I have been reading another book about personality types as I am fascinated by what makes us different as individuals and the reasons for that. In this latest book the author’s thesis is that a large part of a person’s personality is due to biology and therefore inbuilt. The book, Personality: what makes you the way you are by British author Daniel Nettle is just one of a growing number of books of this type to adorn my shelf. It is slightly different from the others I have read in that it is much more scientific and contains biological evidence for the differences in character as well as employing the use of personality test. This focus on biology makes a refreshing change and reading it doesn’t seem to be so much like reading the horoscope as some of the other books seem to.
In the book there are five different aspects of personality to be tested for, which are: extraversion; neuroticism; conscientiousness; agreeableness and openness. It is a short test and very easy to do, but the problem with this sort of thing is that I question the accuracy of my own self-assessment and wonder how much my judgement is flawed when answering questionnaires like this. The results I got didn’t really surprise me: I got ‘very low’ for extraversion; ‘high’ (!) for neuroticism; ‘low’ for conscientiousness; ‘low’ (but it was only just low!) for agreeableness and ‘high’ for openness (which means to be open to new experiences, ideas and to easily be able to make connections between disparate things). So I am a neurotic, disagreeable, unconscientious but open-minded introvert! (So now I know why I have very little tolerance for most people!). Once I had got my results, I read on before making the decision to end it all(!); perhaps there was some virtue in having the personality that I had and perhaps it wasn’t all gloom and doom? (yes I confess, being open-minded could perhaps be seen as a positive quality, but as for the rest of them?!).
It was reading the neuroticism chapter that made me feel most depressed and hopeless (well, I am neurotic aren’t I?), but I shall come on to that later. Being ever on the look out to find the best in introversion, I was pleased to see that the author had found much to be admired in those whom score low on the extraversion test. ‘The introvert is, in a way, aloof from the rewards of the world, which gives him tremendous strength and independence from them’, he writes after describing the case of Andrew, an introverted computer programmer. He quotes Andrew as saying:
I don’t really have a lot to look forward to. I mean, as soon as I find a stable job, I can move out and live wherever, get a girlfriend, buy a ton of stuff I don’t need, maybe get married, create children, buy them stuff… then maybe die or something like that.
Instead of seeing this attitude as an indication of depression, as many people might, Nettle sees Andrew’s comments as possessing a ’stoical depth….(t)hey also tell us a great deal about the motivation of the introvert…..He is not in the grip of negative emotion. He just clearly understands that the kind of stuff that people sweat to get – material possessions, marriage, careers, and so on – are fine, but don’t have that much of an effect on him. So, he will take them if they come, and if they don’t, I don’t think he will be too bothered. He could make a perfectly satisfactory life either way, just as he will see his friends if they are around, but not fuss if they are not.’
Andrew’s attitude is similar to another correspondent, David, who is ‘happy observing, contemplating, learning, and developing his garden.’ David speaks of his experience as thus:
I expect to become unemployed in the near future. I see this as an opportunity, since it would give me freedom and would relieve me from participating in the rat race of performing uninteresting tasks in exchange for money and status, both of which I am not interested in.
Nettle explains that the lack of enthusiasm for everyday sensations that these two men show derives from a natural lack of satisfaction gained from them compared to extraverts, who get a greater buzz from the same sensations. This difference, he explains, is because of brain wiring. As Nettle writes, ‘Extraversion is variation in the responsiveness of positive emotions. In the high scorer, the responsiveness is great, and so the person is prepared to work hard to get the buzz of company, excitement, achievement, adulation, and romance. The low scorer’s positive emotion systems are less responsive, so the psychological benefits of getting these things are fewer. Given that the costs of getting them are the same for introvert and extravert alike, the introvert is not so motivated to do so’.
I rather like this description, and would agree with Nettle that one mode of living is not inherently better than the other but they are both just different. I have certainly gained a lot of satisfaction from living life as an introvert, and although I haven’t been exactly bubbling with enthusiasm throughout my life, my pleasure is derived from more calmer sources. It probably can’t always be seen from the outside, but it is there. And it brings me a great deal of contentment to know that although I do enjoy some of the physical pleasures of the world, what brings me the most consistent enjoyment are the peace and tranquility of quiet contemplation and the joys of reading and writing about subjects that are of interest to me. These activities are done for my own satisfaction and usually in the comfort of my own home. I do not need to be out there chasing dreams because what I require is usually obtained within my own head.
But enough of that for now; I will get back to this subject another day when I have thought about it some more.