I'm Quiet and There's Nothing Wrong with That

  I feel like I should have a t-shirt that says: "No, I don't want to talk to you, and that doesn't mean there's something wrong with me." I have felt inadequate and uncomfortable throughout most of my life because of my quieter personality. It's not that I'm antisocial or that I don't enjoy other people's company; I'm just not interested in being around people ALL the time. After getting into this new book I've been reading, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World that Can't Stop Talking, I realize that there isn't anything wrong with me--there's just a disconnect with the way our culture views people like me.
    There are people who don't like (or at least, limit their interaction at) parties or large gatherings, don't like to speak up in a classroom full of people, prefer to study and read and spend time alone more often than not. These people are often introverts, and they are often dubbed antisocial or socially inept simply because large groups of people, loud noises, and speaking spontaneously or on the spot make them physically and psychologically uncomfortable.
    I'm not socially inept. I'm not antisocial either. I like people fine. I will talk your ear off, if you let me. I do like getting out and interacting with others. I can be loud and obnoxious. I just don't feel the need to do these things all the time.
    Once I get to know people, I am much better at talking to them. At a party, I am much more comfortable when I know the majority of people there than when I only know one or two people. Either way, I am apt to be a wallflower, but at least when I know most of the people, I can be pulled away from the wall and into the conversation.
    When it comes to conversing, I can speak intelligently about things. I can share my opinions pretty eloquently when given the chance. But I don't dominate the conversation or debate too heatedly because I am terrible at speaking spontaneously. I can't argue about something on the spur of the moment. I can't win a debate without due preparation. And I don't enjoy doing either because it happens too often that the person I'm debating is more forceful than I am and will look like the winner no matter how good my argument is simply because I do not carry the same weight in my presentation that they do. It's not that I don't know what I'm talking about. It's just that I have a lot more trouble explaining my ideas verbally in a convincing way than I would explaining them through writing.

    My entire life, people have been trying to "pull me out of my shell." I like my shell, thank you. It keeps obnoxious, loud people and things out. It also gives me a quiet place to retreat to when I need to process information or think about how something works or why something is. (This personality trait is probably the real reason I became a philosophy major. Philosophers are often quiet types prefer to think and reflect rather than talk, speechify, share and sell.)
    And you know what? There's nothing wrong with wanting be alone sometimes, wanting to think for a few minutes before I speak, or choosing to observe rather than participate. That's just the way some people are built to explore and experience the world. We will join the party, speak when we're ready, and participate when understand the game or conversation subject. We just need, and enjoy, a little more time to internalize the world than other people do. It's not a flaw. It's a fact, and it's an advantage in many ways.
    Being quiet and observant means it will often take us less time to understand how to do things. We learn from mistakes better and more quickly because we took the time to figure out what went wrong and how to avoid that outcome the next time. It means our arguments are often more structured and reasoned even if our enthusiasm and decibel of speech is not quite as high as someone else's. Those are good things to look for in a person, whether it's a friend, an employee, or a partner.

    This isn't to say that quiet types should try to take over the world and eliminate extroverted, social, talkative types. As always, moderation and balance are important with any two extremes. The point here is that, I'm quiet, and there's nothing wrong with that. Just because I don't act enthusiastic about everything or laugh at your jokes doesn't mean I'm deficient in some way. It just means I'm taking it all in. I experience the world like a game of chess rather than Marco Polo. I reason my way through it rather than feel my way blindly. We need both types of people throughout the world in business, family, and personal areas of our lives.
    I merely want to point out that you don't need to try to pull me out of my shell or try to get me to speak up. I'll come out on my own when I'm good and ready, and I'll speak when I've got something to say.
    This is part one of a series on this topic (I haven't decided how many posts to include in the series just yet). Next time, I'll delve into more examples of how being quiet has shaped my life, and how people have tried to unshape my quietness.

Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.

-Lao Tzu

Being A Little OCD Sucks Sometimes

  I spent the last couple days sorting through 410 articles for our new site at work, trying to sort them into categories and find relevant tags for all of them. It covers a lot of ground, so the lists got pretty long. I think I put together a pretty decent one though, one that was comprehensive but not exhaustive. I took it upon myself to put it together because it was starting to look like the alternative was another brainstorming session that probably wouldn't yield too many finalized results. And I guess it went over well, for the most part.
    The problem with this one is that there are too many cooks in the kitchen, I think, and everyone has their own idea of how to sort the content out. But, being that I'm the one who's going to be managing the content and probably the one who will have to go through and categorize and tag a lot of the content we currently have, My idea makes the most sense. I don't think that's immodest or stubborn, I think it's just realistic. I have a good overall understanding of how the content stands currently, and I think the way I've planned the organization of it makes the most sense for what we have on hand, as well as being a good place for us to move forward when we get new content in.
    I'm not saying my way or the highway, but kind of. When you have a website of this magnitude, there needs to be a process in place for handling certain areas, like content, as we move forward. If I create a process, I know I can stick to it. All that's left is making sure whoever comes in at any point to help with the content knows how I do it and does it the same way so that everything on the site is uniform and nothing gets confused or messed up because somebody didn't follow procedure.
    I am aware of how neurotic and OCD this sounds, but I am a little neurotic and OCD. When I have a job, I find a way to do it the best, most efficient and most organized way possible. It's one thing for the articles themselves to have different content--of course they would--they're written by a bunch of different people with different writing styles. It's quite another for them to be SEO'd and formatted differently because the people we have in-house are not all doing it the same way. I think that looks sloppy. And if I'm in charge of the content, you better believe it won't look sloppy for long.
    So, I may be compulsive and excessively organized, but it pays off from time to time. My high school psych teacher always used to tell us there was a method to her madness, which I always found terribly amusing because a psych teacher talking about madness is pretty funny/ironic, and I completely agree. I may do things the hard way and I may dot every single I and cross every last T, but there is always a reason for everything I do when it comes to this stuff. I don't do things without thinking, and while maybe my solutions or processes aren't perfect every time, I always have a very reasonable explanation for having done things that way. I don't think this makes me inflexible, it just keeps me organized.

One more person says "a whole nother" and I think I'll scream.

What are your little pet peeves, idiosyncrasies and neuroses? 

Or are you so easy-going that nothing bothers you?

Explain in the comments. ;)

These Vagabond Shoes

  I was torn as to whether I should write about the quandary of an apartment search I'm still having, or whether to write about a piece of nostalgia I experienced recently. Since I think I will probably manage to wax a little more poetic with the latter, that's where we're headed.
    The little piece of nostalgia I experienced happened at the movie theater last weekend, where I saw 4, count 'em 4, movies. One of which was Friends with Benefits, which takes place in New York City. I had no idea of this as I entered the theater, considering they played up the Hollywood sign scene in the previews so much, but I was elated when I discovered it took place in Old New York. While it doesn't evince the "New York State of Mind" quality that some movies do, When Harry Met Sally or pretty much any Ed Burns directed movie, it prickled at my nostalgia nonetheless. A few years ago, though now it seems much more distant than that, I was going to move to new york. I was going to move there after I finished high school, go to college there, become a big-city girl, find my dream job, fall in love, and publish one of my damn novels if it was the last thing I did.
    Obviously, things didn't quite pan out that way. I stayed in state for college. I have a good job, but not the job I imagined having once I was college-graduated and big-dream bound--publishing, advertising, law office, basically somewhere where you wear a suit and high heels and carry a briefcase and drink martinis after work at happy hour. I live in what I would classify as a large town, as opposed to a world-renowned metropolitan city. I fell in love when I was seventeen (it was a very good year), and I am still unpublished, except for the musings and ramblings I post here at Insistent and Persistent.
    The world sure looks different now compared to when I was 15. I can't imagine having such a competitive job and wearing high heels every day. But I still imagine what my life would be like if I had done what the 15-year-old version of myself wanted me to do. I would probably be living in a crappy apartment, making more money than I am now--but because of the housing costs in Manhattan, it wouldn't really feel like I was making more money. I would probably be reading and watching a lot of movies, which is much of what I do in my spare time here. I would be alone, because I'm afraid of going out by myself to meet people. I wouldn't be friends with my neighbors, or hanging out and getting to know the bartenders and the regulars at a local watering hole. I'm way too shy for that. And considering the types of neighbors I might have, not getting to know them might be for the best.
    It's interesting to think about where you thought you'd be and where you ended up by that age. Things definitely don't work out the way you expected them to. Ever. But I always wonder if that's because life gets screwed up and derailed from time to time, throwing a wrench in your perfect, if not perfectly thought out, plans, or if it's really because you never had the balls to try something terrifying like moving to a city where you don't know anyone and trying, not just to survive, but to succeed.
    I think it's probably a little bit of both--we all know how indecisive i can be, and this is no exception. I think if I put the effort into looking for a job there, I could get one. It might take me a while, but I think I could do it. The apartment might be tougher, but I'd figure something out, even if it meant, god forbid, living in Jersey for a few months. But, we come to the "if it ain't broke" adage in which we reason that: I already have a job, I have a place to stay even if it isn't ideal, I have a relationship, and I'm making it on my own, for the most part. Why would I give all this up for a shot at some pipe-dream nostalgic fancy that's lingered on for eight years? (Eight--god that makes me feel old.)
    The fact is, I wouldn't. Not now. If one of those things seriously fell into disarray, I might revisit the idea. But my life, despite all the complaining I do, is actually going pretty well. The "grass is greener" ideology only applies when the grass on this side of the fence is no longer green, as opposed to when it's green, but not as lush and deliciously deep green as the grass on the other side of the fence.
    So, New York, you'll have to wait. Maybe someday I will meet you again and take you by storm, dazzling you and all your big-wig, pompous, New-Yorker-reading, nicotine-saturated echelon with my brilliance. But for now, I will daydream and write and imagine that you are still as beautiful and chaotic and interesting as you were the last time I saw you all those years ago.

If I can make it there, I'll make it anywhere.

Basic Instincts

  Remember what I said about tolerance a while back? Forget all that. Just kidding. [PS: Apologies for not posting lately. My internet's been down ): ]
    Why is that we feel it's okay to stop tolerating people? Or not tolerate certain people. Certain people "bring it on themselves" or "have a bad attitude" or are just "different" that they don't deserve our acceptance. At least, this is what we like to tell ourselves. I'll admit, as preachy as I may get, I'm guilty of this one. Every now and again, I'll meet a person who I immediately just don't like. This dislike may occur for various reasons--while I like to blame it on pheromones, that may not be the entire truth of the matter. It's physiologically possible for us to dislike people based on the pheromones they excrete, just like it's physiologically programmed for us to be attracted to certain people based on their pheromones. It's a tactic we've evolved to help us find the most suitable mates and most evolutionarily compatible (i.e. non-threatening and non-harmful) companions. But pheromones may also warn us to stay away from certain people the way taste buds warn us about harmful foods.
    I'm no scientist, by anyone's standards. So, take this scientific speak with a grain of salt based on my limited understanding of how the body, and brain, work. If something is bitter, our taste buds let us know, and many times we will tend to avoid that food in the future. If someone's pheromones are distasteful, so to speak, our brain tells us we may want to avoid that person. Here's a question: should we trust our initial physiological instinctive reactions, or should we give people a second chance and try to let them overcome their biology with their psychology?
    Normally, I'd say the latter, but these physiological reactions exist for a reason--self-preservation. Maybe these people aren't all axe murderers or evil geniuses, but what is the reason that our bodies react against them? Perhaps they aren't physically harmful, but psychologically, it's possible. Misery loves company, as they say, and these people we instinctively dislike may be psychologically harmful, if they are negative people, pessimistic people, or just unhappy people. The question is, does our biology pick up on this negativity and send a message to stay away from them so as not to pollute our own psychological well-being? Or am I just whistling dixie out of my ass to justify why we dislike some people?
    As much as I'd like to believe that we all have it within us to be kind and generous and good-hearted towards everyone and anyone, I do believe that there are some people that we will just never like. We may be able to be civil to them and put on a good face, but there will always be something about them that will rub us the wrong way.
    While there aren't too many people out there, I'm talking real people that you meet--not celebrities, politicians, or athletes--that I honestly dislike for whatever reason, there are a couple. I can get along with most anyone, and I try to. I hate confrontation, and I suck at arguments, so staying on people's good sides is something I work very hard at. But every now and again, there comes a person that I genuinely just don't like. I can never put my finger on exactly why. I can give reasons, they have a bad attitude, they're too cocky, they're disrespectful, etc, but those things are not the whole story. They're reasonable reasons for not liking someone, but the dislike goes beyond that. There is just something about them, a je ne sais quoi, but in a bad way, that turns me off about them.
    Clearly, I haven't really made much of an argument for either side of this topic, whether we dislike people for a real physiological reason or whether we make up reasons for why we dislike them, and then there's the further thought: do we trust our instincts about people or should we give them the benefit of the doubt?
    Personally, I think we do dislike people for physiological reasons sometimes, and when that happens, we ought to give them a second chance, or even a third, to redeem themselves. Sometimes they'll surprise you. But sometimes, you're not going to like them no matter how hard you try, and the most you can do is just be nice to them as best you can, and not let the negativity you get from them eat away at you.

Attraction or aversion: which is more easily overcome?

Drama, Drama, Drama

  Much to the chagrin, disappointment and confusion of pretty much everyone I know, I have been watching Days of Our Lives regularly for 9 years this summer. While soap operas are cheesy, irrelevant, and completely unlike anything in real life, they have their moments, and their merits. Don't believe me? Well, I'm not here to convince anyone, or convert anyone, as much as I would like to bring more viewers to DOOL for their ratings sake, I doubt my reach is far enough to accomplish that. I'm only going to make a case for myself and my reasoning.
    Nine years ago, I was approximately two months away from starting high school. It was not only a big maturity mile marker, but also, it was to be my first experience at a public school after nine previous years of private school. I was afraid. I didn't know what to expect. And one day, home by myself, I happened to find Days of Our Lives on. There were four teenagers, at the prom, and I started watching. I was enthralled with how beautiful they all were, and how their little world, Salem--a fictional Midwestern town, worked. I kept tuning in. I guess I thought maybe I might learn something about high school or being a teenager or something. Probably not the best place to take my social cues from, but I was 14--what can I say?
    One of the best things I liked about my new-found afternoon program was that everything always worked out for the best. Good triumphs over evil, eventually--though in Salem it can take a really excruciatingly long time--and the women were beautiful and the men were all knights in shining armor--most of the time--except for the villains. The familiarity with the characters was comforting too. One month, Sami may be your favorite character, and the next, you'll think she's being horrible and decide that Nicole is who you want to root for. Loyalties change constantly as you watch the show, because the characters change and go through periods of extreme personality conflicts, sometimes by choice, sometimes by accident, and sometimes for no apparent reason at all.
    I will, only because I feel addressing it is necessary, go over the parts of soaps that turn people off. I've seen evil twins, people who were thought to be dead come back to life, people with amnesia who recover (often through hypnosis), medical miracles, kidnappings, more near incestuous relationships than I can count, and brainwashing, plus an array of other bizarre and wildly fantastical plots play out over the years. And, the plots have gone so far as to turn me off a few times so that I would quit watching for a few weeks or months until something interesting happened again.
    But, in spite of these plotlines, I continue to watch. Because I've known these people for so long, I care about what happens to them. I want this person to go to jail and that couple to have their happily ever after. It's not because I still think stuff like this actually happens or because I still think men can be as romantic and perfect as they are in the show--they're not, but they have their moments too.
    I've come to realize that one of the main reasons I still watch this ridiculous, unrealistic, and sometimes poorly written show is because I appreciate the stability. Every day, Monday through Friday (unless it's Thanksgiving or Christmas or some horrific news event occurs that NBC has to take over broadcasting that information for), there will be an episode of Days of Our Lives. There are no reruns. And even during Wimbledon or other sporting events. The show doesn't completely disappear. They show that day's episodes late at night, which I'm never able to stay up for, but through the magical world of Hulu, I can still follow them.
    There is, and unless--God forbid--it ever gets canceled, always will be, one constant in life: Monday through Friday, an episode of the trials and tribulations of the people of Salem will air. This fact is extremely comforting when everything else around me moves and changes rapidly so much that it's hard to keep up. I defend the need for some stability in life, and if this is the only place I can get it, I'll take it. But I do enjoy watching. Not every character all the time, but it's still entertaining. And, one of the salable points of it: you can always say, well, at least my life isn't that messed up.

Like sands through the hourglass, these are the days of our lives.

Motives, Reasons and Productivity

What an amazingly unproductive weekend! I finally got my hair cut, which I've been meaning to do for about a month. But when I sat down to do homework, I worked out how much each assignment would take me, approximately, and discovered I had about 11 hours of homework to do this weekend (though not all of it is due Monday, I will probably not find eleven hours during the week to complete it). This was so overwhelming, it may have set me up for the procrastination that followed. I started off with the assignment due soonest, and it managed to put me to sleep after five pages of reading. When I woke up about 45 minutes later, that pretty much shot my motivation on the homework front. I spent the rest of the day writing and watching hockey. But I did get back to my exercise routine for the first time in weeks, so that's all right.
    Today was much of the same. Went out to breakfast, ate way too much of several things that did me absolutely no good with regard to my healthy eating plan. Watched more hockey. Headed to a birthday BBQ at my boyfriend's family's house. Did no homework once again, despite being REALLY far behind now.
On the other hand, it was quite productive personally, if not scholastically. Hair cut: check. Writing: check. Hockey: check. IHOP: check. Exercise: check. Plus, I got my first birthday present. A TV. Yeah. Totally blown away. it is a couple years old and previously owned, but it's quite an update for me. I'm still using the tube TV I got for my brithday about ten years ago. So, in that light, it was quite a productive weekend, aside from the whole homework fiasco.
    Productivity is so closely tied to motivation, but motivation is a tricky thing. It depends on so many different factors. Motivation to do something may depend on money, how afraid you are of the consequences of not doing it, obligations of various kinds, the thing you're doing could be a means to an end, or you could just be motivated to do something because it makes you feel good in one way or another. Sometimes one type of motivation isn't enough to make you do something. Sure, I feel obligated to show up to class, but I do also enjoy my class, so I'll go to it. Exercise is good for me and will help me lose those stubborn last 5 pounds, but it also makes me feel good afterward, even though the during part is somewhat strenuous and un-fun. But even with the proper motivation, sometimes we still avoid actually doing things.
    While some productivity is good--the kind that helps you be a better, healthier, more intelligent, more prepared person, or the kind that pays the rent--other kinds of productivity can be bad. Working 80 hours a week may make you money and get you on good terms with your boss, but it's going to wreak havoc on your sleep schedule and your social life. (Like it or not, positive human interaction is a necessary part of your physical and psychological well-being.) So, even if you do have the right practical reasons to do some things, there are always further considerations to be made.
    Surprising how we managed to get from not doing homework to healthy forms of productivity so quickly, but that's how it seems to go when we do a sort of stream of consciousness writing. I probably could have spent more time going into the difference between reasons and motives, but being aware that there is a difference, and knowing when you have both or neither, can be a useful decision-making tool.

Having motivation is not equivalent to having a reason.