[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to bash you, but "Just be yourself" is the worst advice that you can give to someone who's not happy about something about themselves. It would be like if a kid was playing soccer and always used the toe of his foot to control the ball and was disappointed with his results. Instead of suggesting ways for him to control the ball better and encouraging him to practice you just accept that he's a "toe kind of guy" and tell him to remain confident in himself. Now clearly that's crazy and it seems like a facile analogy, but it's much more effective to treat the personality like a skill than like some intangible and untouchable thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored]. I suppose you believe gays should be "cured" too?

Introversion is a stable and long-term trait, and social success has everything to do with emphasizing the unique and inimitable elements of a person's individual personality. Social skills are skills in the way that painting is a skill, not in the way that soccer is a skill.

And yes, in painting it's good advice to "do what feels best." There are technical skills involved, but those technical skills are useful only insofar as they enhance the personal and imaginative content of the subject. Art is a highly intuitive discipline, just like social interaction. If there's anything this world needs less of, it's greasy-haired smooth-talking bullshitters who are indistinguishable from one another.

[ QUOTE ]
For some reason society believes that a human personality is a static, unique and unchangeable thing, and there are a lot of muddled ideas that come from this misperception.

People and their personalities are constantly changing. I'm sure all of you have heard people talk about how they went through an "awkward phase" in middle or high school, or you probably went through one yourself. People seem to think that personality changes are a biological part of puberty years and that turning 18 and officially becoming an adult marks your set in stone personality. It's social learning that's occurred, and it happens all throughout your life, people are constantly changing. "Be yourself" implies that you are the person that you are, and trying to change would make you someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personality does tend to be static after the age of 30, but in general it's dynamic and constantly evolving. A dramatic shift in the environment tends to have a dramatic effect on personality. But different people in the same circumstances often end up with very different personalities. Similar people (such as identical twins) in very different circumstances also end up with very similar personalities. One of the tasks of the research psychologist is to identify the static or biological referents and determine how they affect the development of personality.

An introvert will always be tired out by social environments, no matter how socially adept he becomes. He will always need significant time alone. He will always look at things differently from the extrovert. And those are differences in functioning that he needs to adapt to. An introvert trying to be an extrovert or doing a "fake it 'till you make it" routine will devastate his self-esteem and psyche. I'm sure I'm not the only introvert here who can attest to that.

Very little is empirically certain in a field as vague as psychology, but one thing is: different people have dramatically different responses to exactly the same stimuli. The nature of personality is irrelevant. The fact that people are different, and often have very different responses, feeling, and values, is what's relevant. Trying to throw out a "one-size-fits-all" theory of interaction is a great way to cause heavy damage to those your theory doesn't fit.

[ QUOTE ]
Confidence is universally valued, so people who don't understand the issue come up with homespun catchy advice like "Be yourself" and "Be confident". Take a second and think about what's wrong with the advice of "Be confident". When someone doesn't know how to act in a social situation, how can they display their confidence? Confidence is a byproduct of knowing what to do and doing it; the only way to act confident is to know what to do. No one can "act confident" without an idea of what they're supposed to do, and if they know what they're supposed to do then the only difference between "acting confident" and "being confident" is a little bit of practice.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, confidence isn't universally valued. Not even close. But confidence, at least in modern American culture, is effective in social situations so I'll put that aside.

This is still utter garbage. I'm so much more confident in unfamiliar situations now than I was 5 years ago you wouldn't think I'm even the same person. That's not because of "practice," it's because I've developed a sense of self-respect and a general trust in my own abilities. There are many people who are experts in their field but who still can't speak confidently about it. There are also many people who know nothing about a subject and yet speak with total confidence about it.

I know from experience that it's possible to "act confident" without knowing what to do, and to "act nervous" when knowing exactly what to do. Insecurities aren't always rational, and even when they are they often stem from internal rather than external factors. One of the defining features of introversion is being deeply affected by those internal factors.

[ QUOTE ]
Boolean wants to become more socially skilled; thus, the true way for him to "Be himself" is to act out on this desire by practicing and developing his social skills. It may be that you enjoy time spent alone more than with people jokerthief, but Boolean has a desire inside himself to communicate with other people and he just doesn't know where to begin. A desire to change is a very real aspect of many peoples personality, and following through with that is a way of staying true to themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with all of this. I don't see how it in any way supports your assertions.

[ QUOTE ]
Boolean, if you were interested in looking up more information, read up on social anxiety disorder. I really hate the name of it because it implies that there’s some type of permanent problem and that it’s unnatural and wrong somehow, when really it’s just a term for the anxiety which naturally develops from not knowing how to act in social situations and avoiding them. Approximately 10-15 percent of the population is estimated to have it, so there’s really no stigma that should be attached to it, it’s just a technical term for what most people consider shy people.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an acute introvert and someone who has overcome social anxiety disorder, I'm pretty familiar with them. They are not the same thing. They aren't even close to being in the same ballpark. The idea that introversion is just SAD indicates a deep misunderstanding of and lack of appreciation for introversion and introverts.