Um, What?: Reading Edition

I would like to say this post is ‘cause I’m a snooty college student majoring in psychology, but in reality, this is about reading.  First, last, and always, I am a bibliophile.

This started a few books ago, during one of the splendid Codex Alera books that I paused, took a moment, and actually looked at the words.  I was trying to see how the sentences were crafted and get a sense of style.  I mean, I love Jim Butcher’s books.  They’re easy to read, fast-paced, and basically chocolate for the glutton.  If there’s anyone’s style I’d like to study, it’d be his or Lloyd Alexander’s.

After about two paragraphs, I kinda shook my head.  It was just words. Words forming sentences, that formed paragraphs, that told one of the best stories I’d ever read.  But it was just words.

I dismissed that notion.  No reader worth their library believes books are just words.

When I’m reading, really reading, into-the-story, not-putting-it-down, I see the words on the page, can even sometimes remember where it was at on the page if I want to find it again.  There’s not a lot visual going on for me.  I get impressions of images and voices and people; in other words, not the mini-mind-movie other people talk about.  And, um, I read romance and romantic smut.  During a love scene, I don’t want a visual so much as I want to figure out how in the blazes is that position even possible?  And, how big is this bed?  But I digress.

I’ve done some semi-research on what books do for your brain.  Everyone agrees:  reading is good for you.  But what exactly is going on?

Well, here I am at the Carey library, bored out of my mind between classes; hungry because I have no cash on me so I can’t eat (I’m broke till Thursday anyway); stressed because I don’t get the statistics homework; stressed even more because I don’t have my textbooks yet and can’t do the assigned reading; disappointed because I thought I was just going take some time to re-read The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss, which is a splendid book, but a heavy one and I’m having as much trouble with it the second time around as I did the first time around; dejected because I just finished the latest Pride series book, the list goes on…;  and with nothing better to do, or able to do, I’m Googling what’s going on in the brain whilst reading.

And here’s what I found:

Okay, so it’s common knowledge the words evoke images.  What I found interesting was that the brain doesn’t bother with much distinction between your real life experiences, and the experiences you read through in fiction.

So, there’s no distinction between reading Frodo going to Mordor, and actually going into Mordor yourself?  If you read it, your brain thinks you did it?

And the readers go, Huh?  Me too, readers.  Me too.

But seriously, both articles say it.  (I looked at a couple, but these were the two I really liked.)

Although, considering the commitment required to read Lord of the Rings, yeah, it feels like you went to Mordor.  Heck, it feels like that just watching the movies.  You’re slightly exhausted at the end, and not quite yourself anymore.  Or at least that’s how I felt when I finished watching all three movies in a short span of time to expose the little brother to them after watching the first two Hobbit movies.

So, when there’s the reader memes saying you’ve lived a thousand lives?  Well, there’s scientific evidence to back that up.

“The brain, it seems, does not make much of a distinction between reading about an experience and encountering it in real life; in each case, the same neurological regions are stimulated.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/the-neuroscience-of-your-brain-on-fiction.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Have your ever felt so connected to a story that it’s as if you experienced it in real life? There’s a good reason why: your brain actually believes that you have experienced it.

http://oedb.org/ilibrarian/your-brain-on-books-10-things-that-happen-to-our-minds-when-we-read/

They don’t quite say the same thing, but the point remains.

Interesting.  In that case, can I put that I saved Prydain with Taran, Chicago (and the rest of the world) with Harry Dresden, and Daneland with Beowulf on my resume?  What?  My brain thinks it did those things.

I just wanted to see what the deal was with reading something that was just words, that’s not just words.  And somehow, I wandered off the reservation, and now I'm questioning every experience I thought I had and all the ones I read.  They’re some interesting articles though.  Verra verra interestin’.

What in the world does being an introvert mean?

The beautiful thing about being me is that I don't generally feel like I have to agree with everything everyone says.  Most of the time, it's just that:  I just don't agree.  Other stuff, I just don't care.

I took the BuzzFeed quiz, on just how much of an introvert are you?  I found some of the stuff on that list very, very inaccurate.

In Counseling Psychology, the teacher, who I like and respect very much, said that introverts aren't good in the field.  They're nerdy, and they don't have good communication skills.

I didn't say anything but, Govannon help me, I wanted to.

I'm INFP personality type--most of the time, on most of the quizzes, that's what I get.  The type is overrepresented in that field.  I is for introvert.  Introverts dominate counseling, apparently.  The name is the Healer, or Idealist.  But still, healer.  (I can very well admit to being an undercover idealist, but healer?  Eh...)  Still, I'm not a case study, and no one is ever meant to be.  But most of the time, I get INFP.

There's a difference between being introverted and being a nerd.  There's a high likelihood that both will be present, but one does not necessitate the other.

So, time to look up just what introversion is:

Merriam-Webster just states, "a reserved or shy person."

Dictonary.com:  
noun

1.  a shy person.

2.  Psychology . a person characterized by concern primarily with his or her own thoughts and feelings (opposed to extrovert ). 

 

 word origin:

 

1654 (implied in introversion), from L. intro- "inward" + vertere "to turn" (see versus). Introverted (adj.) is from 1781. The noun (opposed to extrovert) is 1918, from Ger. psychology, introduced there by C.G. Jung (1875-1961).

 

Urban Dictionary:

 

Opposite of extrovert. A person who is energized by spending time alone. Often found in their homes, libraries, quiet parks that not many people know about, or other secluded places, introverts like to think and be alone.
Contrary to popular belief, not all introverts are shy. Some may have great social lives and love talking to their friends but just need some time to be alone to "recharge" afterwards. The word "Introvert" has negative connotations that need to be destroyed. Introverts are simply misunderstood because the majority of the population consists of extroverts. 

 

Personally, I like Urban Dictionary's definition.

 

 

Oxford's Dictionary of Psychology:

A predominant concern with one's own thoughts and feelings rather than the outside world and social interaction, characterized by traits such as reserve, passivity, and silence, the negative pole of one of the Big Five personality factors, namely extraversion. The term first appeared in the mid 17th century, in a purely descriptive sense of turning one's thoughts inwards in spiritual contemplation, and it was introduced in its modern psychological sense in 1910 by Carl Gustav Jung (1875–1961). Also called introversion-extraversion or extraversion-introversion. introvert n. A person prone to introversion. introverted adj. Characterized by introversion. [From Latin intro towards the inside or within+vertere to turn]

 

 Um, so, regarding Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com, it's just a type of person.  These are common, reputable sources.

Urban Dictionary is how the common Internetter understands the term.  Probably posted by an introvert, I'd bet half my library.

At the end of the day, Psychology is probably the authority on the term.  Even there, it's not a disorder.  It's not social awkwardness.  It's not being nerdy.  It's not having crappy communication skills.

It's just turning inward instead of turning out.

At work:  I'm a cashier.  I can do the pretty all through my shift.  I can make a little bit of small talk, and customers have told me I'm very polite, and that they wish more cashiers were nice like me.

After work:  When I get home, leave me the hell alone.  I've been dealing with rude people all shift, difficult customers, and I'm half-high from the stuff I've been cleaning with.  Leave.  Me.  Alone.  I want to read.  Or write.  Or something that doesn't require another person.

I'm in a similar temperament before work.  Leave me alone.  I'm about to have to deal with difficult people all day.

As far as social awkwardness and introversion, as psychology teachers like to say, "Correlation is not cause."  Although, in this case, it might be a causal factor.

I think, for someone who scores 80% introvert on a Myers-Briggs, I'm pretty well-adjusted.  

It's not a problem if it's not a problem.

Now, if you have avoidance personality disorder or one of the detachment disorders, then perhaps you have a problem.

But there is nothing wrong with being silent.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to be alone.

There is nothing wrong with being an introvert--whatever the hell it means.