Musings on Mormonism

Category Archive

The following is a list of all entries from the Personality category.

Easily the most fascintaing and illuminating comparison of introversion and extroversion I’ve ever seen

The entirety of what follows is taken from the book The Introvert Advantage by Marti Olsen Laney:

On dopamine:

Whereas extroverts are linked with the dopamine/adrenaline, energy-spending, sympathetic nervous system, introverts are connected with the acetylcholine, energy-conserving, parasympathetic nervous system.

“High and low novelty seekers don’t differ in their desire to feel good—everyone likes to feel good—but they differ in what makes them feel good. High scorers need excitement for the brain to feel good. The same level of arousal makes a low scorer feel anxious. A steady predictable situation would bore a high scorer but comfort a low scorer.” Dopamine appears to play an important part in what brain pathways introverts and extroverts use and how those circuits affect their temperament and behaviour.

Novelty seekers were found to have a long D4DR gene are were less sensitive to the neurotransmitter dopamine. Therefore, they need to experience life’s thrills and chills in order to produce higher levels of dopamine. … [Low novelty seekers have short D4DR genes and are] highly sensitive to dopamine. Because they receive enough dopamine in quiet activities, they don’t needs as much “buzz” in their lives. Low-novelty-seekers tend to be reflective individuals who are perfectly content to live at a slower pace. They feel more discomfort than enjoyment from thrill seeking or risk taking. Orderly and cautious, they enjoy the comfort of routine and the familiar; thus, they don’t incur much risk. Low-novelty seekers like to see the big picture before plunging ahead, and they focus well on long-term projects. They are even-tempered, good listeners, and loyal.

The researcher discovered … introverts had more blood flow to their brains than extroverts. More blood flow indicates more internal stimulation. …the introverts’ and extroverts’ blood traveled along different pathways. …the introverts’ pathway is more complicated and focused internally. The introverts’ blood flowed to the parts of the brain involved with internal experiences like remembering, solving problems, and planning. This pathway is long and complex. The introverts were attending to their internal thoughts and feelings.

Dr Johnson tracked the fast-acting brain pathway of extroverts, showing how they process input that influences their activity and motivation. The extroverts’ blood flowed to the areas of the brain where visual, auditory, touch, and taste (excluding smell) sensory processing occurs. Their main pathway is short and less complicated. …the behaviourial differences between introverts and extroverts result from using different brain pathways that influence where we direct our focus—internally or externally.

Not only does introvert’s and extroverts’ blood travel on separate pathways, each pathway requires a different neurotransmitter. …the pathway extroverts use is activated by dopamine. Dopamine is a powerful neurotransmitter most closely identified with movement, attention, alert states, and learning. “Low dopamine also results in lack of attention and concentration, cravings and withdrawal.” Having the right amount of dopamine for your body is critical. “One way of characterizing the job of dopamine circuit is that it’s a reward system. It says, in effect, ‘that was good, let’s do it again, and let’s remember exactly how we did it.'” That is why cocaine and amphetamines are so addictive—they increase dopamine. Since extroverts have a low sensitivity to dopamine and yet require large amounts of it, how do they get enough? Parts of the brain release some dopamine. But extroverts need its sidekick, adrenaline, which is released from the action of the sympathetic nervous system, to make more dopamine in the brain. So the more active the extrovert is, the more … dopamine is increased. Extroverts feel good when they have places to go and people to see.

Introverts, on the other hand, are highly sensitive to dopamine. Too much dopamine and they feel overstimulated. Introverts use an entirely different neurotransmitter, acetylcholine, on their more dominant pathway. Acetylcholine is another important neurotransmitter connected to many vital functions in the brain body. It affects attention and learning (especially perceptual learning), influences the ability to sustain a calm, alert feeling and to utilize long-term memory, and activates voluntary movement. It stimulates a good feeling when thinking and feeling. Introverts require a limited range of not too much or too little dopamine, and a good level of acetylcholine, to leave them feeling calm and without depression or anxiety.

Introverts who [use the energy-conserving, parasympathetic nervous system] too much can become depressed, unmotivated, or frustrated about not reaching goals… They need to engage the [the energy-spending, sympathetic nervous system] to get up and out. This requires learning to regulate anxiety and over-stimulation…

Longer Introvert Acetylcholine Pathway

  1. Reticular Activating System: Stimuli enter her where alertness is regulated. Decreased in introverts.
  2. Hypothalamus: Regulates thirst, temperature, and appetite. Turns on the Parasympathetic (Throttle-Down System: Conserve Energy) in introverts
  3. Anterior Thalamus: Relay station – sends stimuli to frontal lobe and turns stimuli down in introverts
  4. Broca’s Area: Speech area where inner monologue is activated
  5. Frontal Lobe: Where thinking, planning, learning, and reasoning are engaged
  6. Hippocampus: Attuned to the environment and relays to long-term memory
  7. Amygdala: Emotional center, where emotions are attached to thoughts in introverts

Shorter Extrovert Dopamine Pathway

  1. Reticular Activating System: Stimuli enter here where alertness is regulated. Increased in introverts.
  2. Hypothalamus: Regulates thirst, temperature, and appetite. Turns on the Sympathetic (Full-Throttle System: Expend Energy) in extroverts
  3. Posterior Thalamus: Relay station – sends increased stimuli to amygdala
  4. Amygdala: Emotional center, where emotions are attached to actions in the motor area in extroverts
  5. Temporal and Motor Area: Movement connects to working memory (short-term). Also the center for learning and processing sensory and emotional stimuli


Introverts walk around with lots of thoughts and feelings in their heads. They are mulling—comparing old and new experiences. They often have an ongoing dialogue with themselves. Since this is such a familiar experience, they may not realize that other minds work in different ways. Some introverts aren’t even aware that they think so much, or that they need time for ideas or solutions to “pop” into their heads. They need to reach back into long-term memory to locate information. This requires physical space to let their feelings and impressions bubble up. During REM sleep or while dreaming, this pathway integrates daily experiences and stores them in long-term memory, where they are filed in may areas of the brain. Introverts are in a constant distilling process that requires lots of “innergy”.

Acetylcholine also triggers the hypothalamus to send messages to the parasympathetic nervous system to conserve energy. This system slows the body down, allowing introverts to contemplate and examine the situation. If a decision is made to take action, it will require conscious thought and energy to get the body moving. This explains why many introverts can sit for long periods while they are concentrating. Acetylcholine also rewards concentration by giving [hits of happiness] but doesn’t give the charge of glucose and oxygen (energy) to the body. The introverted process results in behaviour affecting all areas of the introvert’s life.

The introvert brain has a higher level of internal activity and thinking than the extroverted brain. It is dominated by the long, slow acetylcholine pathway. Acetylcholine also triggers the parasympathetic nervous system that controls certain body functions and influences how introverts behave.

The fact that introverts’ brains are buzzing means that introverts are likely to:

  • Be absorbed in thought
  • Avoid crowds and seek quiet
  • Reflect and act in a careful way
  • Lose sight of what others are doing
  • Not show much facial expression or reaction
  • Get agitated without enough time alone or undisturbed
  • Proceed cautiously in meeting people and participate only in selected activities
  • Reduce eye contact when speaking to focus on collecting words and thoughts; increase eye contact when listening to take in information
  • Surprise others with their wealth of information
  • Shy away from too much attention or focus on themselves
  • Keep energy inside, making it difficult for others to know them
  • Appear glazed, dazed, or zoned out when stressed, tired, or in groups

The dominance of the long acetylcholine pathway means introverts:

  • Hesitate before speaking
  • May start talking in the middle of a thought, which can confuse others
  • Have a good memory but take a long time to retrieve memories
  • Can forget things they know very well—might stumble around when explaining their job or temporarily forget a word they want to use
  • May think they told you something when they just have thought about it
  • Not offer ideas freely; may need to be asked their opinion
  • Are clearer about ideas, thoughts, and feelings after sleeping on them
  • May not be aware of their thoughts unless they write or talk about them

The activation of the parasympathetic nervous system means that introverts:

  • May have trouble getting motivated or moving; might appear lazy
  • May be slow to react under stress
  • May have a calm or reserved manner; may walk, talk, or eat slowly
  • May need to regulate protein intake and body temperature
  • Must have breaks to restore energy

Traits of introverted children:

  • Watch and listen before joining an activity
  • Concentrate deeply on subjects of interest
  • Enjoy time alone in their room, energized by introspection
  • Speak after thinking things through
  • Have a strong sense of personal space and dislike people sitting too close or coming into their room without knocking
  • Be private and may need to be asked what they are thinking and feeling
  • Need validation; may have irrational self-doubts
  • Talk a lot if the topic is interesting, or if they are comfortable with the people


Extroverts are alert for sensory and emotional input. When they get stimuli, they can answer quickly because the pathway is rapid and responsive. Their short-term memory is on the tip of their tongue, so while the introvert is still waiting for a word, the extrovert has spit out several. Extroverts need more input to keep their feedback loop working. Their system alerts the sympathetic nervous system, which is designed to take action without too much thinking. It releases adrenaline, blood (oxygen) to muscles and glucose, thus flooding the body with energy. The release of neurotransmitters from various organs enters the feedback loop, sending components back to the brain to make more dopamine. Dopamine and adrenaline release [hits of happiness] from the “feel good” center. No wonder extroverts don’t want to slow down.

For introverts, all that adrenaline and glucose soon leaves them feeling wiped out. It is too stimulating, consumes too much fuel, and leaves them with their fuel tank empty. Since they don’t get as many [hits of happiness] from dopamine and adrenaline, and acetylcholine isn’t increased in this feedback loop, they don’t receive the same good feelings extroverts do from this side of the system.

The extroverted brain has less internal activity than the introverted brain. It scans the external world to gather stimulation to fuel the shorter, quicker dopamine pathway; the signals from the brain travel to the sympathetic nervous system that controls certain body functions and influences how extroverts behave.

The fact that extroverts’ brains are constantly seeking new input means that extroverts are likely to:

  • Crave outside stimulation; dislike being alone too long
  • Increase eye contact when speaking to take in others’ reactions, decrease eye contact when listening to notice what’s happening in the environment
  • Enjoy talking—and be skilled at it; feel energized by attention or the limelight

The dominance of the short dopamine pathway means that extroverts:

  • Shoot from the hip, and talk more than they listen
  • Have a good short-term memory that allows quick thinking
  • Do well on timed tests or under pressure
  • Feel invigorated by discussion, novelty, experiences
  • Make social chitchat easily and fluidly

The activation of the sympathetic nervous system means that extroverts:

  • Act quickly under stress
  • Enjoy moving their bodies and exercising
  • Have high energy levels, not need to eat as often
  • Be uncomfortable if they have nothing to do
  • Slow down and burn out in mid life

Traits of extroverted children:

  • Be gregarious and outgoing, except during normal developmental stages
  • Be energized by interactions and activities
  • Want to tell you all about their experiences and ideas immediately, covering lots of topics
  • Think out loud. They’ll walk around the house saying, “Where’s my ball?” or “I’m looking for my walkie-talkie” as they hunt for these items. They need to talk in order to make decisions.
  • Prefer time with others than time alone
  • Need lots of approval. For example, they need to hear what a good job they are doing or how much you like their gift.
  • Like variety and are easily distracted
  • Often volunteering what they are thinking and feeling

On social anxiety:

Rather than being self-centered, introverts are often really the opposite. Our ability to focus on our internal world and reflect on what we are feeling and experiencing allows us to understand the external world and other human beings better. What appears to be self-centeredness is actually the very talent that provides the capacity to understand what it’s like to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes. Extroverts are also focused on the self, but in a different way. Extroverts like socializing and require the company of other people, but it’s as much about the need to be stimulated – engage me, challenge me, give me something to react to – as it is to feel related. Since extroverts don’t generate as much internal stimulation as introverts do, they need to get it from outside.Maybe this is why extroverts put introverts down – we annoy them because they feel we are withholding, and we threaten them because we don’t shoot the breeze or socialize in the way they need.

Introverts aren’t unsocial – they are just social in a different way. Introverts need fewer relationships, but they like more connection and intimacy. Since it takes a great deal of our energy to engage with other people, we are reluctant to need to spend too much energy on socializing. That’s why we don’t enjoy idle chitchat. We prefer meaty conversations, which nourish us and energize us. Energy conservation is also why we are very interested in other people but sometimes prefer to observe others rather than join them.

Extroverts, being the majority, influence the entire cultural view of introversion. Extroverts’ verbal ease intimidates introverts, making it even easier for them to conclude that they shouldn’t speak. Introverts can appear cautious or passive to extroverts. Extroverts are so used to speaking off the top of their heads that they may be distrustful of more reticent introverts. When introverts speak with hesitation, extroverts may feel impatient: Just spit it out, they think. Why don’t you have more confidence in your own opinion? What are they trying to hide? Extroverts may experience an introvert as withholding information or ideas.

When introverts appear reluctant to speak or speak slowly, they often don’t engage extroverts. Extroverts may think (and introverts can think this, too) that introverts don’t have anything to contribute. Introverts dislike interrupting, so they might say something softly or without emphasis. Other times comments made by introverts have more depth than the general level of the conversation; because this may make people feel uncomfortable, they ignore the comment. Later another person may say the same thing and receive a great response. The introverted person feels unseen. It’s frustrating and confusing for them.

From the outside, many introverts give no hint about the mental gears grinding and meshing inside. In social situations their faces may look impassive or uninterested. Unless they are overwhelmed or they are really disinterested (if the topic is too lightweight), they are usually just thinking about what people are saying. They will share their thoughts if asked. People in the group may start to exclude introverts if they don’t keep eye contact and don’t give clues that they are listening.


Be Nice to Introverts

My sister at Mishtown recently posted a link to an article in the Atalntic, Caring for Your Introvert. It will probably remind you of people you know – or it might even end up describing yourself!

I liked the article and thought is was generally correct about a number of things. However, I think there is much more to personality than just introversion and extroversion (in fact, this is a dead horse I feel I have beaten again and again on this blog and in conversation, so I will try to make my comments here brief). Take myself for instance. Introverts probably comprise the majority of my closest friends, as well as probably three quarters of my immediate family*, and, while I have a surprising capacity for being friendly and upbeat, overall I am also an introvert (about 60%, I’d say). But it’s tricky – I really like people, and in the right circumstances I find interaction with them to be quite energizing, fulfilling, and fun. I also have a habit – which I’m sure many find perplexing if not annoying – of thinking out loud. Nevertheless, I think at my core I am an introvert. However, I do take some issue with the author’s assertion that introversion is an immutable orientation. Or rather, what I really take issue with is the temptation to conclude that, because introversion is innate, people are thus incapable of adapting and even changing**. And of course, this is very similar to the objection I most hear about these personality theories – that they reduce people into overly-simplistic caricatures incapable of adaptation and growth. I think this criticism is somewhat deserved, but I also think these theories (certain of them, that is) can at least offer some sort of threshold for understanding and appreciating the differences among us in the present. 

*Aside from Mom and Tiff, probably everyone, including spouses, huh?

**not that I am the undisputed life of the party, but you’d better believe I wasn’t always as outgoing and confident in social situations as I am now. My mission in particular did wonders for helping me become more outgoing, as did simply gaining confidence about myself and my abilities during my college years.


This world is full of tradeoffs – diametric values, ideals, or positions whose increase seems to inevitably come at the expense of its opposite. What follows are a few of my favorites (which is to say, they are interesting and fairly relevant); what are some of yours?


Equity vs. Efficiency: Putting resources (human or material) to use in a way that optimizes productive output (high efficiency) generally leads to the unequal distribution of said output (low equity). Conversely, allocating resources in a more egalitarian manner, e.g. redistributing income across classes, or assigning people to a task indiscriminate of skill level (high equity) tends to lead to decreased productivity, e.g. the incentive of the most productive economic actors is hampered by their lessened enjoyment of the fruits of their labors, or lower total skill level applied towards a task (low efficiency), respectively.

Political Science

Freedom vs. Order: This one is pretty self-evident. The fewer restrictions placed on behavior, the more chaotic and disorderly things tends to be. Just look at any household with a disparate ratio of children to parenting presence.

Freedom vs. Equality: This is one I had never considered until I read it in one of my brother’s old political science textbooks recently. The idea behind this is that a government/society which seeks to promote equality generally does so at the expense of individual freedom (e.g. affirmative action in the work place curbs the freedom of the employer to make its own hiring decisions). I’m still thinking this tradeoff through – it seems to be based on the premise that freedom invariably leads to inequal treatment of others, but this may or may not actually be true, depending on your definition of “equal”. The tendency in today’s debates is to frame “equality” as absolute sameness, which I think is absurd and impossible, not to mention not the only possible definition of “equality”.

Personality Psychology (it’s no secret that this topic is one of my favorites, but I offer this tradeoff by way of subjective observation, not judgment)

Depthiness vs. Upbeatfulness: Emotional and/or intellectual depth and sophistication tends to preclude being lighthearted and fun (when you’re focused on the weightier matters of the cosmos, jocularity can seem distant and disingenuous). On the flip side, what’s the use of sitting around ruminating in your ivory tower when there’s so much life to enjoy!


Justice vs. Mercy: The quintessential Christian dilemma, this dichotmoy is, I believe, reflected throughout various facets of life, including the areas above. But it can be troublingly problematic. If we believe in a God who adheres strictly to divine standards and can neither overlook any bad behavior nor leave unrewarded the acts of the true and faithful (justice), can we believe that that same God can also forgive us when we inevitably fail to live those high standards, if not fall far, far short (mercy)? Stephen E. Robinson, author of “Believing Christ” said it best: the answer is a resounding “YES”! Jesus Christ, as the mediator of all mankind, provides a way for the demands of justice to be met while offering mercy to those who truly want Him to be their savior. Strangely and sadly enough, there are some who would gladly take mercy, but only if it came with no strings attached; such people, I think, fail to grasp the significance of either justice or mercy. But the most important thing here is that Jesus Christ makes both justice and mercy fully efficacious and coexistent without requiring any sort of compromise which would render either divine standard arbitrary and fatally unreliable. What an inestimable blessing!

(as an added temporal benefit, this divine reconciliation of opposing ideals gives me hope that the other above mentioned tradeoffs may also somehow be settled satisfactorily.)

Any thoughts or tradeoffs of your own to share? Please do!

Life as a Perfectionist

I think I’m going to start a new ongoing topic on my blog, and it will be: Life as a Perfectionist. You see, I happen to be one of those. I believe that there are certain types of personality, each with their own characteristic shortcomings, and mine happens to include that constant pressure to transcend the mediocre, to be incredible at all times, to do things just right every time. No task is so mundane that it can’t haunt the perfectionist with the demand to be performed flawlessly. Yes, life can be quite complicated as a perfectionist. Worries seem to find abundant fertile ground in the perfectionist’s mind, whereas other personalities can’t be bothered to reserve much room for the gnawing doubt and desire from which such worries sprout.

Perfectionistic thought processes (which I consider to actually be much less deliberate than such a phrase would suggest), regardless of what they are about, tend to follow the same general pattern, and also threaten to end in similarly disappointing ways, not that any outcomes are predestined. This pattern is as follows:

-I need to do ________

-Not only do I need to do ________, but I need to do it exceptionally well

[After some thought and/or effort, the reality of things dawns on the perfectionist]

-It’s either impossible or impractical for me to do ________ exceptionally well, so I’m just going to not do it, and sulk instead

[or, if circumstances allow]

-I think I can actually make ________ into a masterpiece, and darn it, I will!

I’m sure this description sounds familiar to many of you reading this, if not for everyone in at least one instance of their lives. Anyway, this ends the first installment of the fascinating world of Life as a Perfectionist!

P.S. I’m not sure why those funny gray lines are showing up. I just wanted to indent!

I’m anti-made-up-words!

It annoys me when people make up words unnecessarily and then think they’re speaking intelligently. For instance, although I’ve heard both “impactful” and “orientate” used many times in academic settings, and despite the fact that actually recognizes these “words”, they are actually just made up, but more importantly, they sound dumb and are unnecessary! According to Paul Brian’s “Common Errors in English”, what people actually mean by “impactful” is already handled very nicely (which is to say, conveys the meaning without sounding stupid) by the words “effective” and “influential”. In my Organizational Psychology class, our grad student teacher repeatedly used the word “orientate” or even “orientated” (which I think is flagrantly erroneous), and I cringed every time but didn’t have the heart or the guts to challenge him on it. In actuality, “orient” works just fine, for, according to, “orientate” is at best “a back-formation used humorously to make the speaker sound pompous. The correct word is the verb orient.” As a perfectionistic blue personality, I take note of such seemingly minor things as made up words, plus paying attention to words is good practice for going into law 🙂

Also, in regards to the prefix “anti”, I learned something interesting in a New Testament class the other day: in the original Greek, “anti” denotes not outright opposition as it does in modern English but rather a substitution. Thus, when the scriptures (those originally written from this Greek perspective, anyway) speak of “anti-Christs”, they’re not strictly talking about some sort of person who is diametrically opposed to Christ’s divine mission as is usually portrayed in movies and sensational History Channel programs, but really are referring to any idea, person, or object which offers itself as a substitute for the grace, mercy, and redemption offered through the Atonement of Jesus Christ on conditions of our repentance. The fact that this Greek notion of anti-Christ is not necessarily an embodied being does not make it any less spiritually dangerous, and in fact makes it more prevalent!

This is a great example of why interpretation of scripture matters, and I find it somewhat problematic when people dismiss the issue of translation, instead insisting that scripture as it exists in the King James Bible is perfectly translated, thus leaving us with a complete and fully elucidated canon of scripture. That’s the feeling I got with the guy on Wednesday’s CNN-YouTube Republican Debate who kept shoving his Bible into the screen and echoing the mantra “Do you believe every word in this book?”; I admired his enthusiasm for the KJV Bible, but thought he was pushing for a too-literal interpretation of the Bible as we now have it. However, I thought each candidate who addressed the question answered well, and I saw much merit to each answer. Like Romney, I absolutely believe that the Bible is the word of God “as far as it is translated correctly” (Articles of Faith 1:8) – the caveat about translation is not to withhold complete acceptance of God’s revealed word, but to acknowledge that the Bible we now have came to us through the generally well-meaning but nevertheless fallible efforts of scholars and committees. Without equivocation, I can say that when it is “translated correctly”, the Bible is an incredibly rich source of doctrine and inspiration, and that absolutely includes the Old Testament, which I think many Christians, including myself and my fellow Mormons, are inclined to overlook because it is so hard to understand without a firm background in the relevant cultural, religious, and historical contexts which allow for accurate translation.

Anyway, I think this post has gotten long enough 🙂

Some thoughts on rationality and personality…and -ality

Although I have an active mind and frequently have interesting ideas, I don’t often commit them to writing because I’m a fairly moody and capricious guy. This confession nicely introduces this post’s topic, which is: the relationship between personality and rational/emotional orientations. You see, for all my deep thoughts (I think they’re deep, at least, but I have a very high opinion of myself), I have a more emotional orientation, such that cold, logical arguments in writing, particularly those directed at the unfeeling expanse of cyberspace, do not appeal to me as much as direct emotional communication with real people. My personality is such that I am inclined towards emotional and experiential knowledge and communication, and find writing and logic unnatural and potentially awkward. This is not to say that I think the logical orientation is less valid than mine, although most of the logically-inclined don’t seem to share the same goodwill for the emotional orientation 😦 I’d love to be proven wrong though 🙂

Also, what’s up with that “-ality”, eh? I interpret it as “characteristics/state of”, but I’m not sure. I ought to look up common suffix definitions some time. After all, English does follow some rules, doesn’t it?

An Important Shift in my Social Paradigm

It really hit me today: unless I change the way I think about dating, I’m going to be a sad little single guy my whole life, or at least for years to come. First a little background. Recently, I’ve been reading “The Color Code” by Taylor Hartman, which outlines the very interesting personality color theory which, despite not having any psychometric research to back it up, is nevertheless incredibly accurate and compelling. So, I’ve been reading what Dr. Hartman has to say about my main personality color, blue, and I’ve been amazed at how well his description fits me. To sum it up, blue personalities are motivated by intimacy, and they care so much about sincerity and being good rather than just seeming good that they tend to have perfectionistic expectancies for themselves and others. Wow, that is me! So anyway, I’ve been really unsatisfied with my social life for quite some time because I can’t seem to meet people who reach the pinnacle of awesomely cool perfection that I now recognize as being an impossibly high expectation. As it turns out, if you don’t want to have friends, you can either not work to become sufficiently cool, or you can be like me and consider yourself too cool to have any friends. Neither one of those scenarios is good, but fortunately neither one is an inescapable death sentence either. Realistically, I can’t develop close friendships with everyone, because quite naturally there are people with whom I can develop friendships more readily than others, but for those people who I’ve traditionally viewed as “Yeah, he/she’s cool, but he/she’s not quite perfect enough”, I think I ought to jump at the opportunity to get to know him or her better. I used to be the guy with the childlike twinkle in his eye and a zest for life, but I feel like I’ve become a jaded anti-socialite; I’d really like to turn that around!