Shyness as an evolutionary tactic

[ksmith]

I've been told for years that "shy" and "quiet" are bad. I was labeled "shy" during a performance review at one company, and that was considered the nail in the career coffin. I'm still being told that I need to speak up more. In many business, quiet is bad, even though the talkers often don't add a damned thing to the conversation.

But I digress.

I remember the commercial that the writer of this article refers to. It made me angry. The idea that any sort of reticence is considered automatically bad and needs to be chemically engineered out of one's system, that character traits are disease states, pisses me off. Yes, there are anxiety disorders that are debilitating, that hamper the sufferer's life. Some people should be treated. But being one of life's watchers doesn't make me abnormal. It doesn't make me better, either. It just makes me a differently-shaped piece in life's puzzle, and if that gets under your skin, well, tough.

Comments

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

Someone over on Facebook said pretty much the same thing. Shy is a catch-all phrase covering everything from severe social disabilities to a dislike of parties or other large group functions, and no one says that one type may require treatment while some can be left alone because, you know, character traits aren't usually classified as diseases.

I swear some of these researchers are like an acquaintance of mine, a serious extrovert who simply cannot fathom the possibility that some people prefer to be alone for a fair part of the day. I say I like being by myself, and s/he says, oh, you like doing what you want to do. Those are not the same thing, but it's like talking to a wall to try to explain it. This person cannot fathom themselves ever choosing to be alone, and therefore can't understand why anyone else would make that choice.