<p>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 wheninteracting 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.</p>
<p>人类通常被认为是社会动物；然而，也可以说，我们中的一些人确实比其他人更主动地去社交。这就是内向者和外向者的主要区别：一方面，内向的人，他们喜欢独自度过空闲时间，有时在与他人交流时感到情绪枯竭。另一方面，也有外向的人，他们喜欢和其他人在一起，在社交场合也很活跃，但在独处的时候可能并不满足。</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>但是那些发现自己与他人长期分离的人呢？ 甚至比一般内向的人独处的时间还要长？他们能在没有人类接触的情况下正常工作吗？还是持续的孤独和孤独会对人的长期身心健康产生重大影响？在格雷戈里·史密斯，西蒙的书中，因为.... 它为什么不总是相等的影响，斯密西蒙讨论的一个话题是一个人是否能够工作。</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>例如，斯密西蒙写了关于鲁滨逊漂流记的故事，丹尼尔·笛福写于1919年。原著小说讲述了一个人在海难之后被困在一个荒岛上的故事，结果，作为一种生存手段，被迫完全自给自足。当许多人开始浪漫化完美孤独的想法时，史密斯·西蒙指出了一些有趣的事情：鲁滨逊·克鲁索这个角色被认为是受到了一个名叫亨利·皮特曼的真实人物的启发。就像小说中的克鲁索一样，皮特曼被困在一个岛上，但不是独自一人：其他13名幸存者也和他一起遭遇了海难。</p>
<p>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-relateo symptoms such as "hallucinations，mood swings，and loss of impulse control"，as well as other forms of long-term psychological scarring.</p>
<p>如果皮特曼真的像他要来激励的角色那样独自一人，事情对他来说可能就不那么顺利了。在他为《今日心理学》撰写的文章中，治疗师乔纳森·福伊尔斯也分享了他的一些想法：如果一个人完全与世隔绝，他是否能够在精神健全的情况下生存下来。在这篇文章中，福伊尔斯写道，他与几名被单独监禁的病人一起工作，一种由监狱或类似机构实施的惩罚，使人长时间与他人隔绝。福伊尔斯说，长期单独监禁的影响可能导致精神健康相关的症状，比如“幻觉、情绪波动、冲动失控”，以及其他形式的长期心理创伤。</p>
<p>Foiles also points out that theeffects 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.</p>
<p>福伊尔斯还指出，单独监禁的影响不仅局限于囚犯；长期隔离的负面影响也会影响到那些长期无法下床的病人，据福伊尔斯说，另一名罪犯造成了负程度的隔离，是我们作为一个物种所创造的快速的技术进步和便利。虽然治疗师确实指出，我们的许多科技设备可能是有益的和令人愉快的，它们还可能导致与他人面对面交流的次数减少。</p>
<p>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"</p>
<p>福伊尔斯指出，电视、空调和互联网等现代便利设施如何让我们更愿意待在家里，呆在室内，与自己独处，即使因为缺乏社交活动而损害了我们的精神健康。此外，福伊尔斯的文章指出，互联网的兴起和个人的缺乏，面对面的交流也导致了错误信息的传播和阴谋论的传播，他将其描述为"穷人建立社区的方式，将世界分为有秘密知识的人，和没有秘密知识的人”。 </p>
<p>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 entireiy 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.</p>
<p>根据福伊尔斯的观点，人类需要能够相互交流，以形成对周围世界的共同理解，一种不能通过长时间的隔离而得到适当培养的东西。然而，他也指出，人类的体验具有固有的主观性，是一种"健康的"体验。所需的社会交往量可能因人而异。当然，这也带来了一个全新的问题：如果人类为了正常运作确实需要社会互动，那么为什么这个世界被分为内向者和外向者呢？毕竟，如果人们在一起工作比分开的时候做得更好，那么让一些天生渴望独处的人来做这件事似乎会适得其反。</p>
<p>In his own article, psychology professor Glenn Geher asks this very question，hoping to determine where introversion fits into thelarger 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 thatmost 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.</p>
<p>在他自己的文章中，心理学教授Glenn Geher提出了这个问题，希望能确定内向在人类进化的更大范围中处于什么位置。根据他的发现，Geher注意到一个有趣的现象：像外向性和情绪稳定性这样的基本人格特征在人类群体中似乎是正常且均匀分布的。换句话说，他指出，在任何一个特定的人口稠密地区，大多数人的得分都在内向-外向性格量表的中间，而相对较小的个体最终会落在光谱的一端或另一端。<br> </p>
<p>Based on what we've learned so farabout 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.</p>
<p>根据我们迄今为止对人类互动的了解，这似乎很奇怪：如果社会化对我们如此重要，如果每个人都是外向的人不是更有意义吗？ 认为，事实证明，这可能是因为从进化的角度来看，内向和外向是同样可行的，这两种性格的人都有各自的优点和缺点。虽然性格外向的人更外向、更善于交际，但统计数据显示，他们也比性格内向的人更容易出事故，相对而言，他们不太容易发生这些事情。</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>因此，Geher认为，健康且相对均衡的不同性格类型的混合对人类文明最为有益，在这个过程中，他称之为"平衡选择"。换句话说，内向者和外向者都将自己独特的技能和特征带入进化表，两者都可以弥补彼此在社会群体中的弱点。</p>