The article looks at the history of one young man who was diagnosed as a "schizoid" patient. He was generally distant, had few friends or close relationships, and exhibited limited emotional expressiveness. He had attempted suicide at one point, but it was during a time when he was in an intimate relationship and dealing with stress from his parents.
The author of this article, Richard A. Friedman, M.D. (a psychiatrist as opposed to a psychologist), fails to distinguish in his discussion between a schizoid personality type, also known as a solitary personality type (SPT), and a schizoid personality disorder (SPD), which is much more serious.
After a bit of digging around on the web, it seems that while the schizoid personality disorder (SPD) is more generally (and falsely) presumed, there is much more prevalence of avoidant personality disorder (APD), which seems to be a pathological variation of social anxiety (SA) and/or a very harsh Inner Critic, and Asperger syndrome (AS), a non-debilitating variation of autism.
Those with SPD do not suffer the low self-esteem that those with APD or SA often experience. Asperger patients also seem to lack, in general, the self-esteem issues, so this may be one of the diagnostic keys to distinguishing between these often confused conditions.
The solitary type, which I think is what Friedman was really looking at in the NYT article, also lacks the self-esteem issues of SA or APD and the autistic traits of AS. For the most part, the solitary type just isn't social.
Here is a brief definition of the primary traits:
Dr. John M. Oldham has defined the Solitary personality style. The following six characteristic traits and behaviors are listed in his The New Personality Self-PortraitNone of these traits are in any way pathological. But they are likely to be misunderstood by others and seen to be symptomatic of other, more serious disorders as mentioned above. There is certainly a cultural component involved in that we value those who can play well with others, be diplomatic, make smalltalk at parties, and any number of other social skills that would make a solitary type want to run screaming from the room..
Source: Oldham, John M., and Lois B. Morris. The New Personality Self-Portrait: Why You Think, Work, Love, and Act the Way You Do. Rev. ed. New York: Bantam, 1995.
- Solitude. Individuals with the Solitary personality style have small need of companionship and are most comfortable alone.
- Independence. They are self-contained and do not require interaction with others in order to enjoy their experiences or to get on in life.
- Sangfroid. Solitary men and women are even-tempered, calm, dispassionate, unsentimental, and unflappable.
- Stoicism. They display an apparent indifference to pain and pleasure.
- Sexual composure. They are not driven by sexual needs. They enjoy sex but will not suffer in its absence.
- Feet on the ground. They are unswayed by either praise or criticism and can confidently come to terms with their own behavior.
Now, why, you might be logically asking, am I spending so much time tickling out these various diagnoses? Well, for a few of reasons. One is that I score well above average on the Asperger's test (16.4 being average, 25 being my score, and 32 being autistic) but I lack the repetitive/autistic symptoms. Another is that I would rather have my fingernails pulled off with pliers than attend a cocktail party (this is one of the reasons I drank so much earlier in my life, to self-medicate enough to survive social situations). A third reason is that I mostly fit the six criteria listed above for the solitary type (my Inner Critic creates issues with #6, but I seldom respond to praise).
Still another element is that I have some of the traits of the avoidant personality type, but not seriously enough to qualify that as an accurate diagnosis. So here I am trying to shed some light on this issue, which certainly has an impact on my life and has impacted those who have tried to be a part of my life.
I think that I, like many others who fit this solitary type, have found ways to adapt myself to social expectations and have found ways to bring up the lesser functioning social skills in myself so that I don't stand out as much from others in social situations. In my case, having a powerful Inner Critic makes this adaptation essential -- it's job is to protect me from making a fool of myself or otherwise drawing unwanted attention my way. I also have a strong intuitive sense, which allows me to "read" people in ways that makes it easier for me to get along socially.
And I think that I do have a need for intimacy in my life, but it likely won't resemble what anyone else thinks of as intimacy. I need lots of space and the freedom to seek intimacy on my terms, or I shut down psychologically. I have been made to feel in the past that this means there is something wrong with me. I am becoming more clear that there is not anything wrong with me (well, not this at least) and that I will need to be more clear with myself about who I am -- now that I know more about it.
To her credit, Kira (my ex) tried to work with me on this as much as she could (which varied depending on how much she was hurting from the distance I needed), but she wasn't built the same way I am. I doubt many other women who I might be compatible with in other ways are also going to be solitary types. But I won't stop looking for someone who is.
Anyway, this has all come as a big AHA! and it makes clear some things that never seemed to fit in the past. It's another step toward becoming more of who I am so that I am not a barrier to transcending myself over time. And it's a part of the change process that's been underway for some time now.
Tags:
Thanks for the intriguing post. Reading over those criteria, I'm definately not a solitary person, so there goes that myth. I've certainly been involved with solitary folks though.
ReplyDeleteI swear sometimes it's almost like I'm afraid of how much I want human contact.
How do you think your social anxiety interacts with being the solitary type?
Very nice post. So much to think about.
I am very much a solitary type too, Bill. What's interesting is that I find I'm most attracted to social/emotional types (partly because they have capacity that seem almost magical from my point of view). I'm capable of a certain amount of social interaction without being overwhelmed, but the more seriously and intimately involved I am with someone, the less I ability to be social I have in every other arena of my life (withdrawn at work, from friends, family, etc.) I too have been made to feel that the amount of space I need is etraordinary or cruel or pathological. I think that, historically speaking, the sort of intense 24/7 intimacy we take for granted as desirable/natural in romatic relationships is actually new, a modern development, and not actually conguent with psychological make-up of many people. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteKai in NYC
Umguy,
ReplyDeleteI think the SA and being a SPT impact my life in different areas. As an SPT, I can adapt to and tolerate small amounts of social interaction, although I'd much rather not. It drains me to be social (which is a tough part of my job). But the SA makes social situations intolerable, unless they are one-on-one or in small groups of people I know. In the latter case, it still drains me, but it doesn't produce as much anxiety. The SPT really impacts my intimate relationships much more. It requires me to need more emotional space than most partners are willing to deal with or accept. It says a lot about Kira that she hung in for as long as she did, and it says a lot about the bond we shared.
Kai,
Thanks for sharing your experience of this. Reading your words makes me feel less alone in how I relate to the world. I totally relate to what you said about having only so much energy for intimacy. I experience the same thing and never found a way to make it work when I was with Kira.
I also agree with what you say about the historical element of this. It's certainly an all quadrant issue. The evolution of our society over the last 75 years asks us to accept this 24/7 level of intimacy, and not all of us can accept that from an interior-individual and/or an exterior-individual place -- we're not wired that way and our inner experience can't tolerate it.
I also think that this is unique to our culture, or at least western culture -- possibly the emergence of a "sensitive self" variation of relationship. And again, not all of us are wired that way.
I've been mulling the implications of this SPT concept over the last day or two, and I hope to maybe post more thoughts on this soon.
If you (or any other readers) have any thoughts on this from an integral point of view, I'd really value your insights.
Peace to you both,
Bill
Try this theory on: ideally, one's interests, time and commitments ought to be divided between the personal and intimate, on one hand, and "work," that is, that which contributes to society at large, on the other. Historically, folks were either very much engaged in the straightforward business of survival (making money enough to eat and keep a roof over their heads), if they were toward the poor end of the social spectrum; and at the other end of things, people invested a great deal of identity in their work, and the idea of all-absorbing romance didn't particularly enter in.
ReplyDeleteWell nowadays many of us long for the hours the outside of work and (most importantly) invest our identity in the roles we play when we're not working. I like what you said about the sensitive self coming to be embodied in these all-absorbing romances which are the ideal nowadays. (God, I remember this lover who insisted, on the days we didn't see each other, that I call two or three times each day to check in and chat; and not only call, but "want to call" if you know what I mean. I hardly need describe the sense of desperation that situation instilled in me, do I?)
My secret stragedy with partners nowadays is to support to the utmost everything which increases their sense of fulfillment in work and their public identity, e.g, their academic ambitions, changing their work situations to more satisfactory ones, on the theory (and it seems to play out in life as well) that the more engaged and happy they are in work and their public life, the less they'll insist that I be all things at all times to them.
Wow, I'm just realizing I've never talked to anyone who really related to me feelings on this topic.
Kai in NYC
Hey Kai,
ReplyDeleteI like your theory. It seems to me that those of us who are SPTs have less of that energy for social interaction. So if our jobs require that of us, we then have less for interpersonal relationships. I was at my best socially and in relationships when I was managing a warehouse that allowed me to spend much of my days working alone and not having to deal with other people except in short bursts.
I like your strategy. It reminds me of how David Schnarch (The Passionate Marriage, which is not just for breeders) looks at relationships in terms of fusion and differentiation. The partner who wanted you to call on days you weren't together definitely was seeking a fusion form of relationship. While differentiation is crucial to the success of most relationships, I think SPTs need it more than others. To be in relationship with someone who seeks fusion (and I was once, similar to the relationship you described) is painful and frustrating.
I think that the more a person is working toward individuation, to use the Jungian term, the less they will seek fusion. Kira and I worked through that in our relationship, but it made us more clear on the fact that our intimacy needs were divergent -- though it took some time for her to act on it, and it would have taken me longer because I was avoiding the issue.
Anyway, I too feel that you are the first person I have talked to about this who gets it in a real, "been there done that" kind of way. Very cool.
Peace,
Bill
Fantastic article and comments. I am a solitary type who can only really socialise when i've had enough time on my own. But I can pass as being social when i do.
ReplyDeleteI consider myself a Highly Sensitive Person (HSP) and see just about everything in terms of energy awareness. As a sensitive person I take on a lot of the environment around me and can easily be overwhelmed unless I manage and harness my energy effectively through excellent self care.
Relationships are a minefield though and I find that I can only do one thing at a time. And work will take precedence. The idea of being in a relationship and having a high powered job just floors me.
There is a medical intuitive called Dr Mona Lisa Schultz who has an online radio show. One time she said that she was too sensitive to live with anyone.
And that's how I feel. it's quite difficult when you are really sensitive to the environment and need your own space to allow yourself to process all of the information that you're taking in. Being this way feels incompatible with being in a relationship.
And because of our need to survive, those who are seen as extroverted will always be more valued or seen as the norm. Frankly I don't think that there is anything "wrong" with the traits that you listed. In other societies, professions they could well be valued. It's a case of context.
I also agree that the 24/7 intensity of relationships isn't conducive to the psychological and energetic make up an energy aware, sensitive person.
I feel that introverted, sensitive women (as I am) get a hard deal. I think that's it's okay for a guy to be introverted - the strong, silent type or even the geeky type. But women are meant to be the social connectors and normally have that responsibility in a relationship; I don't especially care for that. Also I think that men expect that women will support them emotionally and that is rarely returned.
Again I don't have the energy for that and have attracted some very emotionally needy guys because I've seen to be much more social, yet emotionally aware than they were, but they just ended up draining me.
A friend once said that I was self contained and she was right. I don't need as much company as others and am happy in my own much of the time. But i do like to be surrounded (preferably by like minded) people, and have had good friendships, but don't feel the need to get intimately involved.
The only way I could consider it was if we kept our own places. Separate, but together. Or do what Helena Bonham Carter and Tim Burton did. Buy two properties next door to each other and have an interconnected corridor between them....that does take a certain amount of money though!
Hello,
ReplyDeleteMy name is Robert and I have a confession to make. I'm extremely introverted. Many people are unaware of that fact. I was saying something about being introverted at a gathering recently, and someone who attends many of our sweat lodges and has known me for a couple of years was quite surprised.
Why?
Because I'm really good at telling stories, becoming really animated to prove a point, being, sometimes, the life of the party. I used to win awards as a corporate trainer. But, I'm only up for that maybe twice a month.
I much prefer solitude. Let me be totally by myself in a beautiful natural setting and I forget completely about missing society and other people. I can go for days without the need for the sound of another voice.
I need time alone to feel centered and to renew my energy level.
I like to read, watch TV, play videogames, work on the computer, pet a furry friend, or whatever, usually in the comfort of my home. Another favorite activity is a walk in nature in silence and usually by myself. I am energetically drained by too much time with others , with my job where I interact with lots of people and have lots of activities away from home I feel robbed of my vitality. I might go to a party one night and stay home the entire next day. I often don't like answering the phone, especially if I am in need of alone time.
Your article has made things all the more clear to me and I just wanted to show my thanks. I know that I am most likely a Solitary Personality Type. I would love to read more about this matter. Well I will end this with a quote not sure from whom but here it is...
The source of all power and knowingness lies within us. When we are busy in life we tend to focus outside ourselves – and become cut off from this natural source of power and wisdom that lies within us
Great comment, Robert. As I get older I find that I want and need company less and need time to centre and renew myself more.
ReplyDeleteAlso I feel that as i know myself better then I'm less likely to do things that go against my nature, under the guise of "fitting in" with others.
I often ask myself the question: what was I designed for? Under what conditions do I thrive (and not just survive) and of course the answers involve being creative, having plenty of alone time, but also being connected to like minded others, living in an energetically supportive environment where it is safe to be authentic.
What am i designed for? Formula One racing cars are highly complex pieces of engineering (and functional works of art) designed to go extremely fast around specially built tracks in competition.
Now you COULD use them to make the weekly shop, but that is hardly the best use of them and not what they were designed for.
I wasn't designed to be drained and to be exhausted working and living against my nature, gifts and temperament. Maybe at heart I'm a secular nun or a mystic with microwave oven, as Caroline Myss would say.
And as far as relationships go, with my temparament and sensitivities and energy awareness, I wasn't designed to be in those kind of conventional relationships that are deemed "normal" these days.
And I do have an inner sense of wholeness that doesn't miss being in relationship. And as you say Robert, when we lack downtime then we do focus outside of ourselves and cut ourselves off from this incredible source of power and wisdom.
I tend not to make New Yesr's resolutions, but one I may consider is operating from that source of power and wisdom more often than not.