Conservatism as a Disposition

"A conservative is someone who stands athwart history yelling Stop."
--William F. Buckley

I'm really not writing today about politics in this entry, but feel free to make a political interpretation if you like. What I'd like to take some time to explain is how the conservative temperament operates, and maybe from there you can see how that leads to a political disposition. It runs something like this: some folks are not comfortable with change. Some of this discomfort is based on fear or mistrust, true; however, some resist change because the lifestyle, rules, or processes they grew up with work, or they have experienced negative consequences from making sudden or unplanned change.

A conservative seeks stability and comfort. Going with the flow--i.e., the rules received from parents, grandparents, ancestors, etc.--is the path of most comfort and least resistance. Said conservative accepts the guidelines laid down before they were born with the assumption that a) authority figures know what they're doing or b) there had to be good reasons for why the rules exist. The more inquiring will ask why things are the way they are. If living with the rules becomes more problematic than not doing so, then they'll consider changing their behavior or the rules.

I had a friend in high school who had no interest in traveling more than five miles from our home town. Moving beyond the Western Suburbs of Chicago was just not something that made her comfortable. Perhaps that's an extreme example, but I'm certain she was not unusual.

When people in the West lived in villages in ancient and medieval times, aside from occasional raids by bandits or neighboring countries, they accepted that the ebb and flow of life was more or less static and cyclical. The disruptive influences of the Renaissance were merchants, who dared to challenge the wealth of the Crown and the authority of the Church. Merchants--budding capitalists--believed that the world could be improved and changed, that people could become wealthier, wiser, and more knowledgeable than their ancestors. The Crown and the Church pushed back, but change happened anyway. And while Western Civilization faced several setbacks--the Napoleonic Wars, World War I, and World War II--that philosophy of affluence, scientific inquiry, and technological advance has continued up to the present.

Some people are still not comfortable with all this change. One typical conservative sentiment is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." That could apply to anything from manners to business processes to technology. In fact, I butted heads with a gung-ho fellow cast member when I worked at Disney because she was trying to push through a bunch of changes to how our department was conducting business. I finally had to draw her aside and say, "Look, I know you have a lot of great ideas, but you have to understand that not everyone wants to change. You need to provide them reasons for why they should do things your way."

Conservatives--again, speaking of people with a conservative temperament, not necessarily a conservative political affiliation--are not just anti-change or pro-comfort to be difficult or selfish. There are times when change IS disruptive and DOES have harmful side-effects. There are financial, personal, and resource costs to change. Example: "Hey, why don't you move to Washington, DC? You'll make more money. You'll be closer to me, and others." I hear this one occasionally. However, I moved there before and didn't like it. I didn't fit in with the "political" culture, as I found it focused on manipulating and gaining power over others--I'm not interested in either. That's a social and personal cost. My bills were much higher in DC/Northern Virginia, and I don't have a bunch of money to pay for another move. Those are financial costs. I could put myself into further debt or I could stay where I am in Orlando, warm and happy. Or there's my pal who suggested we run in the Disney Half-Marathon next year. Could I do that? Possibly. Might I get into better shape? Probably, but will there be costs? Yes: the entry fee, for one. But more importantly there would be a physical cost to me because I have bad knees.

If there's one mistake that people who have a more change-oriented disposition make when dealing with personal conservatives, it's their dismissal of the real costs of change, whatever they might be. They always have an answer to any objection, assuming that the conservative wants to change but they just haven't thought through the details yet. Much like extroverts who think that introverts really want to go out and socialize in large groups, they just haven't been invited to the right group yet. Sorry, no. It doesn't work that way. Sometimes a conservative says no for a good reason. They have thought things through and have decided that the costs of some change in their life are not worth the advertised benefits. And if they don't say yes to a particular change, the result will turn out just fine.

The System is Not Set Up for Introverts, Reconsidered

The recent public shaming of several public figures has brought to mind several aspects of the culture that irritate me as an introvert. The internet is merely exacerbating behaviors I didn't like as a kid. Below are a few more reasons why the internet-fueled media culture is not set up with introverts in mind.

• Sharing comments originally intended for one person. Perhaps you've spoken in the heat of the moment, but obviously not intended for the entire world. I'm not going to even speculate on Mr. Sterling's state of mind, for example, but I know that the reason I trust the friends I have is that they don't share my angry comments with everyone. Not saying what Sterling did was right--clearly he's said similar things in the past. That's a discussion for another day. For the moment, let's de-Sterling the conversation and make it about me, you, or someone close to you. Let's say I've said something rather rude, like "I think X is an blankety-blank jerk and I can't stand him." I say this to a friend in confidence, but said friend, for whatever reason, has started recording our conversations and posts my diatribe on YouTube. Or they don't even have to record it; they could just repeat the comment to someone...maybe the subject of the comment himself, creating unnecessary hard feelings with that person and creating embarrassment for me. No, I probably shouldn't have said what I said, but my "friend" probably shouldn't have repeated it, let alone recorded it. That's a level of low that's hard for me to process.
• Ganging up on someone. Are you perfect? Have you said only kind, culturally sensitive, perfectly politically correct words with every single solitary person you've ever met? Never mind, let's cut to the chase: no, you haven't. I haven't. No one has, not even those who decide what's socially appropriate/polite and what's not. So let's say you're better than average and you only slip up once a week or once a month. Take your most obnoxious comment and imagine having it shared with everyone you know. With perfect strangers. Multiply that by a factor of a few hundred million. You know what you did was wrong. Now so does everyone around you, and every self-righteous scold now wants to pile on and tell you how to change your behavior. Or maybe you're not sorry for what you said or did, but you're now surrounded by a lot of people who detest you for it. The loneliest minority in the world is a minority of one, and it becomes nearly impossible to live a normal life with your beliefs intact if you believe that the entire world hates you because of one comment.
• Bringing up old issues. This has been happening in human relationships for hundreds of years. Person A says or does something stupid or hurtful to his or her significant other, and that significant other brings it up in the heat of an argument months or even years later. The internet allows not just Person A to bring it up but anyone who has seen or heard what you did. And the internet never forgets. Years later, decades later, anyone can go back to that moment of ill-timed stupidity and throw it in your face. I read an article recently that brought up the fact that forgetfulness is one of the human attributes that allows us to forgive others and to heal. The internet does not allow anyone to forget and does not allow the perpetrator of social faux pas the right of forgiveness. (Let's assume here that I'm not talking about high crimes and misdemeanors.)
• Always being "on stage." This is a particular pet peeve for introverts. We usually don't enjoy being the center of attention. I write on the internet and usually go out of my way not to post pictures of myself unless I deem it necessary--in fact, I once asked a friend to remove a photo. My standard internet avatar is the gopher armed with a machine gun. And most authors (unless they're major money makers) manage to enjoy a bit of anonymity not possible for actors, actresses, or other media figures, whose faces tend to be everywhere. Different introverts respond to the internet--particularly Facebook--in different ways: 
• Carefully control or limit the amount and type of information shared.
• Create an online "persona" that resembles, but isn't a 100% representation of what the individual is actually thinking.
• Not participate at all.
• 
  Many of my friends take the first approach. My parents take the last approach. I favor the middle approach, where I share humor, opinions, or stories that interest me. However, I usually don't share all my personal information (address, financial status, relationships, etc.) about how I live my daily life. So far as the internet knows, I'm a sarcastic, cerebral introvert with an odd writing career and gopher for an avatar. Is that "me?" Yes and no. I've seen in some places that "You are your data" now, and that anything you do that interacts with a computer is kept somewhere and explains who you are and what you are like. The internet is gratifyingly free of Bart Leahy-related videos. Part of that is the result of not doing much worth capturing on video; part of it is from a studied effort not to put myself in front of the camera. As a t-shirt now says, "I'm glad I'm old enough that all the stupid stuff I did as a kid isn't on the internet." So if you read my data, you might get some insight into my interests and how I spend my time and money. Does that mean you "know" me? No. You don't know what I'm thinking right now. You don't know what my facial expressions are. You don't know how I react when I'm happy or hurt. You don't know who all my friends are or how they feel about me.
  
  It used to be that only movie stars had this problem--fans thinking that they "knew" the celebrity in question because they've read every tabloid and newspaper story about them. On the flip side of that, the celebrities themselves found themselves in a fishbowl, unable to find a moment to themselves to just be a regular person because any unguarded moment was captured by a voracious paparazzi.
  
  Now we're all paparazzi, if we choose (I usually don't because, quite frankly, what other people do with their personal lives is usually none of my damn business). Yet if our face and data are out there on the internet, we're "celebrities" whether we would wish it or not. This is a doubly problematic issue for introverts: we don't share ourselves as easily as extroverts. The assumption of the internet is that if you post anything "out there" (or someone posts something about you) people assume that they know you. Yet I am sometimes taken off guard when I talk to someone who has been following my doings on Facebook and comments on them when I see him or her in person. Mostly that's a function of forgetting what I've posted...but, again, the internet remembers.
  
  Right now it's just my words and occasionally my pictures out there. How will I behave if I think "the camera's on" every moment of my life. George Orwell considered a horrific form of constant surveillance in 1984, as I do. Yet in 2014, we're doing it to ourselves. I don't know why people worry about the NSA spying activities sometimes when so much of people's lives is being shared. Some people "ham it up" if they know a camera is on. Others, like my parents and me, become very still and very quiet.
• If the camera is on all the time, the extroverts will win. Introverts need time to compose arguments refuting bad things that are said about us or what we think. This is why many of us become writers--because we aren't as adept at the think-on-your-feet interactions required for public debate. We're self-conscious about being the center of attention. We have to expend a lot of energy to interact with lots of people at once, and that can impact how effective we are as public speakers--it's not the quality of our thoughts that is lacking but our confidence in speaking about those thoughts. We might have very well-thought-out reasons for doing or saying something, but sometimes it takes us a while to work out that reasoning--at which point the topic has changed. TV and the internet are all about the now.
  
  I might be wrong, but I think a lot of those people who think up great retorts an hour after the argument ends are introverts. I'm one of them, to be sure. And, again, video is all about what's happening now, in the moment. If it looks like an introvert is losing because they're pausing to think out their answer, the extrovert will be perceived as the winner. A brilliant response two hours later does the introvert no good--the extrovert will be perceived as the better debater and better speaker now. I can't help wondering if that's why televised presidential debates have shaped the presidents we have gotten over the past 50-odd years.
  
  To close this essay, I'm left to wonder how introverts will find advantages in a culture that is increasingly driven by the immediate, the verbal, and the "live action." I'm open to suggestions. Right now, however, I need to turn off this machine and go take a walk.

Introverts: The System Is Not Set Up for Us

If you're a follower of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicators (MBTI), you understand how some folks can be categorized by personality type:

E - Extroverted
I - Introverted
S - Sensing
N - iNtuitive
T - Thinking
F - Feeling
P - Perceiving
J - Judging

Most of the chatter I see on the internet is about the differences between introverts (of which I am one) and extroverts. But I believe, in my case, more than one factor plays into my occasional inability to enjoy the popular culture.

Extroversion vs. Introversion. No question that the American culture is extroverted. Do you love interacting with the crowd? Can you talk with anyone? Can you convince? Can you charm? If you answered yes to all of these, you're most likely going to succeed in this culture. Do crowds overwhelm or exhaust you? Are you uncomfortable talking with strangers? Do you trip over your tongue when trying to convince someone of your ideas? Do you lack an interest in winning people over? You might be a candidate for social ostracism...or a character spot on Big Bang Theory.

Sensing vs. Intuitive. America also has very much a sensing society: facts, dollars, sensations...if you work primarily with what's in front of your eyes, you're considered to have "common sense" and better able to address the questions of your peers on the spur of the moment. On the other hand, if you're more past- or future-minded or "inside your head," you're considered impractical, an egghead.

Thinking vs. Feeling. Our culture is more feeling than thinking (try getting into discussions about astronomy or philosophy with random strangers here!). Are you fond of tactfulness? In that case, you're less likely to get yourself into a social faux pas. Part of a democracy involves moderating opinions to ensure domestic tranquility, sometimes at the price strict truth--if such notions irritate you, well, you're likely to stand out in a crowd.

Perceiving vs. Judging. America is a pretty relaxed place on matters of protocol and timeliness. A "judging" person, in the MBTI world, means applying rules (arbitrary or not) to behavior. Perceiving people prefer to let things happen.

I'm about half there, most recently testing out as INFJ, Introverted-Intuitive-Feeling-Judging. So imagine a quiet guy who spends his time inside his head and is easily hurt or upset by the behavior or tardiness of others.

The Myers-Briggs traits are only part of the story. After living in Washington, DC, for three years, it became painfully clear to me that I was ill-fitted for life in our nation's capital. Do you crave power over others? Fame? If not, Washington and Hollywood are not for you. Do you want to experience everything from mountain climbing to extreme sports to "extreme eating?" No? I'm sorry, you won't fit the zeitgeist. Are you interested in making a fuss? Forcing your opinion on others? Do you want to share all of your personal secrets aloud? Live on the cutting edge of fashion? Own the newest, biggest, best, and most expensive of everything? If not, your social standing might suffer. Or so it seems to me.

It's a weird world out there, if your personality is not wired to appreciate it. Find your own way. It can be done.

Introverts, Extroverts, and Stress

One way I can tell something is bothering me is that I grind my teeth at night. This is an introvert problem, I'm convinced, not something that would affect an extrovert. Why not? Because if something is bothering an extrovert, they know it and say it out loud. That, I suppose, is one of the reasons I find extroverted women so appealing--there's not a lot of doubt about what's going on in their mind at any given moment--give them a moment and they'll TELL you what's wrong. Of course the downside of that is (in my mind) that extroverts can have a tendency to over-share. Do I really need to know/hear about everything that's bugging you the moment it starts to arise?

Introverts handle stress differently. Not wanting to bother or impose on others, we keep our problems to ourselves. Instead, we have a ready-made set of behaviors that allows us to process stress out of sight from the public. Personally, I go down the list: is it work related? Person related? Something else? Then I start asking why: why is X situation bothering me? What is so-and-so person doing to push my buttons? What do I need to say to stop grinding my molars into gravel at night? Next, I start analyzing what I might do to fix the situation. Do I need to do something? Say something? Or do I need to refrain from something? After that, I can take constructive action, do what needs to be done, and get back to a normal, grind-free sleep.

What's interesting about this way of doing things is that extroverts often are taken aback when an introvert takes that unilateral action to relieve stress--and that action might be something like the introvert taking the extrovert aside and reading them the riot act for something they did weeks ago or are continuing to do in the present. The extrovert gets defensive or dismissive, asking, "If it was that big a deal, why didn't you say something when it happened?" But that's not how introverts work. We don't always feel something hurtful immediately, or we put a feeling/action into a distance buffer as a way of reducing the immediate pain, lest it overwhelm us completely.

Another unfortunate side effect of introverts' delayed reactions is that extroverts can tend to mistrust us or start to read into what we say more than is necessary simply because we haven't said anything. "What do you mean by that?" is a phrase I often dread, either because I feel I'm being mistrusted or because I'm not yet prepared to share everything that's on my mind. That might be an introvert's caution or my own personal efforts at politeness and restraint, it's hard to say. But really, forcing an introvert to say, on the spot, what they're feeling about something is about as constructive as telling an extrovert to go away and be quiet for 30 minutes.

I guess if there are any lessons here, it would be these: extroverts need to give an introvert who is clearly stressed out or bothered a chance to work things out for themselves. Observe that we're upset, express a willingness to listen (and then be ready to stick to it) when we're ready to talk. Introverts need to be better about stating when something is bothering them. It doesn't have to be a long-winded explanation, just a simple statement of, "I don't like it when you [do X]. Would you please stop it?"

Meanwhile, I have to go back into my mental routines and figure out what's stressing me out. My jaw is getting tired.

Book Review: The Introvert Advantage



I saw this on a friend's bookshelf a few weeks ago and decided that the title was too intriguing not to buy: The Introvert Advantage: How to Thrive in an Extrovert World was worth reading for providing a little more self-awareness. According to Marti Olsen Laney, Psy.D., the most basic determinant between whether you're "at heart" one or the other seems to be how you expend and derive social energy. If being among crowds of people energizes you and leaves you wanting more, you're most likely an extrovert; if being in said crowd fills you with discomfort and you'd rather recharge by staying at home with a good book, you're most likely an introvert.

I've balanced on the border between introversion and extroversion since childhood. Hardly a shrinking violet, I've been in theater, worked in customer service jobs in retail and at Walt Disney World, and taken on public speaking and leadership roles that are more characteristic of extroverts than introverts. But there's usually a cost. I started noticing this particularly after a year or two at a hotel front desk: I could do the job, but it was starting to make me miserable. I'd get off work and have little to no energy to socialize or even be friendly with my friends and coworkers. I continue to remain single and haven't had so much as a roommate since I could afford to live on my own.

Some of this isn't just me being ornery. According to the author, there are biological and psychological reasons behind the introverted temperament, from the predominant chemicals in our brains (acetycholine) to the physical pathways thoughts and memories are stored, which differ from extroverts. Laney is quick to point out that this is not bad, just different. In general, though, the important things to know about introverts are simply that they spend most of their time in their own heads and less time in the physical world. While extroverts are more excited by and interested in the inputs of their five senses, introverts are paying more attention to how the inputs from those senses are affecting them and making them feel.

Another useful insight for me was Laney's discussion of how introverts come by and cope with stress. Extroverts can get stressed out by lack of inputs from others. For instance, I recall a friend at Disney who nearly freaked out when she came into the break room and found that I had turned off the TV so I could read a book in peace. On the other hand, I had turned off the abominable contraption because there was too much noise in the room. I was behaving like a typical introvert, as we tend to reduce the amount of sensory input we get so we can focus on the essentials of whatever's in front of us--in my case, the book I was reading.

This is not to say that biology is destiny or that introverts should always revel in their uniqueness (according to Laney, we're only 25% of the population). The author offers both supportive words but also advice to the introvert reader on issues ranging from work to dating to parenting. She reminds introverts that, while we have unique gifts of insight and concentration, we also need to stretch our extrovert muscles occasionally. For example, it surprised me not at all to note that I'd had nearly all of the challenges she listed for introverts dating extroverts. She also offered insights on why I might be more attracted to extroverts and what strategies the "innie" might use to account for the challenges.

I am mailing this book to my mother, who is much more introverted, quiet, and private than I am. I believe she'll find it worthwhile. I'm also thinking my sister--who's about as extroverted a person as I've ever met--might benefit from reading this book, as I've noticed that her kids are a bit less "E" than she is. In any case, Laney's book is worth reading to help introverts understand how and why they think the way they do, and to help extroverts get a better sense of why the "innies" in their lives occasionally just want to be left the hell alone.

Myers-Briggs, Culture Wars, and the Avant-Garde

In the process of reading The Introvert Advantage, a few facts converged in my mind:

• Extroverts outnumber introverts 3 to 1 in the general populace.
• The science, space, and engineering communities that I support (as a semi-extroverted introvert, I'll note) are dominated by introverts.
• My extroverted friend Darlene the Science Cheerleader has been fighting against stereotypes and for broader public participation in science- and technology-related debates.
• Awhile back, I wrote an article about the arrival of professionals (i.e., extroverted marketing types) into the space advocacy business.

It has since occurred to me that the "two cultures" identified by C. P. Snow in the early 1960s were misidentified. The war might not be between cultures but between temperaments: between the introverts and the extroverts.

Consider a few side effects of being introverted:

• Natural quietude and deep (internalized) thinking.
• A tendency to focus deeply on topics of personal interest, often in compensation for social awkwardness.
• A tendency to believe, often rightly, that others don't understand you or your interests.

The result of these introverted tendencies is a long-running snobbery by introverted and technically minded individuals against generally socially minded extroverts. This snobbery is not limited to the science or engineering worlds, however; introverted artists often exhibit pessimistic or depressive outlooks and tend to look down on optimistic extroverts (e.g. cheerleaders).

What, then, is the "culture war" or "temperament war" about? I think it has to do with influence, power, and money. There are many, many more extroverts than introverts, yet introverts often monopolize the cultures of high technology and the arts, which generate much of the wealth in this country. The majority wants a piece of the action.

That is why "geek" is now more chic.

That is why fantasy, science fiction, and comic book-based movies are now the big money makers in Hollywood.

That is why the shape of space exploration is shifting toward a more participatory activity.

That might be why we have our first nerd President.


"Geek" might be chic, but the extroverts are taking over, and they now want their say on issues which, up to now, were controlled by introverts because they were the only ones with enough interest to pay attention to them.

So what will be the end result of this invasion of the introverts' domain by extroverts? Speaking as a moderately extroverted introvert, if I had to guess I'd say that as "geek space" becomes more mainstream, the introverts will move on to other, even more esoteric interests, ideas, art forms, and technologies.

Introverts might not say much, but they do keep the avant-garde moving steadily onward, continually pushing the boundaries of the human experience. So the "war" won't be won or lost. Instead, the introverts will simply move the battle lines somewhere they can get a little peace and quiet. As with anything avant-garde, by the time the avant-garde has become mainstream, the frontier has already moved on, simply because introverts hate crowds.