Don't Touch Me!

edited August 2008 in Story Games
This post was prompted by this thread, a thread I was recoilling from in mental horror, until Quintin's post:
wrote:
TomasHVM wrote:
For a live roleplaying game to have rules against all kinds of touching, like the Camarilla has, sounds absurd to me, at least as long as it is not dictated by the game fiction. The only reason to make rules that bar participants from touching in everyday manners, would be to make a dystopia on estrangement and cynicism.
Quintin Stone wrote:
Or, God forbid, to make sure that people feel comfortable when they play. You like strangers touching you? Fine. Many people don't. For those who don't mind the touching, as Hituro said the rule was often ignored. No doubt it was reassuring that people could invoke it if they felt it necessary. If I had a nickel for every 'creepy LARPer' story I've heard....

Why did I have such a strong reaction? I've noticed over time that there is a big divide between extroverts and introverts - it's been very noticeable to me, at times, in story-gaming more than other RPG groups, for some reason that I don't understand. Mechanics which involve touching or, say, handing out praise, are not merely uncomfortable to introverts, they are genuinely a barrier to enjoyment that will not go away by just practicing it. This isn't just shyness (low self-esteem) that I'm talking about, it's an inherent part of a person's character that is not a flaw. It's a difference.

It's easy to overlook this element, since the extroverts are the ones that do all the talking (and touching). :)

My introverted brothers and sisters, speak out! Or, you know, keep it to yourself like you always do :)
«1

Comments

  • edited August 2008
    An "introvert" player once participated in a game of Muu, i Bergen, Norway. His muu tried to sing and I informed him that it implied him singing us a muusong (a "song" with no words). I then instructed him to stand up, walk to the wall, turn, come back to the table and sing a muusong for us. He refused. I can't sing and I won't sing! No way! - he said. But I made him. You've agreed to play the game, I said, and this is how the game plays. I make no exception for you. You will sing. The "can't sing" refrain has no meaning in this game. Muus don't normally use its voice, so your singing will be exactly what a muusong is about. It took 30 minutes to make him sing, but in the end he did.

    And his song was received with applause and praise and embracing co-players. It was a perfect muusong. His lack of singing voice and shyness and fear for being ridiculed did not go away, but his soul took a very important leap of faith, and was rewarded.

    After the game he thanked me for forcing him to sing. Why? Cause he himself had no chance overcoming his shyness, low self esteem and fear for being outed, and I really gave help where help were needed. And he thanked me cause he was met with respect and love, by me and the other players. The reception his clumsy muusong got gave him an insight in how a man can make a fool of himself and be wiser by it, and loved for it.

    Not trying to convert you, Darren, but wanted you to know that you don't have to play up to your neuroses or fears or personal quirks all the time. There are always other ways of being a man, especially in games. To pretend being something other than you normally are is some of the point of roleplaying games, you know.

    Take care!
  • I have to say Tomas, that it sounds very much as if you were being a bully here. The fact that it worked out alright means little. How would you feel if the person had been so upset that they had walked out and never come back, because you forced them to do something so unpleasant? Vindicated? Appologetic? Confused?

    I am sure that you didn't mean to be cruel to this person, their social fear meant nothing to you because it's not one you suffer, but it doesn't make it much difference from trying to insist that a person in a wheelchair has to jump up and down, because that's the method of the game and you don't care about their disability.

    Social fears are not something to be taken lightly, and not everyone wants to do the same things, even if you feel they might be needed to play a game.
  • True, life is a process which demands that we meet it and grow from the experience.

    However, there is the theory that we roleplay for fun. And I would not consider it fun to be made to sing for people, especially since I know full well that I can't carry a tune in a bucket. Also, the touching thing is important, because I have minor issues about personal boundaries. People violating my personal space infuriate me and wear on me. I don't like crowds much. Therefore, a "don't touch" rule helps me interact in the game with a level of security that helps me roleplay rather than hindering me.
  • Posted By: HituroSocial fears are not something to be taken lightly
    So I don't, David. Had very serious intentions in insisting on the song, and it paid off. Why insist? I was sure about the outcome. To be a "bully" was not part of it. I applied pressure, yes, but it was a compassionate and empathic pressure, the kind you need from people trying to help you.

    I do not believe a bully would have halted the game for 30 minutes to help one of the players.

    Carl: your boundaries are your own to set and maintain, but you do know that they are flexible. In one situastion you will refrain from touch, in another it will be ok, and in a third you really want it (oh, the sweetnes of touching fingers with my love for the first time ...).

    All your issues are in continual process. Make positive movements in that process, even in discussions like this, and even by the tiniest fractions, and you will be better off for each day that breaks over your head ;-)
    Posted By: spookyfanboythere is the theory that we roleplay for fun. And I would not consider it fun to be made to sing for people, especially since I know full well that I can't carry a tune in a bucket.
    "Fun" is a strange word. Try to define what is fun in roleplaying games. Be sure to include any fun we may have. ;-)

    The fun in singing a muusong is that you don't carry the tune! Muu is not singing very well, being a creature that never speaks and only sings in very special situations. this guy I am talking about had your sentiments exactly, and still he enjoyed it and was enlightened by it. Maybe you would be glad to play with me too. You never know until you have really tried being a muu. ;-)

    I do respect that people have issues, and are frightened by any practice that may touch upon them. But fright is not the ruling principle of human relationships, love is. Nothing is as healing and harmonious as applied love.

    Take care!
  • There is love, yes. But there is also respect. And respect carries a lot of weight with people. I'm glad you were sure of the outcome. I'd hate to think what would have happened if his dignity felt threatened, and he reacted badly.

    Just saying, it's not fear that's at the root of the problem.
  • edited August 2008
    This thread seems to have two different voices talking about beings:

    1. Some say that people have some traits that are inherent and can't change. If people are compelled to go against this nature they are harmed and usually feel abused.
    2. Others say that games can offer a safe and compassionate environment for people to learn how to cope/overcome/understand their nature and have fun at the same time.

    (1) and (2) aren't mutually inconsistent but the ones voicing (1) seem to be focusing on what can go wrong when (2) goes wrong, while the ones voicing (2) seem to be focusing on what happens when things go right.

    I think we should go further back and ask what is the social contract behind the games being played. (1) seems to imply that the boundaries shouldn't be crossed (unless explicitly said so?), (2) says nothing about it and we can read it as saying the opposite or even understand that the boundaries were agreed upon (i.e. "You've agreed to play the game, I said, and this is how the game plays. I make no exception for you." may indicate that the gameplay was explained before). Part of the disagreement seems to come from different assumptions being made.
  • I think part of the problem is that extroverts don't understand introverts. Extroverts want to out every single introvert and turn them into an extrovert. It's part of our nature. Introverted does not mean "shy" - there are plenty of introverted people that are very shy, and there are others that are not as shy at all. And every single person is different. We encourage extroverted behavior in Western society.

    Sometimes it's good to break someone out of shy behavior, but you cannot break an introvert out of being an introvert. It's their nature, an intrinsic part of their personality.

    Forcing someone do to something can be cathartic but it really doesn't always work that way. For example, my boyfriend is pretty shy, but he can be a bit of an extrovert when cajoled. It might have taken him a while, but he probably would have gotten up eventually. Maybe. I know my sister is extremely shy and reserved, as well as an introvert, and if you would have stopped the game to make her sing, she would have gotten extremely stubborn and walked away from the table in tears.

    That being said, I don't have problems with high-fives and shaking hands, or perhaps even a hug, but I do value my personal space.
  • Hey folks,

    There's a bit of a problem with the definition in this thread. Introversion has nothing to do with self confidence, shyness, social skills, or touching. You can go to the party, and be a touching, flirting, funny, life of the party, and be extremely introverted. What introversion means is that you cherish more the time you spend alone, or in small groups. So after that party you go home, sit down in your computer chair, sigh, and play civilization for several hours to relax. An extrovert would find the party relaxing and the Civilization draining. So after a long Civilization game an Extrovert might go down to the local coffee house, or pub, to hang out. An introvert finds the party draining and the Civilization (or reading, or lonely fun) relaxing.

    Being uncomfortable with touching is something else, something else that's worthy of examination, but it's not introversion. Introversion is about choice not capability. Shyness, dislike of touching, etc. are about capability. So someone may behave like an introvert because they are shy, but shyness is about fear. That shy person could be extroverted and the shyness is a problem. I'm not shy, I'm enjoying myself with my lonely activities while half my city puts on red shirts and gathers in a stadium on Saturdays to yell as men in semi-armor chase around a stuffed pigskin. On the other side I enjoy going to Gen Con to talk with people who share my extreme interest in a narrow topic. I talk so much, that I only play one game each year at Gen Con. I thoroughly enjoy all this social interaction, because it is on a subject of interest, it expands my mental life.

    Also for most people introversion and extroversion are not dramatically stronger. The desires commonly fluctuate. My understanding is it is rare to have someone like myself who tests completely introverted.
  • This is a very interesting thread. I find the use of touching in a game, that is weighted heavily towards voice and somewhat towards visual bodylanguage, can be a very strong element.

    So when I cowrote "Kvinden, der var" (Danish scenario, download here: http://alexandria.dk/data?scenarie=3343) - "The Woman that Was" we actively chose to use touching a part of the story, and the players were informed of this before the start of the game. One character, the Woman, appears in the realtime part of the scenario only as a fading memory - the character can only interact when standing behind another player, and the character can in the beginning interact using eyecontact, speech and touching, later only with speech and touching and finally as the memory recedes, it is only by touching.

    Her touching were defined to be limited to arms and shoulders, being inspired by some Swedish live-scenarios, where they applied a technique called Ars Amandi, where arms and shoulders were treated as erogenous zones. There is an article about it here (article in English: http://www.ropecon.fi/brap/ch17.pdf).

    So basicly I believe that most touching can be used in a responsible manner to enhance your roleplaying experience. In some caes you'll need a social contract, and in some cases you might have irresponsible players desiring to grope their fellow players - if so, then you're playing the wrong rpg-scenario or with the wrong players.
  • edited August 2008
    Posted By: daniel_yokomizoI understand the emotions behind (1)
    I too understand that people don't want their boundaries crossed. None of us like that. We really don't have to discuss this, do we?
    Posted By: FineI don't have problems with high-fives and shaking hands, or perhaps even a hug, but I do value my personal space.
    Yes, everyone does, and every normal man and woman do the handshakes and hugs, and those are really a tactile tool that may produce very nice effects, when used with intelligence. You may go a bit further too, in some games, and still be respectful towards the personal space of others. It all boils down to the context, and each game creates a context of its own.

    And for the thread starter, Darren: such discussions are quite a different context than the real game. So when you react to a thread here, it may be that your reaction is totally different from how you would react to the actual game, if you played it. To have a hot discussion on those premises are a bit futile. We need to calm down, and understand that there is a possibility that real life gaming is fun, even when singing or touching or focusing on real life conflicts like war and violence (or worse: romance ;-)

    Take care, people!
  • @Clyde: I really like that explanation. Personally, I'm a pretty big extrovert. I get recharged in group situations. My girlfriend is more of an introvert; she recharges at home or with a small group.

    Back to the topic of people touching or not: I know I may be over-simplifying it, but I'm not sure what the big deal is. If one doesn't like touching or singing, then they probably shouldn't play games where those activities are major mechanics, right? And while bringing friends out of their shells can be very rewarding on both sides, it can also be kind of traumatic/dramatic if both sides aren't into it. Doesn't it come down to a combination of not forcing your kind of fun onto other people and not ruining other people's fun in turn?
  • Posted By: TomasHVM
    And for the thread starter, Darren: such discussions are quite a different context than the real game. So when you react to a thread here, it may be that your reaction is totally different from how you would react to the actual game, if you played it. To have a hot discussion on those premises are a bit futile. We need to calm down, and understand that there is a possibility that real life gaming is fun, even when singing or touching or focusing on real life conflicts like war and violence (or worse: romance ;-)
    Sorry if this seemed like a hot discussion. The first sentence in my first post was with a little melodrama for mock effect. I wasn't really recoilling in horror :)
    However, I would also like you consider that what may be fun for one person, may not be fun for another. Your argument doesn't seem to account for this.
  • Posted By: Clyde L. RhoerHey folks,

    There's a bit of a problem with the definition in this thread. Introversion has nothing to do with self confidence, shyness, social skills, or touching. You can go to the party, and be a touching, flirting, funny, life of the party, and be extremely introverted. What introversion means is that you cherish more the time you spend alone, or in small groups. So after that party you go home, sit down in your computer chair, sigh, and play civilization for several hours to relax. An extrovert would find the party relaxing and the Civilization draining. So after a long Civilization game an Extrovert might go down to the local coffee house, or pub, to hang out. An introvert finds the party draining and the Civilization (or reading, or lonely fun) relaxing.

    Being uncomfortable with touching is something else, something else that's worthy of examination, but it's not introversion. Introversion is about choice not capability.
    I agree with much of what your said, but disagree with some of it too. For instance (and this isn't meant to be inflammatary - if I could think of another good example I would use it), that last sentence sounds to me like, "heterosexuality is a choice." Introversion (or extroversion) is not a choice.
    Also, some introverts can indeed go to the party, and even - for a limited time - be the life and soul of that party. But like all things, there are degrees. While introverts are not necessarily shy, they do tend to share the same issues regarding personal space - of course, where they each draw the line differs from person to person. While not all introverts have issues about touching or singing in public or whatever, it's a lot more common among them than among extroverts.
  • Posted By: TomasHVMAn "introvert" player once participated in a game of Muu, i Bergen, Norway.
    I could similarly relate tales of how in providing an introvert friendly zone for roleplayers, I have helped introverted and shy people alike get more enjoyment out of roleplaying, and become more active participants in the games. I'm sure I've caused frustration for some extroverts too (spotlight hogs and loudmouths, mainly: fortunately, they are the extreme end of extroversion and not the norm). It may be that your sensitivity is such that you can tell when the technique you used above is a good thing for a person. I also think that the kind of events you are talking about here - LARPS without no touching rules - won't attract many introverts. So the people that turn up are more predisposed to participate in that kind of situation, or allow themselves to be cajoled into it and gain some kind of enjoyment from it.
    The main reason I posted was because Jason was talking about using such techniques in table-top games, and that really did smake me shudder :)

    I didn't want to derail his thread, though, since I support such games being developed. Some people will like them. (Not me though!) But it did seemed a topic worthy of discussion somewhere.
  • edited August 2008
    One other thing to consider.
    People who are shy are very uncomfortable doing a wide variety of social things, obviously, but they often want to change - they would prefer not to be shy.
    Introverts on the other hand might occasionally wish they could be more extroverted for the occasional social advantage it might give - but really, they like the way they are.
    When an introvert is faced with an unfamiliar social situation - singing in public, for instance, or being put in a job position which requires them to interface with others a lot - they will initially demonstrate exactly the kind of responses a shy person would: fear, nervousness, social clumsiness. This is because (a) it's out of their comfort zone, and (b) it's unfamiliar - and they don't have the skills, yet, to cope with it. That (b) is obviously true of extroverts too, but they are more generallyt experienced socially, and their nature is to feed off the reactions of others (vampires!), so they thrive more easily.
    There's also (c) - the introvert really doesn't want to be doing those things. It's unnatural!
    So, when it's necessary - like it's important for a job - an introvert could act like an extrovert: gladhanding, being a salesman, public speaking, that sort of thing. But they'll never be truly comfortable at it, and when seeking fun activities, they'll probably want a break from all that. It's just not fun.

    Some introverts might well use roleplaying games as a safe haven to train some social skills that are more familiar to extroverts (who've been enthusiastically practicing them all their lives, while introverts have been avoiding them). I have done that, for example. So I'm not arguing that there's a completely binary split between extroverts and introverts.
    But I do think that on balance, most will be seeking escapist fun, and probably (really badly) want to avoid having to behave like an extrovert.

    Note: get an introvert chatting on a subject he feels passionate about, and he can sometimes become just as much of a blabbermouth as the typical extrovert. Case in point: me in this thread :)
  • edited August 2008
    Posted By: demiurgeastarothI would also like you consider that what may be fun for one person, may not be fun for another. Your argument doesn't seem to account for this.
    Darren, I am playing a lot of games with serious themes, and have a lot of experience in the kind of consideration you are talking about. Such considerations always need to be part of games which touch upon serious or violent themes. The same considerations makes me a bit skeptical to the fact that "fun-violence" is accepted with little or no protest.

    My experience has learned me that players adapt easily to most challenges in the games, even the ones that makes them challenge their own, everyday borders. The one place I have seen strong reactions to my more challenging play-practices is in forums like this.
    Posted By: demiurgeastarothI have helped introverted and shy people alike get more enjoyment out of roleplaying, and become more active participants in the games.
    I've played RPGs professionally for 13 years, and have had lots of parents of introvert children thanking me for introducing them to roleplaying games. Shy children from 10-15 generally experience a benign effect of playing RPGs regularly. It makes them more sure of themselves and their ability to voice their opinions. Some of "my children" have grown from silent backbenchers to opinion-makers in their classroom within a year of roleplaying.

    My method for doing this is simple: be a good GM that takes care of all the players, ensuring that each and every one of them has to participate actively in the gameplay. The tendency of some children to shy back from real participation in an interactive game is not healthy. If they apply the same attitude to real life they got a problem. So out of consideration for both them and the game I make them INTERACT in my games.

    This principle of participation is true for shy adults too. They are not very different from shy children. To play without participating is not a defensible position in roleplaying games. My example of play from Muu, with the reluctant singer, is just one of countless examples of how you succeed in meeting the challenges posed to the gameplay from shy people, if you permit the logic of the interaction to work for them.

    Interaction is one of the nicer things of roleplaying games, you know. :-)
  • I'd suggest that one way of getting an introverted player to participate in an unusual and unexpected type of activity would be to, y'know, tell them what to expect. Full disclosure, combined with a good sales pitch and some reassurance, can do a lot to dispel the discomfort long before it ever becomes an issue.

    I mean, I certainly hope that's what Tomas did with his non-singing guy -- that he told him up front, "Hey, in this game, the PLAYERS sing when their characters do," and that's why he knew that the guy would eventually overcome his reluctance and perform the song...because after being told this, the guy still agreed to show up and play. And that's fine, that's exactly how it should be done. (And if that's not how it was done in this case, well...then Tomas was very lucky that it worked out okay despite that.)

    Of course, ideally, you should always tell everyone -- introverted and extroverted alike -- what to expect ahead of time. That's just good manners. It just turns out that introverts in particular really get a lot of benefit out of advance warning.


    Other things that make strange new experiences easier on introverts include limiting the group to people they already know and have already hung around with, and keeping the group size below their stressful threshold. But I'm sure everyone already knew that, right? Right?
  • I'm a bit dubious about comparing introverted children and adults - with the former, in a role as an educator, you're assumed to take a guiding role and make an intervention when necessary. With the latter I'd consider it hubris of highest order if somebody came to tell me what is good for me in the guise of gamemastering. Sure, do tell me what I need to do if I want to play your game, but taking that as an excuse to play in kitchen psychiatry seems wrong-headed to me. You shouldn't discuss the question of "whether this is something you should do" when the real question is "whether you want to play this game at all".

    Which is just another form of saying that I don't really see it as an obvious fact that getting good results from a personal intervention in somebody else's social foibles is enough to justify such. (And really, what sort of results are you going to get when you talk somebody into singing against extreme reluctance? That story would have been outright weird if somebody at the table would have ridiculed the guy after putting so much energy into making him vulnerable like that.) Roleplayers are really weird about the authority role of the GM, and if I saw somebody using that role to pressurize another player to do something they weren't expecting to do in a game... bullying is a pretty good word, actually, whether the results were good or not. The player goes into this social situation where they'll be branded as a "bad player" if they get out of it, or are otherwise reluctant to be the first to walk away, all the while thinking that it's their own fault if they're not enlightened enough to be good players and follow along with whatever the GM has devised for them. Taking such an opportunity as a GM to pressure somebody into doing anything... tricky, I'd be very careful in that position.

    So I guess my contribution is this: the fact that rpg history bestows upon you, o GM, great authority, does not in any way justify exercising that power. The fact that you get good results out of it does not justify treating other people as an object of your authority. The only way to justify your authority is to put it into the rules of the game and defend your actions on that ground, at least insofar as we're talking of entertainment play. Consensuality means that you either get prior agreement for some activity or negotiate it in play - and this holds whether we're talking of rolling dice, singing or going out and doing little missions for your GM, as some folks have started doing in Sweden.

    (In the interest of clearing potential biases, let it be said that I wouldn't be interested in a game that required singing as a core issue - I can't sing and that bothers me, so I'm not likely to display my incompetence in this matter in public unless the game had some major redeeming qualities to make it worth it. I'd like to believe that I'd have the courage to walk away if somebody tried to leverage my desire to be a good player into some sort of surprise display of my singing inability. Just the same as any other things other people try to force you to do, really.)
  • edited August 2008
    Posted By: Accounting for TasteI certainly hope that's what Tomas did with his non-singing guy -- that he told him up front, "Hey, in this game, the PLAYERS sing when their characters do," and that's why he knew that the guy would eventually overcome his reluctance and perform the song...because after being told this, the guy still agreed to show up and play. And that's fine, that's exactly how it should be done. (And if that's not how it was done in this case, well...then Tomas was very lucky that it worked out okay despite that.)
    No. I did not tell him up front what to expect of the game. No one can tell you everything that may happen during a game.

    I also heartily disagree with you. The notion that we should tell the players what to expect is not feasible in the real world. In my experience it also has the opposite effect. If told a challenge will come before it actually happens, most people with ingrained insecurities will take a strong defensive stance. That stance will undermine their ability to deal with the challenge in any constructive way.

    I do not believe in warnings. But I do believe in enticing the players, challenging them, and showing them I care about them.

    I believe the principle of roleplaying games is that you take a chance by participating, and that a challenge may always arise on some personal level or other. That is one of the most important positive trappings of improvised interactive gameplay.

    The constructive chaos that this result in, is carefully balanced by a positive stance taken by your co-players (including the GM). By taking a stance of acceptance: we will accept what you bring to the game, and support: we will not abandon you, - the players take responcibility for a positive outcome.

    Mind this: by NOT accepting and supporting each other, players may very well play a dysfunctional and potentially destructive game, but that is outside the scope of this discussion.

    The point of not abandoning your fellow players is very important. The principle of "not abandoning you" was at the base of my work with the non-singer. I refused to abandon him. If I had, he would have experienced a sad defeat in my game. As it turned out, our game was one of victory and hope for him, due to him being supported rather than abandoned. I believe some of you need to consider this point very carefully.

    This discussion is an important one. For sooth: it will always be! But this thread has run its course now. I've done my part. Hope it gave you some stuff for reflection. Take care!
  • But, but, Tomas! Don't abandon us!
  • Eero: you are a special case. I will abandon you anywhere and at any time ;-)
  • edited August 2008
    Posted By: TomasHVMNo. I did not tell him up front what to expect of the game. No one can tell you everything that may happen during a game.
    Everytime you've mentioned your muu game here, you've brought up the fact that the players have to sing. Even I know that players have to sing a muu song, and I may never even be on the same continent with you, let alone ever see or play your game. So how exactly could it have been so difficult to explain what is apparently a core component of the game to one of the players before play actually began?
    I also heartily disagree with you. The notion that we should tell the players what to expect is not feasible in the real world. In my experience it also has the opposite effect.
    I think you're coming at this from a somewhat limited perspective; if you're willing to be supportive and not abandon a player during a game, why can't you do the same outside of a game? If you can convince a player to sing with half an hour's effort in the middle of the game and everyone else at the table waiting for him, can't you convince him before the game just as well? I guess I just don't see why this guy had to be put on the spot like that. :(
  • Posted By: Accounting for TasteEvenIknow that players have to sing a muu song
    They don't. I've discussed one example of play here. Singing seldom occurs in this game, but every time it has occurred, it has been a wonderful experience. Including this one special time, when I had to make an extra effort to help one player.

    The answer to you question is in the things I've already said: I do not believe in warnings. But I do believe in enticing the players, challenging them, and showing them I care about them.
  • Posted By: Accounting for TasteI guess I just don't see why this guy had to be put on the spot like that. :(
    I do.

    I am a very introverted person. That is my nature. I, however, are nothing of a shy person. I had my moments in my childhood and early teens, but I have been a very confident and centered person in general.

    I have always been an exhibitionist. I have been an actor and a dancer for as long as I can remember. I love showing off my drawings and writings. I consider myself a very physical person (I can't conceive not touching people). I most of the time like getting ahead of challenges and new experiences. I do all that because of me. I do it because it satisfies me, and I can feel better about myself. What others think or say about me bothers me not. And that is because I am introverted.

    Sometimes I had shied away in the past. And because some people cared about me and kicked me into the spotlight, I was able to overcome those insecurities. And that did not change my introverted ways the least bit. But it allowed me to face and overcome my fears, and thus enjoy life a lot more since I was able to fully embrace my nature.

    I have been a GM for about 10 years now. I started at it just after one of my worst shyness periods. It helped me blossom. And I have experienced dealing with all kinds of people. Shy introverted ones, confident introverted ones, shy extroverted ones, confident introverted ones...
    Posted By: demiurgeastarothSo, when it's necessary - like it's important for a job - an introvert could act like an extrovert: gladhanding, being a salesman, public speaking, that sort of thing. But they'll never be truly comfortable at it, and when seeking fun activities, they'll probably want a break from all that. It's just not fun.
    Some of them won't. Maybe even most of them. But one thing has nothing to do with the other. Sometimes people do enjoy the chance of behaving differently, of experimenting under the guise of a game something that they'll otherwise not dare doing.

    I believe it has more to do with fears and insecurities than with nature.

    Now, back on topic:
    Posted By: demiurgeastarothWhile not all introverts have issues about touching or singing in public or whatever, it's a lot more common among them than among extroverts.
    Agreed. And my personal theory is that it has to do with:
    Posted By: FineExtroverts want to out every single introvert and turn them into an extrovert. It's part of our nature. Introverted does not mean "shy" - there are plenty of introverted people that are very shy, and there are others that are not as shy at all. And every single person is different. We encourage extroverted behavior in Western society.
    So, as far as what I have learned from my own introversion and that of others, the problem is not so much about nature than about personal history, social pressures and context.
  • Posted By: TomasHVMPosted By: Accounting for TasteEvenIknow that players have to sing a muu song
    They don't. I've discussed one example of play here.
    Oh. Sorry. I was confused by your explicit mention of players singing as part of Muu in both the "TomasHVM, explain rollespillet Muu to me" and "[designers] The tools for change" threads. It was the kind of odd feature that stuck in my mind, so I guess in my head I imagined that there was a lot more singing going on than just one or two times in a handful of sessions. (In those threads you explained what goes into playing Muu fairly well to me -- I remembered the game, after all, and I wasn't even part of your target audience -- so perhaps that's why I figured you'd give a similar explanation to the people you're actually sitting down to play the game with. Is that not the case?)
  • Euro's point about "I will not abandon you" is a key one--but it's opposite is "no one gets hurt". It seems like those "against" his song-forcing assume no-one-gets-hurt play (for at least this instance, and I'd suspect for most or all instances of gaming). That's just not a fair assumption.

    What WOULD be a fair "accusation" against his game/technique would be if the players didn't know they were engaging in I-will-not-abandon-you play. That's one of the core Social Contract elements of gaming, never to be disregarded: inform players of the NOGH/IWNA divide and where you plan to play. For instance, I knew that For Mature Audiences was going to be VERY difficult and painful, if played "correctly" or "to the hilt"; and so the game's #1 Rule (called "The Prime Directive," to drive it home for those with Trek exposure) is I Will Not Abandon You. I even go so far as to say/write, "You WILL get hurt, to learn from that pain and the support of your fellow players."

    I don't even go so far as to expect it to be fun. So all the kerfluffle about "don't define my fun" (or worse: "ALL role playing is about having fun") is just noise--another assumption about mode of play which is unjustified.
  • edited August 2008
    Posted By: David ArtmanThat's one of the core Social Contract elements of gaming, never to be disregarded: inform players of the NOGH/IWNA divide and where you plan to play.
    This is too absolute a statement. Reality does not work that way. To me it seems like some people cast "social contract" as a magic spell into discussions like this. I do not believe the term "social contract" is good for anything except research.

    In all my years of GMing, and lecturing GMs and game designers, I've learned ONE thing: do not place absolute demands on people other than the ones in keeping with the actual game. Let all else be decided by social convention. Keep to the game and what it may do, and give them easy solutions to make it happen. The fun of gaming is not in being correct, but in being creative and human.

    Have a nice day!
  • IWNAY v NOGH has nothing to do with "the game and what it may do." Nearly every game can be played in either NOGH or IWNAY modes: that's why its above the game, at the Social Contract level. You might not do it formally, but you can bet your life that if you're playing IWNAY mode with someone expecting NOGH play... you will be hurtful. Tautologically, by definition of the two modes (err, well, by contrasting their definitions).

    You know what Lines and Veils are, in gaming, right? Well, in NOGH, you have to speak to Lines and Veils to know what to utterly avoid and what can occure, but only "off-screen." In IWNAY, there are no (or, sometime, only a very few) Lines or Veils.

    Put simply, it's an exclusive dichotomy; there's no other modes than A and ~A (except the empty set... but then you wouldn't be playing). Please point out what other modes you feel exist outside of this dichotomy.
  • David, please! How do you expect GMs to do this: inform players of the NOGH/IWNA divide and where you plan to play.

    Get real! Most people (99% of roleplayers) don't even know what you are talking about. Roleplaying games are for amateurs. Any demand on what to do and how to play must pertain to this simple fact. So I maintain: "social contract" as a term is good for nothing but research.

    :-)
  • edited August 2008
    Could we stop getting all One-True-Way here? So, they're only good for research for you. I personally use them in my games with my friends. I honestly give a fuck what other people do, because I'm not in their group, but they're just techniques any group has access to -- like your anime club deciding what series to show at meetings (maybe some people don't like shojo and would walk out, so you make the call if you want to serve those people or not) or your weekly poker group deciding how food is handled.

    Seriously, you're talking on a forum where a good number of us work to employ these ideas with our personal gaming experiences. Please stop shitting on that just because you haven't.
  • edited August 2008
    Ryan: hard words bring us nowhere. Keep your calm.

    I am trying to tell David that his "never to be disregarded"-rule is something most gamers haven't even heard of. So most of them really do disregard it, and have done so for forty years.

    I do know that many of the folks here are deeply engaged in RPGs, so I could speak for them, taking the understanding of such terms for granted (even though a lot fo the people here don't understand it either). I choose to keep my perspective mixed; to educate myself while always maintaining an awareness of the people I've played with and instructed in GMing, and what they tend to find useful in their gaming. Most of them don't frequent such forums. And most of them find it refreshingly simple and empowering to be told that neither absolutes nor perfection has a place in roleplaying games:

    - Be human, be fallible, be clumsy and show your weaknesses. Make it fun for yourself. Relax!

    That is the message they most need to hear. I find a lot of the statements in this thread to be quite contrary to such sentiments.

    The notion that any good will come from having any rule or convention implying that you have to tell the players how far you will go, beforehand, is far more in the direction of One-True-Way than I am willing to go. Davids statement is far too absolute for my taste. You may tell your players that your game will be challenging, of course, but you may also choose to give no warnings, and do so with a perfect conscience. It's really what you make out of the game that matters.

    Have a nice day!
  • I will remove "never". I won't remove the basic point (freed of jargon): you SHOULD (yep, I said it, SHOULD. Oh, shit, here comes an opinion! MUST. DESTROY.) find Line and Veils and speak to whether they will be crossed; if they will be, then make players aware that everyone should stay engaged. Failure to do so, implicitly (over time, with known friends) or explicitly (at the table before play; with strangers or new-met friends) is potentially hurtful and the very definition of abusive.

    Now, if you get off on hurting others, then skip it, roll the dice, have NPCs gang-rape a five year old girl then eviscerate her and feed on her liver... and cross you fingers (or keep your guard up). Do it with me, we'll have a nice RL fight (I hit for about 1d6). You might somehow maintain your dubious "perfect conscience" but you're hair's sure to be mussed.

    I'll drop it, as you have your own absolute you can't reject: there are no absolutes. As that's not open to debate from your perspective, why should I continue self-abuse by trying to explain that such stuff needs to happen, if you care about people and don't want to hurt them (or want to hurt them effectively, to help them get over something). Enjoy your certainty, as I enjoy my empathy....
  • edited August 2008
    Wrong post, sry.
  • Maybe i don't understand the terms very well, but I can't see how IWNAY play relates too the song situation. In IWNAY doesn't the player whose line is being crossed have the first choice not to cross it? If he chooses to do so then sure, you will go all the way with them and expect them to follow through, but at the point where they say "nope, don't want to do that" i have a *really* hard time with any GM who thinks they have a right to tell the player that they *have* too, regardless of the social contract.
  • Myself, kinda of responding to the OP, as apposed to the somewhat unzenlike discussion that has followed, am what most people would call an introvert.

    I don't like being touched by strangers, I don't often interact with strangers, and while I'm not shy ( I can and do do these things, but not often and not for 'fun' or enjoyment )

    All of this IWNAY vs NOGH stuff seems to obscuring the rather real issue of what is appropiate to a roleplaying game. It seems to me that a bunch of inteliigent people are trying to say that yes this stuff (Touching Singing, Etc) are part of games, and tools to use and ways to grow and others are saying that this will alientate players (particuarly introverts) and act as a barrier to play and that this will not work for everyone (or even many). The original people get defensive , citing examples of what happened and then attempting to justify these examples (fostering growth, helping people ) which is then labeled by the nay sayers as examples of one trueway ism.

    I think the moral of the story is that you have to know your audience, it may not be explicit like being buddies with someone for a long time, but I'm sure that if the muu singer had given enough negative signs Thomas would have backed off, regardless of any rule that he might have had regarding leaving no player behind, I don't think he's unreasonable. He played it by ear and it payed off.

    That said I think a just as likely occurance would be in the IWNAY scenarios is the player rejecting the game, I don't play therapy games, I don't play touch games, I don't need teaching or growing. I don't play these games, and if I had mistakenly found myself in such a game, I would stop playing it, in the continuim of A to ~A, o or not playing is a very valid choice, and if we all remember that , and that these are games among consenting adults etc, it seems a whole lot more reasonable.

    that said a link or new post or explanation about some of this lines and viels jargon would be helpful , I kinda get the jist but am interested in knowing more.

    That said I really think this comes pretty close to the reason why I don't like agenda in play ( Changing people for the better, making people better faster stronger, representing the underrepresented,etc) Quite frankly considering this thread I'm not sure I want self help from Game Designers.
  • edited August 2008
    Hi Logos! Your post is good! Full of considerate thoughts.

    I have only one remark, to this: I don't play therapy games, I don't play touch games, I don't need teaching or growing. I don't play these games,

    This is, as much of the rest stated in this discussion, not quite in touch with reality. Reality is that there are no such games. There are no "therapy games". There are really no "touch games". To say you don't play "such games" is like shouting in the void.

    However: that void may be the an empty space for creativity to grow in. I believe we may see such games coming out in the future, at least games that go further in using touch as a tool. How the landscape of RPGs will change due to such future games is not for us to say. We have to wait and see. You may be surprised 10 years from now, over what kind of games you are playing. If you are still into RPGs and all your friends are playing the latest opera-craze, then it may be that your voice will join the choir.

    Only speculating, of course ... ;-)

    And a comment to the introvert and shy: I am both introvert and shy. I do not like strangers touching me. I get all stiff and strange by it. I even have troubles with my wife touching me. This is a part of me, but I am careful not to define my whole self from this quirk. I'd rather be relaxed in close encounters, and I do enjoy immersing myself in a game to the degree that some of this let go. I do not do that as "therapy", but as a fun thing to do in games. I've always had fun with games, and have always striven to make them as fun and open as possible. I believe that is something most people recognize when playing my games, and that it makes my games a bit better (especially for the shy amongst us).

    Have a nice day!
  • Posted By: TomasHVMI have only one remark, to this:I don't play therapy games, I don't play touch games, I don't need teaching or growing. I don't play these games,

    This is, as much of the rest stated in this discussion, not quite in touch with reality. Reality is that there are no such games. There are no "therapy games". There are really no "touch games". To say you don't play "such games" is like shouting in the void.
    Actually, role-playing is a common tool for some types of therapies, and most of the times they are introduced as "games" or "techniques", and not as a heavy process in which you'll need to invest a lot of energy and emotion.


    I'm sorry if I'm a little stubborn about this, but the idea kind of bugs me in a personal level. I am an introvert and I love touching and be touched. That is part of my nature. My point is they are not one and the same. They can come together (and they do more often than with extroverts), but being an introverted person doesn't automatically make you uncomfortable with touch (the same than it doesn't automatically make you shy).
  • edited August 2008
    I don't know how generalizable this is to other introverts, but here's one more voice of anecdotal evidence: Intentional touch, the kind of touch you focus on, is no problem for me. I'm more comfortable with it than anyone else in my group is. But prolonged periods of casual touch or simply having people in my personal space is pretty tiring for me. Compared to my more extraverted husband, I get ridiculously tired after plane flights. It wears on me to sit that close to people for a long time. But I also tend to have good conversations with whoever I'm sitting next to, and I'm much more likely to have a long conversation with the person I'm sitting next to than my husband is. So anyway, when I read the other thread about touching, the ars amandi stuff sounded awesome. Touch is a powerful tool for me, and maybe that's in part because I as an introvert can't take it for granted. But the idea of holding hands with someone for long periods of time during a game sounded downright unpleasant (though I might do it anyway), because that's not the sort of thing I can background-task.
    Posted By: demiurgeastarothMechanics which involve touching or, say, handing out praise, are not merely uncomfortable to introverts
    Astaroth, can you say more about the second half of this, about handing out praise? [ed: do you mean mechanics that involve literally handing it out, or other aspects of that social interaction?] I'm curious because certain kinds of praise make me uncomfortable, but I'd always attributed that to cultural and gender factors.
  • Posted By: demiurgeastarothMy introverted brothers and sisters, speak out! Or, you know, keep it to yourself like you always do
    ...
  • Posted By: TristanActually, role-playing is a common tool for some types of therapies, ....
    I know, but not in this context, Damian. So to say you "don't play therapy games" is a bit ... funny. Of course you don't. No one does. They're restricted to therapy sessions. Never heard of one crossing the line to mainstream gaming.
  • edited August 2008
    Posted By: demiurgeastarothMechanics which involve touching or, say, handing out praise, are not merely uncomfortable to introverts
    Posted By: ChristinaAstaroth, can you say more about the second half of this, about handing out praise? [ed: do you mean mechanics that involve literally handing it out, or other aspects of that social interaction?] I'm curious because certain kinds of praise make me uncomfortable, but I'd always attributed that to cultural and gender factors.

    Thanks, Christina, for a truly excellent question, and an opportunity to continue my Single Issue Fanatic-ness :)

    It seems to me that mechanics like Fan Mail in PTA (just to pick on the easiest and most obvious example), where players are expected to appraise and judge other players, are more uncomfortable for introverts than extroverts. There is undoubtedly a shy-like nature to this: introverts are a lot less experienced in group social interaction, and giving and taking criticism in a group setting, than are extroverts, so it's a little out of their comfort zone. But that's not the real reason.
    Extroverts validate their self-identity and self-esteem by engaging with others - being judged by others, whether recieiving positive or negative criticism, is how they grow.
    Introverts on the other hand, judge themselves - they do not want or need validation from others, and in fact they find engaging with others to be draining. Exposing themselves to the judgement of others is feels wrong, simply because they know that their own sense of self is the only one that matters. being judged by others creates (I'm not sure this is the right way to describe this, but you should get the idea) a cognitive dissonance that interferes with fun.
    I need to stress, because it's easy to jump to this conclusion and misunderstand: this is NOT about shyness or low self-esteem or whatever. It's an inherent part of someone's character. Extroverts are outward-looking, introverts are inward-looking.
    So, for extroverts, the process of being judged by the group, or by another person like the GM, can be fun in itself - it is part of their psychological reward system. For introverts, that kind of thing is reserved to the very closest of the introvert's social group - lovers, very close friends, family, and is an intrusion into their personal space at any other time.
  • By the way, my above post shouldn't be read as saying that extroverts are not capable of judging themselves and are only capable of validating themselves through others. Of course, that's not the case. The above post is talking in absolutes just to make it easier to illustrate the differences.
  • Posted By: demiurgeastarothIntroverts on the other hand, judge themselves - they do not want or need validation from others, and in fact they find engaging with others to be draining. Exposing themselves to the judgement of others is feels wrong, simply because they know that their own sense of self is the only one that matters. being judged by others creates (I'm not sure this is the right way to describe this, but you should get the idea) a cognitive dissonance that interferes with fun.
    I need to stress, because it's easy to jump to this conclusion and misunderstand: this is NOT about shyness or low self-esteem or whatever. It's an inherent part of someone's character. Extroverts are outward-looking, introverts are inward-looking.
    So, for extroverts, the process of being judged by the group, or by another person like the GM, can be funin itself- it is part of their psychological reward system. For introverts, that kind of thing is reserved to the very closest of the introvert's social group - lovers, very close friends, family, and is an intrusion into their personal space at any other time.
    Note that I am not invalidating your point at all. I'm just expanding on this based on my own experience.

    Sometimes one, as an introvert, can feed from that feedback. It is not "Hey! They liked me!" It is more akin to "Hey! I achieved to like them!"

    As an actor, the applause has always been as rewarding for me as it was for any of my extrovert partners. Except our internal reasons are completely different. ^_^ I do not validate myself based on what others think of me. I validate myself based on how capable I was at getting from them the reaction I was looking for. Which I have found works a lot better for me (since I can't control what others think of me, but I do can control what I do, say and react to).
  • edited August 2008
    Note that I am not invalidating your point at all. I'm just expanding on this based on my own experience.
    I agree, completely. It sounds to me like you are giving an illustration of the subject I was discussing. I've just realised I must have cut out part of my post before posting it which discussed that. I was going to give the following example:
    Imagine a group engaged in a colaborative storytelling session. Everyone is fuilly engaged, throwing ideas around - from time time to time, one person leads then falters, and someone else comes in with an idea and they are off. There's lots of discussion and laughter, and praise at surprising ideas, and good-natured disagreements over some turns in the plot, and everyone has fun.
    The extrovert's primary pleasure is seeing everyone else engaged, and also being a part of the reason why they are having fun.
    The introvert's primary pleasure is the subject itself - the thing they are working on: is it an enjoyable story in it's own sake. He appreciates the other people being there, because the story wouldn't be as good without them - they are part of the process. But the banter and all that socialising, while it can be fun (withing sensible limits!), it is not the primary source of enjoyment.

    A couple of disclaimers:
    Yes, the extrovert can be very concerned about the integrity of the story just as much as the introvert. And, of course, the introvert might not be concerned about the integrity of the story at all, he might just like making stories, even bad ones. But, speaking generally, the pleasure gained from the session is being gained from different source.
    Also, yes, extroverts aren't just concerened about feedback - they do have personal tastes, just like an introvert, which is why some will play roleplaying games and others play football. But along with those personal tastes are these underlying perosnality traits - the introversion-extroversion axis is just one element of a very complex personality. It just happens to be the one being discussed in this thread, so of course it is the most important one :)
  • Yes. And most disagreements have been so far regarding other axis (such as the touch/no-touch one), not about the intro/extroversion. I feel it is very good we reached this important agreement.

    And the axis should be looked in a oriental philosophy style. That is, there are no perfect extremes. We tend toward one end, but we can have many traits from the other. The more pronounced our tendency toward one end, the easier it becomes identifying it. But even the most extreme ones are not completely black and white. It is most of the times a matter of priorities.
  • Posted By: TristanYes. And most disagreements have been so far regarding other axis (such as the touch/no-touch one), not about the intro/extroversion. I feel it is very good we reached this important agreement.
    Well, I don't agree there. Remember, I said that introverts will have more restrictive personal space than extroverts are, and extroverts are more likely to have more permissive personal space. This is part of the definition of what an introvert is! Touch/don't touch is one of those things included in personal space. It's another intimacy thing: to introverts, some kinds of social interaction are more reserved for closer relationships (and sometimes not allowed even there!), whereas by contrast, extroverts are sluts - they'll touch/feel/sing with anyone! :).
  • Posted By: TomasHVM

    I have only one remark, to this:I don't play therapy games, I don't play touch games, I don't need teaching or growing. I don't play these games,

    This is, as much of the rest stated in this discussion, not quite in touch with reality. Reality is that there are no such games. There are no "therapy games". There are really no "touch games". To say you don't play "such games" is like shouting in the void.

    Have a nice day!

    just riffing off this idea, maybe i am shouting at the void, the fruitful void....

    That said I hope that they don't come. I however see some games that appear not to have the emphasis on fun (however that is achieved) and seem to be focused on either teaching something, bringing something up, agonizing over things, etc. I don't have a big list of these games because I don't play them, but dogs is close (poking arround with what the group morality is ), My life with master seems to be a big angst fest (not at all what i would call fun as far as i can tell from actual play reports ) from what I can tell, The reason this thread came up is because some gamers are incorporating this, and some game designers inevitably are as well. Some games seem to exist for the sole purpose of provoking unhappy or unfun experiances so we can all laugh with the bravado of true bohemians afterward. I'm biased by all means, but I don't think I'm tiling at windmills as much as you make me out.

    Either way, I'll totally agree with the touch thing, My aversion to touch in general has little or nothing to do with my introversion. Its just a quirk, my introversion however is a wide set of quirks, preferences, and tools that I use to handle stuff, and as such should not be dismissed lightly.
  • edited September 2008
    Sensitivity to touch can be a component of a number of mental conditions, such as ADD, Asperger's, OCD, bipolar disorder, etc., so it is not just a function of introversion. I suspect it is also related to family dynamics -- people from larger or warmer families seem to be more comfortable with touch. Hopefully, touch-sensitive people are able to communicate their level of discomfort with touch, and avoid games that incorporate it, assuming that they do not want to stray from their comfort zone.

    One thing I have noticed is that some people who are more comfortable with touch don't realize how much others can be uncomfortable with it. One issue I see in using touch as a tool is that its effects can be so disparate, either uniting or repelling. If the goal is to have people react to it according to the standard range of human reactions, that's one thing. But if you have a single intent in mind, you need to realize that you are targeting a specific subset of the population.

    But that said, life is a wonderful mess full of pains, risks and pleasures, and none of us are safe. Stumbling into uncomfortable situations can be an incredible blessing at times, and setting up too many safety rules can keep people from living their life fully.

    One aspect of RPGs is that they can change one's state of consciousness, just as rituals do. We're most used to games that help create shared group states of consciousness -- such as suspense, fear or excitement -- for the purpose of entertainment, but there are conceivably no limitations. Games can be used for therapy, hopefully done with the assistance of a professional. Games can help people focus, which is useful for education. Games could be used for brainwashing -- I could easily see some kind of LARP incorporated into a retreat or seminar (with restrictions on bathroom breaks).

    Games can be useful for other areas of growth. Tools like touch can help people achieve a properly receptive state of consciousness and leaving one's comfort zone is necessary for growth. I don't see a problem with using games for purposes other than fun, but considering the potential risks, there should be accommodations for people who want to drop out midway.
  • edited September 2008
    Posted By: demiurgeastarothRemember, I said that introverts will have more restrictive personal space than extroverts are, and extroverts are more likely to have more permissive personal space. This is part of the definition of what an introvert is! Touch/don't touch is one of those things included in personal space. It's another intimacy thing: to introverts, some kinds of social interaction are more reserved for closer relationships (and sometimes not allowed even there!), whereas by contrast, extroverts are sluts - they'll touch/feel/sing with anyone! :).
    See, I thought we had reached an understanding in there. I was mistaken.

    I completely and utterly disagree. And I base my definition on the one it was given to me by a couple of shrinks and several text books.

    The definition of introversion is not about personal space. It is about the way people process things (introverts inwards, extroverts outwards). It is about being reserved, introspective, self aware.

    What I said was that that axis, about being introverted (as in inside) or extroverted (as in outside), is what could be considered the middle point for defining introversion.

    There are several other aspects (such as personal space issues, shyness, lack of expressiveness) that are related, a lot more common and some times more problematic. But they are by no means exclusive (or defining) of introverts. And so I said that one thing is the "intro/extro" axis, and a different, related, but non exclusive axis is about "touch/non-touch".
    Posted By: YashaSensitivity to touch can be a component of a number of mental conditions, such as ADD, Asperger's, OCD, bipolar disorder, etc., so it is not just a function of introversion. I suspect it is also related to family dynamics -- people from larger or warmer families seem to be more comfortable with touch.
    Yeah. Cultural aspects have to do with this too. I have noticed there are some cultures that are more prone to physical contact (such as most Latin American ones), and thus even us introverts see it as less of an issue. (I am from México, and we are way more used to more intense, "familiar" touching, even among not so close people. Not that anyone likes to be touched, but it is less common.)
  • edited September 2008
    Posted By: Tristan
    See, I thought we had reached an understanding in there. I was mistaken.

    I completely and utterly disagree. And I base my definition on the one it was given to me by a couple of shrinks and several text books.
    I'm not really concerned about that. I have my own authorities, too.
    The definition of introversion is not about personal space. It is about the way people process things (introverts inwards, extroverts outwards). It is about being reserved, introspective, self aware.
    Here, I agree completely.
    There are several other aspects (such as personal space issues, shyness, lack of expressiveness) that are related, a lot more common and some times more problematic. But they are by no means exclusive (or defining) of introverts.
    I agree with this statement, too, if I understand correctly. I agree that these features are not exclusive to introverts. The point I have been trying to make, is that introverts are much more likely to have (at least some of) them than extroverts are, to a greater degree than extroverts do.
    It's not going to be true of all introverts, but it is a common introvert trait.
    The process of developing into a healthy adult is more likely to create these traits in an introvert than it is in an extrovert. Introverts enjoy "alone time," and enjoy distance (emotional and spiritual, and as a result, often physical as well) from others. As result, the behaviours they learn while growing up and maturing are more likely to include a desire and maybe need for broader personal space, while an extrovert will more often desire and may need smaller personal space. Exactly what kinds of personal space people need or don't need or how much will vary from person to person, shaped by their life experience, but as a trend, I'm sure this is true.

    I suspect, and hope, that we aren't in as much disagreement as we think we are :)
Sign In or Register to comment.