10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Should be Allowed

In a time when the Australian political debate has converged on this issue of gay marriage, we should examine the reasons that people have raised in their protest against gay marriage.

The methodology behind this article is based on social psychology (and therefore science) rather than law or religion. It argues for 10 reasons why gay marriage should be allowed in Australia.


1. To say that gay marriage is wrong because marriage laws dictate it, is flawed reasoning.

Since 2004, Australian law states that "marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life".

This law needs to be changed. The majority of people who voted in a recent Sydney Morning Herald article think so. Do we or do we not have a democracy?

Laws are supposed to be helpful.
In this case,

a. The current law may not be right for all. Using it to defend the anti-gay marriage cause is a circular device. It's like when someone asks "Why is that" and you reply "Because I said so"

b. Laws are meant to exist for the benefit of mankind. A law against murder and theft for example are pro-life and pro-respect and ensure that people are protected from harm. But a law against gay couple marriage is not pro anything. Who benefits from it? Who does it help? No one. In fact it hinders people who genuinely love each other from advancing as easily as other couples on the sole basis of their gender constitution. The current law is depriving some couples who feel love for each other on the basis that 'it is the law' but for no other valid reason. It therefore needs to be changed for the good of humanity.

Some countries, including Spain, Canada and The Netherlands have already done that. This map from French newspaper, Le Figaro, shows the current gay marriage, gay civil union and adoption laws in the world.


2. To say that marriage laws dictate that the party be male and female is archaic

Let's face it, Australian laws today are based on the old Judeo-Christian laws. To repeat this archaic nonsense is the equivalent of repeating that "a woman should be stoned for adultery."
Some laws should be changed.

3. What is defined as normal is a cultural mindset

Culture is changing. What is right or wrong has changed over the years. Nothing is by definition "normal".

About 110 years ago, Oscar Wilde was sentenced to hard labour for 2 years. He was made to labour on the treadmill until he was wasted. Why? He was charged with gross indecency because he was gay.

Today in countries where homosexuality is legal, including Australia, we would cringe at the thought of Oscar Wilde's treatment. How could they do this to him?
Yes, only about 110 years ago, the English judicial system did this to Oscar Wilde because the culture and times were conducive to this mentality. Because it was normal.

Today the English judicial system would behave very differently. This is proof that in matters of sexuality, our mentality evolves.

Culture and social beliefs are evolving today and to say that something is not normal is not a valid argument for denying gay couple the right to marry because 'normalcy' relies on a temporary belief system.

4. There is no scientific basis to define marriage in one way or another now that science has the tools to aid in procreation

Marriage in terms of the Judeo-Christian definition allowed a man and woman to procreate and make children.

In those days, marriage necessitated a male party and a female party - to assist in procreation.
But today the fact that a male and female party are no longer a necessity for a couple to arrive at children is the very thing that puts into question the definition of marriage.

Medical and scientific advances together with the large departure from traditional religious fervour in Western marriages means that couples can resort to any of sperm donations, in-vitro fertilization and adoption to have children. Heterosexual couples use these advances and do not believe it is wrong.

What this means is that the definition of marriage should no longer be limited by traditional procreation considerations.

5. The belief that you need a man and a woman to raise children otherwise the children are lacking in some ways, is a myth

Latest 2010 research indicates that children adopted by gay or lesbian parents develop as well as those adopted by heterosexual couples.

6. It is also a myth that you need a man and a woman to raise children and that 'a woman and a man bring different things to a child'

This is a social fallacy. Basically, it asserts that a man will say, teach his son how to paint a house and a woman will teach her daughter how to bake a cake.
This is a crass example but these stereotypes are real.

In a nutshell, this gender role belief asserts that in a couple, the male is required to fulfill his male gendered role expectations and the female is required to fulfill her female gendered role expectations and that both are necessary for their child to thrive.

But in the first place, gender roles are nothing but cognitive shackles that have been imposed on individuals as a result of social expectations and beliefs. A heterosexual man often behaves a certain way because over many years, social norms, social expectations, and his desire for male integrity have taught him to behave this way. Similarly a female is highly influenced by social norms herself. If we are to grow as human beings, and raise similarly free human beings, we must rid ourselves of shackles that limit us. Regardless of our sexual orientation.

Our society is in fact slowly evolving in this way and this is why gender roles no longer have a place.

Luckily for gay couples, who already have faced an internal struggle with who they are or should be according to society and who already feel comfortable with being their true selves regardless of expectations, the ability to behave in a traditionally male or traditionally female way is just a matter of choice rather than convention.

If anything, gay couples have a supreme advantage of not being limited by social convention and of moving with fluidity between roles. They therefore can arguably be best equipped to raise a child. Wouldn't you think?

But even so, biological gender limitations may still exist, you say. After all, not everything is determined by environment. Some individual attributes are the product of nature.
Indeed, while there is scientific evidence that in general, women are better at multitasking and that in general, men are better at finding their way around a maze, these biological gender variations are hardly significant factors in terms of child rearing.
So in the worse case scenario, little Mary is going to be raised by two women who get lost regularly. So what?


7. Gay Parents are not a form of abuse to a child

The most laughable argument against gay marriage/child adoption is that it is a form of abuse to children involved. There is no scientific evidence in favour of this.

Studies by developmental psychologists have demonstrated that for a child to thrive emotionally, physically and be attached securely to their parents, they need emotionally responsive and attuned carers. In no way does gender come into the picture.

One can't begin to rave enough about the real child abuse perpetrated all over the world by heterosexual couples. Let's not go there.

Anyone who believes that children of heterosexual couples are the happiest creatures on earth is obviously out of touch with reality.

8. The statement that Gay people are a Minority and should fit into our Majority Laws is against Human Rights

Let's say that again. It is against human rights.

It's like saying Black people are not allowed in the Club.

Let's define these terms.

Black is a color that can not be changed in the same way as sexual orientation is a human facet that can not be rigidly controlled or made to change to suit the 'majority'.

The Club allows a group of people to be recognised as 'belonging to the club', it gives them access to various Club rights. It allows those who are in the Club to be seen by all others in the Club as being permitted to join the Club. The Club, in its most abstract form is in fact the very definition of marriage.

We would not turn away a non-White person from any venue today, would we? It would be against human rights. In the same way, refusing gay couples from the right to marriage infringes on human rights.


9. Accusing Gay Couples of Dishonesty is not an argument

There are some who think that any two people of the same gender can band up and reap up the family / couple benefits acquired by law by pretending to be enamored of each other.

It's a fear. The fear that supposedly dishonest gay couples will take advantage of welfare or will benefit from government benefits intended for genuine couples.
This fear is not a valid argument against Gay Marriage.

The ability to take advantage of the system is alive and well in heterosexual couples.

Some heterosexual couples who are happily living together for years suddenly decide to get married because it helps them in one way or another.

Some heterosexual couples happily produce children in order to reap child allowance benefits which never even go to the child. (If that's not child abuse, I don't know what is.)

Most heterosexual couples are happy to use 'the system' and understand how the government can help them, their family, their children whether financially or in any other way. It is human nature to want as much as possible for one's family.

Of course we want to use the system. Did any Australian heterosexual couple ever spit on the Baby Bonus granted to Australian mothers? Hell no. Take it. Take it all. Pop those babies while you can still reap the rewards. Some women even began scheduling their child's birth to take advantage of the rise in the baby bonus. Yes, we know who you are.

Sad really. But gay couples can hardly be accused of anything that a heterosexual couple wouldn't do. Therefore this argument is not valid.

10. Saying "Who Cares" and "What's the Big Deal" is not a valid argument against gay marriage.

So yes it might not be a big deal. Perhaps gay couples could just live as happily without getting married. And perhaps if they don't want children, and some couples don't, all this is really not a big deal.

But "It's not a big deal" is an easy statement to make when you are not discriminated against.

There is a principle used in marketing which has strong psychological support. It is a principle whereby, whenever items are banned / restricted or limited they suddenly become very attractive. As a result, many people desire these forbidden items. It's not childish, it is a human behaviour that has its roots in the scarcity of resources.

Of course heterosexuals don't think it is a big deal. Marriage is there, it's available to them. They can get married easily without restrictions. So of course, it's not a big deal to them.
But if it were a restriction, if it were forbidden, who knows how badly they might want it.

My Novel - A Self-Critique

With The Ming Storytellers, I was not merely writing to thrill. I wanted to create an entertaining work of fiction that merged interesting characters, narrative, history with ideologies that were important to me. Visually I also wanted to evoke strong images that could do well on screen. Because I love film.

If after having read the book, a reader can, either consciously or subconsciously, perceive parallels between the events unravelling in this novel and society today, then I will have been successful.

If a reader can, either consciously or subconsciously understand the fallacy of Eurocentrism and gain a fresh perspective on the world, then I will have been successful.

The setting is China and the world during the 15th century. It is a remote and, to date, unfamiliar setting especially for non-mainland Chinese including myself. This remote and therefore, one may argue, arbitrary setting is perfect because it may be used to teach, it may be used to introduce a new paradigm about the world and society. However unlike the fictitious worlds of sci-fi or fantasy, it is still a world that is closer to home, a world that has set in motion certain patterns today and from which many parallels may be drawn with our world today.

The world in that period, when China, the Middle Kingdom, was a dominant power comes with its norms and its ideologies just as the English speaking world today has its own dominant Western centric ideologies.

The setting is also perfect because it encourages readers to see outside and understand that what we call normal is a myth.

One particular strategy I have used is to depict the society of the Nakhi people. While I have done this superficially and in no way do I call myself an anthropologist, the depiction of the Nakhi does put into question the generally accepted view of women in the Asian world. In the Nakhi kingdom, women were not submissive. Even the vocabulary used by the Nakhi attribute strength to feminine words and weakness to masculine words.

To conclude, all my characters have beliefs that are relevant to their times. In no way do these beliefs directly reflect my own although to some degree, a few of my characters' ideologies are informed by my values.

The themes explored in the novel include:

• racism / xenophobia
  
• gender roles
  
• the nature of sexuality
  
• power
  
• existentialism
  
• ambition / success
  
• imperialism
  
• dreams
  

I will flesh these out when I have time and explain the main ideas presented. I will also explain how these ideas challenge the dominant ideologies today.

It is no secret that for me the greatest joy would be that this novel becomes part of some education curriculum. All my life, given my multi-cultural background, the experiences I have had living in different countries and reconciling my multiple cultural identities while learning more about other cultures, then studying social psychology and understanding the influence of prejudice/perceptions/attitudes in human thinking, all these things have taught me that NOTHING that we take for granted as NORMAL is normal.
And when we cease to think in black and white, our tolerance and acceptance for others follows.

The Ming Storytellers is a historical novel set in the Ming Dynasty, at a time when China was in its Golden Age. It is a rich account of life in the Forbidden City and beyond drawing on four years of research on Chinese concubines, eunuchs, the Ming government, international relations and world travel in the 15th century. The novel draws on psychology and speculative history but belongs to the newly coined Ming Gothic genre.

Chocolate High Tea at Stamford Plaza

I had Chocolate High Tea during my romantic weekend at the Stamford last week.

As Shane and I entered the buffet room, I almost swooned from the buttery-sweet aroma and the sinful displays around us. I noticed that generous wells of chocolate fondue were aptly arranged close to the entrance, a ploy that would no doubt discourage any self-respecting female clientele from changing their minds after arriving!

But no High Tea is complete without the ubiquitous crustless sandwiches. Luckily, a long buffet table was devoted to rows and rows of savoury delights, complete with side relish and mustard. My favorite filling was the roast chicken and aioli but there were also egg and mayonnaise sandwiches together with salmon quiches.


We sat outside, below a grand white marquee decked out with elegant hanging chandeliers. Our table was adjacent the lovely river walk overlooking the Storey Bridge.



Shane ordered a coffee while I marvelled over the extensive tea menu and opted for a spicy cinnamon and ginger chai.

After this sensible beginning, and all Victorian principles having soon left us, we succumbed with abandon to every temptation possible in a manner that would have made Oscar Wilde proud.


The buffet centerpiece became a blur of colours while I agonised over every major decision. Was I to grab yet another slice of Stamford White Chocolate Mud cake, or yet more melting Vanilla squares...



My head swirled as I eyed the Florentines, the pretty cupcakes on their triple-tiered stands, the Melting Moments, the apple and cinnamon cake, orange liqueur cream puffs, Chocolate Macademia Brownies, Mango Cheesecakes...


And then there was the Cranberry Cheesecake, Spiced Carrot Cake, Chocolate Fondue with its Strawberries & Marshmallow skewers, the mini Panna Cotta cocktails and what not...


I lost myself and all dignity.

About an hour later, feeling elated, stuffed and looking rather disorderly in my mini blue cocktail dress, I declared that I was once again "drunk on cake" and that I would not eat another bite.
Well except for that slice of White chocolate mud cake that I had clandestinely wrapped in a paper napkin and was jealously guarding for err...later.

Stamford's White Chocolate Mud Cake 'takes the cake'!!

Australian Culture and Psyche - Remembering White Slavery and Convict History

I read Marcus Clarke's excellent For the Term of His Natural Life recently. I thoroughly enjoyed it and recommend it to anyone, wishing to learn more about Australia's convict history.

This novel was grim and painted a brutal picture of convict treatment. It also made reference to genuine 19th century events where escaped convicts, including a certain Alexander Pearce, resorted to cannibalism among themselves to survive in the bush. If you are interested, The Last Confession of Alexander Pearce is a recent docudrama which aired on the ABC in January 2009 and explores this disturbing story. But returning to Clarke's novel and noting that it was published in the early 1870s, I found it to be a refreshing and honest revelation of events that are normally avoided by the modern Australian psyche.

Marcus Clarke
Marcus Clarke was an Australian journalist with a brilliant literary record delving in topics from psychology to history. I admire his writing because it is critical of the established ideologies of the time but remains poetic and sentimental enough to appeal to some readers' need for drama. For the Term of His Natural Life also includes thematic references to the Count of Monte Cristo which added a romantic slant to the story.

Forgotten Injustice

After having read the novel, I lamented at what seems a lack of connectedness between Australians and their convict past. There is a lingering injustice which has not been addressed but instead swept under the carpet. I feel that some Australians address and, in some cases, even mull over the injustices done to Aborigines but remain blissfully unaware of one other injustice which has shaped the Australian spirit even though its influence is scarcely acknowledged.

Convicts in a Prison Ship
What injustice do I speak of? Well, it is my view that the foundations of main Australian cities, at least those of Sydney, Hobart and Brisbane have been constructed from years of exploitation. When I look around Brisbane, I now see it differently. Ironic that my new sense of awe has arisen from something so ugly as White slavery disguised as moral punishment. But this awe comes to me, I believe, because I feel respectful of those men, women and yes, even children as young as 10, who did not have a choice and who were unscrupulously exploited by a system which called itself righteous and lawful.

Australian culture is not necessarily only derived from the darkness of convict existence since after all, culture is more complex than that. In addition, most members of the Australian population have no convict past whatsoever since there were also many migrants from Europe and Asia who since the 19th century have influenced who Australians are today. But by the same token, and this may upset some people, I feel that we need to look beyond sport to discover the Australian identity.

Australian Culture - What a Crock of Shit

It is my view that Convict history has had an impact on Australian culture even if most Australians are unaware of it.

This is one of the ideas advocated by the amazing Convict Creations, a website that I discovered recently and which among other subjects, explores Australia's culture and compares it to that of other countries.

The author, who wishes to remain anonymous, but who I will call Convict Wally, uses a methodology based on social psychology which I can not praise enough. Wally's approach for explaining and exposing historical events, characters and Australian culture is fascinating. He also describes the plight of convict women and the harsh treatment of convicts (men, women and children). He also examines the unfair reasons a convict was likely to have been imprisoned for.

But as Convict Wally correctly remarks, we do prefer to seek and read about ideas which agree with our own. And so I admit that my interest in this site only reflects my already preconceived notions. Incidentally, (and grossly off-topic) some of these include:

• Australian sport is overrated
  
• Australian society remains patriarchal even when it does not know it. Whereas in 19th century Australia, women had little choice but to assume the role of ‘whore’ or embrace matrimony, today the whore/mother dichotomy has acquired a subconscious flavour. Effectively, discourses in the media and advertising consistently reward and encourage motherhood which is seen to epitomise selflessness, normalcy and all manner of kindliness. In the meantime, all other forms of female pursuits are given scant notice (unless of course the subject also happens to be a mother ‘juggling it all’.)
  

So these are a couple of my views anyway.

One of the arguments that Convict Wally raises is that Australia has overachieved in sport and business. On the other hand, he believes that Australia has underachieved in environmental concerns and culture, especially where this culture touches on the intellect. I completely agree with that.

Incidentally, Wally provides a satirical section on sport aptly called "The Demise of Australian Sport. RIP", an article which only too clearly voices the author's attitudes. Enjoy!

If you are interested in this fascinating Australian culture which barely knows itself and grapples even today with its identity, do take a peek into Convict Creations.

Acknowledging the Plight of Convicts

One thing I find disturbing in the Australian landscape is the subconscious urge to escape our convict history as if it were something to be ashamed of. Admittedly there are a few sites such as this one, dedicated to convict genealogy but what I am alluding to is the gross absence of landmarks and buildings that seem to reinforce the notion that convict history never happened. Blessed the powers that be in 'protecting us' from remembering the vile conduct of authority figures. Indeed.

This may seem fanciful but I have a vision for Brisbane where every single location of convict significance would be properly landmarked, labelled for better recognition and for encouraging awareness of the past. I realise it is an ugly and somewhat morbid attraction but to me, what is uglier is the dissimulation of truth. This is what we have been doing so far (except perhaps in Tasmania at Port Arthur). To begin, Queen Street mall in Brisbane used to be the home of several prominent convict buildings. One of these extended from the intersection with Albert St to what is now the Myer Center. Isolation prison cells were scattered in George St. You can read more about Brisbane's early convict buildings here.

In addition of course, there is Boggo Road Gaol and St Helena Island which are part of the tourist trail.

And there is also this splendid structure which begs elaboration:


Brisbane's oldest surviving European building is this windmill, located at Springhill. It used to be attached to a treadmill where prisoners laboured for hours. And I'm not talking about your average gym treadmill but one on which prisoners did die of exhaustion. Incidentally, a recent project will see this windmill added to the tourist trail. It's about time.

Past Reckonings and Identity Shaping

Escaping from truth, any truth, is not conducive to identity shaping and cultural growth. The history of a country shapes its people over many generations. Just as childhood abuse impacts on an adult's psyche, multiple generations in a country may be shaped by dramatic events suffered over a period. The process is complex but does exist. Choosing to ignore tragic events does not bring the necessary awareness for growth. One must reflect, absorb and come to terms with the past.

Why Do We Love Vampires

Twilight is to the vampire genre what Harry Potter is to the occult.

Harry Potter (my god it's boring) is safe magic falsely marketed as controversial. It is the PG version of the occult. It's supposed breach of taboo topics which had somehow incensed religious groups was a convenient ploy to lure curious consumers who by virtue of intensive marketing were already avid to get their hands on the latest 'popular' craze. I'm still confused as to why Harry Potter has been so popular. As far as magic and the supernatural goes, I got more kicks reading the bible in my youth.

Now for Twilight. This romantic and no doubt visually stunning fantasy tale lures the teenager into heightened sensual experiences that are otherwise lacking in this generation's R rated, action dominated thrill-inducing films. Because sex these days, is so taboo, so eagerly avoided on English speaking screens that our sensation craving teens subconsciously resort to cheap and safe visual symbolisms that nevertheless semiotically encompass everything there is about sexual tension, the vulnerability of exposed naked flesh, forceful penetration, rushing blood, and explosive orgasm.

Don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with wanting any of that. But in the process of giving young audiences what it craves, namely, sex, a vampire genre has been corrupted.

I much preferred Anne Rice's Lestat.

Introversion - What You Need To Know

According to personality tests, I am an introvert. Individuals who do not understand this trait and have a popular conception of what introversion is will infer that I am therefore 'shy', 'antisocial' or 'quiet'.

Belle prefers her books over the company of obnoxious Gaston

The Introversion Myths

On the surface that is perhaps true, introverts may appear shy and antisocial. But if you dig deeper, more complex mechanisms are at play and these may not even relate to shyness or anti-social behaviour. For example, introverts do not always spend time alone. Some introverts enjoy company and are the life of the party when they do go out and such introverts will fool you into believing that they are extroverts. Again, another misconception with extroversion is that it makes one louder, more sociable and more likely to be on the social stage. That is not always the case.

Then again there are people who are introverted and who like to boast that they can pretend to be 'extroverted'. Again this personal belief that they can somehow 'pretend to be' another personality type is rooted in the popular misconception of what introversion is.
According to the Arousal theory of introversion (which I will describe shortly), the ability to 'become' either an introvert or an extrovert is doubtful. According to this theory, individuals are either one of the other, or perhaps under forces outside their control, they somehow sway between the two but their ability to directly control this trait is not possible.

So what is introversion?

Let's debunk the myths with some psychological theory.

The psychologist Eysenck once proposed that whether we are introverts or extroverts depends on our innate cortical arousal, that is, the degree of brain stimulus that is present in our brain. Eysenck hypothesised that introverts are characterised by higher levels of activity than extroverts and so are chronically more cortically aroused than extroverts. This is called the "stimulation" hypothesis.

To put forward an analogy, introverts have, if you like, a loud party already going on inside. They are already on a high. What this means is that since their internal world is already buzzing, they are going to want to limit the amount of extra stimulus that the outside world brings to them. And yes, that often means spending time alone, limiting their involvement in parties and seeming a little aloof and antisocial.

Redefining Introversion in terms of Human Physiology

As you can imagine, the primary factor that has led to the misconceptions about the nature of introversion is that so often we describe (and test for) introversion in terms of its resulting social behaviour.
But the underlying mechanism for introversion, at least according to Eysenck's theory, is actually physiological, not social. It is this physiological phenomenon which, in turn, results in behaviour that allows the individual to balance their arousal level.

So for an introvert, there will be a desire to reduce/restrict any additional external arousal. On the other hand, for an extrovert, the move will be to increase the total arousal to an ideal level. Whether the individual increases or reduces this arousal via their social behaviour, sporting activities or their lifestyle is entirely up to them.
But their innate physiological state (high arousal for introverts / lower arousal for extroverts) is one thing that individuals can not control. So for those individuals who believe they can 'pretend' to be an extrovert, sorry, you are fooling yourself. Because according to Eysenck's theory, your cortical arousal is something you are stuck with.

The Psychophysiology of Introversion - What is the Proof?

Is Eysenck crapping on?
Apparently not. Granted, his model of personality (consisting of extroversion, neuroticism, psychoticism) is open to controversy and competes with other personality models, but his hypothesised physiological nature of extroversion has so far yielded strong experimental support.

In one study, it was found that introverts salivate more than extroverts in response to a drop of lemon juice. How does this correlate with Eysenck's theory? Well it confirms the tendency of introverts to react more strongly to stimulus (salivate more in this case) because their internal nervous system is already strongly aroused.

Now another example. Pupil dilation is scientifically related to emotional responses. Normally, when individuals view images that are offensive or which they do not like, they exhibit pupil contraction. Conversely, pleasurable or erotic images tend to elicit pupil dilation (which is a wonderful way to determine whether someone is lying when they assert that "no, this woman is not attractive"). Some studies have found that introverts have a stronger pupil constriction response than extroverts when viewing negatively charged images.
The only reason why introverts would have a stronger response to negative images (thereby exhibiting larger pupil contractions) is if in the first place, their propensity to 'reject' extra stimulus is higher than for extroverts. This would confirm that introvert's innate state of arousal is higher than that of extroverts thereby explaining their tendency to more readily restrict unwanted stimulus.

So there you have it, there is a physiological basis for introversion. It would appear introverts' social behaviour is a by product of various physiological factors rather than an innate trait. Something to ponder about...

Is There Such a Thing as an Average Introvert

Not really.

Baloo the Extrovert and Bagheera the Introvert?
Well for a start, let's look at demographics. We represent about 30% of the population. That's less than half of the population. We are a minority.

We are also, according to studies, slightly more intelligent than extroverts. But don't get excited, you need more than intelligence to progress in life, in fact the debate over whether the best leaders are introverts or extroverts continues.

In the end, other personality traits such as neuroticism, risk-taking, grit, desire for control, desire for new experiences and psychoticism are all integrated into making a person. You can appreciate why introversion alone is not the guiding light in all social behaviour.

Having said that, there is evidence that introverts are more likely to rate higher than extroverts in scales of neuroticism, depression and negative affect (the tendency to feel negative emotions on a daily basis). Conversely, extroversion tends to be associated with higher ratings in positive affect (the tendency to feel good and have positive emotions and enthusiasm), together with higher ratings for aggression and risk-taking.

Surviving in an Extrovert's World.

I have already mentioned that most people are extroverted.
Social norms, as the term 'norm' would indicate, represent the accepted social behaviour of the majority. And we introverts must, often against our deepest wishes, suffer the majority. Often we don't have a choice.

Before I go on with how working and performing effectively may be a struggle for introverts living in an extrovert's world, I want to present another psychological theory.

The Yerkes-Dodson Law.

This law stipulates that "some intermediate level of arousal is optimal for performance" (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985, p. 199).

In other words, it doesn't matter whether you are an introvert or an extrovert, your performance (e.g. on a stage, at work, at sport) is at its peak when you reach an optimum level of arousal.

So if we had a graph with the bottom axis indicating the external Arousal Level, performance for both extroverts and introverts would be represented with an inverted U shape curve.

Performance as a Function of Arousal
This curve would peak at a lower level of external arousal for introverts than for extroverts. This is because extroverts have, if you recall, a lower level of innate arousal, and therefore require more stimulus before they reach the same performance peak as introverts.

This theory has found support. Geen (1984) measured the preferred stimulation levels in introverts and extroverts and its effects on their arousal and performance. The results indicated that introverts choose a lower level of noise than do the extroverts, and both introverts and extroverts show no difference in arousal and performance with their preferred noise level.

So in other words, if we were all to perform at our best, we would need to each choose our optimum external stimulus level. Unfortunately in many situations, it is the majority which will ultimately choose the degree of 'acceptable' stimulus. So on average, in the world, the amount of external stimulus seems to be an extrovert ideal but not an introvert ideal.

Performing in an Extrovert's World - The Struggles of an Introvert

Let's take two people. Mary is an extrovert. At work, she has no problems typing away and working at her computer while chatting to her boss and having two people looking over her shoulder and discussing what she is doing.

Enter Belinda. Belinda is an introvert. Belinda and Mary are both as proficient as each other but only when both can work at their chosen optimum external stimulus level.

Unfortunately, Belinda works in an average extroverted office. She can not often choose her optimum external stimulus level. As soon as someone looks behind her shoulder, interrupts her or starts to talk, she suddenly loses her ability to perform or forgets what she was doing. Hell, she can't type as quickly as usual or she makes dumb mistakes and hates herself for appearing less competent than she actually really is in front of co-workers.
(This is of course an extreme scenario but it is not an exaggeration.)

What is going on? Well if you remember, Belinda the introvert already has a higher state of innate arousal than Mary. She could do with quiet music but any more than this and she may experience stimulus overflow. She can work fine alone but under the given stimulus conditions, her performance begins to degrade.

Now obviously this example assumes that neither Mary nor Belinda suffer from performance anxiety or social anxiety which would be a different thing altogether and which may also affect their public performance. So assuming that is not the case, this is then, the difference between an introvert and an extrovert at work.

Introverts need more space, more quiet, more time to reflect alone, less buzz around them. They are more likely to do well in smaller groups or on a one on one scenario.

Something organisations should consider.

Now what about Interviews?

I find interviews to be a bit of a joke. Mainly because, unless an introvert is actually doing the interviewing, the bombastic nature of the interview inherently gives an advantage to extroverts. No, really. Do you know how much effort it takes for an introvert to be bombarded by questions and have to rely on chit chat and quick come backs to prove that they are the right person for a sales job? It's hard. In fact most Sales people are extroverted.

Too Much Information! Talk to the Hand

Even in daily work situations, too much oral information can bombard the introvert to the point that they can't handle it. I mean it. There were times in the past when I would just switch off from conversations because it all became too much.

I've since realised that my best weapon against oral bombardment is to write things down. I can happily jot down the bulk of what the most garrulous extroverted group of people digest in one meeting and not understand anything of what is being said.

It is only afterwards, when I return to my quiet cocooned state of optimal introvert arousal that I can read my notes, think back to what was said and finally make sense of the conversation! I'm a bit of a zombie in some meetings but in the end, I survive and can do the work.

Sill however, you can see that life is not always easy for introverts.

Recovering from Parties

Traditionally, parties are the other bane of the introvert. Personally I've given up. If I attend a party, I stay a maximum of three-four hours and then I'm off. Otherwise, I may incur a migraine or it takes me about three days to four days to recover from the stimulus overflow.

Party Time for Extroverts is Always Fun

Antisocial, huh? You try dealing with the party in my brain.

Conclusion

There you have it, being an introvert is more than anything to do with shyness or anti-social behaviour.

It's a physiological state of being which often, but not always, happens to affect social behaviour but which more often than not can really make life difficult for introverts.

Introverts are not weird. They are only attempting to survive in an extrovert's world. They attempt to fend off excess external stimulus in any ways they can, yes, even by shirking from social contact and appearing shy. But if they do this it is only because they want to maintain an optimum state of arousal, something that extroverts, so comfortable are they in this buzzing world, take for granted.