Everyone expresses, but is everyone express? Express, as in the mode of transport. Express, as in quick and expedient. We are a species hard-wired to accept the success of those that rush.
Movement is an interesting thing, requiring us to be expedient or verbose with haste. Things that express can range from how passionately we feel to how loud we shout, but what about movement? We express ourselves in New York much more than Florida, and I don’t mean by how loud we speak. Everything in this city is fast and hasty, never stopping and always pushing ahead. We see this everywhere we look, since many people want to make the most out of their lives.
We don’t hand out things to the slow or the lazy, since we rapid individuals see it as wasteful. We were told that society in this capitalist world cares only about those that can take care of themselves, and that they deserve none of our sympathy if they can’t keep up. From this we believe in our minds that the expedient inherit the earth, so haste is key.
From this logic, we try to write faster, work harder, and create machines that allow us the ability to do so much with as little wasted time a possible. The industrial revolution, the stock market, and the baby boom are all ways we praise the efficient.
So, at the end of the day, we are given one final question: is speed essential for survival? In this world of globalization and homogeneous culture, we tend to attribute success with how much money we have. With our life so full of opportunities, it can be hard to understand that we are not a species that require brisk, expedient moves to keep ahead of the pace. Sometimes, we just need to take life as it comes.
All our lives we’ve been taught the benefits of being an extrovert. We’re told that life gives nothing to those that keeps to themselves, and continues that the outspoken and charismatic have made great strides in history. This has skewed, in more ways than one, the opinions we have towards introverts as a whole. The prefix intro-, then, shares a negative stigma due to this label…or does it? Truly, we see introverts as a less enthusiastic and enjoyable alternative to extroverts, but does that mean that the prefix intro- has to be negative? The short answer is no.
Intro- is a prefix that we need greatly. Without it, we wouldn’t be able to introduce ourselves to those we wish to befriend. Of course, introduce and introvert have nothing to do with each other. Only one, however, comes with a negative connotation. Why is that? Well, one major reason is that extroverts are much more outspoken (clearly) with their accomplishments, while introverts are content with their feats and don’t see a reason to brag. When Jonas Salk created the polio vaccine, he refused to patent it, his reason being “would you patent the sun?” This is just one example of how introverts strive for personal victories, not ones that gave them renown or fame.
We prefer the extrovert because we only know of the extrovert. The people that survive horror movies aren’t usually the shy, innocent ones, but instead the pretty, outgoing people instead. We label them as isolationists, content with books and their own thoughts instead of being part of a group. Different should not mean bad, and yet we use it to call them deviant. If deviant is generally considered a bad thing to be, then how could we use it interchangeably and expect it not to be? The sad fact is that many consider those that don’t conform to be weird. Weird is bad, and since introverts are strange, they’re bad too.
The prefix is only being given such a negative name because of how our society labels abnormality. Truly, if we want intro to be a completely positive word, we as a people can. It is not given a label my nature, and can surely change over time. Similar to how pink used to be a boy’s color, times change and so do interpretation. Just because we consider antisocial people to be strange in this timeline does not mean it must stay that way. We are not dealing with the prefix non- where it is clear that the word can only be negative…but then you have strange cases like nonviolent. Isn’t that a positive word given to a negative prefix? If so, who says that words must abide by their prefix’s bias? I say we should Invert The Bias of Introverts and come to terms that not everything can be given a label.