Comments on: There Are No Happy Hermits !

By: BillB

BillB — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:16:51 +0000

“The transition may be a transition of empty-nest, divorce, illness, whatever….anytime we are redefining our Self whether by choice or by circumstance” Ilike the terms we are using here “transition” “redefine” going thru some late bold career changes right now and it is intimidating…to say the least. Isolation will be defined individually and i feel a person will realize that point if it begins to build a wall. Thomas Moore book looks very good.

By: JC

JC — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:28:28 +0000

Hi Beth, Just found your blog. I’m so computer illiterate that I didn’t even know what a blog was. Wow, I’m so jazzed you turned me onto this and others, and will surely give you some input, but not right now. I’m off to LIVING MY LIFE for what feels like the first time in decades. I’m Pres. of my condo’s homeowners’ assoc. and must take some ACTION. Feels good to feel good. Much love to all of you, Your Cuz Jane

By: Beth Waddel

Beth Waddel — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:18:25 +0000

I agree that the important element here is the motivation to be alone, or not. And, I totally agree that there are folks out there who surround themselves with people out of the fear of their own company.

I think that the research is suggesting that it’s not so much introversion or extoversion that is the “happiness key”, but instead an element of engagement with others that is important. I can be introverted (ie gathering energy from being by myself), while at the same time be very engaged with friends and family. The critical key here, I believe, is that people are happiest when they have significant relationships with people. I imagine when the shy or retiring person was encouraged to engage with others by either smiling or striking up a conversation with someone, rather than walking with head down and not establishing eye contact, they reported greater happiness.
It seems to me that once again the notion of ISOLATION is the issue, and as you suggest, it’s the motivation BEHIND the isolation that is critical here. Is the alone time rejuvenating, as it is for introverts, or is the alone time a way to avoid interacting?
Long story short, I agree, I don’t think the research really suggests that extroversion = happiness, that is a huge stretch. i think the research suggests that engagement with others in a meaningful and purposeful way contributes to happiness and well-being.

By: NW

NW — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:03:49 +0000

Peterson’s statements make me wonder how he defines happiness, introversion, and extroversion. Our culture admires and rewards extroverts, and I tried to shift towards that for a long time. But I found much peace upon accepting that I am basically an introvert–the definition being that introverts get their energy by going within. Acceptance and stopping the chase after something I wasn’t brought more happiness instead of less. For me, balance is the pivot point. Too much of either takes us to the wrong place. But what is too much for me will be just fine for someone else.

I wonder if the motivation to be alone (or not) is what is important here. To wall off from people and experiences out of fear is out of balance. On the other hand, who hasn’t run into people who surround themselves with others out of fear of the silence and dealing with what’s going on within? So, saying that extroversion brings happiness seems like a stretch to me.

By: LS

LS — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 15:26:40 +0000

I think there are times when being a hermit is a good thing. It gives me a chance to work though things in my own head.
On the other hand I can also get lost in my own little world and the longer I stay there the more my walls go up and I block people out. It also makes it even harder for me to force myself back into the world of people.
So I guess that in my mind it is a good thing, but just like everything else we (I) can push that good thing to a point where it is no longer working for me but against.

By: BF

BF — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 03:24:44 +0000

Hmm…hermitting fits the modern tradition of “verbing” a noun. Issues “impact” voters, for example. So if doing what a hermit does is “hermitting,” so be it. And if “to hermit” enters the dictionary, then Beth Waddel’s name will be in the OED, along with the first usage of the verb form of “hermit.” That’s how a living language evolves, right?

Now a question for you, Miz Beth. If there are no happy hermits (a concept I agree with), does that mean that we don’t need or benefit from time alone, to recharge our batteries, to think about our options, to take care of physical needs (like working out), or, yes, to nurse our wounds? Isn’t being a hermit a habitual, continuing action? So if we don’t STAY like hermits, can’t we have a balance?

I don’t mean to quibble, but it seems to me that you’re warning against being habitually alone, rather than seeking occasional “alone time.”