Do Humans Need To Socialize?
Human beings are typically understood to be social creatures.
After all, if we were solitary by nature, we wouldn’t group ourselves together into
civilizations, workplaces, friend groups and families.
For the most part, it would seem that humans enjoy being around each other and the act
of being social.
But do we really need each other?
And what about introverts, who prefer to spend large amounts of free time by themselves instead
of engaging in social activities?
In other words, do human beings really need to socialize?
That’s one topic that Bestie is setting out to investigate today.
Before we continue, we’d like to suggest that you subscribe to our channel and click
the notification bell.
That way, you can stay up to date on all of our daily videos.
Humans are generally understood to be social creatures; however, it can also be said that
some of us are certainly a lot more voluntarily social than others.
This is the major difference between the two groups of people known as introverts and extroverts:
on one hand, you have introverts, who prefer to spend free time by themselves and sometimes
feel emotionally drained when interacting with others.
On the other, you have extroverts, who enjoy being around other people and thrive in social
situations, but may not be as content during moments of solitude.
But what about people who find themselves separated from other people for extended periods
of time, even longer than your average introvert spends by themselves?
Would they be able to function normally without the human contact, or would constant solitude
and loneliness have a major effect on that person’s long-term physical and mental health?
In Gregory Smithsimon’s book Cause...and How it Doesn’t Always Equal Effect, one
of the topics Smithsimon discusses is whether or not a person would be able to function.
As an example, Smithsimon writes about the story of Robinson Crusoe, written by Daniel
Defoe in 1919.
The original novel tells the story of a man who becomes stranded on a deserted island
after a shipwreck, and as a result, is forced to become entirely self-sufficient as a means
of survival.
While many came to romanticize this idea of perfect solitude, Smithsimon points out something
interesting: the character of Robinson Crusoe is believed to be inspired by a real-life
figure by the name of Henry Pitman.
Like Crusoe in the novel, Pitman became stranded on an island, but not by himself: thirteen
other survivors were also shipwrecked along with him.
Had Pitman truly been alone like the character he would come to inspire, things may not have
gone so well for him.
In his article for Psychology Today, therapist Jonathan Foiles also shares his musings on
whether or not a person would be able to survive with their sanity intact if kept in complete
isolation.
In the article, Foiles writes about working with several patients who were subjected to
solitary confinement, a punishment employed by prisons and similar establishments that
cuts a person off from all other human contacts for extended periods of time.
According to Foiles, the effects of long-term solitary confinement can lead to mental health-related
symptoms such as “hallucinations, mood swings, and loss of impulse control”, as well as
other forms of long-term psychological scarring.
Foiles also points out that the effects of solitary confinement aren’t only experienced
by prisoners; the negative effects of long-term isolation can also be felt by hospital patients
whose conditions render them unable to leave their beds for long periods of time, as well.
Another perpetrator responsible for negative amounts of isolation, according to Foiles,
are the rapid technological advances and conveniences we have created for ourselves as a species.
While the therapist does point out that many of our technological devices can be beneficial
and enjoyable, they also may contribute to decreased amounts of face-to-face interactions
with other humans.
Foiles points out how modern conveniences like television, air conditioning and the
Internet have made it more enticing for us to stay at home, stay indoors and keep to
ourselves, even at the expense of our mental health through lack of socialization.
In addition, Foiles’s article points out that the rise of the Internet and lack of
personal, face-to-face levels of interaction has also led to the spread of misinformation
and propagation of conspiracy theories, which he describes as “a poor man’s way of building
community separating the world into those with secret knowledge and the masses without”.
According to Foiles, human beings need to be able to interact in order to form a communal
understanding of the world around them, something that cannot be properly cultivated through
increased periods of isolation.
He also points out, however, that the human experience is inherently subjective, and a
“healthy” amount of required social interaction is likely to vary from person to person.
Of course, this brings up an entirely new question as well: if human beings do require
social interaction in order to properly function, then why is the world separated into introverts
and extroverts?
After all, if people work better together than when they’re apart, then it would seem
counterproductive to have some people with an innate desire to spend time alone.
In his own article, psychology professor Glenn Geher asks this very question, hoping to determine
where introversion fits into the larger scope of human evolution.
According to his findings, Geher noticed something interesting: basic personality traits such
as extraversion and emotional stability appear to be normally and somewhat evenly distributed
across human populations.
In other words, he points out that most people in any given populated area will score somewhere
in the middle of the introvert-extrovert scale, while a comparatively smaller subset of individuals
will end up falling on one end of the spectrum or the other.
Based on what we’ve learned so far about human interaction this seems strange: if socialization
is so important for us, wouldn’t it make more sense if everyone was an extrovert?
Geher suggests that as it turns out, the reason for this might be because introversion and
extroversion are equally viable from an evolutionary perspective, each of the two personality types
bringing their own strengths and weaknesses to the table.
While extroverts are more outgoing and sociable, they are also more statistically prone to
accidents than introverts, who are comparatively less prone to these things.
As a result, Geher argues that human civilization benefits best from a healthy and relatively
even mix of differing personality types, in a process that he refers to as “balancing
selection”.
In other words, both introverts and extroverts bring their own unique skills and traits to
the evolutionary table, and both serve to cover each others’ weaker points in social
groups.
So what do you think about this topic?
Are you an introvert or an extrovert?
How much time do you normally spend by yourself, and how much time do you usually devote to
friends and loved ones?
We’d love to hear your personal stories, experiences, and opinions in the comments
below, so please, keep the conversation going!
And share this video with all your friends!