I read the book myself recently, and I can highly recommend it if you feel that you sit anywhere on the introvert spectrum.
It covers the "science" behind introversion, how introverts vs. extroverts think and respond to stimuli and neurochemicals. (I put science in quotes as I don't know enough about the brain to know how scientific the discussion is but I found it useful and interesting nonetheless).
It then goes on to look at how this affects introverts' interactions with themselves, others, and in social situations - with some thoughts and guidance on how to better integrate into an "extroverted world" without just trying to be more extroverted.
I have definitely found it helpful and it's made me think a lot about who I am and how I react to life as an introvert.
Myth #3 – Introverts are rude.
Introverts often don’t see a reason for beating around the bush with social pleasantries. They want everyone to just be real and honest.
Yes, this is often called being rude. It may be true that by this guys definition introverts don't mean to be rude, but if a person (introvert or otherwise) acts as described above, that is rude.
If we're going to keep to narrow introvert/extrovert definitions here, then to an extrovert only is that rude. Personally I find small talk and social pleasantries little more than a way to waste time and pretend you care more than you really do. I rely on the pretty sensible concept that if someone has anything important to tell me, they'll come out with it.
Besides, the internet is wonderful for me because social niceties have faded. You don't get forum posts with 5 lines of social waffle, you get people just cutting to the chase. Think just-go-ahead-and-say-it IRC.
Social niceties serve as a grease that makes the social interaction go smoothly. By avoiding those and being frank and direct you only introduce sand in the mechanism.
There was a wonderful quote to this effect a while ago on HN but I can't quite find it.
Smalltalk is exactly how you find out what the other party's preferred communication style is. People don't give a shit about the weather. They talk about it because it's a convenient substrate to see how a person interacts. Are they terse? Long-winded? Sad? Happy? What kind of accent to they have? Do they seem busy?
Would you consider things like that small talk? I don't, and it's usually enough to decide how to proceed. Being direct can mean asking someone if they're up to dealing with what you have to say. I've found that empathy is a great conversation starter.
I'm sorry, in which world do all these introverts live where any topic is perfectly OK to talk about at any time?
Small talk and social niceties aren't merely hot air, they are tools you can use to assess a person's mood, what they are interested in or comfortable discussing, or even whether it is productive to discuss something at all. Consider it the metadata of conversation.
Also consider that conversation is two-way communication. You reveal information about yourself not just by the answers you give, but by the questions you ask.
It also establishes the fundamental fact "This is a friendly conversation".
If I walk into my subordinate's office right now and say "Have you finished that graph yet?" then that communicates that I'm really impatient about getting that graph. Which would be fine if I am, but I'm not. If I do that, I'll just make him jumpy and anxious.
Instead I'll wander down to his office and start with a "Hey, how's it going?" before asking about the graph, cuz I'm not actually impatient to get it, I'm just interested to know whether he's making progress or whether there's anything I need to help him with. The smalltalk is basically just equivalent to "I come in peace".
If I were a gorilla I'd probably have to do this with gestures and facial expressions, but since I'm a human I have this extra tool in my arsenal to communicate the non-threatening nature of my approach. Awesome!
So instead of asking a 5 second question and letting him get back to work, you turn it into a 5 minute demonstration of your superiority by forcing him to pay attention to you instead of what he was doing.
More like a one-minute interaction which communicates a lot more stuff in subtext than a five-second interaction could hope to... including the fact that I'm not scary and that he should feel free to ask me for help if he needs it.
I know one of the responses jokingly referenced Office Space, but it honestly seems like a few people have suffered that kind of work environment and it's affected their perception of things like this.
In that situation, I too would prefer the introvert's preferences. But it's far from an ideal situation.
When a manager starts off with small talk, it only increases my anxiety more than any straight question ever would. I'm always waiting for the other shoe to drop. I've seen the pattern in every job I've had before my current one and with most teachers and professors I've met. They start off talking about something unrelated only to hit you with a hammer with the next question.
Out of place small talk doesn't actually help people that are perspective enough to realize you want something. My experience has been that when a manager randomly starts a conversation that's not work related when it's not lunch or break time they are going to be asking or demanding things I won't like. Infinitely so when they just called you into their office.
Here's the problem with that. After you've done this a few times, we start to associate you saying hi with you asking about some project, and begin to distrust your friendliness. Intentions tend to shine through.
whoah there - 'small talk' and 'social niceties' are two separate things. Not staring at your conversational partner as if you were a homicidal maniac is a 'social nicety'. Not walking off halfway through a sentence is a 'social nicety'. Showing some indication you're listening to what they're saying is a 'social nicety'.
Getting into a time-filling general conversation about the weather is 'small talk'.
The two are pretty distinct, and the dislike of small talk does not mean that the social nicety grease is discarded.
Smalltalk is social exploration. Maybe a better word might be social probing. In this stage, you can't go directly to the point, because smalltalk is useful only in evaluating the point of a future conversation with the same partner.
Of course, people that think "no point yet" = "not valuable ever" might want to pursue philosophical nihilism until terminal depression. But I digress.
How about really caring about people. Asking them how their day is going, cracking a joke to make someone smile. That's what smalltalk is really about.
Actually, you'll find that in some places, it isn't rude to be straightforward and honest. And even blunt. You have to actually start insulting people to be considered 'rude' in those places.
Which places are those? Are you talking about geographical locations, or do you mean "places" like in a focus group or an R&D department? If there is a geographical location where the cultural norm is to be straightforward and honest, I would like to visit there to see what it is like.
Interesting. I've always gotten along well with Germans, but in reading that article, I can tell that I have embedded in my speech some of the pleasantries that annoy Germans. I'm even more interested in visiting Germany and the Netherlands than I already was.
Not just by extroverts. Some of us introverts also agree with the common definition of the word "rude."
It's pointless to say that X is not Y by redefining Y. When Y has a commonly understood definition, the more useful thing to do is debate whether it is important to be Y.
Being rude is also largely cultural. Sometimes American niceties although superficially are very pleasant can get tiring to people who tend to be more introverted and are from cultures that are more straightforward. Many people I've personally known complain that German flight attendants seem rude which I think is more a cultural difference than anything else. Similarly, however difficult it might be, one must always be judged to be rude or not based on intent and not body language or tone alone (at least, give him/her the benefit of doubt).
I met a 70-year-old South African man living in Arizona. He mentioned one of the strange things about polite behaviour was sending 'thank you' cards. He said it was more for his generation and wasn't so much with the younger folks, but basically he was saying you would visit someone and stay with them, and it didn't matter if you thanked them profusely and gave them gifts or paid for dinners to show gratitude, you still needed to send a 'thank you' letter when you got home. If you didn't send it, the other party would usually be offended.
Similarly a consultant friend of mine talks of a US colleague who worked in her office for half a year here in Aus. Just before he went back he lamented that he probably would have had a better time if he'd realised that the people being perfectly polite to him in the office probably didn't like him, and those making friendly fun of him probably liked him a lot.
I think he was hitting on the notion that introverts might be quiet at a party and this is considered rude for not making the rounds and bullshitting with every one there. That might go against social norm, but it's not being rude.
Have you seen Beautiful Young Minds? There's a scene where one of the students learns he has made the next round. The narrator says "congratulations". They chat a bit, and as the narrator is leaving he says, "congratulations" again, and the student in a dismissive way says, "You already said that".
I think that's what most people see in introverts that is rude. Or when you say "Hi Tim" in the hall and he just looks away. Or if you ask "Can you pass the ketchup?" in the cafeteria and they say, "I prefer not to".
All of these are probably very honest responses, yet I think I'd bucket them as rude.
Myth #6 describes me. I prefer authentic one on one connections rather than spreading myself "too thin". I think that's a problem w/ people with too many friends. Having too many friends is good but it also means you can't be great friends to all of them.
I used to think (and act) the same, but I think it's really an unfair judgment on extroverts. What happened is that I started dedicating more time/effort to my relationships, and what I've found is that I can maintain good, meaningful friendships with a larger sphere of people than I thought would be possible.
It's also a mistake to believe that extroverts have a large circle of loose friendships and that's it. This can't be further from the truth - everyone has close friends, and much looser acquaintances. It's one of the more annoying aspects of the "introverts are people too" movement - the constant need to put-down extroverts and the persistent claim that extroverts' relationships are predominantly shallow.
Here's a myth held by introverts. Introverts (rightly) believe that extroverts don't understand them, but they don't understand extroverts as well as they think they do. Case in point, the commonly held belief on HN that extroverts mostly BS their way through life while the introverts are doing the real work. In reality we introverts probably don't understand how incredibly nuanced seemingly superficial relationships and conversations can be.
As an introvert, i understand very well how extroverts think. For years i tried to become more extroverted, only to discover at a certain point that it's a dysfunctional path that leads to a superficial, seemingly fullfilling but unfocused and non-goal-directed lives. The nuance of conversation is a charm, it fades fast.
The way I see it is time management: life is short, do you want to spend most of it dealing with people or things? for me it's "things", because they have a higher signal/noise ratio.
And an extrovert trying to become an introvert would probably find himself incredibly bored and lonely. They're just two different orientations, we don't need to be constantly asserting superiority over one or the other.
I'd go so far as to say that they're not even "two different orientations", it's just a spectrum. Some people are more introverted, others are more extroverted. Like most human characteristics it's probably bell-curveish.
I'd say that "it's probably best to be somewhere in the middle, so that you're neither worn out by social situations or bored by spending time alone" but there's probably enough self-aggrandisement in this thread already.
you're absolutely right that it's a spectrum. the myers-briggs assigns you're interovert/extrovert level as two ends of the spectrum. personally i got 99% introvert, 1% extrovert.
As for not being able to change however, I don't believe that's set in stone. I took the test about 7 years ago and since then I feel like I'm more like 65%i/35%e. The whole idea of charging however is strange. Though I felt back before the test that i could only recharge at home, alone. At one point while i was the most social I felt as if I had to charge at home, then go out to recharge to balance it out. The brain is a very strange thing.
I don't think you could have come up with a comment that more perfectly illustrated the GP's comments. An introvert trying to understand being an extrovert is like a white guy trying to understand what it's like to be black. It's not who you are, so no amount of pretending is going to give you a true understanding.
I'm very much an introvert, but over the years, I've learned that networking is a critical part of being successful in any business endeavor, and it is nearly impossible to network following typical introvert patterns. As a result, I will go up to a group standing around at a social event, throw out my hand, and say "Hi, I'm Travis. What's your name?" even though I hate every second of it (and, given the sieve my brain is when it comes to names, I will likely forget before we are done talking :/).
Given that, I don't believe for an instant that I understand being an extrovert. My wife is the prototypical extrovert. She will have life-long friends within minutes of entering a room full of people she's never met before. I will never understand how she does it, but more importantly, I will never understand why she does it.
Haha. As a white guy, I perfectly understand how black guys think. For years I tried to become more black, only to discover at a certain point that it's a dysfunctional path that leads to a superficial, seemingly fulfilling but unfocused and non-goal-directed lives.
My real point is that anyone who believes they KNOW how anyone else thinks is wrong. It's a very egotistical thought to have that you know so well what another person thinks or feels.
What makes you so sure there is really a binary divide between introverts and extroverts? Even if it shows up on tests, whose to say that's not a learned behavior?
I'm not sure what you mean by binary divide, but the reason why some is introverted versus extroverted fascinate me. It's a pretty basic question - learned behavior versus instinctual/genetic behavior. Maybe it's somewhere in the middle?
Here's what I think: as a young kid, you get exposed to things that shape your attitude. If your early experiences are negative in social settings, perhaps you grow up to be introverted. But what happened first - your negative experiences, or an attitude that pre-disposed you towards negative social experiences? Can little little kids have attitudes like that? Hard to day - how do we really know?
I don't care what physical science has to say on it regarding brain maturity, neuro-pathways, etc - unless we can communicate with infants, we don't know if they have pre-disposed attitudes or thoughts.
In principle, it seems possible to have more interest in things than people ("think like a cat") but still get energized by people when you're with them (or, continue thinking like a cat when you're around them and explore how you can subtly direct social interactions or explain the behavior of others using simple theories like status preservation).
For years i tried to become more extroverted, only to discover at a certain point that it's a dysfunctional path that leads to a superficial, seemingly fullfilling but unfocused and non-goal-directed lives. The nuance of conversation is a charm, it fades fast.
If this is how you think extroverts are, then I would suggest that you don't understand very well how extroverts think.
As someone who spent his youth as an introvert and later discovered the joys of extroversion, introversion seems like a suffocating, lonely, and stunted existence. Do those years mean I understand how introverts think? Of course not. Introverts obviously don't think their lives are lonely or stunted. Instead, I have to view others' choices with humility and accept that their thinking will always be alien to me.
let's please just celebrate our differences rather than tear each other down. This is a real insult to anyone who doesn't consider themselves introverted...
life is short, do you want to spend most of it dealing with people or things?
Common misconception about introversion vs extraversion: that it always manifests in interactions with other people. The reality is that they define how you deal with the outer world. For instance, riding a roller coaster is an extraverted activity, even if you go alone. Staying home and reading a book is an introverted activity even if you invite someone else to read with you.
When you say you like "things", that's still an extraverted attitude. Things still exist in the outer world. The real question is "Do you prefer the outer world or your inner world?" This is the question that helped me realize that I'm an (unfocused, non-goal-oriented) extravert.
I consider myself pretty introverted but I'm also pretty conflict-averse, which means that myth #3 doesn't apply at all, at least to me -- if anything, I tend to be overly polite with people. And I know lots of introverts who are the same way.
The introvert-extrovert axis is a great tool for understanding behavior, but don't just assume that every angle of your personality arises from where you are on that spectrum.
I would describe myself the same way. However sometimes I find myself in conversations where I might for example not respond to something someone says, and rather just reflect on it in my own mind as I don't really have anything meaningful to add. This makes perfect sense in my head where two different "conversations", internal and external are going on, but I realize that in real life it's pretty awkward.
I think it is worthwhile to note that not all introverts are alike. I can tick off some similiarities in this list with myself, but my experience of being an introvert is quite different. ymmv.
Myth #10 – Introverts can fix themselves and become Extroverts.
I don't know if "fix" is the right word in the complete, but they can definitely change. I used to follow that list pretty closely - and while there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, I realized that it can be extremely socially disadvantageous. Regardless of how smart someone is, it's an undeniable fact that in this world, almost all the time, you need the support of other people to make your desires come true. I'll cite the academic community on this one: even if you make a great scientific discovery, you'll never get a Nobel prize if all the other academics think you're a jerk.
I really think the primary talent any intelligent person should learn is adaptation - and that includes adapting to your social surroundings. For example: although I played a lot of sports semi-professionally, I have never enjoyed watching sports... especially team sports. Yet, when I go to a hockey game, I make a ton of noise, and force myself to get into the spirit and have a good time, even though I still haven't bothered to learn the rules.
Don't like idle gossip? Well, it's the fastest way to permeate a new group of people. Now I'm an active gossip and drama seeker (although I make sure the gossip is harmless).
In any case, I feel his point needs to be refined a bit.
Yes, I've grown to enjoy it. It's hard to fake enthusiasm when you're not genuinely having fun. No, I don't get bored when I'm alone, and I don't get bored when I'm with people either. It depends on the situation, and I really do think being able to switch is important.
Saying the primary character traits of extroverts is gossipping and seeking drama is just silly. Extroverts make connections with many people (shallow extroverts are drama-seeking gossips), which most introverts simply can't understand. My wife, who is the premier example of an extrovert, has no interest in gossipping or in drama. I've seen far more drama in a group of forum-cruising introverts than in her life.
I think you're misunderstanding. I'm saying it can be an important part of the social experience. Not everyone likes gossip and drama, and some don't even think it's appropriate. Gossiping provides a social venue for people to relate to each other and bond over similar ideas/beliefs on social situations. Regardless of whether it's appropriate or shallow, it serves a social purpose.
I think to an extent, we're debating the semantics of "extrovert".
I agree, it seems to me that "introversion" and "poorly developed social skills and/or low confidence" are often confused with one another.
We all know that there's a big overlap between liking something and being good at it, and similarly between being bad at something and disliking it. I used to hate running, until I got to be good at it, at which point I started liking it. It's the same thing with social interactions -- people who suck at them will dislike them. If your conversations with strangers are full of awkward pauses and struggling to find something to say then no wonder you hate talking to strangers.
But social skills can be improved through practice, so it's not surprising to see some introverts becoming less introverted as they get better at talking to people.
I identify my self as an "introvert", and I would say that I have pretty good social skills. Part of that I work in a school where I have to talk to teachers, students, and administrators all day for hours on end. Eventually, I just learned how to do it effectively, and I've come to like socializing, especially with interesting people. Which leads me to my point.
What I found was that despite me having fun and being confident in talking to people and interacting in group activities, there's just comes a point in my day where I literally just don't want to talk to anyone. Socially (and even physically, albeit to a lesser extent) speaking, I'm completely and totally drained. It becomes almost painful to engage in conversation that I feel isn't too useful or too interesting. And honestly, I kinda want to be left alone so I can just gather myself. Sometimes I need a day, sometimes a week. But ultimately, at some point I need time to recover from the social stimulation of my day.
From my experiences, I think that's where a big divide between introverts and extroverts exist. To the extrovert, when an introvert gets into his/her shell so that they can recover socially, it appears as if they may be aloof or bored with you, when in fact, they're just tired. This is especially irritating with friends who constantly ask me if "I'm okay" or if there's "something wrong". They don't understand that I'm comfortable with silence and for large parts of my day I actually prefer, and it has nothing to do with them.
Also, just a side note. Something I found quite funny is that because I feel that I'm an introvert and had to struggle with social anxiety through my teenage years, I now feel like I have to overcompensate in social settings, so I'm generally the one who leads a conversation and pushes it forward. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there are others who also do this.
This is definitely me. I've been much more outgoing and social recently, to the point that people I've met have said "I wish I was as social as you, etc" but after a few weeks of this, I reached a point where I NEEDED a break. I coined it "existentially tired." Physically I was alright, but I needed to spend some time away from others. So I spent a day or two almost entirely alone, and it did wonders for my psyche.
Sorry but I can't take the article seriously. The notion that everybody can simply be divided into either being an "Extrovert" or "Introvert" is very doubtful for me.
Even if you accept this one dimensional personality description as being useful by itself;
- is it constant (the same in all circumstances),
- does it vary over time?
- Is everyone either an "introvert" or an "extrovert" OR do people fit on a sliding scale between the two extremes?
I'm guessing that the author feels he is an introvert. IMO, rather than trying to redefine or clarify what it means to be an "introvert" just don't accept the "introvert/Extrovert" labels. Its a pseudo-scientific term which is used in a lazy way to put people into neat boxes.
I'll bet most people can think of situations where they will act "extroverted" and others where they'll be "introverted".
The words "introvert" and "extrovert" have been used by a lot of people over the years, starting all the way back at Freud I think. If a modern scientist uses these words, though, they're probably talking about it in terms of the Big Five[1] personality model, which is mostly just identifying some observed clusters of traits with strong correlations that tend to persist over a person's life. People argue about whether there might be more emperical clusters worth adding, or whether they might be made more orthogonal but generally there's a good amount of rigor behind them, far more than IQ for instance.
Introversion/Extroversion is very much a matter of degree, just like pretty much any other human trait. It doesn't uniquely determine behavior by any means, humans are very complex creatures. However, there is a pretty strong correlation [2] between someone acting in an introverted or extroverted manner in one situation and acting the same way later.
EDIT: All of which isn't to say that people can't use those terms in pseudo-scientific ways, or that the author of the article isn't. After all, people use terms like 'mass' and 'gravity' in pseudo scientific ways too.
Thanks for the links but I remain unconvinced that Extraversion (describing people as either extrovert or introvert) is accurate or ultimately useful. From the 1st Wiki link I note that:
1. "Many studies have confirmed that in predicting actual behavior the more numerous facet or primary level traits are far more effective (e.g. Mershon & Gorsuch, 1988;[25] Paunonon & Ashton, 2001[26])"
2. Most measures are based on self-description.
So we have a personality description which is not very accurate in terms of predicting behaviour and which also leads to a lot of disagreement (as witnessed by the comments here) about what it actually means in terms of behaviour and human interaction!
If a "measure" is (a) not very accurate and (b) confuses rather than clarifies behaviour / human interaction then for me its not very useful no matter how seductive it is.
I love his myth #3 response. "Introverts often don’t see a reason for beating around the bush with social pleasantries" reduces to "Introverts are rude."
Personally I don't think the average introvert is rude. I think that not because I redefine what "rude" means, but simply because on average introverts are polite people just like extroverts. Sure, there are socially maladjusted introverts who think that communicative efficiency scales with bluntness. (Hint: making someone feel insulted or defensive is likely to slow you down a lot more than the taking the effort to word criticism cautiously.) Just like there are extroverts that think it's ok to shout someone down or make fun of them until the acquiesce to whatever the extrovert wants. But I don't know that rudeness is more common in either of intro- or extroverts.
I voted you up for that proposal. The discussion here is fascinating--incredibly orthogonal. Although in the end, seems like it's just one of those orthogonal things: neither the discussion nor the poll would change anyone's mind.
It's a scientific paper so the reading is going to be 'heavy' but if you skip down to page 198 (it's out of a larger journal, actually closer to about 5 or 10 pages in) you'll see that they graph some of the major traits.
- East Asians are generally introverted while everyone else is pretty much 'flat'
- East Asia is also the least "Agreeable" while Africa is the most.
- EA is the least Consientious, while Africa is the most.
- South America is the most open to new experiences while East Asia is the most conservative and resistant to change.
- EA is the most Neurotic, while Africa is the least.
It's possible that the outstanding nature of the results indicate that something might have been lost in translation when adapting the test to the East Asian market - but who knows? These things are usually quite heavily tested.
I'm sure there's a lot more in there that's neat in there, but I only did a quick glance.
For a more 'high level' explanation of what the aspects of the big five are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits is a fine overview, and you can actually do your very own personality inventory online http://www.personalitytest.org.uk/ seems good with a 41 item test, but you can also try some larger ones out there - I've done some 100 item tests online.
The assumption that there's something wrong with not interacting with other people eagerly and often strikes me as oddly egotistical. Other people aren't alive solely for the enjoyment of extraverts.
The "problem," if there is one, is that extraverts are uncomfortable and find it difficult to interact with introverts. But this is as much the fault of extraverted people as it is of introverted people. They speak a different language and need to meet halfway to interact effectively.
Due to the personality type, however, the extraverts see this as a huge problem while the introverts really don't care all that much.
What if we asked the obvious counter-question: Why are extraverts so threatened by anyone who won't interact with them on their terms?
Nobody asks that because extraverts get a pass on this; it's the introvert's fault when social interaction between and extravert and an intravert is uncomfortable.
> Why are extraverts so threatened by anyone who won't interact with them on their terms?
I act as an extravert in certain situations and as an introvert in others, so I feel qualified to answer your question. Extraverts don't always interact with everyone -- for example, in circles where social cliques are established, extraverts will interact with people outside of their clique less often. I call this "exclusionary" behavior -- one that serves to maintain the exclusiveness of the clique. Given that cases of extreme introversion are rare, an extravert A is more likely to interpret another individual B (who could well be an extreme introvert) as another extravert who simply shuns individual A so as to exclude A from his or her clique.
The reason this "misinterpretation" occurs is because extreme introversion is rare (1% of the population?) while exclusionary behavior (shunning others to maintain exclusive cliques) is relatively highly prevalent (20% of the population?). So the conditional probability that individual B is not an introvert but an extravert exhibiting exclusionary behavior is high. Basically, the extravert A makes a correct conclusion given the limited information he/she possesses. Because the introvert B is unlikely to engage into conversation with A, the individual A will never gain more information about B and will therefore maintain the conclusion that B is an asshole.
extraverts will interact with people outside of their clique less often. I call this "exclusionary" behavior
Touche. There is only one center of attention, and I have noticed extreme extroverts will not let you in if you are going to take away from their attention. It's like drug.
I was thinking pretty much the same thing. I'm guessing extroverts need to "fit in" a lot more than introverts, and this challenges the extroverts needs perhaps. Also it could be found that when you aren't being talked to, that there is something wrong with yourself, instead of it being the other person's issue. So perhaps it causes some issues that way too. I think society is sort of conditioned to think someone who doesn't socialize at a certain level, somehow has a problem. Which we are a society, socializing keeps us together, so its understood why this is probably seen as a bit more of an issue. Being introverted I like to maintain a low level of socializing, I do it when I want to, I have no problem doing it, its just not as much as other people. But not all people have that ability, and I think people assume the worst, that the person somehow needs "fixing" and isn't happy with their social life and doesn't know how to socialize. Where me, bottom line, I'm not talking to you cause I don't want to. Whether its because I find the person terribly annoying, or just can't think of anything worth while to say is dependent on the situation. Which is why I either really like extroverts or really hate them, they keep the conversation going and are fun, or they never get the damn point, I don't want to talk to you, and annoy the hell out of me.
One reason is because being passive-aggressively pissed off at someone looks very much like certain introverted responses. Likewise, an "extroverted" person with an off day will act "introverted" hence the follow up "you okay man?". In other words, a less than normal "extrovert" looks kinda like an "introvert".
Yeah, they got left off the Myers-Briggs scale. Everyone is either a hermit, or dances on tables after half a cup of coffee.
More modern psychological metrics rate people on an introvertedness (or extrovertedness) scale, which is more or less normally distributed. But Myers-Briggs (which is roughly as old as the belief that you can electroshock queers straight) and crappy pop-psychology tests in women's magazines (and facebook) persist in categorizing everyone into two bins.
Big 5 (a more modern categorization) is a much better descriptive framework. The factors are introvertedness, openness (or curiosity), conscientious (hard workingness), agreeableness, and neuroticism (the tendency to react to negative emotions). Note how they are all factors, not categories? You don't put normal people into bins.
This article does not seem to describe Introverts, but more INTJ/INTP types. Neither all introverts like to solve problems or puzzles, nor they all take data and experience very quickly.
This article is nothing more than a chain-mail style bullshit list and it's sad to see it voted up so highly. I suppose it's a nice ego-stroke for all the self described introverts, but most of the "myths" are actually supported by their counter-descriptions.
Small talk is a social skill. and when meeting a new person small talk is generally all you have. This basically affirms the "myth".
They want everyone to just be real and honest. Unfortunately, this is not acceptable in most settings
Talk about a value judgment on non-introverts. Being polite is more important than being pointlessly honest.
If you are lucky enough for an introvert to consider you a friend, you probably have a loyal ally for life.
If only I could find myself a loyal friend who can't make idle talk, will talk for days about things that only interest him and won't want to do much out in public.
They take in data and experiences very quickly, and as a result, don’t need to be there for long to “get it.”
Ah yes, pity those non-introverts that take weeks to figure "it" out.
Introverts are perfectly comfortable with their own thoughts. They think a lot. They daydream. They like to have problems to work on, puzzles to solve.
Introverts are often individualists. They don’t follow the crowd. They’d prefer to be valued for their novel ways of living. They think for themselves and because of that, they often challenge the norm. They don’t make most decisions based on what is popular or trendy.
Non-introverts are mindless slaves to culture and advertising!
it’s just that their inner world is much more stimulating and rewarding to them.
Or said in a way to not flex the ego "Their inner world is comforting and welcoming without challenge from outside stimulus."
I agree with your general point about the chain-mail style bullshit, but it's not just an ego-stroke for self-described introverts: many are value judgments against introverts.
>Myth #7 – Introverts are weird.
Introverts (in my experience) _reject the concept of weird_. Social decisions like who's "in" and who's "out" hold no weight. Until this is understood, you're (by you I mean the writer, not you, parfe) not countering the myth that introverts are weird, you're just explaining the reasons people say that introverts are weird.
>Introverts cannot “fix themselves” and deserve respect for their natural temperament and contributions to the human race.
Again, what is "broken?"
It reads like an extrovert making a poor attempt to explain what he knows of introversion to other extroverts.
* I suppose it's a nice ego-stroke for all the self described introverts*
No it isn't. My friend of 8 years, and also my roomate for 4 years told me Sunday I was being rude because he had his friends over and I retreated to my quarters. People just do not understand introversion, so it is good to just send them a link like this.
How do you know that the choice you made is a consequence of introversion and not some other reason?
If you can't explain your behavior to your roommate in terms of immediate personal motivations don't expect a generalized explanation to be any more enlightening.
If you feel pressure, sure respond in whatever way seems most appropriate at the time. All I am saying is that a half-baked online article about introversion is not going to substitute for open and honest communication.
Imagine if your compiler spit out a link to a blog post about generic programming syntax rather than where specifically the parser had a problem with your code. The blog could be completely wrong or completely right, neither one changes the fact that there's a specific conflict between what the compiler expects and what was given to it.
I get your point now. You are right there should always be some communication. In the case of my friend, it's cool, but for others it would be helpful when they read something like this.
My main gripe with this article is: it heavily mixes symptoms of social anxiety, chronic shyness, downright rude behavior and the "typical" traits hacker are said to have... and then calls it "introvert".
The real reasons other people see you as "introvert" can be plentiful so it is actually pretty ignorant to attribute all introverts with those "myths".
I'm often surprised at how many performers are introverts. I have known people who while barely saying a word and make eye contact in close social contact are able to get up on stage and sing, perform and show-off in front of hundreds.
A few famous examples: Michael Stipe of R.E.M., George Harrison of The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix.
In college I used to hold study sessions for undergraduates in computer science. One thing I found was that one-on-one interactions were incredibly simple. Bump that up to may 5 or so people, and the mental effort to keep track of each person's reaction became more difficult. Up to about 15, almost impossible to do effectively. But, once I got past 50, it was almost like being up there by yourself. So, I can see how an introverted performer might have a similar experience as the audience grows in size.
Just somebody (presumably an introvert) denying common negative generalizations about introverts without providing any supporting references or analysis. Turns out (thank you, oblique63) it was an off-the-cuff list thought up by someone who read a self-help book and was inspired to "redefine [his] entire life in a new and positive context."
Seeing introversion as a preference or identity is fine as long as you have a nice consistently introverted life and that's exactly what you want, but it harks back to the day when everybody had their place and accepted their limitations and anyone who felt any conflict or frustration about it was "maladjusted." If you're introverted and want some of the benefits of extroversion, such as a bigger social network for locating jobs and meeting women, or if you discover that you really enjoy a hobby that has a large incidental but unavoidable social component, then you're supposed to realize those things are "just not you" and go home and read a book.
Introversion as an identity is a nice explanation when you really don't want to do something. "What, you don't want to go to the Nicki Minaj concert?" "Let me explain. You see, I'm an introvert...." But what explanation do you give yourself when you really want to go see a certain band but you think the social aspect will drain you so much it will be hard to enjoy? There's no simple "I like this" or "I don't like this." There's a conflict that can't be resolved. What do you do when you realize it's nice to have a big diverse circle of friends sometimes -- for trying to round people up for certain activities, or so you aren't limited to the tastes of your one or two really close friends -- but maintaining that social network is intimidating and draining and you don't know if you're up to it? Introversion starts to seem less like a matter of taste and more like a limitation you're fighting against.
It's nice to say you're a picky person who doesn't like superficial relationships, who only wants a handful of close friends you can engage with in a meaningful way, but then you plan a backpacking trip and realize there's some climbing involved and it isn't safe to go alone. You could limit yourself to whatever your friends like to do. But the trip sounds really cool, and now that you think about it, you're pretty sure you'd enjoy rock climbing in itself. Wait, there's a problem. Learning basic rock climbing doesn't intimidate you, but you will have to meet people who like climbing, meet enough of them and cultivate enough social connections to put together three or four people to do this hike. What would sound fun to an extrovert -- meet a bunch of new people who share my interests, yay! -- poses a tough decision for the introvert. Do I really want to do this? Will it be worth it? Am I even capable of doing it? It will involve a lot of social interaction, and I don't know if I can muster enough smalltalk and conviviality or if I'll get tired, zone out, fail to engage and be engaging.
That brings up another matter of "taste." It would be nice to say I'm simply bored by smalltalk, but I can't kid myself; it isn't that simple. I know that once in a while I do like smalltalk, and when I think about it my ability to enjoy a social situation has more to do with my mood going into it than the situation itself. I get bored when I'm not engaged, and I have difficulty engaging with people because anxiety and stress make me shut down. When I'm overflowing with positive feelings, I have no problem engaging with people and enjoying smalltalk. So the problem isn't smalltalk, unless I want to say that I'm stupid to enjoy it when I do, and right to be bored when it bores me.
I could resolve all these problems by having a consistent life and molding my tastes to coincide with my comfort zone. I could just happen to prefer hobbies that shelter me from social situations or bring me together with other introverts instead of forcing me into uncomfortable situations. It's great when it works out that way, and it's cer...
You are seriously conflating "social anxiety disorder" and "introversion." The idea that a concert would "drain you so much it will be hard to enjoy" or that an introvert would have a tough time interacting with a group long enough to go on a rock climbing trip is essentially saying that an introverted person is somehow handicapped, or pushed to their introversion by a type of mental disorder.
I identify as an introvert. I like thinking about mind, experience, truth, math, language, etc. I don't have a social anxiety disorder or any other type of anxiety disorder, so I'm not afraid to join a rock climbing group or any other type of group. I go dancing. I make small talk. These things can be introverted activities, if you make them.
My M.O. with respect to social situations seems to be "create comfort zone -> expand comfort zone." Since I'm an introvert, I tend to bring people into my world rather than go into theirs.
That being said, I vastly prefer spending time with one person whom I really like to a bunch of people who I vaguely like. I also hate carnivals.
You are seriously conflating "social anxiety disorder" and "introversion." The idea that a concert would "drain you so much it will be hard to enjoy" or that an introvert would have a tough time interacting with a group long enough to go on a rock climbing trip is essentially saying that an introverted person is somehow handicapped, or pushed to their introversion by a type of mental disorder.
Yep, that's exactly my point. The label has been embraced as a way to put a positive spin on social anxiety. I don't necessarily think it's a good way to use the word, but on the other hand, I'm not sure it's accurate to call someone like you who is able to enjoy himself and interact fluently with groups of people an "introvert." The traditional use of the word seems more in line with the idea of an introvert as someone who has an aversion to social interaction rather than a simple preference for other uses of time. Naturally people tend to rationalize, so it's hard to tell.
By the way, I think it's healthy and not entirely unjustified to put a positive spin on social anxiety. Most of my abilities and good qualities come from the time I've spent alone. I just don't think it's sustainable to be in complete denial about it.
You're still doing it. Introversion is not social anxiety. I am categorically an introvert. I do not suffer in the slightest from social anxiety - I'm perfectly comfortable in crowds and most social situations. What you're doing in this comment and the one above is simply displaying ignorance of what introversion means. And just because most laypeople have an inaccurate idea of what the word "introverted" means does not mean that it doesn't have a fairly well-defined technical meaning.
I'm not ignorant of what you think introversion is. I learned it reading your first comment. Like I said elsewhere, the argument here is about what the word actually means. Jung says introverts experience emotional drain when they're around other people, so by his definition, if you are comfortable being around large groups of people for any length of time, then you are not an introvert. Instead of just insisting that I accept your definition of the word, try persuading me.
It isn't my definition. There's a fairly coherent consensus view of the salient points of the intro/extra dichotomy. You're distorting it. For example, the first half of your sentence beginning "Jung" is correct, but the second half is gross exaggeration. Other people aren't Kryptonite. That's what's wrong with your top post as well - it's full of exaggeration which misrepresents introversion.
There's been plenty written on the topic, including the linked article, which you seem to reject.
There's a fairly coherent consensus view of the salient points of the intro/extra dichotomy
Not at all. First of all, introversion was a concept long before psychologists started to get technical with it. Second, its appeal as a psychological concept is mostly to laymen like us, and it certainly isn't used in any technical sense when people write blog posts about how great introverts are. So even without citing any disagreements among psychologists, there's a question of whether we should go with a some psychologist's technical meaning or the meaning in popular usage. In popular usage, you can see disagreement here on this page.
One way to see how a word is used is Google:
http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/jung.html: "Weakness of the introverted attitude includes ... (1) a lack confidence in relation to people and things and (2) a tendency to be unsociable, shy, and hesitant." Don't worry, his list of weaknesses for extraversion is bigger ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion: "Introversion does not describe social discomfort but rather social preference: an introvert may not be shy but may merely prefer less social activities." Good ol' Wikipedia, the voice of the people ;-)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/introvert: "1. a shy person. 2. Psychology . a person characterized by concern primarily with his or her own thoughts and feelings ( opposed to extrovert)." Funny how dictionaries list multiple definitions for words. Clearly they're all wrong except one!
Here's a nice quote from Jung himself about the "extreme" introvert (gathered from this page: http://www.infj.com/INFJ_Introversion.htm): "In a large gathering he feels lonely and lost. The more crowded it is, the greater becomes his resistance. He is not in the least 'with it,' and has no love of enthusiastic get-togethers. He is not a good mixer. What he does, he does in his own way, barricading himself against influences from outside. . . . Under normal conditions he is pessimistic and worried, because the world and human beings are not in the least good but crush him. . . ."
Wow, that's a downer. You'll find more ammunition for yourself than for me on that page, though, as apparently psychologists have tried to empirically distinguish shyness, introversion, neuroticism, embarrassability, public shyness, private shyness, and sociability. Naturally in order to fit all those in as distinct concepts they've had to define them quite narrowly as aspects of personality instead of sticking to the broader idea of introversion as a "type."
However, on that page the immediate followup to the Jung quote I quoted (not by Jung, and possibly not referring to his views) is this: "In less extreme cases, introverts are simply more conservative than not, preferring the familiar surroundings of home and intimate times with a few close friends; they husband their energy and would rather stay put than go from place to place."
I think that characterization would be contested as well. So no, there is no coherent consensus. You can see all over this page as well that many of the arguments made here take the same form: accept my definition of "introvert", and my conclusions follow naturally. So the real argument is about the meaning of the word.
There's been plenty written on the topic, including the linked article, which you seem to reject.
I may be missing a better link elsewhere on the page, but the only "article" I see is one person's biased top-te...
Ah, how wonderful that I'm downvoted when I go to the trouble of locating quotes and providing links to prove something as obvious as the fact that people disagree about what introversion is.
"In a large gathering he feels lonely and lost. The more crowded it is, the greater becomes his resistance. He is not in the least 'with it,' and has no love of enthusiastic get-togethers. He is not a good mixer. What he does, he does in his own way, barricading himself against influences from outside. ... Under normal conditions he is pessimistic and worried, because the world and human beings are not in the least good but crush him. ..."
Thanks for this quote. I feel that all of the discussion here of how being an introvert is a quirky personality trait and a fun expression of human diversity makes a mockery of people with social anxiety.
--- guy who never left his home between 2004 and 2008
The term "introversion" was introduced by Jung as describing a particular condition that pre-existed. He originates the term but not introversion itself which is extent but (possibly) unlabelled. (Aside: It usually turns out with these things that others had labelled it but not popularised their encapsulation of the concept or failed to be as encompassing or thorough - not sure if this is true here though.)
I think the real problem you have is with the loose use of the word "concept" by the parent.
Yes it seems that Jung possibly coined extroversion (from a little further reading) but that the specific use of introversion was popularised by him. If you re-read my sentence I'm actually saying that the term was "introduced to describe a particular condition" and not that this was the first use: presumably the prior use was related to physical introversion?
I was assuming the presentation in the parent to apply a reductio style argument without establishing the verity of his premise. My pedantry must be wearing off or something.
You'd do better with "introverted" or "introversion" with some terms excluded to filter out some of the results.
Wordsworth, "The Excursion", 1814:
--Nor deem that his mild presence was a weight
That pressed upon his brother's house; for books
Were ready comrades whom he could not tire;
Of whose society the blameless Man
Was never satiate. Their familiar voice,
Even to old age, with unabated charm
Beguiled his leisure hours; refreshed his thoughts;
Beyond its natural elevation raised
His __introverted__ spirit; and bestowed
Upon his life an outward dignity
Which all acknowledged. The dark winter night,
The stormy day, each had its own resource;
Song of the muses, sage historic tale,
Science severe, or word of holy Writ
Announcing immortality and joy
To the assembled spirits of just men
Made perfect, and from injury secure.
--Thus soothed at home, thus busy in the field,
To no perverse suspicion he gave way,
No languor, peevishness, nor vain complaint:
And they, who were about him, did not fail
In reverence, or in courtesy; they prized
His gentle manners: and his peaceful smiles,
The gleams of his slow-varying countenance,
Were met with answering sympathy and love.
Check out the definition of introversion at the top of the page in this dictionary: "The set of introverting, or the state of being introverted; a turning or direction inward, physical or mental."
I've noticed that most extroverts think like this. People who are extroverted usually have problems understanding what being introverted is like, and usually just see it as a different label to give social anxiety a more socially acceptable image, since it seems it's easier to understand for them. They assume everybody is an extrovert, just like them, but some people just feel social anxiety and call themselves extroverts. What you call "the traditional use" seems to me like the traditional misconception about introverts.
I'm an introvert myself, and I don't feel social anxiety. I grew up thinking I was shy, since my introversion seemed to be traditionally and socially identified with shyness, but at one point I realized I didn't feel social anxiety at all. It actually seemed to me that extrovert were much more worried about social situations and how they were perceived socially than me.
I don't try to explain my introversion to extroverts because I've noticed most of them don't get it. This makes it hard to use as an excuse, or even as a reasonable reason for your behaviour. I get dragged to social situations sometimes because extroverted people just assume I'll have fun if I just relax a bit, and sometimes I accept because I don't want to be rude. The result is I don't feel anxious or anything like that, I just get bored fast and want to go home soon. If I were actually interested in some activity being an introvert wouldn't get in the way, because being interested in it would keep my interest. It's just that social activities don't usually keep my interest for too long. They just feel like a boring waste of time to me, not something that makes me anxious.
This doesn't mean I don't enjoy social situations sometimes. I enjoy parties and concerts and stuff like that. I'm just the kind of guy who leaves the party early with some kind of excuse, not because of social anxiety, but because I'm starting to get tired and bored with the whole thing. I don't ever use "I'm an introvert" as an excuse, since I know people will not get it. I don't use it and I don't see other people use it to explain why they do certain things or don't do other things.
You are seriously conflating "social anxiety disorder" and "introversion."
This is actually LOL because when Jung coined the terms, he meant them to refer to ones relationship with the outside world. A person who explores the world alone is an extrovert, because he looks at the world outside himself. A person who is always surrounded by friends but always worries what they think is an introvert; he's looking inwards.
Jung didn't coin the word "introvert;" it's much older than that. He coined "extravert" as its opposite. Also, one of the ways Jung defined introversion and extraversion was in terms of the flow of "psychic energy": an introvert is someone whose energy is sapped by being around other people.
I didn't know there was a name for what I experienced. Energy drain. This is exactly how I feel it. There is no anxiety involved in it, at least not conscously. I sometime assumed it was like a very mild form of autism with the associated intelliegence excess in some domains. All the neurones we didn't waste on social processing are used in other competence.
Of course there are trade-offs to being introverted: No backpacking trip, but also no needing to be around people you don't care about.
You can also say that the preference of introversion is inconvenient - the fact that you don't like hanging out with these semi-arbitrary people "prevents" you from having fun. To take that to the extreme, it would be pretty convenient to always be unconditionally happy.
eh. Been backpacking plenty of times by myself (as well as with other people).
EDIT: I do understand it's just an example and there are indeed some activities that need to be done in groups and would often, in practice, be done in groupls of people you don't know or don't know well. But there are also lots of typically multi-person activities that you certainly can do by yourself.
I do lots of solo travel, partially because I'm often traveling solo on business. I find a lot of people cant conceive of heading off by themselves for a weekend or longer, especially in a foreign country.
"What, you don't want to go to the Nicki Minaj
concert?" "Let me explain. You see, I'm an
introvert...."
I'm an introvert as some people classify them and I certainly wouldn't say that. I'm far more likely to say something along the lines of: "I'm pretty tired right now and just want to get some rest. Maybe next time. Thanks for asking though."
It's not that I don't like going to concerts. It's really more about whether I feel up to it or not. Most of the time I do since I have plenty of time to recharge during my regular schedule.
I know that once in a while I do like smalltalk, and
when I think about it my ability to enjoy a social
situation has more to do with my mood going into it than
the situation itself. I get bored when I'm not engaged,
and I have difficulty engaging with people because
anxiety and stress make me shut down.
My wife who is quite a bit different in this matter than me is cheered up by a social event when she's feeling down. I on the other hand feel worse after a social event when I'm feeling down.
If you're introverted and want some of the benefits of
extroversion, such as a bigger social network for
locating jobs and meeting women, or if you discover that
you really enjoy a hobby that has a large incidental but
unavoidable social component, then you're supposed to
realize those things are "just not you" and go home and
read a book.
I have no idea where you got this idea from. I don't know any introverts who think like this. They simply do what they want to do and pay whatever price they want to pay. Maybe they need some extra down time later because they went to a week long event with lots of people. Most of them are just fine with that.
Someone can be an introvert without being maladjusted or having an anxiety disorder.
Bravo! When I found the introvert definition I didn't feel like I was locking myself into an "introverted identity" box. I was discovering that many other people feel the same way that I do, and it was incredibly liberating.
Even though I identify as being introverted, people are usually surprised when I say that I'm introverted. They feel like I am sociable and even extroverted.
A few years ago I gave myself a hard time about it-- why couldn't I keep up with social scenes like others could? Why do parties always burn me out? Identifying as an introvert has explained these facets, and given me the understanding to overcome them when I need to.
That's apparently the real topic of this discussion: whether there's something "wrong" with being an introvert. That's why people are arguing in favor of defining introversion in purely neutral or even purely positive terms, and that's the motivation of the link posted and its source. It's an attempt to paint introversion as a perfectly unproblematic state of being for the introvert. The only people who see a problem with it are extroverts, who just don't get it.
Anything that one-sided is only good for propaganda or cheerleading. If we're going to talk about types and stereotypes, why not be balanced? Why not see things in terms of strengths and weaknesses? There are downsides to introversion, even for the introvert (unless you define away those downsides by changing the meaning of the word.) At some point the introvert will wish he could thrive on the company of others, if only for practical reasons such as the ones I described above. At some point the extrovert, too, will wish he could thrive without the company of others. Pity the extrovert who has to stay home in a quiet house for two weeks tending a sick child! Our "type" or "tendency" or "preference" can be a very inconvenient thing when it conflicts with what we want or need to do.
The problem with strengths and weaknesses is weakness, of course. Nobody wants to admit to it.
Ok, so I upvoted you, but maaan do you have it wrong.
I am the definition of introversion (to myself, avoid crowds, do not need to chat with everyone at the party, content with silence that others think is awkward, definitely do not want to ever be the center of attention, like to be alone with my thoughts ...)
"What, you don't want to go to the Nicki Minaj concert?" "Let me explain. You see, I'm an introvert...."
I have been to concerts by myself just because my friends do not like Coldplay, or would not pay a hundred to watch Jay Z, or just wanted to be out of the house. Guess what? I always had a blast.
I have been to the movies alone. My ex girlfriend used to hate me for this one. So now I do not tell anyone I date when I need a freaking night alone at the theather. It's my dirty little secret.
I go clubbing mostly by myself because my friends like to go to places I do not like. On top of that I am shy, but boy do I talk to girls. "It takes one man to talk to girls", you do not need a wingman to talk to girls. You only need a nice smile, and attitude.
I do not like hiking, true, but I do take shorts trips in remote places where it would be advisable to have someone with you. I prefer to do this alone. Danger or not.
I do not like smalltalk, because it is just that smalltalk, but I understand society deals with me as I am so I make an effort to deal with society as it is, hence I do the smalltalk in order to find something that may appeal. You almost always find it within a minute.
Don't you think that you're just arguing semantics? There's little objective argument to be made when the two of you have different definitions for the same word.
90% of all disagreements between human beings derive from semantic confusion :)
It could be, but his points are rather extreme, like "If you are introverted, you won't be doing this because it requires other people for you to enjoy it"
No, you got it wrong. Noone said anything about my success rate, which is laughable. I am just saying I am introverted, and shy but I do talk to women. Yes, competition is there, but what should I do instead? Cry about my inability to be a social butterfly.
First off, I want to say I'm on your side. I've got nothing but good things to say about you getting out there and making an effort.
So ultimately this is just a semantic argument. I still think you've overcome "shy" if you can approach in a club. Inverted, sure, but not shy. Regardless, semantic arguments really are the worst kind, so I'm letting this one go.
Keep fighting the good fight.
I never claimed it was. I'd believe an introvert can approach girls at a club, but I feel like being able to do that basically means you're not shy. Otherwise, what does shy mean? You had a small bit of anxiety doing so? Doesn't everyone? Even my most outgoing friends have things like the "3 second rule" to get over approach anxiety.
I have been to concerts by myself ... I have been to the movies alone.
yep, me too. I find there's a huge difference, to do with what's expected of you. At a movie or a concert, there's no requirement for social interaction, so it takes a lot less energy than, say a party at someone's house. The presence of lots of other people does not in itself make the situation tiring. In fact it can feel liberating to be there but not have any expectations put upon you.
For example, for the same question "What, you don't want to go to the Nicki Minaj concert?"
An introverted response might be "Hey I really like that kind of music - I just don't want to go with a bunch of people I don't know that well, having to coordinate rides, having idle chit chat, etc. So I'll probably go on my own, and if I run into you guys, that's great. But if I don't run into you guys, hope you have a good time there."
In no way does being introverted mean "staying at home and read a book" or not enjoying life, etc.
And the rock climbing example, why couldn't you rock climb on your own? That seems like a stupid question, but my first instinct as an introvert would just be to go tackle a big cliff on my own - cause I don't really want to meet a bunch of macho folks that I don't know - you know, people do climb K2 on their own, even though it's dangerous, it makes the accomplishment even more intense.
I've done 60 km-100km bike rides in the dark, in the middle of the night, on my own - just so I don't have to talk to people - so I kinda know what it feels like.
The thing that is interesting about introverts (of which I am one) is that they will often say very little in person. But in email will write a rant that goes off in 20 different tangents to ppl they've never met.
"Their brains are too sensitive to the neurotransmitter called Dopamine. Introverts and Extroverts have different dominant neuro-pathways. Just look it up."
This seems surprisingly simplistic. Is there actually any serious science to back this?
I've spent the last 20 minutes or so digging and haven't found much (though I haven't read the book linked).
The most interesting paper I've found is this one from 1990 called The Biological Bases of extraversion: psychophysiological evidence [1]; which discusses a hypothesis by Sybil Eysenck from 1969.
Essentially, extraversion and introversion are first observed to be personality traits that can be passed genetically. Eysenck's hypothesis was that introverts were more sensitive to stimulation in the reticular activating system. Attempts to confirm this hypothesis have met with mixed success. Eysanck also came up with a personality inventory, similar to the popular MBTI and the "Big Five" inventory used by psychologists.
I haven't yet found anything particularly solid that confirms the connection between those physiological traits and the personality as defined by the Eysanck Questionnaire. Every other paper I have found so far begins by using the Eysanck Questionnaire to sort people into Introverts and Extraverts and does some other tests.
193 comments
[ 15.7 ms ] story [ 530 ms ] threadI read the book myself recently, and I can highly recommend it if you feel that you sit anywhere on the introvert spectrum.
It covers the "science" behind introversion, how introverts vs. extroverts think and respond to stimuli and neurochemicals. (I put science in quotes as I don't know enough about the brain to know how scientific the discussion is but I found it useful and interesting nonetheless).
It then goes on to look at how this affects introverts' interactions with themselves, others, and in social situations - with some thoughts and guidance on how to better integrate into an "extroverted world" without just trying to be more extroverted.
I have definitely found it helpful and it's made me think a lot about who I am and how I react to life as an introvert.
Yes, this is often called being rude. It may be true that by this guys definition introverts don't mean to be rude, but if a person (introvert or otherwise) acts as described above, that is rude.
Besides, the internet is wonderful for me because social niceties have faded. You don't get forum posts with 5 lines of social waffle, you get people just cutting to the chase. Think just-go-ahead-and-say-it IRC.
There was a wonderful quote to this effect a while ago on HN but I can't quite find it.
"Rough day?"
Would you consider things like that small talk? I don't, and it's usually enough to decide how to proceed. Being direct can mean asking someone if they're up to dealing with what you have to say. I've found that empathy is a great conversation starter.
Can you give me an example of the kind of small talk that you find to be painful?
Small talk and social niceties aren't merely hot air, they are tools you can use to assess a person's mood, what they are interested in or comfortable discussing, or even whether it is productive to discuss something at all. Consider it the metadata of conversation.
Also consider that conversation is two-way communication. You reveal information about yourself not just by the answers you give, but by the questions you ask.
If I walk into my subordinate's office right now and say "Have you finished that graph yet?" then that communicates that I'm really impatient about getting that graph. Which would be fine if I am, but I'm not. If I do that, I'll just make him jumpy and anxious.
Instead I'll wander down to his office and start with a "Hey, how's it going?" before asking about the graph, cuz I'm not actually impatient to get it, I'm just interested to know whether he's making progress or whether there's anything I need to help him with. The smalltalk is basically just equivalent to "I come in peace".
If I were a gorilla I'd probably have to do this with gestures and facial expressions, but since I'm a human I have this extra tool in my arsenal to communicate the non-threatening nature of my approach. Awesome!
In that situation, I too would prefer the introvert's preferences. But it's far from an ideal situation.
Out of place small talk doesn't actually help people that are perspective enough to realize you want something. My experience has been that when a manager randomly starts a conversation that's not work related when it's not lunch or break time they are going to be asking or demanding things I won't like. Infinitely so when they just called you into their office.
That is how we introverts see it.
Getting into a time-filling general conversation about the weather is 'small talk'.
The two are pretty distinct, and the dislike of small talk does not mean that the social nicety grease is discarded.
Of course, people that think "no point yet" = "not valuable ever" might want to pursue philosophical nihilism until terminal depression. But I digress.
Again, for extroverts. For (many) introverts forced small talk is unnatural and often makes interactions more awkward.
Introverts like those places.
http://www.expatharem.com/2011/03/09/rude-honesty/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13545386
Thanks to all three of you for your examples.
By extroverts. Meanwhile, many introverts consider it rude to waste their time with meaningless chatter.
It's pointless to say that X is not Y by redefining Y. When Y has a commonly understood definition, the more useful thing to do is debate whether it is important to be Y.
Similarly a consultant friend of mine talks of a US colleague who worked in her office for half a year here in Aus. Just before he went back he lamented that he probably would have had a better time if he'd realised that the people being perfectly polite to him in the office probably didn't like him, and those making friendly fun of him probably liked him a lot.
Have you seen Beautiful Young Minds? There's a scene where one of the students learns he has made the next round. The narrator says "congratulations". They chat a bit, and as the narrator is leaving he says, "congratulations" again, and the student in a dismissive way says, "You already said that".
I think that's what most people see in introverts that is rude. Or when you say "Hi Tim" in the hall and he just looks away. Or if you ask "Can you pass the ketchup?" in the cafeteria and they say, "I prefer not to".
All of these are probably very honest responses, yet I think I'd bucket them as rude.
It's also a mistake to believe that extroverts have a large circle of loose friendships and that's it. This can't be further from the truth - everyone has close friends, and much looser acquaintances. It's one of the more annoying aspects of the "introverts are people too" movement - the constant need to put-down extroverts and the persistent claim that extroverts' relationships are predominantly shallow.
The way I see it is time management: life is short, do you want to spend most of it dealing with people or things? for me it's "things", because they have a higher signal/noise ratio.
I'd say that "it's probably best to be somewhere in the middle, so that you're neither worn out by social situations or bored by spending time alone" but there's probably enough self-aggrandisement in this thread already.
As for not being able to change however, I don't believe that's set in stone. I took the test about 7 years ago and since then I feel like I'm more like 65%i/35%e. The whole idea of charging however is strange. Though I felt back before the test that i could only recharge at home, alone. At one point while i was the most social I felt as if I had to charge at home, then go out to recharge to balance it out. The brain is a very strange thing.
I'm very much an introvert, but over the years, I've learned that networking is a critical part of being successful in any business endeavor, and it is nearly impossible to network following typical introvert patterns. As a result, I will go up to a group standing around at a social event, throw out my hand, and say "Hi, I'm Travis. What's your name?" even though I hate every second of it (and, given the sieve my brain is when it comes to names, I will likely forget before we are done talking :/).
Given that, I don't believe for an instant that I understand being an extrovert. My wife is the prototypical extrovert. She will have life-long friends within minutes of entering a room full of people she's never met before. I will never understand how she does it, but more importantly, I will never understand why she does it.
My real point is that anyone who believes they KNOW how anyone else thinks is wrong. It's a very egotistical thought to have that you know so well what another person thinks or feels.
Here's what I think: as a young kid, you get exposed to things that shape your attitude. If your early experiences are negative in social settings, perhaps you grow up to be introverted. But what happened first - your negative experiences, or an attitude that pre-disposed you towards negative social experiences? Can little little kids have attitudes like that? Hard to day - how do we really know?
I don't care what physical science has to say on it regarding brain maturity, neuro-pathways, etc - unless we can communicate with infants, we don't know if they have pre-disposed attitudes or thoughts.
http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/08/06/on-seeing-like-a-cat/
In principle, it seems possible to have more interest in things than people ("think like a cat") but still get energized by people when you're with them (or, continue thinking like a cat when you're around them and explore how you can subtly direct social interactions or explain the behavior of others using simple theories like status preservation).
If this is how you think extroverts are, then I would suggest that you don't understand very well how extroverts think.
As someone who spent his youth as an introvert and later discovered the joys of extroversion, introversion seems like a suffocating, lonely, and stunted existence. Do those years mean I understand how introverts think? Of course not. Introverts obviously don't think their lives are lonely or stunted. Instead, I have to view others' choices with humility and accept that their thinking will always be alien to me.
Someone told me Friday "if there is nothing inside of you, of course you will try to focus on showing your outside. That is all you have.".
Common misconception about introversion vs extraversion: that it always manifests in interactions with other people. The reality is that they define how you deal with the outer world. For instance, riding a roller coaster is an extraverted activity, even if you go alone. Staying home and reading a book is an introverted activity even if you invite someone else to read with you.
When you say you like "things", that's still an extraverted attitude. Things still exist in the outer world. The real question is "Do you prefer the outer world or your inner world?" This is the question that helped me realize that I'm an (unfocused, non-goal-oriented) extravert.
The introvert-extrovert axis is a great tool for understanding behavior, but don't just assume that every angle of your personality arises from where you are on that spectrum.
P.S. being a shy introvert sucks.
P.s. many introverts loathe themselves
EDIT: I meant American culture, as several people have pointed out other cultures are somewhat different about this.
I think it is worthwhile to note that not all introverts are alike. I can tick off some similiarities in this list with myself, but my experience of being an introvert is quite different. ymmv.
I don't know if "fix" is the right word in the complete, but they can definitely change. I used to follow that list pretty closely - and while there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, I realized that it can be extremely socially disadvantageous. Regardless of how smart someone is, it's an undeniable fact that in this world, almost all the time, you need the support of other people to make your desires come true. I'll cite the academic community on this one: even if you make a great scientific discovery, you'll never get a Nobel prize if all the other academics think you're a jerk.
I really think the primary talent any intelligent person should learn is adaptation - and that includes adapting to your social surroundings. For example: although I played a lot of sports semi-professionally, I have never enjoyed watching sports... especially team sports. Yet, when I go to a hockey game, I make a ton of noise, and force myself to get into the spirit and have a good time, even though I still haven't bothered to learn the rules.
Don't like idle gossip? Well, it's the fastest way to permeate a new group of people. Now I'm an active gossip and drama seeker (although I make sure the gossip is harmless).
In any case, I feel his point needs to be refined a bit.
I think to an extent, we're debating the semantics of "extrovert".
We all know that there's a big overlap between liking something and being good at it, and similarly between being bad at something and disliking it. I used to hate running, until I got to be good at it, at which point I started liking it. It's the same thing with social interactions -- people who suck at them will dislike them. If your conversations with strangers are full of awkward pauses and struggling to find something to say then no wonder you hate talking to strangers.
But social skills can be improved through practice, so it's not surprising to see some introverts becoming less introverted as they get better at talking to people.
What I found was that despite me having fun and being confident in talking to people and interacting in group activities, there's just comes a point in my day where I literally just don't want to talk to anyone. Socially (and even physically, albeit to a lesser extent) speaking, I'm completely and totally drained. It becomes almost painful to engage in conversation that I feel isn't too useful or too interesting. And honestly, I kinda want to be left alone so I can just gather myself. Sometimes I need a day, sometimes a week. But ultimately, at some point I need time to recover from the social stimulation of my day.
From my experiences, I think that's where a big divide between introverts and extroverts exist. To the extrovert, when an introvert gets into his/her shell so that they can recover socially, it appears as if they may be aloof or bored with you, when in fact, they're just tired. This is especially irritating with friends who constantly ask me if "I'm okay" or if there's "something wrong". They don't understand that I'm comfortable with silence and for large parts of my day I actually prefer, and it has nothing to do with them.
Also, just a side note. Something I found quite funny is that because I feel that I'm an introvert and had to struggle with social anxiety through my teenage years, I now feel like I have to overcompensate in social settings, so I'm generally the one who leads a conversation and pushes it forward. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there are others who also do this.
Even if you accept this one dimensional personality description as being useful by itself;
- is it constant (the same in all circumstances),
- does it vary over time?
- Is everyone either an "introvert" or an "extrovert" OR do people fit on a sliding scale between the two extremes?
I'm guessing that the author feels he is an introvert. IMO, rather than trying to redefine or clarify what it means to be an "introvert" just don't accept the "introvert/Extrovert" labels. Its a pseudo-scientific term which is used in a lazy way to put people into neat boxes.
I'll bet most people can think of situations where they will act "extroverted" and others where they'll be "introverted".
We are neither a number or a label!
Introversion/Extroversion is very much a matter of degree, just like pretty much any other human trait. It doesn't uniquely determine behavior by any means, humans are very complex creatures. However, there is a pretty strong correlation [2] between someone acting in an introverted or extroverted manner in one situation and acting the same way later.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation
EDIT: All of which isn't to say that people can't use those terms in pseudo-scientific ways, or that the author of the article isn't. After all, people use terms like 'mass' and 'gravity' in pseudo scientific ways too.
1. "Many studies have confirmed that in predicting actual behavior the more numerous facet or primary level traits are far more effective (e.g. Mershon & Gorsuch, 1988;[25] Paunonon & Ashton, 2001[26])"
2. Most measures are based on self-description.
So we have a personality description which is not very accurate in terms of predicting behaviour and which also leads to a lot of disagreement (as witnessed by the comments here) about what it actually means in terms of behaviour and human interaction!
If a "measure" is (a) not very accurate and (b) confuses rather than clarifies behaviour / human interaction then for me its not very useful no matter how seductive it is.
Personally I don't think the average introvert is rude. I think that not because I redefine what "rude" means, but simply because on average introverts are polite people just like extroverts. Sure, there are socially maladjusted introverts who think that communicative efficiency scales with bluntness. (Hint: making someone feel insulted or defensive is likely to slow you down a lot more than the taking the effort to word criticism cautiously.) Just like there are extroverts that think it's ok to shout someone down or make fun of them until the acquiesce to whatever the extrovert wants. But I don't know that rudeness is more common in either of intro- or extroverts.
It's a scientific paper so the reading is going to be 'heavy' but if you skip down to page 198 (it's out of a larger journal, actually closer to about 5 or 10 pages in) you'll see that they graph some of the major traits.
It's possible that the outstanding nature of the results indicate that something might have been lost in translation when adapting the test to the East Asian market - but who knows? These things are usually quite heavily tested.I'm sure there's a lot more in there that's neat in there, but I only did a quick glance.
For a more 'high level' explanation of what the aspects of the big five are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits is a fine overview, and you can actually do your very own personality inventory online http://www.personalitytest.org.uk/ seems good with a 41 item test, but you can also try some larger ones out there - I've done some 100 item tests online.
Type-A personalities aren't Type-A personalities.
Labels like Introvert are nice and neat, but unfortunately not very realistic.
The "problem," if there is one, is that extraverts are uncomfortable and find it difficult to interact with introverts. But this is as much the fault of extraverted people as it is of introverted people. They speak a different language and need to meet halfway to interact effectively.
Due to the personality type, however, the extraverts see this as a huge problem while the introverts really don't care all that much.
What if we asked the obvious counter-question: Why are extraverts so threatened by anyone who won't interact with them on their terms?
Nobody asks that because extraverts get a pass on this; it's the introvert's fault when social interaction between and extravert and an intravert is uncomfortable.
I can see why that would happen but it's odd.
I act as an extravert in certain situations and as an introvert in others, so I feel qualified to answer your question. Extraverts don't always interact with everyone -- for example, in circles where social cliques are established, extraverts will interact with people outside of their clique less often. I call this "exclusionary" behavior -- one that serves to maintain the exclusiveness of the clique. Given that cases of extreme introversion are rare, an extravert A is more likely to interpret another individual B (who could well be an extreme introvert) as another extravert who simply shuns individual A so as to exclude A from his or her clique.
The reason this "misinterpretation" occurs is because extreme introversion is rare (1% of the population?) while exclusionary behavior (shunning others to maintain exclusive cliques) is relatively highly prevalent (20% of the population?). So the conditional probability that individual B is not an introvert but an extravert exhibiting exclusionary behavior is high. Basically, the extravert A makes a correct conclusion given the limited information he/she possesses. Because the introvert B is unlikely to engage into conversation with A, the individual A will never gain more information about B and will therefore maintain the conclusion that B is an asshole.
Touche. There is only one center of attention, and I have noticed extreme extroverts will not let you in if you are going to take away from their attention. It's like drug.
Yeah, they got left off the Myers-Briggs scale. Everyone is either a hermit, or dances on tables after half a cup of coffee.
More modern psychological metrics rate people on an introvertedness (or extrovertedness) scale, which is more or less normally distributed. But Myers-Briggs (which is roughly as old as the belief that you can electroshock queers straight) and crappy pop-psychology tests in women's magazines (and facebook) persist in categorizing everyone into two bins.
Big 5 (a more modern categorization) is a much better descriptive framework. The factors are introvertedness, openness (or curiosity), conscientious (hard workingness), agreeableness, and neuroticism (the tendency to react to negative emotions). Note how they are all factors, not categories? You don't put normal people into bins.
The Original Source appears to be: http://www.carlkingcreative.com/10-myths-about-introverts
They hate small talk.
Small talk is a social skill. and when meeting a new person small talk is generally all you have. This basically affirms the "myth".
They want everyone to just be real and honest. Unfortunately, this is not acceptable in most settings
Talk about a value judgment on non-introverts. Being polite is more important than being pointlessly honest.
If you are lucky enough for an introvert to consider you a friend, you probably have a loyal ally for life.
If only I could find myself a loyal friend who can't make idle talk, will talk for days about things that only interest him and won't want to do much out in public.
They take in data and experiences very quickly, and as a result, don’t need to be there for long to “get it.”
Ah yes, pity those non-introverts that take weeks to figure "it" out.
Introverts are perfectly comfortable with their own thoughts. They think a lot. They daydream. They like to have problems to work on, puzzles to solve.
Introverts are often individualists. They don’t follow the crowd. They’d prefer to be valued for their novel ways of living. They think for themselves and because of that, they often challenge the norm. They don’t make most decisions based on what is popular or trendy.
Non-introverts are mindless slaves to culture and advertising!
it’s just that their inner world is much more stimulating and rewarding to them.
Or said in a way to not flex the ego "Their inner world is comforting and welcoming without challenge from outside stimulus."
>Myth #7 – Introverts are weird.
Introverts (in my experience) _reject the concept of weird_. Social decisions like who's "in" and who's "out" hold no weight. Until this is understood, you're (by you I mean the writer, not you, parfe) not countering the myth that introverts are weird, you're just explaining the reasons people say that introverts are weird.
>Introverts cannot “fix themselves” and deserve respect for their natural temperament and contributions to the human race.
Again, what is "broken?"
It reads like an extrovert making a poor attempt to explain what he knows of introversion to other extroverts.
I'm pretty sure you're not talking about introverts... perhaps some subset, like geeks?
For example, the opposite of individualistic is communalistic---not "mindless slave to culture and advertising".
Even if it is a "chain-mail style bullshit list", your condescending retorts don't give your point of view much credit.
No it isn't. My friend of 8 years, and also my roomate for 4 years told me Sunday I was being rude because he had his friends over and I retreated to my quarters. People just do not understand introversion, so it is good to just send them a link like this.
If you can't explain your behavior to your roommate in terms of immediate personal motivations don't expect a generalized explanation to be any more enlightening.
Imagine if your compiler spit out a link to a blog post about generic programming syntax rather than where specifically the parser had a problem with your code. The blog could be completely wrong or completely right, neither one changes the fact that there's a specific conflict between what the compiler expects and what was given to it.
The real reasons other people see you as "introvert" can be plentiful so it is actually pretty ignorant to attribute all introverts with those "myths".
A few famous examples: Michael Stipe of R.E.M., George Harrison of The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix.
Seeing introversion as a preference or identity is fine as long as you have a nice consistently introverted life and that's exactly what you want, but it harks back to the day when everybody had their place and accepted their limitations and anyone who felt any conflict or frustration about it was "maladjusted." If you're introverted and want some of the benefits of extroversion, such as a bigger social network for locating jobs and meeting women, or if you discover that you really enjoy a hobby that has a large incidental but unavoidable social component, then you're supposed to realize those things are "just not you" and go home and read a book.
Introversion as an identity is a nice explanation when you really don't want to do something. "What, you don't want to go to the Nicki Minaj concert?" "Let me explain. You see, I'm an introvert...." But what explanation do you give yourself when you really want to go see a certain band but you think the social aspect will drain you so much it will be hard to enjoy? There's no simple "I like this" or "I don't like this." There's a conflict that can't be resolved. What do you do when you realize it's nice to have a big diverse circle of friends sometimes -- for trying to round people up for certain activities, or so you aren't limited to the tastes of your one or two really close friends -- but maintaining that social network is intimidating and draining and you don't know if you're up to it? Introversion starts to seem less like a matter of taste and more like a limitation you're fighting against.
It's nice to say you're a picky person who doesn't like superficial relationships, who only wants a handful of close friends you can engage with in a meaningful way, but then you plan a backpacking trip and realize there's some climbing involved and it isn't safe to go alone. You could limit yourself to whatever your friends like to do. But the trip sounds really cool, and now that you think about it, you're pretty sure you'd enjoy rock climbing in itself. Wait, there's a problem. Learning basic rock climbing doesn't intimidate you, but you will have to meet people who like climbing, meet enough of them and cultivate enough social connections to put together three or four people to do this hike. What would sound fun to an extrovert -- meet a bunch of new people who share my interests, yay! -- poses a tough decision for the introvert. Do I really want to do this? Will it be worth it? Am I even capable of doing it? It will involve a lot of social interaction, and I don't know if I can muster enough smalltalk and conviviality or if I'll get tired, zone out, fail to engage and be engaging.
That brings up another matter of "taste." It would be nice to say I'm simply bored by smalltalk, but I can't kid myself; it isn't that simple. I know that once in a while I do like smalltalk, and when I think about it my ability to enjoy a social situation has more to do with my mood going into it than the situation itself. I get bored when I'm not engaged, and I have difficulty engaging with people because anxiety and stress make me shut down. When I'm overflowing with positive feelings, I have no problem engaging with people and enjoying smalltalk. So the problem isn't smalltalk, unless I want to say that I'm stupid to enjoy it when I do, and right to be bored when it bores me.
I could resolve all these problems by having a consistent life and molding my tastes to coincide with my comfort zone. I could just happen to prefer hobbies that shelter me from social situations or bring me together with other introverts instead of forcing me into uncomfortable situations. It's great when it works out that way, and it's cer...
I identify as an introvert. I like thinking about mind, experience, truth, math, language, etc. I don't have a social anxiety disorder or any other type of anxiety disorder, so I'm not afraid to join a rock climbing group or any other type of group. I go dancing. I make small talk. These things can be introverted activities, if you make them.
My M.O. with respect to social situations seems to be "create comfort zone -> expand comfort zone." Since I'm an introvert, I tend to bring people into my world rather than go into theirs.
That being said, I vastly prefer spending time with one person whom I really like to a bunch of people who I vaguely like. I also hate carnivals.
Yep, that's exactly my point. The label has been embraced as a way to put a positive spin on social anxiety. I don't necessarily think it's a good way to use the word, but on the other hand, I'm not sure it's accurate to call someone like you who is able to enjoy himself and interact fluently with groups of people an "introvert." The traditional use of the word seems more in line with the idea of an introvert as someone who has an aversion to social interaction rather than a simple preference for other uses of time. Naturally people tend to rationalize, so it's hard to tell.
By the way, I think it's healthy and not entirely unjustified to put a positive spin on social anxiety. Most of my abilities and good qualities come from the time I've spent alone. I just don't think it's sustainable to be in complete denial about it.
There's been plenty written on the topic, including the linked article, which you seem to reject.
Not at all. First of all, introversion was a concept long before psychologists started to get technical with it. Second, its appeal as a psychological concept is mostly to laymen like us, and it certainly isn't used in any technical sense when people write blog posts about how great introverts are. So even without citing any disagreements among psychologists, there's a question of whether we should go with a some psychologist's technical meaning or the meaning in popular usage. In popular usage, you can see disagreement here on this page.
One way to see how a word is used is Google:
http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/jung.html: "Weakness of the introverted attitude includes ... (1) a lack confidence in relation to people and things and (2) a tendency to be unsociable, shy, and hesitant." Don't worry, his list of weaknesses for extraversion is bigger ;-)
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/genpsytraits.html: "The more obvious aspects of introversion are shyness, a distaste for social functions, and a love of privacy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion: "Introversion does not describe social discomfort but rather social preference: an introvert may not be shy but may merely prefer less social activities." Good ol' Wikipedia, the voice of the people ;-)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/introvert: "1. a shy person. 2. Psychology . a person characterized by concern primarily with his or her own thoughts and feelings ( opposed to extrovert)." Funny how dictionaries list multiple definitions for words. Clearly they're all wrong except one!
Here's a nice quote from Jung himself about the "extreme" introvert (gathered from this page: http://www.infj.com/INFJ_Introversion.htm): "In a large gathering he feels lonely and lost. The more crowded it is, the greater becomes his resistance. He is not in the least 'with it,' and has no love of enthusiastic get-togethers. He is not a good mixer. What he does, he does in his own way, barricading himself against influences from outside. . . . Under normal conditions he is pessimistic and worried, because the world and human beings are not in the least good but crush him. . . ."
Wow, that's a downer. You'll find more ammunition for yourself than for me on that page, though, as apparently psychologists have tried to empirically distinguish shyness, introversion, neuroticism, embarrassability, public shyness, private shyness, and sociability. Naturally in order to fit all those in as distinct concepts they've had to define them quite narrowly as aspects of personality instead of sticking to the broader idea of introversion as a "type."
However, on that page the immediate followup to the Jung quote I quoted (not by Jung, and possibly not referring to his views) is this: "In less extreme cases, introverts are simply more conservative than not, preferring the familiar surroundings of home and intimate times with a few close friends; they husband their energy and would rather stay put than go from place to place."
I think that characterization would be contested as well. So no, there is no coherent consensus. You can see all over this page as well that many of the arguments made here take the same form: accept my definition of "introvert", and my conclusions follow naturally. So the real argument is about the meaning of the word.
There's been plenty written on the topic, including the linked article, which you seem to reject.
I may be missing a better link elsewhere on the page, but the only "article" I see is one person's biased top-te...
Thanks for this quote. I feel that all of the discussion here of how being an introvert is a quirky personality trait and a fun expression of human diversity makes a mockery of people with social anxiety.
--- guy who never left his home between 2004 and 2008
I believe that's wrong; the term was introduced by Jung in Psychological Types and thus originates as a technical concept in psychology.
I think the real problem you have is with the loose use of the word "concept" by the parent.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/introversion
I was assuming the presentation in the parent to apply a reductio style argument without establishing the verity of his premise. My pedantry must be wearing off or something.
Let's see a usage of "introvert" before Jung that has anything to do with personality types.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22introvert%22&tbs=bks:1...
Wordsworth, "The Excursion", 1814:
More with "introverted":http://books.google.com/books?id=IFwCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA545&#...
Again here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=q1VIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA181&#...
And here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=q1VIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA181&#...
Similar usage here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=AnMPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA217&#...
Check out the definition of introversion at the top of the page in this dictionary: "The set of introverting, or the state of being introverted; a turning or direction inward, physical or mental."
http://books.google.com/books?id=bLkCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA3166&...
Another dictionary:
I'm an introvert myself, and I don't feel social anxiety. I grew up thinking I was shy, since my introversion seemed to be traditionally and socially identified with shyness, but at one point I realized I didn't feel social anxiety at all. It actually seemed to me that extrovert were much more worried about social situations and how they were perceived socially than me.
I don't try to explain my introversion to extroverts because I've noticed most of them don't get it. This makes it hard to use as an excuse, or even as a reasonable reason for your behaviour. I get dragged to social situations sometimes because extroverted people just assume I'll have fun if I just relax a bit, and sometimes I accept because I don't want to be rude. The result is I don't feel anxious or anything like that, I just get bored fast and want to go home soon. If I were actually interested in some activity being an introvert wouldn't get in the way, because being interested in it would keep my interest. It's just that social activities don't usually keep my interest for too long. They just feel like a boring waste of time to me, not something that makes me anxious.
This doesn't mean I don't enjoy social situations sometimes. I enjoy parties and concerts and stuff like that. I'm just the kind of guy who leaves the party early with some kind of excuse, not because of social anxiety, but because I'm starting to get tired and bored with the whole thing. I don't ever use "I'm an introvert" as an excuse, since I know people will not get it. I don't use it and I don't see other people use it to explain why they do certain things or don't do other things.
But are you an introvert?
There's a difference between self-identification and scientific observation.
Self-assessment (PDF): http://hiddengiftsoftheintrovertedchild.com/SelfAssessment.p...
This is actually LOL because when Jung coined the terms, he meant them to refer to ones relationship with the outside world. A person who explores the world alone is an extrovert, because he looks at the world outside himself. A person who is always surrounded by friends but always worries what they think is an introvert; he's looking inwards.
You can also say that the preference of introversion is inconvenient - the fact that you don't like hanging out with these semi-arbitrary people "prevents" you from having fun. To take that to the extreme, it would be pretty convenient to always be unconditionally happy.
EDIT: I do understand it's just an example and there are indeed some activities that need to be done in groups and would often, in practice, be done in groupls of people you don't know or don't know well. But there are also lots of typically multi-person activities that you certainly can do by yourself.
I do lots of solo travel, partially because I'm often traveling solo on business. I find a lot of people cant conceive of heading off by themselves for a weekend or longer, especially in a foreign country.
It's not that I don't like going to concerts. It's really more about whether I feel up to it or not. Most of the time I do since I have plenty of time to recharge during my regular schedule.
My wife who is quite a bit different in this matter than me is cheered up by a social event when she's feeling down. I on the other hand feel worse after a social event when I'm feeling down. I have no idea where you got this idea from. I don't know any introverts who think like this. They simply do what they want to do and pay whatever price they want to pay. Maybe they need some extra down time later because they went to a week long event with lots of people. Most of them are just fine with that.Someone can be an introvert without being maladjusted or having an anxiety disorder.
Even though I identify as being introverted, people are usually surprised when I say that I'm introverted. They feel like I am sociable and even extroverted.
A few years ago I gave myself a hard time about it-- why couldn't I keep up with social scenes like others could? Why do parties always burn me out? Identifying as an introvert has explained these facets, and given me the understanding to overcome them when I need to.
He's just saying that some people may be introverts, with a certain type of personality, and that's it. There's nothing wrong with being a type.
That's apparently the real topic of this discussion: whether there's something "wrong" with being an introvert. That's why people are arguing in favor of defining introversion in purely neutral or even purely positive terms, and that's the motivation of the link posted and its source. It's an attempt to paint introversion as a perfectly unproblematic state of being for the introvert. The only people who see a problem with it are extroverts, who just don't get it.
Anything that one-sided is only good for propaganda or cheerleading. If we're going to talk about types and stereotypes, why not be balanced? Why not see things in terms of strengths and weaknesses? There are downsides to introversion, even for the introvert (unless you define away those downsides by changing the meaning of the word.) At some point the introvert will wish he could thrive on the company of others, if only for practical reasons such as the ones I described above. At some point the extrovert, too, will wish he could thrive without the company of others. Pity the extrovert who has to stay home in a quiet house for two weeks tending a sick child! Our "type" or "tendency" or "preference" can be a very inconvenient thing when it conflicts with what we want or need to do.
The problem with strengths and weaknesses is weakness, of course. Nobody wants to admit to it.
I am the definition of introversion (to myself, avoid crowds, do not need to chat with everyone at the party, content with silence that others think is awkward, definitely do not want to ever be the center of attention, like to be alone with my thoughts ...)
"What, you don't want to go to the Nicki Minaj concert?" "Let me explain. You see, I'm an introvert...."
I have been to concerts by myself just because my friends do not like Coldplay, or would not pay a hundred to watch Jay Z, or just wanted to be out of the house. Guess what? I always had a blast.
I have been to the movies alone. My ex girlfriend used to hate me for this one. So now I do not tell anyone I date when I need a freaking night alone at the theather. It's my dirty little secret.
I go clubbing mostly by myself because my friends like to go to places I do not like. On top of that I am shy, but boy do I talk to girls. "It takes one man to talk to girls", you do not need a wingman to talk to girls. You only need a nice smile, and attitude.
I do not like hiking, true, but I do take shorts trips in remote places where it would be advisable to have someone with you. I prefer to do this alone. Danger or not.
I do not like smalltalk, because it is just that smalltalk, but I understand society deals with me as I am so I make an effort to deal with society as it is, hence I do the smalltalk in order to find something that may appeal. You almost always find it within a minute.
EDIT: Introvert does not mean antisocial.
90% of all disagreements between human beings derive from semantic confusion :)
I run marathons, but I'm not athletic. See the contradiction?
So he can't swim, but when he needs to get to the other side of the lake, he beats Michael Phelps.
It's more like - I run (and win at) marathons, but I can't do relay races because it throws my game off.
yep, me too. I find there's a huge difference, to do with what's expected of you. At a movie or a concert, there's no requirement for social interaction, so it takes a lot less energy than, say a party at someone's house. The presence of lots of other people does not in itself make the situation tiring. In fact it can feel liberating to be there but not have any expectations put upon you.
For example, for the same question "What, you don't want to go to the Nicki Minaj concert?"
An introverted response might be "Hey I really like that kind of music - I just don't want to go with a bunch of people I don't know that well, having to coordinate rides, having idle chit chat, etc. So I'll probably go on my own, and if I run into you guys, that's great. But if I don't run into you guys, hope you have a good time there."
In no way does being introverted mean "staying at home and read a book" or not enjoying life, etc.
And the rock climbing example, why couldn't you rock climb on your own? That seems like a stupid question, but my first instinct as an introvert would just be to go tackle a big cliff on my own - cause I don't really want to meet a bunch of macho folks that I don't know - you know, people do climb K2 on their own, even though it's dangerous, it makes the accomplishment even more intense.
I've done 60 km-100km bike rides in the dark, in the middle of the night, on my own - just so I don't have to talk to people - so I kinda know what it feels like.
This seems surprisingly simplistic. Is there actually any serious science to back this?
The most interesting paper I've found is this one from 1990 called The Biological Bases of extraversion: psychophysiological evidence [1]; which discusses a hypothesis by Sybil Eysenck from 1969.
Essentially, extraversion and introversion are first observed to be personality traits that can be passed genetically. Eysenck's hypothesis was that introverts were more sensitive to stimulation in the reticular activating system. Attempts to confirm this hypothesis have met with mixed success. Eysanck also came up with a personality inventory, similar to the popular MBTI and the "Big Five" inventory used by psychologists.
I haven't yet found anything particularly solid that confirms the connection between those physiological traits and the personality as defined by the Eysanck Questionnaire. Every other paper I have found so far begins by using the Eysanck Questionnaire to sort people into Introverts and Extraverts and does some other tests.
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/pubmed...