know in order to respond sensitively and supportively to your own introverted family members, friends, and colleagues. Remember, someone you know, respect, and interact with every day is an introvert, and you are probably driving this person nuts. It pays to learn the warning signs.

What is introversion? In its modern sense, the concept goes back to the 1920s and the psychologist Carl Jung. Today it is a mainstay of personality tests, including the widely used Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Introverts are not necessarily shy. Shy people are anxious or frightened or self-excoriating in social settings; introverts generally are not. Introverts are also not misanthropic, though some of us do go along with Sartre as far as to say "Hell is other people at breakfast." Rather, introverts are people who find other people tiring.

Extroverts are energized by people, and wilt or fade when alone. They often seem bored by themselves, in both senses of the expression. Leave an extrovert alone for two minutes and he will reach for his cell phone. In contrast, after an hour or two of being socially "on," we introverts need to turn off and recharge. My own formula is roughly two hours alone for every hour of socializing. This isn't antisocial. It isn't a sign of depression. It does not call for medication. For introverts, to be alone with our thoughts is as restorative as sleeping, as nourishing as eating. Our motto: "I'm okay, you're okay—in small doses."

How many people are introverts? I performed exhaustive research on this question, in the form of a quick Google search. The answer: About 25 percent. Or: Just under half. Or—my favorite—"a minority in the regular population but a majority in the gifted population."

Are introverts misunderstood? Wildly. That, it appears, is our lot in life. "It is very difficult for an extrovert to understand an introvert," write the education experts Jill D. Burruss and Lisa Kaenzig. (They are also the source of the quotation in the previous paragraph.) Extroverts are easy for introverts to understand, because extroverts spend so much of their time working out who they are in voluble, and frequently inescapable, interaction with other people. They are as inscrutable as puppy dogs. But the street does not run both ways. Extroverts have little or no grasp of introversion. They assume that company, especially their own, is always welcome. They cannot imagine why someone would need to be alone; indeed, they often take umbrage at the suggestion. As often as I have tried to explain the matter to extroverts, I have never sensed that any of them really understood. They listen for a moment and then go back to barking and yipping.

Are introverts oppressed? I would have to say so. For one thing, extroverts are overrepresented in politics, a profession in which only the garrulous are really comfortable. Look at George W. Bush. Look at Bill Clinton. They seem to come fully to life only around other people. To think of the few introverts who did rise to the top in politics—Calvin Coolidge, Richard Nixon—is merely to drive home the point. With the possible exception of Ronald Reagan, whose fabled aloofness and privateness were probably signs of a deep introverted streak (many actors, I've read, are introverts, and many introverts, when socializing, feel like actors), introverts are not considered "naturals" in politics.

Extroverts therefore dominate public life. This is a pity. If we introverts ran the world, it would no doubt be a calmer, saner, more peaceful sort of place. As Coolidge is supposed to have said, "Don't you know that four fifths of all our troubles in this life would disappear if we would just sit down and keep still?" (He is also supposed to have said, "If you don't say anything, you won't be called on to repeat it." The only thing a true introvert dislikes more than talking about himself is repeating himself.)

With their endless appetite for talk and attention, extroverts also dominate social life, so they tend to set expectations. In our extrovertist society, being outgoing is considered normal and therefore desirable, a mark of happiness, confidence, leadership. Extroverts are seen as bighearted, vibrant, warm, empathic. "People person" is a compliment. Introverts are described with words like "guarded," "loner," "reserved," "taciturn," "self-contained," "private"—narrow, ungenerous words, words that suggest emotional parsimony and smallness of personality. Female introverts, I suspect, must suffer especially. In certain circles, particularly in the Midwest, a man can still sometimes get away with being what they used to call a strong and silent type; introverted women, lacking that alternative, are even more likely than men to be perceived as timid, withdrawn, haughty.

Are introverts arrogant? Hardly. I suppose this common misconception has to do with our being more intelligent, more reflective, more independent, more level-headed, more refined, and more sensitive than extroverts. Also, it is probably due to our lack of small talk, a lack that extroverts often mistake for disdain. We tend to think before talking, whereas extroverts tend to think by talking, which is why their meetings never last less than six hours. "Introverts," writes a perceptive fellow named Thomas P. Crouser, in an online review of a recent book called Why Should Extroverts Make All the Money? (I'm not making that up, either), "are driven to distraction by the semi-internal dialogue extroverts tend to conduct. Introverts don't outwardly complain, instead roll their eyes and silently curse the darkness." Just so.

The worst of it is that extroverts have no idea of the torment they put us through. Sometimes, as we gasp for air amid the fog of their 98-percent-content-free talk, we wonder if extroverts even bother to listen to themselves. Still, we endure stoically, because the etiquette books—written, no doubt, by extroverts—regard declining to banter as rude and gaps in conversation as awkward. We can only dream that someday, when our condition is more widely understood, when perhaps an Introverts' Rights movement has blossomed and borne fruit, it will not be impolite to say "I'm an introvert. You are a wonderful person and I like you. But now please shush."

How can I let the introvert in my life know that I support him and respect his choice? First, recognize that it's not a choice. It's not a lifestyle. It's an orientation.

Second, when you see an introvert lost in thought, don't say "What's the matter?" or "Are you all right?"

Third, don't say anything else, either.


----
(commentary, whether you want it or not)
For my part, I got the "are you all right" and "what's the matter" stuff all the time. No I'm fine never seemed to answer that adequately. On some levels it was indeed true that there is often something "bothering" me, but most of the time I was not aware that my expression actually was conveying this impression. In fact, I was usually working on something other than the intractable problems that really bother me and the fixed contemplative expression wasn't at that point a message that someone needed to ask me a question to get me to talk about the negative and inexpressible depth and objects that I have no need or desire to talk to anyone about. It was instead an expression that reads "shut the fuck up and leave me alone while I figure this one out". When I want to or need to talk about something, I will say so. In fact I will say so whether it is something you want me to talk to you about or not, given my propensity to engage in lengthy dissertations on politics and economics which can kindly go ignored or smiled upon in favor of the rarer droplet of wisdom concerning sex or the conduct of human relationships. I have long since figured out that many of these extroverted people don't mind you talking to them, in fact they seem quite comfortable and happy knowing that these quiet, withdrawn and private souls will confide in them at times. Just please don't bug us when we don't want to talk and where the room is suddenly filled with silence. That talking part, that was "you time". The silence part is "me time".

Besides, that's what blogs and poetry are for. The saying of things that are said in silence.

The acting the part issue is also something I definitely know of. The thinking me is far different than the interacting me. The second is a character actor. It's carefully designed to fill the role of acting like a human, just enough to try to keep people from bothering me when I don't want them to. But it's not "real", in the sense that it's something I feel like doing. It's more like doing a job that you don't really like doing. You would never say that it defines your identity. The thinking me only slips out into the open world occasionally. Maybe this is because it's a very small identity that everyone has to begin with and I'm just more cognizant that I have less to offer than some extroverted person. I don't know. I think it's more that I feel I have better things to reflect on most of the time. I'd rather talk about them than answering tedious questions like "what's wrong" all the time. So it seems better in the long run to behave like there isn't something wrong, enough so that people will listen to these onerously complicated rambles from time to time about things that might actually impact their lives rather than try to inquire as to my constant well-being and state of mind. The second is not something you get to know about without my consent and to be blunt, isn't always that interesting a subject when other people talk about it either. It is of specific interest, but not of general public consumption interest. When I will ask a question like "how's your day?" or "how are you?", questions that other (extroverted) people will routinely ask me with passing disinterest in the response but which I will almost never ask in a casual manner, that's when it's important. I suppose the flip side is the "we need to talk" conversations. But those are rarely deployed casually even by extroverts. Even most extroverts have a margin for internal privacy and filtering that sort of stuff out of the conversational hopper in favor of banal things like the routes to work and the latest celebrity train wreck.

As an aside, I'm guessing that the relative admiration of Coolidge is limited to introverts and economists. As if those were not the same sort of people. He missed my favorite Cal story. At a dinner party, a woman was supposed to have told him that she had a bet with her friend that she could get him to say more than three words. "You Lose" was his reply.

personality

Based on a few events in my life recently, I decided to take a closer look back over something I got into several years back: personality types. I imagine there are good many difficulties with anything test-based, a major one of them being that I know how such tests work and can easily skew the answers in any way I see fit. But a basic overview of such psychology can give one a few insights into the types of problems they've encountered and how they themselves might have contributed to the situation. For those familiar, I usually end up as either INTP or INTJ. Or some variety of thinker with limited social proclivity.

Anyhoo.. here's what I found by poking around.
1)perceive that something is not logical, they reject it as unimportant. -- plausibility/practicality or circumstance play in here, but by and large, yes.
2)may be extremely caustic and insulting to others. -- Fuck you too
3)may be completely unaware of the type of communication that is often desirable and (to some degree) expected in an intimate relationship. If they are aware of the kinds of things that are appropriate to say and do to foster emotional bonding, they may be unable to appreciate the value of such actions. They may feel too vulnerable to express themselves in this fashion, and so reject the entire idea.
4)Under stress, they may show intense emotions that seem disproportionate to the situation.
5)may not recognize basic social principles, such as appropriate dress and general behavior. -- I do at least remember to get dressed in the morning, but I despise ties and hand shakes.
6)May be unaware (and sometimes uncaring) of how they come across to others --mostly the uncaring part
7)May look at external ideas and people with the primary purpose of finding fault
8)May be intolerant of weaknesses in others -- especially stupidity or incompetence.
9)May believe that they're always right--- I hate being right all the time (see 10)
10)May be cuttingly derisive and sarcastic towards others.
Mmm sarcasm. I thought this should actually go in the second list, but perhaps not.
11)May have an intense and quick temper
12)May hold grudges, and have difficulty forgiving people.
I still hate people from high school if reminded of them.

Good news part of the show:
1)respect for precision in communication lends them the ability to accurately convey their ideas and discoveries in full.
2)usually quite intelligent and can grasp difficult concepts.
3)not overly demanding in personal relationships, and have simple daily needs. They are often easy and enjoyable to live with.
4)have a natural ability to focus and get "into the zone" when working on a problem. They can absorb their minds completely with an issue, and work it through with amazing speed and accuracy. This ability makes them outstanding trouble-shooters. Since their logical abilities are dependent on their experiences, their abilities will increase with time. INTPs with experience are often seen as the "gurus" of their professions. -- often to the dismay of people around them, but that's another issue entirely.
5)mind is naturally geared towards systematically analyzing information from many contextual perspectives, and rejecting or retaining information as they become aware of its usefulness or validity. -- except I retain virtually everything whether I want to or not
6)They're extremely insightful, and see things that are not obvious to others.
7)able to generate all kinds of possibilities. They're able to see the problem from many different angles, and come up with a solution that fits the needs of the current situation. .. Thus why I prefer the grey areas.
8)They don't take criticism personally, and are open to changing their opinions when they're shown a better idea or better way of doing something.

I haven't yet reached any conclusions as to what I should do about this, if anything. But it does point out some possible innate issues I've been having, some of which I was aware of previously.