When to Prioritize Solitude—and When to Participate
A simple equation that help us navigate the central tension of our lives.
Posted December 16, 2025 | Reviewed by Michelle Quirk
As the holiday season comes into full swing, invitations to group activities may multiply. Sometimes gatherings bring genuine joy; other times, it feels like another obligation, cluttering our already busy lives.
How do we balance our unique, individual—selfish, dare I say—needs, with the needs of others, the collective, the group?
It’s not just the holiday season. We live with this tension every day. The pull toward solitude versus the longing to belong is not a simple dichotomy but something that requires constant reflection and recalibration. For me, it is one of the central challenges of being human. When I say “group,” I mean more than casual socializing. I include much of our outer world: family, school, work, groups formed by hobbies or shared interests (bandmates, pickleball team, neighborhood boards, volunteer organization, and more).
I have struggled with group dynamics all my life as an introvert. I grew up in Japan, a culture that values group harmony, consensus, and fitting in, expectations that are especially acute for women. As a young girl, I often felt suffocated by the pressure to be agreeable and suppress my opinions.
In fifth grade, when I stood up for a classmate who was being bullied, I became the next target, a common outcome in a closed social system. What was traumatic was not the bullying itself, but the silence of others. At the time, I mistook the silence for assent. Only later, I realized that silence could mean many other things: fear , lack of safety, discomfort, or quiet resistance. Beneath the surface, there are often fellow misfits and those who have already quietly disengaged. But my younger self could not wait to leave that small community and explore a larger world.
When I moved to the United States, I devoured the emphasis on individual freedom. In a culture that celebrates independence and self-expression, I felt permission to breathe. Yet, as I matured, I came to recognize that many of life’s most meaningful achievements, whether it is scientific discovery, social change, or performance arts, often require more than solitary efforts. They require collaboration .
To reconcile this tension between the individual and the group, I’ve arrived at a deceptively simple equation:
Good group > Individual > Bad group
Investing time in a good group adds more value to life than solitude. Solitude, in turn, is better than spending time in a bad group. The challenge lies in identifying the two moving parts of this equation: the self and the group. “Good” or “bad” are not absolutes. A group that fails to serve one person may be deeply nourishing for another. Each of us must individually assess where both the group and the self fall in this equation.
The Self: A Personality Spectrum
The way we experience groups is shaped by personality . Carl Jung described introversion and extraversion as orientations of energy. Extraverts recharge through interaction; introverts through solitude. Modern psychology recognizes this not as a binary but a spectrum, one along which people shift depending on context and stages of life. Neuroscience is beginning to reveal the biological underpinnings of these traits.
Extraverts tend to have a more responsive dopamine reward system, making them more attuned to external stimuli such as novelty and social reward. They show stronger structural and functional activation in the orbitofrontal cortex, ventral striatum, and amygdala. Introverts, by contrast, show higher baseline activity in the default mode network (DMN) and greater activation in the prefrontal cortex, regions involved in self-reflection and internal processing. More sensitive to stimulation, they may experience the same input as overwhelming or misaligned. Solitude becomes their means of recalibrating.
Thus, for extraverts, nearly any group can provide energy. The distinction between “good” and “bad” groups may blur, and the equation looks like this:
Most groups >>> Individual > Rare groups that does not serve the individual
For introverts , most groups are depleting, and only rare “good groups” rise above solitude in value. The equation shifts:
Rare groups that serve the individual > Individual >>> Most groups
Awareness of this spectrum, in ourselves and in others, can help us navigate shared life more wisely.
The Group: A Value Spectrum
Just as individuals exist along a spectrum, so do groups. Rarely are they purely “good” or “bad.” Most occupy a middle ground where value is partial or conditional, and depends on alignment with an individual’s temperament and the needs and values of the individual. A group that energizes one person may exhaust another.
For extraverts, most groups offer at least moderate reward through steady stimulation. The highs of a great group may be less dramatic, but the lows are also less punishing.
For introverts: Many groups fall below the threshold of value, making solitude the safer choice. Yes, a rare, good group can be transformative and of very high value, precisely because of this rarity . This creates a paradox . When we return to the comfort of solitude, we may feel guilty, as if stepping down from something higher to something lesser. A good group lifts us beyond ourselves, but when it dissolves, we are left to wonder: Is it enough to remain in the comfort of our solitude, or should we risk the uncertainty of the collective again in search of that elusive transcendence?
Choice and Reflection
Even when it does not feel that way, we retain agency in how we allocate our time: alone, with others, or within collectives of varying quality. Exercising this agency requires reflection.
Are we finding peace in solitude or hiding from connection?
Are we investing in groups that elevate us or wasting energy in those that drain us?
The tension between self and collective will always remain. Solitude preserves integrity, and good groups offer transcendence. The simple equation: good group > individual > bad group, is a reminder to balance selfhood and belonging in a way that serves us.
The challenge, and creativity , of living well lies in navigating this continuum intentionally: turning toward solitude when it deepens us, turning toward connection when it elevates us, and walking away from what is no longer serving us.
Jung CG. Collected Works of C.G. Jung: Volume 6, Psychological Types . Course Book. (Adler G, Hull RFC, eds.). Princeton University Press; 2014. doi:10.1515/9781400850860
Lei X, Yang T, Wu T. Functional neuroimaging of extraversion-introversion. Neurosci Bull . 2015;31(6):663–675. doi:10.1007/s12264-015-1565-1
Share this post Facebook Bluesky Linkedin Email
There was a problem adding your email address. Please try again.
By submitting your information you agree to the Psychology Today Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy
Michiko Kimura Bruno, M.D., is a Movement Disorder Neurologist, practicing in Honolulu.
Get the help you need from a therapist near you–a FREE service from Psychology Today.
This article is part of the Bringwise Psychology Journal — daily insights on human behavior, mental health, and personal growth.