Confessions of an Introverted Traveler(worldhum.com)
worldhum.com
Confessions of an Introverted Traveler
http://www.worldhum.com/features/speakers-corner/confessions-of-an-introverted-traveler-20090309/
23 comments
My standard definition of introversion is you are primarily an introvert if you find certain social situations like parties draining. Extroverts get energized by social situations like parties.
When it comes to travel, I find that I am more extroverted primarily because traveling alone sucks.
As the old koan goes, "whereever you go, there you are". You may not outrun your shadow, however, travel can help figure out who you are.
When it comes to travel, I find that I am more extroverted primarily because traveling alone sucks.
As the old koan goes, "whereever you go, there you are". You may not outrun your shadow, however, travel can help figure out who you are.
I don't know what the truth is, but doing something you aren't good at, and aren't improving at, is also draining.
True, but not necessarily the case here. I'm an introvert who is getting significantly better at acting outgoing when necessary, but being sociable seems to keep a similar level of effort.
Heh. It isn't the case here, but you have to "act outgoing"? If you had practice, you don't have to act.
Yes, I'm an introvert, too, and I understand exactly what you're talking about. The diff is that how much I'm "drained" depends on the group of people. I have quite a few friends with whom I'm close enough to just be myself, to not "act". They don't drain me at all. I just eventually run out of things to talk about, unlike the extroverts who find more to talk about.
A group of co-workers? That is tiring, because it takes a lot of effort to act that nice.
Yes, I'm an introvert, too, and I understand exactly what you're talking about. The diff is that how much I'm "drained" depends on the group of people. I have quite a few friends with whom I'm close enough to just be myself, to not "act". They don't drain me at all. I just eventually run out of things to talk about, unlike the extroverts who find more to talk about.
A group of co-workers? That is tiring, because it takes a lot of effort to act that nice.
The article "Caring for Your Introvert," from the March 2003 Atlantic is a good, and more nuanced, discussion of introversion. There are also links to two followup articles.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200303/rauch
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200303/rauch
Wait... people travel to meet other people? I mean, I like to take in the local flavor and all that, but I've never actually spent time idling chatting with folks. I hadn't even considered it as a motivation; I just want to see the world, not be friends with it.
Without meeting locals, you may see the world, but you will never understand it. You don't have to befriend everyone. Meeting people is different from being friends with them.
Both of those may be true, and using "befriend" was a bit extreme I admit. But I must take this opportunity to ask: what do you mean by "understand it"? I've heard this phrase before, but it has never had any meaning to me.
It means something a bit different to everyone else, but it involves things like:
- When you merely "visit" a new place, you are getting the manicured, prepared, bite-sized, "tourist" version of it. This prevents one from seeing anything from more than just the "oh neat that's a big tower" perspective.
- When you meet the locals in a new place, you are absorbing their culture and perspectives - something that is nearly impossible to do when you're secluded in a luxury resort all the time, or stuck on a tour bus with people from your home country/city.
This perspective IMHO enriches oneself and allows us to understand what makes other people tick - and I firmly believe that if people took more time to figure out how other people think, the world would have a lot fewer problems.
- When you merely "visit" a new place, you are getting the manicured, prepared, bite-sized, "tourist" version of it. This prevents one from seeing anything from more than just the "oh neat that's a big tower" perspective.
- When you meet the locals in a new place, you are absorbing their culture and perspectives - something that is nearly impossible to do when you're secluded in a luxury resort all the time, or stuck on a tour bus with people from your home country/city.
This perspective IMHO enriches oneself and allows us to understand what makes other people tick - and I firmly believe that if people took more time to figure out how other people think, the world would have a lot fewer problems.
"Understanding" the whole world is a quixotic quest. However, it's possible to understand a bit of the places you visit by meeting the locals and letting them show you their way of life. It may sound like baloney, but I have experienced that many times :-)
Often one assumes that others have the same values and the same habits that one has. Meeting the locals in their "natural habitat" is a way of understanding the local values, the local culture. I do abhor that kind of traveling where you sit on the top deck of a bus and drive around a city while some dude with a mike points to touristic attractions. That stuff you can find on Wikipedia. The cool stuff is to meet locals who will welcome you to their houses so you can have dinner with their families, or show you the underground night scene that tourists never experience, or invite you for a weekend at their country / beach house. That's the good stuff.
Often one assumes that others have the same values and the same habits that one has. Meeting the locals in their "natural habitat" is a way of understanding the local values, the local culture. I do abhor that kind of traveling where you sit on the top deck of a bus and drive around a city while some dude with a mike points to touristic attractions. That stuff you can find on Wikipedia. The cool stuff is to meet locals who will welcome you to their houses so you can have dinner with their families, or show you the underground night scene that tourists never experience, or invite you for a weekend at their country / beach house. That's the good stuff.
It sounds like the author has a bit of a double standard; she wants to be left alone, but is admittedly "challenged" by situations in which the people around her are, in accordance with their own nature, indisposed to talk to her even were she want to them to do so (the scene at the cafe in Linz).
This sort of reminds me of some of the discursive space surrounding flirting and sexual behaviour in public. "I want them to want me - but only at a distance, not for real," or, "I just want to feel sexy, not actually get into anything," or, "Look, but don't touch." Same sort of logic, minus the arguably prurient focus.
In other words: look, lady - shit or get off the pot. You want to be an introvert? Fine. In that case, don't subconsciously demand to be fighting off eager companions with an umbrella all the time so that you can feel "besieged" and whine about how you wish people wouldn't be so presumptuous about your purpose in traveling.
If she's an introvert only comfortable among extroverts who won't go away, there's a deeper psychological issue here.
This sort of reminds me of some of the discursive space surrounding flirting and sexual behaviour in public. "I want them to want me - but only at a distance, not for real," or, "I just want to feel sexy, not actually get into anything," or, "Look, but don't touch." Same sort of logic, minus the arguably prurient focus.
In other words: look, lady - shit or get off the pot. You want to be an introvert? Fine. In that case, don't subconsciously demand to be fighting off eager companions with an umbrella all the time so that you can feel "besieged" and whine about how you wish people wouldn't be so presumptuous about your purpose in traveling.
If she's an introvert only comfortable among extroverts who won't go away, there's a deeper psychological issue here.
Even introverts require some social interaction. They simply require much less social interaction than extroverts.
I didn't get the impression that she was complaining about people not interacting with her, but simply illustrating that all cultures aren't as extroverted as American culture.
I didn't get the impression that she was complaining about people not interacting with her, but simply illustrating that all cultures aren't as extroverted as American culture.
I don't quite understand though why she expected people who probably don't speak or don't like to speak English, to engage in a conversation.
I'm an introvert and of course that's how I travel! I walk, sit, and enjoy. I still meet enough interesting people over time but they're comparatively few and far between -- on the other hand, that just perfectly suits my introverted taste.
I hope the author of the article will learn to live and travel without bearing such a useless and futile reactive pattern as shame.
I hope the author of the article will learn to live and travel without bearing such a useless and futile reactive pattern as shame.
Oh! I am an introvert and I don't care. Happy all alone which would give you a scare. Maybe you're an extrovert, I still don't care. Unless your also Swiss, with long blonde hair!
There are another one simple explanation of why it is so beautiful to travel alone - when you are walking alone you can see, instead of being involved in endless and useless chating.
The Buddha said 'If you do not have a company of the wise - walk alone'. It seems like the motto of a introverts.
The Buddha said 'If you do not have a company of the wise - walk alone'. It seems like the motto of a introverts.
What the fuck is this self righteous thing that people have over others that they come to such generalizations?
Seriously, I saw it in that meditation article too.
Is there not a perspective to be gained from the people who produce "endless and useless chatting" (Also you do not know the context of people's chats. Nor do you know why they are chatting. Nor do you know how this chatting makes them feel. Nor do you know what is going to come out of this chatting. It is not fair to call it useless and endless.)?
How can one be wise if one shuns oneself from whatever one thinks and feels is activity below them?
Having a specific criteria as to what is considered "wise" is also pretty fucking stupid.
Seriously, I saw it in that meditation article too.
Is there not a perspective to be gained from the people who produce "endless and useless chatting" (Also you do not know the context of people's chats. Nor do you know why they are chatting. Nor do you know how this chatting makes them feel. Nor do you know what is going to come out of this chatting. It is not fair to call it useless and endless.)?
How can one be wise if one shuns oneself from whatever one thinks and feels is activity below them?
Having a specific criteria as to what is considered "wise" is also pretty fucking stupid.
Wow, time to switch to decaf.
I'll address what points I can find, though. Note these, like those in the article, are personal opinions. Often these are given to help others understand a different point of view. I hope you take that into consideration.
I agreed with pretty much everything in the article. I'm often forced by non-optional social convention to spend time with others. Frequently I find their chatter incomprehensible, irrelevant, content-free, trivial, or some combination of these. There is an occasional gem, but on the whole, the return is pretty poor.
I'm sure these people are doing something they find useful and rewarding, but I feel that I shouldn't be forced into the position of having to tolerate it. Why should their preferences hold over mine? Why shouldn't I be left in the peace I crave, and let them chatter with others that appreciate and benefit from it?
No, I get forced to join in.
I don't think or feel that it's below me. Perhaps it's above me! What I do know after years of being forced to endure it is that it doesn't benefit me, and life's too short to do things of such poor return. This isn't a judgement of their worth - it's a recognition of my traits.
I'd guess you're about 18 to 20 years of age and have your whole life ahead of you to figure out what works for you and what doesn't. You should make sure you get a wide range of experience. I, on the other hand, probably have around 10,000 productive days left, and I really don't want to waste them.
Please, don't make me.
I'll address what points I can find, though. Note these, like those in the article, are personal opinions. Often these are given to help others understand a different point of view. I hope you take that into consideration.
I agreed with pretty much everything in the article. I'm often forced by non-optional social convention to spend time with others. Frequently I find their chatter incomprehensible, irrelevant, content-free, trivial, or some combination of these. There is an occasional gem, but on the whole, the return is pretty poor.
I'm sure these people are doing something they find useful and rewarding, but I feel that I shouldn't be forced into the position of having to tolerate it. Why should their preferences hold over mine? Why shouldn't I be left in the peace I crave, and let them chatter with others that appreciate and benefit from it?
No, I get forced to join in.
I don't think or feel that it's below me. Perhaps it's above me! What I do know after years of being forced to endure it is that it doesn't benefit me, and life's too short to do things of such poor return. This isn't a judgement of their worth - it's a recognition of my traits.
I'd guess you're about 18 to 20 years of age and have your whole life ahead of you to figure out what works for you and what doesn't. You should make sure you get a wide range of experience. I, on the other hand, probably have around 10,000 productive days left, and I really don't want to waste them.
Please, don't make me.
If you wish to understand, I highly recommend Jonathan Rauch's excellent and amusing essay in The Atlantic (March 2003) -- very easy to google for -- "Caring for Your Introvert".
One of his opinions in the essay is that introverts tend to think before speaking, and extroverts tend to think _by_ speaking. So, from that perspective, an extrovert is kind of like a DoS attack against an introvert's nervous system.
It's not about superiority or inferiority. It's about a fundamental asymmetry in the modes of discourse: sound can be imposing, while silence almost never is.
One of his opinions in the essay is that introverts tend to think before speaking, and extroverts tend to think _by_ speaking. So, from that perspective, an extrovert is kind of like a DoS attack against an introvert's nervous system.
It's not about superiority or inferiority. It's about a fundamental asymmetry in the modes of discourse: sound can be imposing, while silence almost never is.
Um, he did say being involved in the chatting. So, presumably, he's well aware of why they are chatting and what it's about. I find that this is true of me, too. I get drawn into all kinds of conversations in person which are ultimately useful only for being friendly and producing a friendly atmosphere. This isn't completely useless (and is sometimes very important!), but it's also astonishing how often I look back at long conversations I had and wish I could get that time back, because the whole conversation was about nothing in particular.
If you're an introverted traveler who actually enjoys talking to the locals and getting to know people, then join
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CouchSurfing
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospitality_Club
I am a member of both, and I have had a wonderful time traveling around Europe and meeting great people in every city I happened to visit. I am not very good at starting conversations with strangers at youth hostels either, so CS and HC have been wonderful to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CouchSurfing
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospitality_Club
I am a member of both, and I have had a wonderful time traveling around Europe and meeting great people in every city I happened to visit. I am not very good at starting conversations with strangers at youth hostels either, so CS and HC have been wonderful to me.
what's your couchsurfing username? I'm at http://www.couchsurfing.org/people/maneesh/
"This is not something I confess easily. I have long been shamed out of owning my introversion by the extroverts who dominate American culture. Extroversion has long been considered healthier than introversion, and introverts often try to push against our natural tendencies in order to fit in, to seem normal so people will stop scolding us. Extroverts are unintentional bullies, demanding that everyone join their party or be considered queer, sad or stunted."
The 'we're oppressed' thing just comes off as so bitter to me. Maybe I feel this way because I'm a lot more sociable than I used to be and have seen this issue from both sides.
I've noticed introverts who have become more outgoing and those who haven't have very different takes on the issue. Those who are still introverted tend to be a little more bitter and into the victim thing, and say introversion is a core personality trait.
Those who worked on becoming more outgoing will say their desire to socialize is more mutable than they once thought it was, and that a lot of their past so-called introversion was just shyness and not liking being around people because they weren't good at or comfortable with it. They still seek out and enjoy their alone time, but on the whole they say they're glad they got better with people.
* It's possible the ones who changed weren't hardcore or 'real' enough introverts.
* You could also start nitpicking the way I used the term, and start debating what 'introvert' really means, something most discussions on this topic devolve into before long I've found.