Shyness: Evolutionary Tactic?

Interesting article on introvertism. Read the full article from link but heres few snippets:

But shyness and introversion share an undervalued status in a world that prizes extroversion. Children’s classroom desks are now often arranged in pods, because group participation supposedly leads to better learning; in one school I visited, a sign announcing “Rules for Group Work” included, “You can’t ask a teacher for help unless everyone in your group has the same question.” Many adults work for organizations that now assign work in teams, in offices without walls, for supervisors who value “people skills” above all. As a society, we prefer action to contemplation, risk-taking to heed-taking, certainty to doubt. Studies show that we rank fast and frequent talkers as more competent, likable and even smarter than slow ones. As the psychologists William Hart and Dolores Albarracin point out, phrases like “get active,” “get moving,” “do something” and similar calls to action surface repeatedly in recent books.

Once you know about sitters and rovers, you see them everywhere, especially among young children. Drop in on your local Mommy and Me music class: there are the sitters, intently watching the action from their mothers’ laps, while the rovers march around the room banging their drums and shaking their maracas.

Relaxed and exploratory, the rovers have fun, make friends and will take risks, both rewarding and dangerous ones, as they grow. According to Daniel Nettle, a Newcastle University evolutionary psychologist, extroverts are more likely than introverts to be hospitalized as a result of an injury, have affairs (men) and change relationships (women). One study of bus drivers even found that accidents are more likely to occur when extroverts are at the wheel.

In contrast, sitter children are careful and astute, and tend to learn by observing instead of by acting. They notice scary things more than other children do, but they also notice more things in general. Studies dating all the way back to the 1960’s by the psychologists Jerome Kagan and Ellen Siegelman found that cautious, solitary children playing matching games spent more time considering all the alternatives than impulsive children did, actually using more eye movements to make decisions. Recent studies by a group of scientists at Stony Brook University and at Chinese universities using functional M.R.I. technology echoed this research, finding that adults with sitter-like temperaments looked longer at pairs of photos with subtle differences and showed more activity in brain regions that make associations between the photos and other stored information in the brain.

THE psychologist Gregory Feist found that many of the most creative people in a range of fields are introverts who are comfortable working in solitary conditions in which they can focus attention inward. Steve Wozniak, the engineer who founded Apple with Steve Jobs, is a prime example: Mr. Wozniak describes his creative process as an exercise in solitude. “Most inventors and engineers I’ve met are like me,” he writes in “iWoz,” his autobiography. “They’re shy and they live in their heads. They’re almost like artists. In fact, the very best of them are artists. And artists work best alone … Not on a committee. Not on a team.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/op…pagewanted=all

I still think its important for introverts to work with other people too. In many jobs you need to consult other people because you cant simply study and know everything yourself.

Allthough its equally important to be silent and not break other coworkers focus for no reason. I do it only if its really needed. Everytime you break somones work they loose their concentration and need considerable time to get back to it.

Year ago we moved from high-wall office to low-wall office. I really didnt like it and read som articles about it too. Theres more noise and distractions in such an enviroment. Somtimes I wonder if I could concentrate better working on home. Havent done that for 6 years. My boss asks about the distractions so is he is well aware of the issue though.

Get your own office. That is the solution. And a secretary to screen the entries. It allows to look anything you want on the Internet.

I go to work to do a job not spend time in internet. If I wanted just that I would quit my job and become unemployed. Then Id have all the time in the world.

Elaine Aron draws a line between Shyness and High Sensitivity.

Personally, I don't quite believe in that, but on the other hand, shy people and highly sensitive people have a lot in common …

The thing that shy people are often more safe because they don't like risks and therefore might live longer than extroverts, I think that this assumption has some truth embedded in it.

Originally Posted by zakhal
I go to work to do a job not spend time in internet. If I wanted just that I would quit my job and become unemployed. Then Id have all the time in the world.

Depends on the job. Some are advanced linearly. Others by leap. Useless to try to work when you are stalling. A fresh mind allows a fresh approach, which is worth hours of pretending to work. Ideas come when they come and from where they come.

Being shy and introvert aren't really the same thing. Gandhi and Spielberg for example. An introvert personality are stimulated faster than extrovert people. This means that longer time with others is unbearable for the introvert and they prefer silence if they wan't to concentrate. Extroverts are the opposite, they are understimulated and need more frequent social contact, a live environment around them etc.

That said, an introvert have a greater chance to develop shyness or social phobia and extroverts who develop shyness might believe they are introvert. Cultural assumptions can be quite crippling. The emphasis that any healthy person needs to socialize, that working in groups is good etc are presumptions made on false intuition. People expect everyone to work like them. While people eventually cease to argue that everyone should like their favorite IceCream, the greater differences are difficult to grasp.

I doubt it's an evolutionary tactic.

Being shy or introverted - doesn't mean you prefer being like that or that it's for your own good. Some people are conditioned from early childhood to socialise - which will make it easier. However, there are things beyond our control, like mental or physical quirks and defects. These will make you stand out, and as such be an obvious victim.

If your first experiences with socialising are negative or even traumatic - you will have a much harder time blending in or overcoming what others find to be minor obstacles. The early years are very profound in their impact - and many who have experienced such things in life, will never quite get over it. They may learn to "play the part" and function at work or at social events - but they'll suffer behind the mask.

As for what benefits socialising brings - beyond the obvious, it's hard to say. I don't think we can objectively claim which of being alone or among others is healthier. One obvious benefit of being an introvert (or extremely shy) is that you have more time alone to develop your mind, and work on whatever you're interested in. Most people who prefer to socialise will naturally spend less time and energy on private and intensely demanding interests. But I don't think there has to be this difference, and I believe a healthy balance can be struck.

But I think even the most introverted and private individuals prefer being comfortable whereever they go, and you can't entirely avoid other people in life.

So, I'd advise people to condition their children to seek out company from an early age - and then they can always decide later on if it's really worthwhile. At least they won't have to struggle as hard - if they adapt from the beginning.

A successful evolution trait/feature improves the odd of a species to survive. I don't see that shyness would fit into that. Being shy does not improve the odds of producing offspring. It also wouldn't improve the odds of survival should a worldwide catastrophe occur - that's where being social and the ability to work together shows its strength.

Originally Posted by JemyM
An introvert personality are stimulated faster than extrovert people.

I disagree - but if you replace "introvert personality" with "highly sensitive person", then I agree with you again.

Among the HSPs there is one sub-type, the so-called "high sensation seekers" (HSS), which are - if combined with HS - a dreadful combination - fopr the person which combines both, that is.

Originally Posted by Scrav
A successful evolution trait/feature improves the odd of a species to survive. I don't see that shyness would fit into that. Being shy does not improve the odds of producing offspring. It also wouldn't improve the odds of survival should a worldwide catastrophe occur - that's where being social and the ability to work together shows its strength.

According to the article it does improve chances to survive:

We even find “introverts” in the animal kingdom, where 15 percent to 20 percent of many species are watchful, slow-to-warm-up types who stick to the sidelines (sometimes called “sitters”) while the other 80 percent are “rovers” who sally forth without paying much attention to their surroundings. Sitters and rovers favor different survival strategies, which could be summed up as the sitter’s “Look before you leap” versus the rover’s inclination to “Just do it!” Each strategy reaps different rewards.

IN an illustrative experiment, David Sloan Wilson, a Binghamton evolutionary biologist, dropped metal traps into a pond of pumpkinseed sunfish. The “rover” fish couldn’t help but investigate — and were immediately caught. But the “sitter” fish stayed back, making it impossible for Professor Wilson to capture them. Had Professor Wilson’s traps posed a real threat, only the sitters would have survived. But had the sitters taken Zoloft and become more like bold rovers, the entire family of pumpkinseed sunfish would have been wiped out. “Anxiety” about the trap saved the fishes’ lives.

Originally Posted by zakhal
Year ago we moved from high-wall office to low-wall office. I really didnt like it and read som articles about it too. Theres more noise and distractions in such an enviroment. Somtimes I wonder if I could concentrate better working on home. Havent done that for 6 years. My boss asks about the distractions so is he is well aware of the issue though.

How about some earplugs?

Concerning the introvert trait. It's way too broad a category. It's like sorting people as republican or democrats. Everybody knows there is much more too it than that, as Herr Fassbauer alluded to.

Originally Posted by hishadow
How about some earplugs?

I tried those once in my ex-job where the noise was even worse but it didnt help concentration to have stuff in my ears. That place was the noisiest though. Just next to streetroad where ambulances drove past. Radio was always on to turn down the worse noises. I remember few times they even drilled the walls and the asfalt road just few meters from my workplace.

Are you an introvert, Zakhal?

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
I disagree - but if you replace "introvert personality" with "highly sensitive person", then I agree with you again.
Among the HSPs there is one sub-type, the so-called "high sensation seekers" (HSS), which are - if combined with HS - a dreadful combination - for the person which combines both, that is.

What I am talking about is Gray's BAS/BIS Theory (Behavioral inhibition system and behavioral activation system).

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Are you an introvert, Zakhal?

Depends on the mood I think. Somtimes I prefer solitary activities like reading, playing and watching movies. Then I get bored (restless) and seek social activities. Its like somkind of biorythm.

I guess I fear that I somtimes like solitary activities too much because introvertism seems like a bad thing. Usually that happens during long holidays when I have enough time to spend whole days just playing games or watching series.

Originally Posted by zakhal
Depends on the mood I think. Somtimes I prefer solitary activities like reading, playing and watching movies. Then I get bored and seek social activities. Its almost like somkind of biorythm.

Sounds pretty average to me

Somewhat like myself, I suppose.

I generally do very well on my own - but I can't do without company that long.

We do live in a world where socialising has become a somewhat broad term. I mean, even on a forum like this - we're socialising in a way - though I must seem very different from what I'm like in real life. I assume that's true for most of us.

I guess I fear that I like solitary activities too much because introvertism seems like a bad thing.

Is it really important what it seems like? I mean, if you're happy being on your own - isn't it pretty irrelevant what other people think of it?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Is it really important what it seems like? I mean, if you're happy being on your own - isn't it pretty irrelevant what other people think of it?

I like to keep questioning it occasionally for the sake of self-improvement but thats the conclusion I usually end up. Other times though I manage to suprise myself. The last year was full of suprise. It was perhaps the longest year I have lived in the recent memory.

Originally Posted by Scrav
A successful evolution trait/feature improves the odd of a species to survive. I don't see that shyness would fit into that. Being shy does not improve the odds of producing offspring.

Elephants are born with or without tusks. Elephants are hunted for their tusks. Tuskless elephants see their odds of producing offspring increased as tusked elephants are killed.



Same here

If that is true

extroverts are more likely than introverts to be hospitalized as a result of an injury, have affairs (men) and change relationships (women). One study of bus drivers even found that accidents are more likely to occur when extroverts are at the wheel.

so it likely improves the introverts' odds of producing offspring by same principle (extroverts live more dangerous lifes)without forcefully endangering or bettering the chances of survival of the species.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
so it likely improves the introverts' odds of producing offspring by same principle (extroverts live more dangerous lifes)without forcefully endangering or bettering the chances of survival of the species.

I agree, extroverts also put themselves at more risks. I'm going to suggest that both introverts and extroverts could be at either ends of a bell curve in terms of survivability over a lengthy time period. Ideally, an optimal specimen would be neither.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Are you an introvert, Zakhal?

I'd say : "No", because from what I read here, he's an HSP.

But I'm not him.


Besides, I'm out of this discussion since everyone just ignores my responses.

Thank you.