Tag Archives: Extroversion

Why Express?

Why do we desire to express ourselves with other human beings? What is this desire to “express”? What are we looking for? Why is it so natural, and so human? Why are we social creatures? Why don’t we exist without the ability, nor even, without the desire to express? Why aren’t we isolated atoms, unconscious, incapable of introspection, and without a sense of belonging? Why does the painter paint? The writer write? The musician music? Why is this how we are?

Interestingly enough, not only do we desire to express, but we desire to consume. I think it is fair to say that, for most, the desire to consume is greater than the desire to create: or, rather, that there are more consumers than there are producers. It seems as if there are more listeners of music than players, readers of books than writers, watchers of movies than actors, etc. Clearly, given the fact that we have minds, we desire stimulation for our minds. For some, this comes in the form of sexual violence, or other unspeakable evils. For others, this comes in the form of books. Human interaction of some kind is always desired at some time or another, whether the interaction be constructive or destructive.

Despite how natural this fact is, it still puzzles me. Indeed, it seems as if those facts most “factual” puzzle me the most. Questions with an answer “It just is” puzzle me the most. I ponder those most often. Their simplicity causing the most confusion. “But why?

It would be fair to say that, obviously, considering the fact that each of us as humans is an independent entity, with individual desires, that we have different reasons for expressing ourselves. But yet, we share a common humanity, in that we desire human connection. Speaking for myself, I find most of this human connection unsatisfactory; and I would imagine the same is true for many. Sure, you see people as you drive down the road, but do you really want to converse with them all? Flag them down just for a chat? Clearly, we ignore a majority of people that we are aware of. Because we feel as if we do not need to engage in deeper levels of interaction to achieve what it is we are looking for from human communication. This exists on a spectrum, of course, as most, if not all human desires and actions do. Some are more willing to talk to strangers than others. But still, we all need some form of human interaction. And I just find that weird, even if, admittedly, it is a “given”. We’re all looking for something, and we are all going to experience the ebbs and flows of success and failure in achieving that “something”.

I suppose that expression, at least in my case, is not always about human interaction, nor communication, but rather a desperate attempt to speak. The desire to speak (mainly through writing) often overwhelms me. I don’t know why. I don’t care about the feedback. But yet, I still speak. What am I looking for from other people? Do I not write for others to read? Why do I want them to read? Why do I want them to read if I don’t want to read what they write in response? And is that actually true? Do I hate all responses to my writing? Do I enjoy any responses to my writing? And if so, what kind? Clearly, I enjoy feedback that says the reader “enjoyed” the work. I enjoy any positive feedback, as all creative people do. But that isn’t why I express. I don’t express to say “I can’t wait for that positive feedback.” No, I just have something to say. Something to “get off my chest.” Whether praised or critiqued, I have a desire to express myself.

We all have people whom we enjoy listening to. And we all have people whom we enjoy speaking to. But what of, say, people like writers? Musicians? We don’t write simply for our closest friends. We write to “the world”. To anyone willing to take the time to read, or listen. Why? My first thought is something cheesy, like “Making the world a better place.” Do I really believe that to be true in my case? For one, I don’t think my work is good enough for that currently to be the case. Do I desire for that to be the case in the future? Yes, I would say that I do. Of course, there is an economic aspect involved in expressing “for the world”, as “the world” has money. But I think it is fair to say that many, if not most “artists” express regardless of the money. There’s something about expression that we need. We were given thoughts, and we were given an ability to speak. It may very well be that it’s simply our nature to be expressive, regardless of how we are received.

There’s many different ways I could go with this. The quality of what is being expressed (if, say, what is being expressed is an attempt to convince others what ethics should be practiced). What is expressed at expression (“reaction” to an “initial” expression). The soul is desperate to speak out. I think this is simply a matter-of-fact, no matter how puzzling that fact is to me.

People risk their lives for expression. Many value expression more than their life itself. When one is deprived of human rights, the desire to speak out against that is overwhelming. The victims are letting the oppressors know that they are not going to take it anymore; that they are going to take a stand. Of course, their masters are expressing themselves as well: telling their slaves that their own slavery is good for them. Once again, expression is not necessarily ethical. There are various motivations for expression. But, nonetheless, the desire to express remains, whether one be introvert or extrovert; criminal, good Samaritan, or both.

In addition to, in my own case, being interested in my own reasons for being expressive, I am interested in how “expressions” are “received” in general. Everyone has types of music that they dislike, or artists, or songs. The musician has reasons for creating the music he or she does. And that music is either liked or disliked by any particular individual. It’s weird to me. Individualistic diversity will always puzzle me. I accept it as a reality, but it bothers me that I don’t think I’ll ever be able to truly understand it.

Why speak if few listen? Why speak if you ignore the listeners? Human interaction is a very weird, intricate thing. Musicians create songs that people love. And people buy albums, memorabilia, go to concerts, etc. Sometimes, millions of people are involved (more than that, if you consider the people who aren’t “fans” who are aware of the band’s existence, express that they don’t enjoy their music, etc.). And, typically, the musicians are very thankful to all of the people who financially support them. But, clearly, they can’t have a “one-on-one” conversation with each and every one of them. However, I guess, in some ways, they do have a “one-on-one” conversation with each of them. They sing the songs that the listeners enjoy, and the listeners voice their support of the music either by cheering or by purchasing their products. But yet, I think you get what I mean. It isn’t the same as sitting at McDonald’s with your best friend, talking about religion, financial situations, etc. The communication is a bit weird, but at the same time, is natural. Assuming that the song was not created simply to sell (meaning the musicians derive some independent, artistic pleasure from the creation itself), they sing. Whether they be rich or poor, they sing. They express. What are they looking for? Money is an obvious first answer. But there’s often more than that. There’s something else. A receiver? Who, and why? Why does the writer desire readers, and the musician listeners? If you take money out of the equation, why would we write? Why would we make music? We could make music that we enjoy, and try to share that joy with others. Perhaps that’s what it is, to a certain extent. “This makes me happy: does it make you happy too?” An attempt to spread “joy to the world.” Maybe it truly is an attempt to “make the world a better place.” Of course, there is a way to spread “joy to the world” that isn’t self-fulfilling. You can be unhappy while “making the world a better place.” Say, you’re a doctor, and you do good work. You can still hate your job despite the fact that your work is helpful, and “makes the world a better place.” But, I think often, expression is simply meant to make the expressor feel good; and who could say no to the others that happen to enjoy it as well? I think that’s as simple as it comes down to: basic joy. I’m not willing to ask the question why it creates joy, nor why joy is a desired result (especially as the latter question is absurd: one of those “it simply is answers, even though I typically do enjoy asking those questions. I’m done with it here, however). One of these days, I attempt to have a body of work that fully explains my philosophy regarding happiness and the purpose of life.

Time to get back to the next piece of writing, whatever it is, struggling to find the best words to convey my thoughts that I feel worth sharing.

A Philosopher’s Mind.

Highly Sensitive Mind.

Writing.

Personality Development.

The only purpose that I EVER wish to have with my work.

My Youtube channel.

Advertisements

Other People

The problem that I always have with saying something is “What am I trying to say?” Well, in this piece, I want to discuss “other people” (“other” simply meaning people that aren’t myself). What do I want to discuss about them? And why do I want to discuss “other people”? What types of “other people” am I talking about? For surely there are a great number of varieties of “other people”. Let me try to elaborate further on what I want to say without addressing the questions that I just proposed that I know will follow as a result of what I’ve written thus far.

I like to write about topics that I think about. And I think about other people; namely, how to avoid them. Why they anger me, deject me, etc. I know I’m not alone in thinking that there are, compared to the total number of people that exist or have existed, a small number of people that have a positive influence on me. We all just “exist”. And we all do a great variety of things. It is impossible for me to begin to categorize “human action”. But it is evident that there exist people whom are more “influential” than others, with “influential”, in depth, meaning a variety of things.

I suppose at some point I will discuss those people whom have had a great influence in my life. But, for the moment, I’d rather discuss people that I don’t particularly care for: people that I wish I could avoid, or that I wish I never knew existed. There are a great many of these people around. I know there will be foolish readers, ready to pounce on me for saying this, who will say that I’m some sort of monster, and that I plan on killing these people to rid them from the Earth. Those type of hyperbolic idiots are some of the people that I’m referring to hating and wanting to ignore. People who put words in my mouth, and motivations in my heart. People who are ignorant in areas that I feel less ignorant in. People who feel very proud in pointing out the flaws in others.

…Wait a second. Am I not talking about myself?

Yes, I am.

Just because I do something that I despise in others does not mean I need to like the others who do these things. I am perfectly content with people not liking me for the same reason. There are a lot of problems that I have with other people: one of them being not being able to see the logic of hating someone who does what you do. The common line goes something like “Well you do what you hate in them, so aren’t you a hypocrite?” Yes, I am. Just because I do something, does that, ipso facto, mean that I need to like that in others? For example, what if I am a competitive athlete? Clearly, I want to win. If I want to win, I have to prevent you from winning. So if I want to win, I have to want you to lose. Clearly that’s hypocritical on my part. But is that a problem?

Also, I would argue that if I do something you hate, and you do that very thing and hate the fact that I do it, then that is “socially acceptable” from this standpoint: I have a problem with “peace and lovephilosophies. My problem with them is their unrealistic nature. I don’t have a problem with desiring for people to all get along in peace and harmony. But I have a problem with attempts to make this a perfect absolute that doesn’t accept natural humanity: a humanity which includes the fact that everyone just has certain personality traits that they just dislike in others. There’s nothing wrong with disliking certain personality traits in others. That’s part of being human; or, to be more exact, it’s not an unacceptable part of being human. It is an immutable reality that should be accepted, instead of attempting to make it disappear with attempts at “perfect peace and harmony” by saying things like “Just change how you are”, “Just turn that frown upside down”, and other vague shit that no sane person can actually do as intended when they are stated. To suggest that I should like an introvert and extrovert equally just because they are both expressing their natural selves (or just because they are “human”, or because of my own personal flaws) is preposterous. Clearly, there are ethical lines that need to be drawn. I should be punished if I act upon individuals in certain ways for certain reasons. If I kill an extrovert simply for being an extrovert, surely I should be punished. But expecting a “happy” attitude from me on “humanitarian” grounds is extremely inhuman. To be human is to experience emotions, and these emotions are not simply “happiness”. Now, I’m not saying that everything “human” is humane. The desire to kill is human insofar as the desire actually exists within at least some humans. But I’m merely saying that an expectation of perfect happiness is inhumane: humans will experience anger, sadness, and a litany of other emotions that render any attempts at “perfect happiness” absolutely futile and destructive to one’s well-being. There’s nothing wrong with the human emotions of anger, sadness, etc. There are extremes, but this “happiness philosophy” that seems prevalent, whereby some type of “perfect happiness” is achievable, or at least should be worked towards, is, quite simply, naive. Not only that, but it is actually destructive. For when you attempt to achieve the impossible, you can only ruin your sense of happiness. So the more you strive for perfect peace and harmony in the name of happiness, the more unhappy you become.

Now, I will say that a desire towards happiness is reasonable. In fact, I think a desire towards happiness motivates all of our actions. I’ll write about that subject in full detail in another piece, however. But the point is that even though I believe that all action is an attempt towards achieving happiness, the idea of absolute or perfect happiness is what I have a problem with. I have a problem with the idea that any “negative” emotions should not be experienced, and one just needs to, somehow (“willpower”, or something) “put a smile on one’s face”. The moralistic phrases are incredibly vain, as they always are. There’s a reason that it seems as if there’s more depressed smart people than depressed dumb people (or, at least, why the stereotype seems to exist (and stereotypes exist for a reason: they typically aren’t created completely unjustified)). Perhaps there’s not really any “evidence” for that observation, but it seems true, nonetheless.

I don’t understand why things like this never seem to be discussed (perhaps I’m just not looking hard enough in the right places. But the opposing view of “avoiding being critical” seems so loud as to almost be unavoidable). Once again, I accept the fact that peace and harmony are socially desirable. I appreciate attempts to bring them about. But what is missing from these perspectives? In my opinion, in addition to what I’ve already said up to this point, it also comes down to an ignorance of individualism within said humans. What am I getting at here? What exactly is it that I’m wanting? I suppose that, for one, I’m saying that a critique against critique is often unjustified, in my opinion. When someone is critical of something, it seems as if many people will say “Why are you so critical? Why can’t you just be happy?” For one, they never consider that the critique actually makes the critiquing individual happy. It is just assumed that critique should be avoided, for some type of “social acceptance” and “peace and harmony” and whatnot. That’s simply ignorant. Peace and harmony and social acceptance can only exist when individual wills are exercised. There’s no social peace among individuals if the individuals cannot express their individuality.

Now, aren’t those who I am critiquing doing just what I said: expressing their individuality? Yes, they are. But so are rapists. The point is that certain individualistic expressions are deserving of critique, whether or not they have a right to express their individualistic nature without punishment. Critique should not be vilified simply because it is critique. Critique exists for reasons. Clearly, it is up to the critic to present these reasons. But vilifying critique simply because it is critique is awfully fucking stupid. But it has seemed to be prevalent to me for quite some time now. And, obviously, I do not desire for stupid things to be popular (well…I suppose that I’d like to be popular, but I digress).

I can accept the fact that there exist people whom have much less of a propensity for critiquing than others. There are many people much more willing to uncritically accept what is in front of them. That’s fine. But, in my opinion, there does not seem to be enough people willing to defend criticism and critical people. There’s an attempt towards homogenization that is undesirable. There are some very popular exceptions to the rule, such as I Hate Everything. I admire people such as himself who are willing to be highly critical in the face of so much “negative Nancy” talk. I think he handles himself quite well. Interestingly enough, I think there are currently types of critiques that are, quite frankly, just stupid. Without getting into much detail, I’ll merely say that they are typically of the feminist or racial varieties, and leave it at that. Topics for future pieces.

I’m not saying that every critique should be accepted. I’m not saying that all critiques are justified. But I’m merely stating that I see a trend where anytime someone is critical, that person is jumped on by others for being a “negative Nancy”, or some other stupid shit phrase like that. I interpret that to be ignorance from blind people willing to accept whatever is given to them, although I know there are exceptions to that within those who, too often, in my opinion, decry “negative Nancy”.

What about criticisms levied against me? I’m not oblivious to the fact that certain criticisms against me are justified. There’s always justified and unjustified criticisms against everyone. But what is the point of me saying that? The point is that individual wills will be exercised, and that’s the way it should be, regardless of who gets along and who doesn’t; who is more critical than others; who is criticized more than others, etc. I’m not saying that all actions from human will are good. But the point is that humans exercise wills, and that’s how it should be; this includes people who are critical, and people who are critical of those who are critical (which is hypocritical). Criticism is not an aspect of humanity that needs “fixing” to a point where “tolerance” or “acceptance” completely take its place. That’s ludicrous. Criticism is a very important, beneficial social mechanism, and I’m merely trying to defend its existence.

But wait a second: I’m critiquing those who are critical of those who are too critical? Does that mean that I’m one of the very people I’m critiquing for being too critical of the critical? In other words, let’s say B is widely accepted as being a “very critical” person. A critiques B for being too critical. Then I come along and critique A for being too critical of B. Aren’t A and myself the same? Are we not both “critics”, just as much as B is, with the only difference being who is criticized for what reason? Yes. The phrase “everyone’s a critic” comes to mind. A critic is criticized for being critical, then the 2nd critic is criticized by a 3rd for being critical of the 1st critic. It’s all quite silly in the long run. But yet, I don’t think there should be some massive attempt to get rid of it all; particularly, if that’s some “peace and harmony” nonsense in which individual wills are to be subjected to some false ideas about humanity. Acceptance of imperfection is a much healthier perspective to have than to somehow mold everyone into perfect moral beings; especially when you compare different types of “immorality” (such as critical hypocrisy and murder). The point being that, clearly, there are differences between “human imperfections” and what retaliations should occur as results of these various “human imperfections”. However, regardless of the scale of the imperfection, attempts at perfection will always fail. There are realistic, humanitarian ways to handle imperfections (imperfections that exist on a scale). There are simply countless flaws within us that cannot be “fixed”; they simply must be accepted as undesirable realities.

I personally have an affinity for critical people. I enjoy them. They are very rare, it seems. I admire their honesty and bravery in speaking out when they know of the shitstorm they are going to receive because of what they say. Once again, I understand “the shitstorm” is a part of speaking out. But many people alter their words from what they truly believe when a lot of people are listening to them. It appears to me that many critics do not give in to this social pressure, and I greatly admire and respect that from them.

What other types of people would I like to be critical of? I suppose there’s not really any other “group” I would like to criticize, but, rather, I wish to, as I said earlier, just avoid people in general. There are obviously exceptions to this rule. There are obviously people that I enjoy reading, listening to, etc. But the rate of “people that I desire to listen to” compared to “people I desire to ignore” sways heavily towards the ignore side. I know there are many people out there who are like me in that regard, but I’m tempted to say that a majority exists where the “desire to listen to” outweighs the “desire to ignore”, if only to maintain my “me vs. the world” mentality.

I believe that it would be too difficult for me to specify which types of people that I wish to ignore. Obviously, I wish to ignore politicians and media members that lie. I wish to ignore people stuck in never-ending debates about race. I wish to ignore Statist economists. I wish to ignore a great many people, if not the majority of them.

I am perfectly content in being alone. As I said, of course there will be people that I enjoy listening to, reading, etc. But, for the most part, I desire to be alone as much as possible. I can never have enough alone time. I hope to remedy that some point in the future by finally figuring out how to achieve the appropriate amount of “alone” time. I think a successful internet career would do the trick (as long as I was never recognized in public). The only exception to my “alone time” rule is entertainment from others, such as music. Even the introvert needs some form of social stimulation.

What is my point of writing this? Am I looking for people to say “I agree with you”? Am I looking for critique? I’m merely looking to express myself. I don’t know what I’m looking for from you, the reader. I don’t know if I’ll ever understand that at this point (except for, of course, money). We all desire to express ourselves, whether we are accepted or rejected for what we express.

All I can conclude for sure is that I desire to be alone more so than I desire to be around others, I reject the seemingly-common “anti-critic” society in which I live, and I wish to express this as I did in this piece.

Simply, I suppose that’s all this piece meagerly achieved.

(There may be a critique levied against me that I’m unfairly grouping “people” into one homogenous unit. However, from experience, I have found that my feelings around many people are so similar that, for the purposes of this piece, it works).

Above all else, I simply desire to be alone. My dream is to make a living through the internet, with that being my only source of human interaction. My desire is to ignore the mundane conversations that occur in the workplace. The best way I can think of to avoid these is to make a living online. Easier said than done, of course. But this is my lofty goal. I don’t want anything to supersede this goal. At what point will I have “failed” in this goal? Either when I give up or when I die. That’s my timeline. Obviously, I’d rather succeed sooner rather than later. Today rather than tomorrow. But I’m not going to stop writing or doing comedy just because I don’t make a certain amount of money this year or the next. It may influence how much I do these things, depending on what time requirements there are from my job. But I don’t think that my desires to write and be funny are going to disappear just because of a lack of financial success. And if my desires to write and be funny aren’t going to disappear, I don’t see why my desire to make a living from them should disappear, either, regardless of how unrealistic that desire may be.

I do not wish to listen to those who tell me how difficult it will be, that I’m wasting my time, etc.

As I said, I greatly desire to be by myself, away from “other people”. I find most conversations insufferable. Petty, trivial, and stupid. Or I find that the listener doesn’t understand what I’m saying, and I don’t wish to explain, for example, a paper like this in casual conversation when someone asks “What do you mean?” I’d rather ignore the person and write the paper. Or the person actually does understand what I’m saying, but I don’t want to be involved in the conversation. That’s happened plenty of times as well. Writing helps you say what you want to say without people interrupting you. It helps you flesh out all of your thoughts, if you put in the time and effort to do so. And I don’t particularly care if people don’t understand my work. It’s frustrating, but I’m not willing to speak it instead to have people able to interrupt me and ask me questions. I do not desire to elaborate simply for the sake of understanding on the part of the listener. It bores the shit out of me, and does nothing for me. At least for the most part, based on past experience. At least understand what the fuck I’m saying. That’s basically all that I ask of you. And to leave me alone.

Maybe I’ll be able to elaborate more on “other people” at a later date.

Let me attempt to coherently tack on one more string of thoughts here. What is it that our wills should do? How do we know what our wills should do? Are there some courses of action that we “should” take above others? If so, by what criteria do we judge these actions in the hierarchy? I’m sure many responses will be of a religious variety, which I will have to write about at a later date.

There’s never a perfect course of action. Who to listen to, who to ignore, and what to do: all of these things and more I’ll have to figure out for myself in my own way. The choices are overwhelming. All the more reason to work to achieve my “alone” bubble that I so desperately long for……

The OBVIOUS value of alone time.

One needs a lot of alone time to do what one wants to do to keep the piranhas known as other people from destroying what makes you YOU.

Insightful.

Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking (a great book).