Forums → WEPR → The Shy
| 42 | 10685 |
A topic that fascinates me.
Why is it that shy people are usually seen as depressed or anti-social? A question that has puzzled me for a while. Why is it that when people are looking to make friends, they stray away from shy people, and go for the outgoing people? I have noticed that when shy people have loyal friends, they never get into fights with them! I believe that shy people would make excellent friends - loyal and trustworthy. It is improbable that a shy person would gossip or be hostile.
The shy expect the least from their friends, they are not demanding, they strive to maintain a relationship once they have found a friend. I always think shy people are intelligent. Indeed, they are usually deeper than other people. They are not continually bragging about themselves.
So, we established that the shy have excellent qualities, why is it that people go for the outgoing people, rather than these extraordinary people? Why is it that there are many programs and guides to make people overcome shyness, when it is such an excellent attribute? Why is it that shy people wish they were outgoing?
- 42 Replies
Erp. I forgot to explain this:
"High intelligence, unfortunately, most often comes with social awkwardness at a young age."
Which isn't entirely analogous with this:
"Intelligence is the ability to use knowledge effectively in a particular situation in order to attain a specific goal."
What I mean by this is that I'm under the impression that the high intelligence describe that gives rise to social awkwardness often comes in the form of being unable to apply to contexts in a normative manner. You can argue that their 'specific goal' differs from normative goals, perhaps, but seeing as intelligence is in itself a normative measure, this gives rise to some complications as has been evident in the course of this thread.
Social awkwardness is, to me, an indication of an inability or discouragement from relating to other people/standards, which is why I mentioned environments earlier. Autonomy being lesser and also restricted in younger individuals in their school years etc., it is difficult to choose your own environments which can give rise to the specific 'oser' manifestations of identity politics. Same with why 'unusual intelligence' poses problems for school-kids whereas in later life, when people have more of an opportunity to come into their own, the whole 'intelligence is uncool' that pervades much of schooling life goes out the window if you know where to look.
Some more personal details: When I started thinking for myself in high school, I started asking various questions about ontology ("what is the nature of being?", sociology ("why do people behave the way they do?" and other things ("can you imagine yourself being a parent?". Almost invariably I would be met with the response: "...are you on drugs?" I wasn't, but that would be an indication of how little there was to relate to (in the most elite boy's school in the state, no less!) I mean, sure I had fun playing ball and exchanging small-talk but most people just weren't interested in the same things that actually had me satisfied.
"High intelligence, unfortunately, most often comes with social awkwardness at a young age"
I didn't say that. Eyetwitch said that. Improper sourcing.
Penalty!!!!
I think I can see the heart of what he's saying, though, but I wouldn't word it in the same way. For many young kids, intelligence can bring social awkwardness... or social awkwardness can necessitate the development of intelligence... but only some forms of intelligence. Social awkwardness results from a lack of other forms of intelligence. I think that we are social animals and that having fulfilling friendships is essential to our well-being. We need to give and receive love, attention, criticism, compassion, and so on, ad infinitum. You could take the Buddhist monk approach and meditate/study enough that you will always be happy just with yourself, but that's extreme, and even Buddhist monks have social lives.
You mentioned Zen Buddhism... I'm inspired by Zen Buddhism, certainly, but also Buddhism in general, Taoism, Hinduism, Paganism, Marxism, Feminism, Anarchism... among many other things. I don't think I would say anything the way I say it if it weren't for all of these influences mixed together.
Anyways, the way I see intelligence, wisdom and knowledge is as a primarily hierarchical network, but each category is so broad that it overlaps with others, and each attribute is so meaningless in isolation that their interconnectedness makes them hard to distinguish. As an example, a wise man might take a look at his life, make use of all his knowledge and intelligences to come up with a short phrase that can help others, and then say this phrase to someone else. The wisdom is transferred as data and becomes knowledge in the mind of someone else, knowledge that connects directly with that person's sense of wisdom and reshapes their intelligences from above and below.
I've asked many, what I think, are interesting questions only to be met with the question "are you on drugs?" also, but now I'm finding more and more people that like wondering about big philosophical issues randomly.
And what is a 'Continental' approach?
Hmm interesting what you said about Intelligence vs Wisdom... I always thought that Intelligence is stuff you learn by listening and reading and wisdom is what you learn from experiance. But is that still true? Or even was true to begin with rather.
PS: Im on IE so sorry if I spelled anything wrong.
They mean whatever you want them to mean, all these terms are so loaded with multiple connotations and so heavily theorized on that they could have a million different meanings depending on the context. The best approach is to give a listen to as many different perspectives as you can stand and then form your own perspectives. I'm hungry!
How embarrassing!
I knew I should have stuck to writing my thesis in my sleep-deprived state (I'm deffo not getting any sleep tonight) rather than try remember who said what off the top off my head. The latter actually requires some brainpower. Good thing we're not shooting for points here.
(Darn it, I knew that would have been uncharacteristic of you to say. Why didn't I listen to myself?)
Anyway...
Social awkwardness results from a lack of other forms of intelligence.
That covers what I was saying earlier.
You could take the Buddhist monk approach and meditate/study enough that you will always be happy just with yourself
Hm, most Buddhists follow the maxim of preventing the suffering of others- in one way or another it would be in their central tenets, though perhaps you didn't mean the above in a self-centered way.
And what is a 'Continental' approach?
Hm, maybe I was also wrong to assume that you had studied philosophy? I was referring to the Continental philosophy of Europe as opposed to the Analytical philosophy of the West. It's more poetic, given to exploring the interconnections of meaning through language, much to the derision of their semantically-inclined counterparts.
Finally, another piece of the anecdotal puzzle: I've been working on the skill of convincing people that certain questions are worth thinking about. Prying open eyes that had been caked shut with the false security of dogma is rewarding indeed.
In one book I have by the Dalai Lama he talks about how even if you are selfish, which we all are, it makes sense to be compassionate because a compassionate heart that feeds other people feeds yourself, and what goes around comes around in the end anyways. Not his words exactly, but he did talk about selfishness as a virtue (when used wisely).
The ultimate 'goal' of Buddhism (saying goal conflicts with certain Buddhist tenets, especially the Zen emphasis of letting go of ambitions, but we're working with a western language to describe an eastern religion... so bear with me) isn't to prevent the suffering of others, but to escape suffering. A big part of this, an essential stepping stone, is to refrain from harming others and causing them suffering. But the Buddhist seeks nirvana, liberation from the cycle of birth, life, death and rebirth that comes from attachment and accumulated karma. Enlightenment lightens the heart and the mind so to bring true happiness; happiness not based on any illusion, intoxication, or attachment. This sort of happiness cannot be attained by someone who is always trying to 'help' other people, this path is ultimately self-serving, not self-annihilating.
Anyways, I haven't taken philosophy courses (except for logic which was a terrible mistake) but I'm familiar with a few really basic things, I read and discussed Plato's republic for a course last year, and I have some background in studying religions on my own, which relates to philosophy. And I am a philosopher, as are you. I couldn't contextualize my own philosophical ideas among the ideas of the great philosophers of the past and present, but I'm sure someone well versed in philosophy could. I would hope that some of my ideas would be at least somewhat unique... I'm sure that not many mainstream philosophers associate spiritual development with the careful and conscious use of hallucinogenics, for example.
Hm, maybe I was also wrong to assume that you had studied philosophy? I was referring to the Continental philosophy of Europe as opposed to the Analytical philosophy of the West. It's more poetic, given to exploring the interconnections of meaning through language, much to the derision of their semantically-inclined counterparts.
Sorry, but I think you're just patting yourself on the back.
Some people's eyes are closed, some are open. We can always help someone help themselves to open their eyes if they have some will to open their eyes, but the work is always theirs. If you ask a deep question and some people are interested, chances are that their eyes were already open. If others aren't interested, maybe their eyes are open and they don't care or their eyes are closed and they don't care, there's not really any way of knowing and probably few ways of changing the situation.
Does anyone know/like Tom Robbins? Here's a quote he has about genius, somewhat relevant to this thread:
Those same forces that drive a genius to create the things or ideas that entertain or enlighten us often gobble so much of his personality that he has none left for the social graces.
Good luck with the thesis
I think we've got all of the facts and ideas, now, and Strop and Squalick have them pretty well orgainzied. The problem we seem to be having is that no one has really come up with a conclusion about shyness, what it is, and what it has to do with everything else. I fail to do so also.
Wow, i need like an hour to catch up on this discussion and i don't have that
So, i will reply to skyla, with simply. I made sure to throw in the "most often" because the smartest human being i know on a personal level is soooooo far from socially awkward, he makes me look socially awkward around my own family .
Note: Quality of my posting has been going doooown lately, but there's things to be said so I'll give it a shot.
In one book I have by the Dalai Lama he talks about how even if you are selfish, which we all are, it makes sense to be compassionate because a compassionate heart that feeds other people feeds yourself, and what goes around comes around in the end anyways. Not his words exactly, but he did talk about selfishness as a virtue (when used wisely).
Yes, I'm trying not to get into the intricacies of speaking of Eastern philosophies through Western rhetoric...but I keep falling to the temptation all the same. I express the above as "all motivations are personal in nature" i.e. we are inherently 'selfish' by definition, but 'selfish' need not come with the connotations 'as opposed to altruistic'.
You've provided a great explanation on 'nirvana', so, although my understanding of the history of Buddhism is rudimentary, I find it interesting to see the various interpretations.
Sorry, but I think you're just patting yourself on the back.
...I think you were quoting something else? I think I neglected to mention this but I did mean 'formal education in phil.' as opposed to challenging whether one could consider you a philosopher...I've honestly never done a phil. class in my life but among my acquaintances who have, I encounter so much, well, wank, some of which I have summarised in that Analytical-vs-Continental paragraph above (assuming that my impression is even accurate). I was just being tongue-in-cheek earlier to say that your poetic prose sometimes loses me!
If you were talking about the "opening somebody's eyes when they were closed" then yes, I do agree with you-
We can always help someone help themselves to open their eyes if they have some will to open their eyes, but the work is always theirs
I shouldn't have implied that I had the power to control minds- that would be improper and, if I persisted, perhaps one day pathological. I meant rather that I'm working on serving as a catalyst so that people might be assisted to reach their own conclusions. You know...a reaction might reap a net gain but it requires an activation energy? :P
Anyhow, this tied in with something I wrote earlier. I don't change situations, so much as I choose my environments. Though perhaps it is still possible to work towards altering social dynamics as a whole, by giving opportunities for other largely unspoken wishes to come to the fore.
Yes, I quoted the wrong paragraph. Haha, we both have one doofus point now.
As for being a catalyst, I agree with you completely; providing opportunities to think about this or that introduces people to the limits of their own understanding so that they can go on to teach themselves. My own approach is just to 'mix things up' a bit so people have to redefine the boundaries of the discussion in their own mind and then go from there on their own. Hoping to see results is a negative habit in many ways, though, because it cultivates disappointment and arrogance. Transformation takes time, and any seeds we manage to plant in anyone else's soul will only ever be some among many.
Do you know Kahlil Gibran? I'll quote him on teaching:
No man can reveal to you aught but that which already lies half asleep in the dawning of your knowledge.
The teacher who walks in the shadow of the temple, among his followers, gives not of his wisdom but rather of his faith and his lovingness.
If he is indeed wise he does not bid you enter the house of his wisdom, but rather leads you to the threshold of your own mind.
The astronomer may speak to you of his understanding of space, but he cannot give you his understanding.
The musician may sing to you of the rhythm which is in all space, but he cannot give you the ear which arrests the rhythm nor the voice that echoes it.
And he who is versed in the science of numbers can tell of the regions of weight and measure, but he cannot conduct you thither.
For the vision of one man lends not its wings to another man.
And even as each one of you stands alone in God's knowledge, so must each one of you be alone in his knowledge of God and in his understanding of the earth.
Yes, I quoted the wrong paragraph. Haha, we both have one doofus point now.
Score!!!
Anyhow, this is something I have to get over myself about, to be honest. I'm really quite anally retentive about people understanding me on my own terms because often I feel that linked to people's judgment of me, as I may have mentioned earlier.
Speaking of which (token 'get back on topic' time!), shyness as related to insecurity --> can we draw further demographic/stereotyped associations from this?
You must be logged in to post a reply!