Well too bad ADHD makes me a fast thinker that talks over everyone else and writes code at 6x speed, but only sometimes, when I'm not procrastinating for hours at a time and when I'm not too mentally drained to engage with other people. It makes me an extrovert at work, but only sometimes, and a great team player, but only sometimes.
These blog posts feel so dumb to me because they always assume that you're a neurotypical and that everyone around you also is a neurotypical. That if you just put in the effort, you too can do it!
Well guess what? No, it's not like that. In fact, this mode of thinking is exactly the problem that makes my life hell. Fuck this. If I'm working remotely it's because idgaf about other people - not any more than strictly necessary to complete my tasks. Stop trying to gaslight me into thinking I'm wrong, stop trying to force me to go on trips and to delegate and to talk to other people - this is an adaptation for my own survival. I went into programming because I like writing code. That's literally the start and the end of it. It's not my fault the industry is 99% web development and 1% fun stuff for people on [a] spectrum. I'm here because if I weren't I would starve, not because I care about your company or the people you hired. Even though I'll gladly chit-chat with them from time to time, and even form friendships if I deem it worth it.
Can’t imagine this attitude makes work easier for you nor does it make working with you easier. People keep making these “I’m on the spectrum” arguments as if it’s a legitimate excuse for bad behaviour. Perhaps life is more difficult for you in some ways. Life isn’t fair, learning to accept this is much more rewarding than hiding behind some spectrum definition. ADHD doesn’t make you do anything. You choose your life.
Heyyy, take it easy :)
Would you call it “bad behavior” when a mute person refuses to speak? Well, A(u)DHD kind of makes one deaf, mute and blind to the standard communication style. That’s why the afflicted prefer to WFH, and text instead of face-to-face. Some are always impaired so, while others, only when tired.
I know. I’m diagnosed. I found that when I stopped using it as an excuse and started engaging my career and life in the ways I assumed adhd made them worse, I started succeeding in ways I thought I wouldn’t. My message is don’t become a person who identifies as a person with adhd. It will only hold you back in my experience.
I understand your point better now, thanks for elaborating! I do relate to the experience of stopping using my diagnosis as an excuse for pushing people away. My life is so much better now. Yet, for me, a pair programming session (for instance) is something I prefer doing, like, once a month, or less. But I certainly do enjoy it, a lot!
I was a fat little kid with a skinny friend who told me the secret to losing weight (which he had never had the need to do): just don't eat so much. He was not gas lighting me in any way. He was just communicating his internal experience that this thing that I found tremendously difficult was in fact trivially easy and I just had to try it. He wasn't lying, just telling me his truth which happened to be false. Don't attribute malice to obliviousness.
Was going to write approximately this, thanks for beating me to it. Just a bit of sparkling from my own (mostly miserable) experience: the disdain for “normies” comes from them, “normies”, forcing a square peg (me, atypical) into a round hole. There’s zero intention for accommodating for the differences. Predictably, as a result you get an extremely antisocial introvert. But guess what! If you just LEAVE ME BE, respect my silence and self-isolation… I will reach out and try to connect, on my own terms. Usually, by written text, since I don’t parse voices well, and don’t read facial expressions at all.
This is a terrible article that reads like an AI generated LinkedIn post.
Nevermind the fact that the author isn't using the terms introvert and extrovert correctly; the message is quite ableist. Not everyone can achieve this level of communication in a productive manner. Telling people that management will "prefer" one over the other when it's "budget time" is also dead wrong. I've fired more extroverts than introverts in my career, and it's likely only a coincidence.
The author sounds like one of those "proud extroverts" that they made up into existence.
I think you have good points in your middle paragraph, but I disagree with your first sentence. I can see a growing trend of dismissive "this reads like it's AI-generated" when I frankly think it has been written like that. Author has a similar tone to me. That's my writing style.
> Not everyone can achieve this level of communication in a productive manner.
Correct, and it sucks. I feel like it's ableist at times too. 9-to-5 days of small-talk are so strangely exhausting t me. It's very frustrating I feel it's a mandatory part of my career if I don't want to be forgotten about.
But? I don't disagree with the author. In my interpretation, they aren't saying "I'm an extrovert and I'm great", they're saying "hey, this is a thing you can choose to do or be, and you may find it benefits you, and the introvert/extrovert thing is a stupid distinction, but being extrovert in the right way is a means of making yourself visible".
Because, let's face it, it is. There is some entrenched ableism, in a way. Last I checked like 10-20% of western population is some form of neurodiverse and a proportion of that just do not click with the predominant communication styles used by the majority population. It sucks and we are left feeling like we are not accommodated for and can easily fall into that exhausted feeling of resentment.
But? So what? You can help make things incrementally better for yourself in the system whilst still "playing the game", if you consider it as something you are choosing to expend your energy on.
I held back a similar comment about AI-generated. I think the "AI-generated" accusation is overused. This article was incoherent nonsense, but not all incoherent nonsense hallucinations are AI-generated.
Funnily enough, the part that made me suspicious is it didn't end with the last section titled "In Conclusion" - for a while now human bloggers have gotten so bad/lazy they don't seem to know how to tie together a long-form post at the end, and instead just use that title to repeat a couple of earlier points.
It also seems to assume that just because you don't want to socialize in some specific setting means you are an introvert or extrovert.
Everyone has people they like and people they don't. I've had co-workers i don't particularly like. Of course i am professional and polite to them at work and can work with them fine, but would i specificly go up to them at a party and chat? Probably not (i'd still be polite of course, just not specificly seek them out).
"Nevermind the fact that the author isn't using the terms introvert and extrovert correctly"
Is there a correct use? The most social, outgoing people I know universally declare themselves introverts because they, like every human in history, occasionally likes some alone time to "recharge". It's similar to how everyone has OCD because they like a tidy desk.
Make being an introvert a positive trait somehow and suddenly 100% of people are introverts.
There are sort-of clinical definitions (e.g. "have a limited social bandwidth and need to recharge") but they're so broadly applicable they are worthless.
There are other traits like social phobia or anxiety that often get intermixed with those, but they are very different qualities even if they manifest in a way that might get categorized.
I do consider myself an introvert. At a young age I would see stories where someone broke the rules (in prison, military boot camp, etc) and would be relegated to solitary. They'd get outdoor time, books, often even craft materials, etc, but they were all alone all day long. I could never understand how this was a punishment. It seemed absolutely magical.
> No matter what role you play, you will always have to communicate and collaborate with others. If this is something you disagree with, you should go back to the drawing board and think deeply.
It was discovered many prominent research findings were difficult or impossible for others to replicate, and thus the original findings were called into question. An analysis of the studies cited in chapter 4, "The Associative Machine", found that their replicability index (R-index) is 14, indicating essentially low to no reliability.
Seems like you just did the most cursory of searches, found a negative pull quote about some studies in one chapter, and called it day. Much like reading the negative google reviews for a bar you were invited to instead of actually accepting the invitation and going, I'm not sure this qualifies as "checking it out"
That's right, that is sufficient. Life is too short for me to investigate further, and the onus is on anybody who really wants to defend it to defend it.
I may very well be wrong, some books of the pop-psych self-help kind turn out to be pretty good. I enjoyed How to win friends and influence people. Unfortunately there are approximately nine billion similar books. This is why cursory and aggressively dismissive investigation is the correct approach.
One thing to me is fairly obvious: people who are introverts can be social, but only for limited amounts of time.
For example, I like talking a lot, but I can only do it for limited amounts of time. Maybe only a few hours a week. If I'm pushed past that point, I just don't want to chat any more. It's like I'm full of food, but with socialization. After that I find socialization immensely distasteful and irritating.
That's why a 9-5 workplace environment never worked for me. It was forced socialization past my limit. Maybe that's what happened to the guy in this article: they go into defensive mode because they are pushed past their limit.
Extroverts don't understand this concept of limited capacity for socialization.
but yes, this is true. And it is not something you can build up like a muscle or long distance running. In fact I think trying to build up the amount of time you socialize actually diminishes it
I have (frequent) crippling social anxiety, am definitely an introvert, and I can be social -in the right circumstances-[0] (albeit for a limited period of time[1].)
[0] eg. small group of people I know well, familiar surroundings, ideally without a lot of external noise.
[1] 3-4 hours tends to be my limit even under the best circumstances.
> Extroverts don't understand this concept of limited capacity for socialization.
I think there's gotta be a middle ground where someverts are more tolerant of socializing for long periods of time. It still becomes draining, but they don't have some terrible allergic reaction. More like just mild sneezing!
Considering we're talking about real people and the real conversations you have with them, definitely. The 5 people I talk to and the patterns I've come to expect from socializing with them, and the way that those patterns interact with my own behavior, don't really have a neat apples-to-apples comparison with your 5 people and their patterns and how you interact with those patterns, etc. We could both be calling ourselves introverts and extrapolating wildly different chains of observations and predictions about how those hypothetical conversations would be affecting the other one's energy levels, etc.
The whole concept of *verts is an early 20th century psychological concept from an era which produced practices and ideas which are now mostly antiquated.
It has become pop psychology and never had much meaning.
the five factor model suggests nothing about "gains energy/drains energy", it simply measures tendency toward extraversion and identifies it as a highly explanatory factor in personality. There are 5 factors because those 5 are the factors that when measured appear to be independent variables, and explanatory.
the goal is for them to be independent variables in the statistical sense. science is a process of refinement so there will undoubtedly be improvements, but they are as independent as they can be based on current knowledge, they can be measured separately, and people exist in every combination (the scales of each measure are not dependent on one another), and we can't describe what we know about personality without including all of them. Myers-Briggs comes to mind as a comparable metric which has more dependence among its variables, and essentially ignores neuroticism.
> the goal is for them to be independent variables in the statistical sense.
No, it isn't. The goal is for them to have high explanatory power. They aren't independent variables, and the fact that they aren't is a frequent criticism of them. But it's not relevant to whether they are useful descriptors or predictors.
> In many studies, the five factors are not fully orthogonal to one another; that is, the five factors are not independent. Orthogonality is viewed as desirable by some researchers because it minimizes redundancy between the dimensions.
It was developed by people fully aware of what orthogonality is, and understanding of why orthogonality is desirable. The fact that it is not perfect is indicative of the complexity of psychology and the bluntness of our tools. There is no system that is more orthogonal that explains near as much (I qualify it that way because dead vs alive is simple and pure but of little explanatory power).
We have nothing better than the Big Five (there are proposed refinements but they are not yet generally accepted), and it is better than what came before. The Big Five separates variables that used to be mixed, and can't yet explain the unexplained, but neither can any other system.
It seems relatively true that some people gain energy from socializing, while others expend energy to do so; extrovert vs introvert; which is what I been told is the difference between extroverts and introverts. It's not that introverts _can't_ socialize, it's just that they have a limited capacity to do so (with the caveat that there are people who have social anxiety that cannot socialize, who _also_ fall into the category of introvert).
Given how obviously true it _appears_ to be when talking to people about their experiences, why do you say that?
> with the caveat that there are people who have social anxiety that cannot socialize, who _also_ fall into the category of introvert
Interestingly, I know people who say they are socially anxious extroverts—they need to be with people to draw energy but have high levels social anxiety. This usually means they need to spend a lot of time with people they know well and trust.
Introversion level is really just a measure of how much social stimulation you require on average. Everyone has some level above which they feel exhausted and below which they feel lonely/bored.
I also find that switching between introvert and extrovert mode takes effort. If you like being in an introvert mode, then in social environments you move a lot of times between both modes (because you fall back into introvert mode, until someone starts talking to you), and this can be tiring.
Yes, extroverts do understand this limited capacity. It's like when you live an ultra sedentary lifestyle, and one day you realize you can't catch your breath after walking up four flights of stairs. Like any capacity, socializing requires exercise. We are all descended from a long line of people who lived extremely social lives. It's only in the last decade or two that it became possible to live a productive live by text, alone, without the intense realtime, full mind and full body experience of being with other people. Use it or lose it. And don't assume socialization is easy for some class of "extroverts" who are dominating "introverts" into being full members of the organizations which they work for. It's hard, worthwhile work for everyone. Socialization capacity is like any trait. You have to use it or you'll lose it. I say this because I think modern life is depopulating as people decide they have a condition that's some kind of innate disability. I wish y'all would accept that it's just hard, but worth it.
Good counterpoint but I think there's definitely a variance in ease amongst the population. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I am the kind of person that will socialize because I know it's a good thing in general. But I do think some people can perform "socialization feats" just in the same way the best bodybuilders can get super jacked whereas there is no way I'm lookin' like Arnold. haha.
So what you're saying is that extroversion is curable with a bit of a change of social behaviours and environment, and with a bit of practice, discipline and repetition we can turn them into mathematicians, farmers, hunters, philosophers, scientists, monks, priests and witch doctors and negate this artificial always networking and hustling environment that's only been created in the last 200 years with the industrial revolution, communication revolution and growth obsessed capitalism :)
This gives me hope: there's no silver bullet, but one day we can find a cure for our modern curse of excessive extroversion :)
FWIW, I'm "extroverted" in the terms used in this thread, but I'm also all of these: mathemetician, farmer, scientist. We can work on monk or priest but those might be mutually exclusive!
”I used to think I was introverted because I really liked being alone but it turns out I just like being at peace and I am very extroverted when I’m around people who bring me peace.”
Socializing is always draining. I enjoy being around other people and I enjoy socializing, I like going to parties and meeting people and whatever else, but it's extremely tiring for me. No matter how much I like the person it's with, I'll be exhausted afterwards and I'll need a lot of time in solitude and isolation to get all that energy back.
It has nothing to do with how much peace a person brings me. Being social to any degree takes energy and I need to be alone to get that energy back.
Socializing is always draining. It's a physical fact that it simply takes a huge amount of energy to engage with other people, no matter what you think your personality type is. Dealing with socialization is a big part of why we have these huge energy-intensive brains.
I think the discussion here suggests it's an issue of perspective. Is socialization a fact of life, or is it something you are allowed to opt out of?
It's okay to be tired. A day that leaves you exhausted should be celebrated and followed up with rest to prepare for the next day!
Having known plenty of extroverts, I don't see how this is true.
The discussion here is wrong and at odds with the science I've seen and my anecdotal experience. You can't just decide we're all the same and that some of us just have an attitude problem. That's asinine and irritating.
He is right, its a physical fact that talking and doing something takes more energy (not the emotional, but the Joules thing) than sitting around alone.
>We are all descended from a long line of people who lived extremely social lives.
Just because something was a necessity for a greater cause in ye olde days does not mean that it is also a good thing in itself. Now that it's not a strict necessity, a not insignificant number of people are admitting they don't like it.
Personally I consider myself more intro- than extrovert. I find people dishonest (even the most honest ones) and dealing with that reality is extremely tiring.
> We are all descended from a long line of people who lived extremely social lives. It's only in the last decade or two that it became possible to live a productive live by text, alone, without the intense realtime, full mind and full body experience of being with other people.
Most of us are descended from people who lived in small communities and rarely interacted with people who lived outside of them. It's only in the last 200 years (an instant on evolutionary timescales) that the majority of humanity ended up in a position where we have to constantly deal with more than ~30 people on a regular basis.
Sure, we spent a lot of time with those 30 people in the past, but calling that "extremely social" is pretty misleading in the modern context—today that kind of wording evokes a very different image than the small-scale village life that dominated our ancestors' lives.
I'm a hardcore introvert by modern standards, but for me that doesn't mean that I don't enjoy spending time with my small circle of friends and family, it means that when I branch out beyond that small circle socialization is actively draining. I'd have done just fine in village life, it's the completely unnatural modern world that is overwhelming to my social limits, and I get rather tired of extroverts telling me that it's just because I don't try hard enough to "exercise".
> Most of us are descended from people who lived in small communities and rarely interacted with people who lived outside of them. It's only in the last 200 years (an instant on evolutionary timescales) that the majority of humanity ended up in a position where we have to constantly deal with more than ~30 people on a regular basis.
I would be surprised if this is true. Ancient civilizations were complex. When Pompeii erupted the population was around 10k just there. Having the chance to walk around part of it. Everything was dense and close and there were large city centers and markets. I'm sure the rest of Rome is just as big and same for the other cities and empires going back thousands of years.
> When Pompeii erupted the population was around 10k just there.
And Rome (the city) had a population of 1 million or more, but that doesn't change the fact that demographers estimate at most a 10–20% urbanization rate in the Roman empire—meaning at least 80% of the population lived outside of cities in rural areas. And that's Rome, which had a notably high urbanization rate compared to periods before or after, not matched in Europe until the industrial revolution.
Compare that with an 80% urbanization rate in the US today and we're looking at almost exactly the inverse from where we were 2000 years ago in the Mediterranean. And it's even worse if we're just looking at the US, which had a 5% urbanization rate in the 1790 census and didn't even get to 20% until 1860. Where we're at now is simply unparalleled in history, and there's ample evidence that we're not well adapted as a species to this kind of density.
Rural doesn't mean your living secluded away from the world though with two other families to talk to. There was still a society and economy to be part of, governments that rule, wars being fought, religion etc
None of those things required social engagement with large numbers of people on an ongoing basis. Occasional contact with the broader world for business and religion is not the same thing as the intense, frequent, and large-scale social expectations that are a burden for most introverts.
There's a huge difference between going to church on occasion (or even weekly, which was not always the norm) and living in a city with a population density measured in the thousands per square mile.
I think this idea of villages of 30 people where you don't talk to anyone is just a fantasy. Even the Mayflower had 130 people to just set up their new town.
> idea of villages of 30 people where you don't talk to anyone is just a fantasy
I didn't say that—I said you'd regularly interact with only ~30 people (give or take). You'd probably be on good terms with a few dozen more, and it's been demonstrated that we really lose the ability to have relationships entirely by about 100-300.
The average city today has about 8x that number of people per square mile. That's entirely unlike anything that evolution equipped us for, which is why I object to OP's assertion that we all descend from extremely social people. By modern standards we absolutely do not.
todays world gives you so many opportunities to not talk to anyone. if you needed to get something done in the past you need to talk with other people, people were specializing in their abilities. today you can get food delivered to your door, look up repairs on youtube, buy anything you want or need online, do your job remotely, get directions from an app.
in what way do you feel like your expected to talk to anyone in our modern world? even here online, there's no expectation for you to respond to anything I said here
So you seriously think that humans two, three decades ago were extroverted because they couldn't live a productive life by not being extremely sociable and introverted is an unnatural condition where you just need more social excercise? Is this the intellectual level of this community now?
Socializing is a skill and requires exercise, but everyone has its own unique limitations and skill levels. Not everyone throughout history has led an exceptionally social life filled with constant conversation. There are plenty of references to quiet and seclusive people in the bible, for instance. In the Middle Ages, you could join a monastery or convent, which provided a community more suited for introverts. Right now, I wouldn’t be surprised if many introverts feel there is no escape from the extrovert modern life.
It's notable to me every time this topic comes up on HN that an extrovert invariably comes on and straight up tries to argue that introverts are just people who don't try hard enough. When that happens to people with other biological differences it's immediately and rightly decried—even other mental differences have become increasingly recognized and protected from that kind of condescending judgement—but the combination of the hidden-ness of the difference and the fact that those with this difference are less prone to speak up to defend themselves means that it's okay to tell a whole class of people that the difference between them and the average case is that average people try harder.
> We are all descended from a long line of people who lived extremely social lives
Do you think the hunters who were huntering kept chatting all the time? Or the gatherers looking for berries/mushrooms just talked and talked and talked and judged anyone who went by themselves?
Did the goat herder have people walk up the hill with them to prattle on about their family life or could they perhaps be alone in there? Or any craftsman for that matter. The cobbler could just spend time making shoes, they didn't need to talk to customers for 12 hours a day constantly.
> And don't assume socialization is easy for some class of "extroverts" who are dominating "introverts" into being full members of the organizations which they work for.
I don’t assume that - people tell me as much! I have close friends who assure me that socializing is not hard work for them, and they’d yap all day if they didn’t control themselves the same way that I would read or play games all day if I didn’t control myself.
In my immediate circle alone - my sister is a strong extrovert and always has been. She thrives on large groups. If she's stressed and wants to relax she'll go to a party or downtown dance club or hang out with a dozen acquaintances. She's been that way since tween. I bring her up because she's very upfront, and I trust and believe her, that social engagements alone are NOT, and never have been, hard work or effort. They're natural to her, she gains energy from them, she enjoys them tremendously, and gets recharged through them. This is not my external observation but her convincing expression. I know others like that.
Then there's me :-). Lot of that, such as parties and dance clubs and even large groups of friends, sounds awful to me. Easy on assumptions though : As per my parallel comment, I've been a client-facing consultant for 20 years. I practice and teach soft skills and emotional intelligence at fairly high level at work. Having started as a hands-on techie for the first decade of my career, I haven't written a line of code since 2018 - ALL I do now is talk to and manage and coach and mentor people, meet with clients, etc. I spend about 7 hrs a day actively engaging people professionally.
And it's still as draining as it is rewarding and enjoyable. 20 years of active practice and daily high level socialization has not meaningfully moved the needle on whether I gain energy from people, like my sister always has, or drain energy even with people I enjoy doing activity I like.
Absolutely there's detail and granularity to this - I love teaching and have been a visiting professor for 3 years at local college. I love mentoring and coaching and do it daily. But at the end do the day I strongly crave alone time to recharge after social activities (which is what I call "being an introvert"), whereas I know people (I call them extrovert) who simply don't need that, at all. The notion that simply practice can change that, hasn't been the case for anybody I know.
You can gain skills and that's indeed worthwhile! But that does not automatically alter the energy management situation.
So my apologies, but your post is the most literal proof that some extroverts don't understand this, at all, and like Freud, make wild assumptions based on limited internal experience :-/. It's less of a capacity thing, which I'll agree may get expanded, and more of what does activity do and how does it draw on that capacity.
Is anyone else like me? A little socializing goes a really long way for me. I don't hate it, it's not exhausting, I can do it well, and I'm generally seen as a fun person to talk with.
I'm an introvert but not because my "social battery" is discharged by socializing, but instead because I need to discharge in solitude
I have unlimited social stamina and can do it forever, if by forever you mean that if I'm left in socializing without that necessary solitude I will spin off into mania and eventually get in serious trouble
That's definitely me. I'm generally not social, but I love clubbing, dancing and raves. Not just the music (top reason) or the physical aspect, but all the chatting with randoms too. I love the bullshit we talk, the temporary friendships and the places you find yourself at 5am. (and if anyone's wondering, nope, just alcohol)
But I can go once and be good for months. See friends a few times a year as well, and I'm sorted.
This is hard to explain, but I think it's about "who you are/how you see yourself". As if there's a tension in my head, "am I my thoughts, or am I how other people see me?" When I have been more social recently, I ruminate less and am generally happier, but I feel I lose a bit of "depth" in my psyche. I just feel kind of "thin", like a minor character in a TV show. Though writing that, maybe that's just depression trying to pull me back in.
> Extroverts don't understand this concept of limited capacity for socialization.
Othering >50% of your audience isn’t the best way to make a point, and plenty of extroverts understand this concept perfectly well (myself as an example).
You are right, but it doesn't take many extroverts not understanding this concept to make it feel like it's everybody :)
My mother, for example, is a serious extrovert. When I explained to her that socializing seriously drains me and I need to, for example, spend time alone after attending a party, her response was to ask if I'd seen a therapist about it.
my own experience as someone who used to be very extroverted:
extroversion was meeting a social expectation. i had good social skills and people relied on me to carry social situations. i could entertain, organize and predict needs. i earned that expectation to feed my ego and then became trapped in a vicious cycle.
then i had a fresh start after moving to a new city for grad school and have done my best to avoid any vocal leadership for anything because i know what can happen. organizational, behind the scenes leadership is ok. i wonder how many extroverts would rather be introverts given the opportunity and some introspection
> Exactly how were you doing so? Were you able to predict these needs with "tells" or some other reference point? Did you get assessments wrong?
tells is a good way to put it. had a close friend from my hometown who lived for manipulating people and hanging out with him for 4 years taught me a lot. if he pulled some slick move or long setup on someone (including me) hed discuss the chain of tells and decisions if i asked him. boiled down mostly to confidence, conditioning, in group/out group. ugly stuff. the hook was his ability to manufacture novel, cheap thrills. this was enough to keep everyone interested in sticking around. he liked having cronies and i could do a b- version of him.
ive made many wrong assessments. i ignored the mistakes and focused on successes to keep feeding my ego. to abuse an analogy id burn a bridge without thinking of it because i was already making a new friend to fill that spot.
> What caused you to think it wasn't worth it anymore?
after leaving that environment i noticed how relaxing it was to hang out with my own thoughts. i realized how i was just playing part i had cast myself in for attention and no other real benefit. i happened to take an Excel VBA class my senior year and became obsessed with programming. became more interested in learning to code than anything else. i noticed the benefits of avoiding attention. introverts probably learn these lessons early but i learned them late.
I agree that making an absolute statement like that is not great. But surely, if you understand the concept, you also know that it's way too common for extroverts having zero understanding that some people need to be alone to recharge. They'll call you boring when you don't want to go out after being at the office for 8 hours already, for example. "Come on, it will be so much fun! What will you do when you get home? Play games lol? Come on get out in the world and meet some people!!"
It's also very common for extroverts to assume that just because you need to recharge by not being with people that introverts don't like being with people in the first place.
Social energy for me is a bit like physical energy. I love working out, but then I get tired and need to rest. In this analogy the extroverts somehow gets more energy while working out. That part is very hard for me to understand.
The pandemic was a total eye opener for me. I always thought that (ever since I started working) I didn't like to go to after works, nor parties in the weekend. What I realized was that I really love those things, but that my social battery drains completely at the office so I needed the evenings and most of the weekend to keep running. Hybrid work has complete changed my ability to socialize outside work.
This is only true for shallow connections.
Introverts can talk for hours in deeply interesting and satisfying conversations. People they love and trust or people with whom they share a deep connection.
Your task is to define and identify your tribe and work to surround yourself with those people. (Check in on your emotions regularly, identify who you connect with, identify how to replicate that)
And then actively grow your tribe. One trick you will learn is that changing the way you perceive others changes your ability to connect with them.
Or not just limited amounts of time, but limited types of people.
I have some friends who I have no trouble talking with all day. But with the overwhelming majority of people I meet, even if we get along well, I feel exhausted after too much interaction.
Dealing with some types of "extroverts" is particularly tiring due to not caring about the weird formalities and talking around things that a lot do to seem "friendly". It's like dealing with an MBA--using pointlessly fluffy language to say pointless "pleasant" things and being so afraid to step on any toes that their statements are just boring and void of any substance. But there are also some extroverts who know how to gauge your personality in an instant and know whether you're the type who likes the fluffy stuff, or you want to jump right into talking about specific subjects.
Then there are fellow introverts, and unfortunately, it becomes obvious how bad my own personality and conversation skills are with them. Lots of super brief answers and not engaging in any discussion. But I guess when you're the one talking to an introvert, even as an introvert, it's easy to come across as one of the aforementioned annoying extroverts.
The difference between introversion and shyness is the difference between exhaustion and fear. They can influence each other (being afraid all the time is exhausting, for example), but they are ultimately separate emotions that need not coexist or have any relationship to each other.
Even as an extrovert you get people who just ramble.
In a social setting you can just tune out or move on, but in a work setting... It's extremely tiring because you're trying to catch what's important and distinguish from the unnecessary fluff.
My sister is fairly extrovert, she gets energy from being with others. I'm a fairly typical introvert.
Before kids she used to have parties with her ever-increasing circle of friends. She'd invite me, and I'd often say yes but as the day approached I had to force myself to go.
One day, after one of her parties, she told me "everyone really likes it when you come, you're so good at making people feel seen".
I hadn't thought about it before, but realized that I do tend to chat with most people. And I do ask perhaps non-typical "party questions", as I love to learn about new stuff so I like to find out what others are interested in and talk about that.
Almost always I enjoy these events. However after such an even I'm so exhausted, and need a day or three on my own. If I don't get that then things don't go well.
The best description I’ve heard is “introverts are recharged by being away from people, extroverts are recharged by being around people”. As an ambivert, I experience both… sometimes I really need to be in big groups and talking to lots of people, sometimes that exhausts me I need time away.
It's a spectrum of multiple things here so I agree that this is too simplistic. You might even label some of these things as features, not bugs.
But the flip side is that the ability to mingle and talk to people is something that doesn't come equally naturally to everyone and some people feel uncertain of themselves when put in situations where they have to mingle with a lot of especially those type of people that are really good at that. Avoiding such situations is a natural response to such negative feelings. I've worked with an autistic colleague who explained to me the notion of these situations being mentally, emotionally, and physically draining. You'd think they'd be hermits! But the opposite is actually true. As it turns out this person had a rich online life that also spilled over into a personal life.
As it turns out, being autistic also means that these people are on the receiving end of a lot of care and training. And some of that stuff actually works. I'm not saying it's easy. But this was a hard working person that was one of the most coacheable people I worked with and in many ways a lot more senior and mature than other people I've worked with.
Socializing is a skill, that's actually something that you can work on and something that can be useful in professional situations. Or even in your personal life. Once you get better at it, you get to talk to nice people, meat new friends, etc. And once you build a relationship with such people you can meet them on your terms as well.
There's also the related trait that some people need to be talking to people all the time in order to feel comfortable. They become uncertain when having to spend time with themselves even. That's probably something that they could work on as well. A lot of these people might be equally unhappy as some lonely people are.
It’s quite treacherous to identify yourself with labels: introvert, extrovert, conscientious, conservative, liberal, empathetic, neurodivergent, etc.
The act of putting a name on some traits that you have can seem liberating: I finally know what I am, and why I’m different from others, and that’s fine.
On the flipside, once you commit to a label, you lock yourself inside it, and instead of describing, it begins shaping what you are.
It doesn’t help that other people often try very hard to pin us down and assign labels to us forcefully, without considering if we’re OK with that.
The trick is to describe your behavior and separate that from yourself. Instead of being an introvert you can just say that my behavior was introverted, and that was a function of my internal psychological state.
Also, be open to experimenting with what affects that state, and reflect on it. That will remind you that you’re not a constant, you’re a function :)
Neurodivergence is a really useful concept in that it recognises that "typical" just means a certain cognitive profile. The problem I expect is that in certain fields (STEM?) it's actually more normal to be divergent from the mainstream. If you understand how your particular neural profile makes you understand and experience the world, you are in a good position to understand how it might be different to others.
In a sense, attaching a special label to a particular neurodivergent profile is as problematic as assigning special significance to the "neurotypical" profile.
I was diagnosed with dyslexia in my 40s. It's helped me understand why I struggle with certain tasks. Overall having a label has been a net positive.
I'm hesitant to share my diagnosis with colleagues. I've been able to develop coping mechanisms and I feel like it doesn't impact my day-to-day. I don't want to cause disruption for those around me. I do have a friend with much more severe dyslexia and she does get the help she needs to be productive.
I wish we could discuss these labels at work without baggage. It's all about consideration. Forcing everyone around you to change their behaviour around you to make yourself feel more comfortable is not being considerate. On the flip side enforcing strict working policies that prevent people from participating in the workplace is also not considerate.
Didn't expect to see EGS used as a reference here...
There's a kinda funny extra level to labels and preconceived notions in that one: "sister" is a cover story for his female duplicate who was created from a tech/magic mishap early in that comic.
That’s like saying it’s treacherous to lock a door. After all, you might lose the key!
I label myself in many ways. These labels are heuristics that define me to myself as well as others. These labels simplify the management of my life in a way similar to choosing a particular type of computer or a particular email client does.
I am free to change my labels, but there is a cost to that. There is also a cost to avoiding labels.
I wouldn’t say it is a treacherous matter at all. It’s a matter of personal economy and finding a comfortable way to relate to the world.
I have sometimes used your heuristic of labeling behavior rather than identity. That can be useful, too. But however you try to do that, an implication hangs in the air: “You are obviously the kind of person who does things like that.”
I think that one of the major issues is that people will use certain labels to help justifying behaving in a certain way, or avoid specific tasks and situations. E.g. a ton of people hate talking on the phone, for reasons that are beyond me, and they will justify this is being introvert or having some sort of social anxiety, while at the same time being outgoing and extroverted in pretty much every other situation.
As I grow old I've stopped trying to put labels on my behavior. They rarely fit and society expects that I act or believe in certain ways depending on how those labels are generally perceived.
As I've grown older I realize I'm all of the labels at different times of the day, different days, with different people etc. The more I take this to heart the more I grow and allow myself to have new experiences that a self label would have stopped me from doing because I'm not "that" kind of person.
Or, labeling yourself helps identify communities and systems that enable you to develop and grow more efficiently.
I'm autistic, I discovered this partway through my adult life. Labelling it has done incredible things to build support infrastructure. I have more energy and less stress now.
I'm queer, I discovered this as a young adult. It's connected me with whole communities. And most importantly, it's helped me discover and embrace the concept of a found family.
I'm a leftist. (Not a liberal, I don't vote Democrat). This label has helped me find opportunities to engage in mutual aid I genuinely find more rewarding than any charity work I've done.
Every time I add a label, I discover wonderful communities who help me explore myself, help me figure out what it means to be that label, and whether it's one I want to keep or shed.
There's nothing wrong with building an identity. You have to have introspection and periodically evaluate it, but labels are fine.
These labels are quite obviously overused. Like most social characteristics, there is a spectrum. I can, and have, gone without seeing another person for months - and I've barely noticed. Now, I go into work five times a week. I do think I come off as odd to people; but I don't mind, I'm not proud of it, but I'm not embarrassed by it either. I am what I am. Earlier in life I put great effort into being "normal" socially, but with great effort also came enormous stress.
I've not struggled with work or partners. There are lots of people who don't seem to mind the occasional oddity or silence in a group. Although, I do occasionally run into some self-righteous lot who try to "fix" me; but I find this condescending. There are lots of ways to be a person, and I am truly fulfilled with the way I am. Most friction this has ever caused is by someone wanting me to be some other way, usually theirs.
I love talking to people. Unfortunately it's exhausting for me. I have no such attitude about it being a "waste [of] mental energy." I don't know any introverts that do.
I would recommend taking a deep breath and just consider for a second that some people are just different than you.
I love to waste mental energy on having a good time - chess, puzzles, board games, crosswords, programming. But spending time with people isn't like that. Talking to a group of people I half-know is like someone has slipped a hobby-knife under my fingernail and is slowly extending it. I can feasibly have a good conversation, or even notionally a good time; but it's hard to ignore the knife.
You find it enjoyable to be with people you like all the time. Other people don't and reach a point where it becomes uncomfortable to continue.
It's not because of some weird attitude about wasting energy on having a good time. Quite the opposite; once you reach your limit, it becomes wasting mental energy on not having a good time.
Consider this: you can’t read facial expressions, nor the tone of the voice. Moreover, most people you interact with misinterpret your face/voice, assuming you’re joking when you’re dead serious (and vice versa). So, you come up with strategies to cope with your deficiencies. Basically, playbooks of what to say if you hear/see so and so, filling the gaps in your sensorium. What’s handled by an “autopilot” for most, is a very complicated manual procedure for you.
I’m oversimplifying here, of course. There are nuances, but it always boils down to this switch to manual controls when one is tired, and then becoming even more tired and overwhelmed. Hope this helps!
This was the best explanation. I forgot I used to be this awkward as well for many years and the autopilot/manual analogy is just great. I did get much better at this though through lots of practice and patiently wasting my mental energy and having many awkward interactions, now it’s all just natural to me. I’ll be called an ableist and downvoted, however, I don’t really understand what’s stopping others from suffering through discomfort to get used to it and not see it as discomfort anymore. Although I did get lucky with my friends groups at the university and first companies I worked for.
> I don’t really understand what’s stopping others from suffering through discomfort to get used to it and not see it as discomfort anymore
I wouldn't call it ableist to assume that everybody is just like you. People are different. You wouldn't say "if only everyone suffered through reading this physics book, they'd surely understand the glory of physics, and become physicists".
Or "if only someone would just read my religion's book, then obviously they'd instantly become a devout follower of my particular god?".
It all seems profoundly ignorant, naive, lacking both empathy and theory of mind.
Thank you! I’m glad this metaphor works. As for me, practice did bring many improvements, too. I did stop aiming for “becoming a natural”, however. Good enough, is, well, good enough. I’m always trying to improve, of course! Yet, at least for me, it is so easy to accidentally end up just masking, instead of being myself. And masking is a path that brought me to the darkest places. Hence, I strongly believe that there is a hardwired ceiling, that manifests as discomfort. See, some people train hard and benchpress the weight of a small car. Other people get seriously injured before hitting 100kg. I see no reason for brain being any different.
You're mistaking introverts for autist. Introverts are not having any difficulties in social situations and they are not afraid of them. They'rte just not that interested.
I dispute that. Introvert/extrovert distinction is outdated and pseudoscientific. The new definition (watered down) is that some people seek stronger stimuli while others avoid stronger stimuli. Autism is an extreme example of the later.
> I simply cannot comprehend how something as enjoyable as spending time with people you like can be so mentally taxing?
It's not a perfect analogy, but you might as well blame people for eventually needing to sleep.
It's super enjoyable to be awake. What could possibly make you want to stop what you're doing, only to go into a dark room and do NOTHING for eight whole hours?!
Some people are also tortured by silence, and they simply MUST talk non stop. To other people, never just having a quiet moment is torture. Are you the former? If you never again in your life had two awake seconds without someone talking, would that be heaven or hell?
> I tend to think that it’s because of the attitude that implies that the one has to waste mental energy on having a good time.
You said "I simply cannot comprehend[…]". How about you stick to that, instead of baselessly saying introverts must simply have an attitude problem?
Most introverts are totally fine with spending time with people (albeit in smaller intimate settings). They are just (a lot) more comfortable with "awkward silence" than extraverts are. Spending time with someone shouldn't mean the entire occasion is filled with talking amongst eachother. Honestly I'm glad I can appreciate both.
Introvert social recipe, mileage may vary
1. Cozy room, moody lighting
2. Nice vinyl (harder to pause ). You'll probably want a print out of the lyrics if applicable
3. Maybe some projected visualizations or visualizations on a TV
4. Vibe
5. Discussion time at the end will vary, but idk, it's still fun to me to sit around cool people and have a mutual experience that doesn't require talking, so that's enough for me. It's also an opportunity to have them suggest a new album to listen to next time, but you also have to accept you might not get immediate feedback because they want to spend more time thinking about it.
Think of basically anything else that doesn't require talking and you can spend time with an introvert doing that. Part of what makes them uncomfortable in social situations is feeling pressure to say something when they have nothing to say. Allow the silence to happen.
You do have to have introvert break out rooms at parties. A sound machine drowns out the noise. No extraverted behavior in the break out room! Extraverts who can't respect the boundary don't get another invitation.
Oh and of course extraverts should know better than anyone that sometimes people just don't like you and that's ok. That's one downside of hanging out with some extraverts... extravert-on-extravert violence is pretty exhausting.
The best thing you can do for comprehending an introvert is realize that not all social interactions have to fit your preconceived notion of what a social interaction is.
Well, you've answered your own question - "you cannot comprehend", but others can. This should inspire you to question your own views first, then look for the answers in a more humble way.
> I simply cannot comprehend how something as enjoyable as spending time with people you like can be so mentally taxing?
Similarly, I simply cannot comprehend how something as tedious as partying with dozens of people you hardly even know can not be so mentally taxing.
But that's fine. We don't need to comprehend how it works in others. We just need to accept that it does indeed work in different ways for different people, and treat them accordingly, as we ourselves wish to be treated by those who can't comprehend how it works for us.
Try framing it in terms of what you Need from people. Avoiding using "should" so much. It will help you become conscious of what your needs are. Confusing your needs with others needs is also a trap.
We can only talk in terms of our Needs and why those needs are important to us. Anything else sounds like passing judgement and the reaction will be negative.
People use words like "should" and "must" to get around explaining their perspectives.
I remember early in my career, I made a request for a feature to an employee in another team. Their SW was allowing users to specify parameters that made the whole model unphysical, and it was a burden on us users to always double check that parameter "X" was not negative. The SW wouldn't fail. It would simply not give correct results (and they wouldn't be wildly wrong that you'll quickly realize it).
I requested that they simply not allow a negative value. We didn't always put one there - sometimes it was the output of another process, and I didn't want to continually check that our automation wasn't putting in unphysical values.
The response? "The engineer should be diligent in making sure the value is not negative".
Should is a lazy word. He didn't explain at all why he's rejecting the feature request. I would have preferred "Low priority - we simply don't have the time."
Start counting how often someone uses the word as a way to avoid explaining him/herself.
For me the "energy gain" / "energy drain" question depends MASSIVELY on who I happen to be spending time with. So much so that recently I'm doubting if I even am an introvert. With the right people it's all good.
This is me as well. For me it's not "socializing = energy drain" or the opposite. It's more about situations. In most situations I find talking with people, being in crowds, etc to be draining. But plop me into what is a relatively small list of "right circumstances" and it's the exact opposite.
> In most situations I find talking with people, being in crowds, etc to be draining
Then you are an introvert. They are talking about most situations, if there are some cliques you feel comfortable around then you are still an introvert.
Extroverts has a small set of situations where they get drained instead. It isn't like anyone loves all human contact, its just some have an issue with most contact and others like it most of the time.
I've always assumed people are largely the same, socially. I.e. we enjoy being with people we mesh with, and don't enjoy being with people we don't mesh with. The thing is, you can like people you don't mesh with. You might not have a single bad thing to say of a person, yet still have no interest in hanging out with them.
And then, surprise, being forced to do things you don't enjoy is draining. Especially when it involves long periods of politely choosing your words and facial expressions to pretend you're not bored/frustrated.
The only thing that makes an "introvert" is when the genre of person they mesh with happens to be more numerically rare. There is a ton of variety in humans. It doesn't mean anything significant that your "group" is small.
Like so many things, introversion can now be both medicalized as a disorder and celebrated as a lifestyle choice. This allows some people to pick whichever is psychologically soothing to them at the moment and use it to justify a lack of effort, as if socializing were not a skill that many people actually have to work on.
Articles like this are (IMHO) ableist and come from an extremely neurotypical perspective. "Just practice social skills" to me is like teling depressed people "just go outside and touch grass".
There's not a single mention of ADHD or autism in here. My own understanding of this has evolved over the years.
The first stage is to understand introversion / extroversion as simply to not like / like socializing, people, large groups or whatever. This is a shallow and pretty inaccurate understanding, one many people such as myself chafe against. I consider myself an introvert but like certain social activities so these labels never seem to quite fit.
The next stage is the "social battery" understanding of introversion / extroversion. That is, social activities will either drain or charge your "social battery".
After this you start to ask questions like "why does X drain my social battery?" and "what does draining a social battery really mean?" and you start to realize you're still describing symptoms, not causes.
The key insight is that something drains your social battery because you're masking [1]. So-called extroverts don't need to mask. So-called introverts do.
Yes, you can get better at following social norms and develop coping strategies for large groups, socializing with strangers, etc but all you're really doing is getting better at masking. That can be useful because it can change how other people respond to you but it's a bit like telling a depressed person to "just smile".
I feel like a lot of these debates boil down dealing with discomfort. We seem to be creating a society where everyone feels they have the right to not feeling stressed and uncomfortable. The danger to never feeling challenged is that you don't grow. You get stuck in a rut and everyone passes you by.
Part of dealing with discomfort is learning what your limits are. No one should put themselves in a situation with you have a breakdown. I find that a small amount of stress in my life is good and results in growth. But a huge amount is overwhelming which leads to burnout.
I agree. While some people are uncomfortable in social settings and/or talking alot, especially "small talk", other people are uncomfortable sitting in silence. BOTH types of people need to work on be more comfortable being uncomfortable. However, it's seen as rude to tell overs to just "be quiet for a bit and enjoy the silence" vs "you're socially awkward because you refuse to talk to me"...
My father in law seems unable to sit queitly in group settings. He performs too much small talk in my opinion. And it seems merely to fill the silence since they are often the same questions day in and day out. Either his memory is very bad, or he's not actually listening, just wanting to make noise. I've given up wasting my breath (re)answering the same questions. It seems he doesn't truly care about what others think, say, or feel... otherwise he might work on committing answers to memory. And even when folks start talking, he interrupts a lot... I truly hope it's not poor memory.
This is the sort of take that just sounds entitled, because the person giving it is doing so from a position of not having discomfort created for them by the actions of someone else.
Like let's put this in context: replace "being an introvert" for "your friend flies you out to the forest, and then happily announces we're going to be hiking 20 km back to town. You really need to challenge yourself!"
Your replacement only strengthens the parent's point to me. Sounds like a fun little challenge that I would love if one of my friends gave me. I wish I had friends like that.
>We seem to be creating a society where everyone feels they have the right to not feeling stressed and uncomfortable.
Huh? What a strange thing to say. Yeah, sure, you can't have that right exactly, simply because life is too unpredictable and from time to time stressors will come up, but surely someone has the right to build for themselves the conditions that minimize their stress and discomfort. Not wanting to be purposefully stressed and discomforted by others seems perfectly reasonable.
>The danger to never feeling challenged is that you don't grow. You get stuck in a rut and everyone passes you by.
Perhaps, but surely the choice of whether to live like that is the prerogative of each person.
But who are you (or anyone for that matter) to decide that everyone should "grow" in areas X,Y,Z? I hate blanket statements like "We seem to be creating a society where everyone feels they have the right to not feeling stressed and uncomfortable".
For example - I hate the modern office workplace 9-5 in-office bullshit. I know exactly what I want. I don't need to "grow" any more in this area. Can I do 9-5 in an office? Yes - but I fucking hate it and no amount of growth will change that. Why should I be forced to come into an office, for a job I do better at home, because Bob from management needs to be around people? I say to this - fuck Bob, Bob can go shit bricks.
Another example - I am very comfortable with living without any social media, or a smart phone, or a Tv, all at the same time. But, you don't see me going around forcing people into this way of being, and then when they find it horrible/stressful/uncomfortable saying "well maybe we are creating a society where everyone feels they have the right to not feeling stressed and uncomfortable, fuck your tv"
Instead - We are creating a society of non-thinkers, conformists, average-results-for-all, and dumb opinions like "well, I can deal with it - why can't you? Are you lazy/introverted/mentally-handicapped?"
I think challenging yourself is great, FOR SHIT THAT MATTERS. And only you can dictate what matters, fuck Bob or anyone else that tries to impose "what matters" on you.
The problem is, your statement sounds generalised to "challenge yourself in everything". I don't care for that, I care about challenging myself in a select few things of my choosing, I am my own man. I forge my destiny, I plow my path where I want to, not where society or Bob tells me.
------
And you know what the result will be for Bob and I?
Bob will not really grow as a person at all, his life will be all soft smoothed edges, not unique in any sense. Bob will be the same as everyone else with slight variations here and there, Bob will be boring, and at the end of Bobs life, on his deathbed he will say, "well, at least I didn't rock the boat!"
I, and others like me, will grow, in a unique sense, jagged edges, sharp incline and deep depressions. I will say when I die "I wish I leant even more into rocking the boat, capsizing it, just to see what would happen"
A convenient take, when you consider that (generally) extraverts will be less outside their comfort zone day to day than introverts, because our modern Western society values extraversion more. The article is giving vibes of "extraverts are great and inherently good people, introverts are bad and need to grow up!"
"extraverts will be less outside their comfort zone day to day than introverts"
This is a grass is always greener take, and definitely not true.
"because our modern Western society values extraversion more"
Everybody throughout humanity has valued extraversion more. This isn't something new. Humans are social creatures and people that are more social will be more successful at life. This will never change.
"introverts are bad and need to grow up"
This isn't necessarily the case. However, introverts need to figure out how to navigate the world, even when they aren't interested in socializing.
I've worked with lots of introverts (I am a mix of both introvert and extrovert) in tech and it usually goes along with passive aggressive behavior (because introverts usually don't like confrontation) and other behavior that makes collaboration (which is needed in almost all business settings) a nightmare.
> I've worked with lots of introverts (I am a mix of both introvert and extrovert) in tech and it usually goes along with passive aggressive behavior (because introverts usually don't like confrontation) and other behavior that makes collaboration (which is needed in almost all business settings) a nightmare.
I could just as well say that extraversion goes along with overly assertive and aggressive behaviour and other behaviour that makes collaboration a nightmare - such as refusing to write documentation or write proper tickets because "we can have a meeting instead". But I don't - because everyone is different and you can't just generalise like that. Being an introvert doesn't mean you're bad at communication or avoid confrontation.
"I could just as well say that extraversion goes along with overly assertive and aggressive behaviour and other behaviour that makes collaboration a nightmare"
I don't really see this very often. If someone isn't writing documentation or writing proper tickets, I don't think it has anything to do with being an extrovert/introvert.
"because everyone is different and you can't just generalise like that. Being an introvert doesn't mean you're bad at communication or avoid confrontation"
I've worked with lots of introverts over the years and although you may see it as a generalization, it's just my experience. In another way, you could call it my truth.
I mostly don't see the point in these terms anymore. They were presumably created to categorize people but suck at it because nobody agrees where the boundaries of the category are, and the resolution on the term is so low for how many domains of personality it touches.
Yes, but some terms have more trouble with it than others, and if the term cannot converge on a clear, repeatable definition over time, questioning the utility of the term seems reasonable.
Eg the terms "red" and "green" have largely converged on specific, useful meanings over time. Even more abstract words like "freedom" have mostly clear definitions (although definitely also have variance!). Introvert/extrovert I would argue have a LOT of variance in meaning when people use the words. And if people using the words can't agree on what they're actually communicating about, that might suggest that other or new concepts/words might be more useful.
Language is constructive, basically people make it up and the "definitions" are none, they are actually after-the-fact formalizations. Whatever humans do to the word "Introvert" now will be its "definition" in 20 years.
Print out some rainbow and ask people to draw the line between "red" and "not-red". That would prove that convergence didn't happen and would nicely show why it probably never will.
I would argue if you asked 100 random people to draw a red Vs not-red line in that experiment you described, short of colour blindness, you would not see very much variance in the position of the line. That is why I believe the terms have converged on a meaning.
In fact, I think it would be very hard to construct an experiment where people did not use the term red in a consistent fashion.
I agree with you that formal definitions of words come after the fact. But meaning of words are always present; everyone who uses a word uses it with some understanding if its meaning, that they want to convey. And as words converge on a shared meaning, they become effective for communicating meanings. I'm arguing introvert/extrovert have been around for a long time, and have not converged on a consistent meaning. The terms have too much variance in meaning to be useful at communicating. One person uses the word and means something very different from when someone else uses the word. In 20 years time this variance will likely still be a problem. If the definition of a word shifts over time, that's ok as long as the variance remains low; it just means it has a new definition. But if the variance is high, it means the word isn't very useful/effective for communication.
My impression was that the variance is high enough that i have to learn / swap new vocabulary with every new person in my social circles. I don't see the convergence you are talking of.
Fascinating, that has not been my experience. Can you give some examples?
Although I will note there is always some variance, the issue happens when it's too great, and some people's definition of a word is barely even overlapping with another person's definition of a word.
Right here, right now: Your use of "definition" is foreign to me. I do not have definitions of words in my head, but understandings or interpretations.
A definition is something that would be in a dictionary book.
Haha fair enough! I use definition to mean essentially "what one sees as the meaning of a word". That "one" could be Webster or another dictionary. Or an individual.
Your definition, is "the meaning of a word as specified in a dictionary".
There's definitely variance between these two definitions, but I think it's a small variance, and we can largely still understand each other despite the variance. I would say that word has converged on a meaning. We could, if we decided it was necessary, create separate words, one to mean an exact definition as defined by an authoritative source, and one to mean how every individual defines a word. But English society has decided that distinction isn't worth creating a new word at this time.
My argument is that introvert/extrovert have much more variance. When some people use the term, they use it to describe a behaviour, a temporary state, a constant personality trait, a spectrum, two perpendicular dimensions, a label on a loose set of behaviours, social skills, energy levels -- it's got so many facets! And dictionaries follow human usage -- so how is a dictionary supposed to pin this down to one or two concise definitions? That's my argument for why the terms are too variant to be exceptionally useful/meaningful.
I mostly want useful. Accurate and supersonic would be great.
I've identified an issue with my car's starter and my mechanic, in his wisdom, tells me that cars in general do that sometimes. It's perhaps a cruel irony in a discussion about usefulness.
To introverts I would say: just now and then try to get out of your comfort zone. Most of the time, it will feel liberating and next time it becomes much easier.
Step 1. Regularly talk to strangers. Most easily it can be done at public transport or at a shop. Start with places where you are waiting for a short time. Just ask a silly question or say something about the weather.
Step 2 speak up in small groups. Just say something funny in between. Or ask a really curious question about what someone is saying.
Step 3 take the lead in organizing a Teams call that anyways need scheduling. Be the MC or host. Just state what the meeting is about, what is to be accomplished and listen and note some things for in the summary.
Step 4 do a talk in front of an audience. That will need some prep and some rehearsal, this one is quite difficult for myself as well.
could you humor me and exPlain why you think this? I’m neither shy nor introverted and I have only a casual understanding of either. If I take their comment literally, I guess the only part I would see being different is “it will feel liberating.” But aside from that I do support the advice of people going out of their comfort zone, even if they hate it.
I read GPs advice as “go to the social gym.” For some people the gym ends up feeling good, others will hate it no matter what, but the advice is sound regardless.
I think people need to reconcile their level of interest in making new friends or finding success in innately social environments with their level of willingness to overcome fear or exhaustion. I see a lot of people in this thread basically saying approx. "you don't get it, it's exhausting", and that's fine enough if you've determined you get no value (after exploring that prospect valiantly) in doing the thing that exhausts you, but it's not fine if you do get value out of something and aren't willing to exhaust yourself.
Exhaustion for me is often a key component in anything I do. The friends that do find social interaction exhaustion and can't overcome it, I end up seeing once a year, and that seems to be ok with them, but if they were hoping for more, they need to practice being exhausted.
Lastly, if you're not practicing the exhausting things, you're practicing the comfortable things, imho. It seems more true in more cases that people aren't willing to do anything that exhausts them, so they never walk far, they never go to the gym, they get fat and isolate themselves socially... until they realize that they've suddenly become squishy, dull, and lonely, then look for a quick fix that doesn't cost them anything, and maybe post to Reddit "Any friends out there? I'm an avid reader and single player video gamer that will sometimes come out for 30 min if it doesn't conflict with my nightly 5 hour solo stationary leisure time. We could start a group chat!". There's nothing inherently wrong with that, it doesn't need to be fixed, but it services what it services and it's worh thinking deeply about whether that is or isn't worth practicing.
If this is the case, then why should we change the way everything currently works around the fact that you are capable, but not interested in socializing?
Not GP, but who's asking for that? I think all the blather is inescapable. I can't make people write an email instead of them wasting my time while they try to make sense of their own thoughts in a meeting. That's just how it is.
I am an introvert. I can talk to strangers, but prefer not to. I speak in small groups of friends or collegues, I am the lead in lots of calls, I even do training to big audiences. When in the moment, I can do it without hesitation, but in the end its always draining.
Good advice but we need to change its scope: All of that works if your problem is shyness or being self conscious. And indeed there's a strong Venn diagram between shyness, quietness, self consciousness, awkwardness, and introvertness. But it's not the same.
I'm inherently all of those things. After 20 years in consulting though, including dedicated training and experience, nobody believes me anymore - I've built strong social skills and come off cheerfully comfortable at work and random social situations. I've been formally mentoring people emotional intelligence and soft skills for at least 6-8 years.
But they are exhausting, even those that have become second nature / automatic. And that issue is not becoming lesser with age or skills or experience. And the more people in a group, the more exponentially exhausting every experience is :-/
what you do - even if ALL the love for it is there in you - sounds absolutely exhausting to me (especially after as many years as you have been doing it) and I am about as extrovert as it gets, much like you are described your sister in the other comment.
is it plausible that your feels are not as closely related to you being introvert and just nature of the career itself?
Plausible, but the draining is not just at work. I love one on one and can generally spend large amount of time with individuals whose company I enjoy. But groups (say 4+ including myself) are "draining" no matter the enjoyment. It's not that I'm "not a people person", I love hanging out with my friends and family! It's just that, with several people hanging out especially, I'm likely the first one to leave and find a couch or bed or comfy chair somewhere to read a book or play an instrument or video game or whatever to "recharge".
Some people misinterpret that as not enjoying hanging out with people but that's not it. It's more like, hanging our with people is as physical of an activity for me as biking or swimming or rock climbing. I love it... But I get tired eventually :-)
(analogy breaks down quickly tough - per another thread here though, unlike the physical activities here,I haven't really been able to increase my "social stamina". Social skills, hugely! Social stamina, not really)
Today I learned, being skilled at something does not mean it has to become less exhausting. Could it be that your acquired social skills somehow go against your 'nature'? I wonder if there is social research on this subject.
As an introvert, what does being an introvert have to do with phobias? If you have a phobia for being around other people, this is not being introverted.
As an introvert, I have no idea what you're talking about.
As an introvert, talking to strangers is in my comfort zone. Being an introvert has nothing to do with whether I'm able to talk to strangers.
As an introvert, speaking up in small groups isn't a problem. I do it all the time when I feel like it or when I feel it's necessary. Again, what does being an introvert have to do with this?
As an introvert, I regularly find myself leasing things because other people don't want to step up. This has nothing to do with introversion/extraversion.
As an introvert, I do talks in front of an audience. Not a problem.
Learning all this was valuable, but none of it solved my introversion. Because it's not something that can or needs to be fixed.
What it did fix was my shyness, lack of confidence and insecurity around other people. But I'm still introverted because it still requires me to exert a lot of energy, which can only be regained if I'm alone.
As an introvert I do these things - actually search for opportunities to do a talk or to do public presentation works. This works (and you can find me on YouTube in these situations) but it doesn’t get easier with time. It actually feels like with time it gets harder to find the energy to do this again.
I regularly say yes to work dinners and such that I don’t personally want to attend. That sort of thing is far outside my comfort zone, and that’s exactly why I do it.
It’s good exercise to pretend to be outgoing and chatty for an evening. Like any other skill, you get better at it with practice! And the author here is so right: almost everyone else at these things besides the salespeople are probably also introverts. I can promise you that you won’t be the only one there. I never am.
As a person who was very introvert at social gatherings, and the polar opposite now, I'm now convinced that being extrovert is not a skill or an "area" (outside the comfort zone), but rather a state of mind.
It's certainly an art and a science to be a good conversationalist, but being in that certain state of mind is "a lot %" of what's needed, and it actually takes no energy or comfort - although as other state, natural introverts enjoy this state for a certain amount of time. It can also take a lot to "get there", though.
The core problem is that introvert/extrovert has little or no bearings on someone's social ability.
Introvert/extrovert is the method that people use to recharge their energy. It has nothing to do with social ability despite the terms getting hijacked for that.
Signed, an extremely introverted person who talks and interacts a lot in social situations.
I strongly agree with that. I like being around people when I’m not expected to engage with them. I’ll go to a ball game or a crowded holiday mall any time. I like the throngs busily enjoying themselves around me. I’m an introvert but I’m not even a little reclusive.
When I first met one of my friends, I had assumed he was very extroverted from observing him at work. It was only when I really got to know him that he is, in fact, just as introverted as I am, if not more- something he even told me after we got to talking one night.
The parent post is correct: extroversion and introversion is about how you feel being in groups, not how you act.
> but being in that certain state of mind is "a lot %" of what's needed, and it actually takes no energy or comfort
Your mileage may vary but it certainly takes energy to maintain a state of mind which doesn't come naturally to you. This is bound to affect your comfort eventually. Since there are degrees of intro/extroversion, it may be easier for some people to will themselves across that divide.
It's like floating on water. Some do it naturally, effortlessly, they even rest and relax while doing it. Others have to flail around under the surface to do it, putting in effort and consuming energy.
This is an important point. Most people who I interact with would probably characterize me as an extrovert because I'm often super talkative and energetic, but the only reason I act like this is because I get time to "recharge" every day by spending time without interacting with anyone (other than my wife, who is the one person that doesn't take "energy" for me to spend time with). Even spending time with close friends and family members is something I need occasional breaks from to maintain my sanity.
I often describe this concept to people as a social "battery"; I need time to charge it (almost) every day in order to have anything to spend the next day, but it also can ruin the capacity if I charge it for too long while it's at max. Figuring out the right balance is key, especially when other circumstances can affect how much energy it feels like is expended by socializing (e.g. ambient stress level from other parts of my life.
i treat it like exercise or eating salad. i do it because i know its good for me. also noticed that it seems like a lot of people there have the same idea.
just like exercise, i dont push it too far. ill take a break. ill excuse myself and say, "i need to cool off" then go outside for a minute. most people seem to get it.
maybe the nature of the people i hang out with, but the salespeople type stand out sore-thumb-style and their compliments and shallow conversation often come across as awkward compared to the genuine interest in listening and sharing what we have learned in work or personal life.
Ever since I stopped doing this I’ve been much happier. Now that I’m old I don’t feel pressure to conform to social norms, I just do whatever I want. If that means I don’t see anyone else for weeks who cares. In my youth I felt so much pressure to be social and it’s just not what I want to be doing.
If you have a family already what’s the payoff though. I never get any great feelings from social visits, I just do it to be an upstanding member of society and so my daughter has friends.
if you're staying fit because you are being pressured, you probably aren't having any fun. Staying fit by doing something you enjoy (hiking, sports with friends, whatever) you are probably going to have more fun, and stick with it.
If you only socialize with people you don't like because you are "forced"/"pressured" to, you aren't going to have a good time.
Socializing is supposed to be fun, if you turn it into a job you hate, you aren't going to get the benefits of being social
>if you're staying fit because you are being pressured, you probably aren't having any fun
Not everything in life is about "having fun". Pushing yourself beyond your own comfort zone, or being pushed, is by definition not going to be enjoyable in some superficial sense, but it's the only way you'll ever actually engage with anything new or unfamiliar and grow.
Nobody who is grossly out of shape enjoys showing up at the gym the first time, but even though they don't enjoy it, it will benefit them all the same and eventually they may very well come to like it. It's the same with education, decades of trying to make education "fun" have resulted in large amounts of people being unable to absorb anything that isn't in some trivial sense gratifying.
And further, you never know if you'll like something until you try it. That's kind of universally true. The idea of going to a gym isn't appealing at all if you describe it objectively: you're going to go to a large room filled with heavy hunks of metal and sweating strangers. You're going to lift them up and down until you can't do it anymore. Then you'll drive home. That's not exactly appealing. And yet, despite everything, I love the way I feel when I'm working out.
It's perfectly A-OK not to like going to social outings with others. But until you've tried it, you don't actually know whether you like it or not.
That's not quite true, social isolation has been shown to be correlated with an increased risk of dementia and cognitive impairment in older age. And I reckon there are other studies that show correlations with other health outcomes.
I suppose it depends on the person but the older I get, the less patience I have for people and the more I rather focus on myself, hobbies and quiet time. I don’t have time for fake social gatherings or pretending like parent does.
If I meet someone genuine I will engage with them, otherwise I much rather to keep to my own devices..
As a thought experiment, jumping back to the parallel with fitness, is your statement the same as saying "I suppose it depends on the person, but the older I get, the less patience I have for eating healthy and exercising, and the more I'd rather focus on eating food I like and spending time on my sedentary hobbies."? As in, it's 100% your choice to live your life that way, but you also have to accept that there are health repercussions associated with certain life styles.
Side note: I'm not sure what you mean by a "fake" social gathering. But for me, I've been taking part in a debate society, and some French meetups lately to socialise more, and I've loved it. Everyone is genuine in that they're there for a specific shared interest. And I've found that my thoughts/ideas are greatly improved from the ability to debate with others. Sometimes I'll realise I have a huge blind spot, and need to reject an idea. Sometimes I'll realise my idea had a short coming and that it needs to be adapted. Either way it just improves my thinking.
FWIW, I feel no pressure at all to do this. I want to get better at it purely because I want to get better at it. One practical benefit is that non-work social settings get easier, too. When I’m around a bunch of my kids’ friends’ parents, who are perfectly nice people who probably have a lot in common with me and I’ll probably enjoy being around, it’s nice to have some practice making conversation with a roomful of strangers.
You might be surprised at how many salespeople are also introverts. Through years of being an (introverted) sales engineer, I've learned that outgoing socialization can be tough even for salespeople. Some of the most successful sales people I've worked with need to go quietly recharge for a day after a ton of meetings, just like I do. The biggest differentiator there is that the ones who can't manage it with a smile don't last long.
Relationship building in sales, like all skills, can be learned, even if it's draining.
> Like any other skill, you get better at it with practice!
Johnny Carson was an introvert. [0]
If he could be a professional-calibre conversationalist, then I refuse to believe most introverted people can't at least reach the passable cocktail party level.
Good for both you and them. But that doesn't mean it is generally true. In fact, enough people in this thread have explained that it isn't (also for them), that at best all we can say is that YMMV.
It sounds like you want to attend them. You've clearly laid out the reasons why you find them valuable to you. That's something you "personally want to attend."
New jobs I accept all social invites for the first year to give off the impression that I’m friendly and outgoing and you should totally give me the benefit of the doubt when you’re unconsciously evaluating me as a teammate! Then I start weening myself off social outings, and by end of year two I’ve always got something coming up. Darn! Wish I could make it!
I have to keep my worksona turned on 40+ hours per week already, please no more…
> While the reality is, it takes effort to communicate and drains energy for everyone.
This is a low effort take that depends on the ambiguity of language to sound true.
"Drain" for the author apparently means literally using up a finite amount of human energy, concentration, and willpower. That's a truism.
"Drain" for an introvert can mean anything from starting a muscle tension clock that will eventually cause a headache to a straight-up panic attack that could take hours/days to recover from.
It's probably even worse for young people who are introverts and haven't been taught how to say no or set boundaries. (I remember explaining to some college-age people that saying no is a skill, and they looked at me like I had just revealed to them that, with enough practice, humans can actually fly.)
> "Drain" for an introvert can mean anything from starting a muscle tension clock that will eventually cause a headache to a straight-up panic attack that could take hours/days to recover from.
Unless you are being hyperbolic with your usage of the word "panic attack", having one during social events is not "being an introvert," it's a medical condition.
I am an introvert and have also had unrelated panic attacks. Panic attacks effectively paralyze you, you feel a deep and uncontrollable sense of doom, often accompanied by palpitations. Sometimes you feel like you can't breathe.
If caused by social interaction, that's not a normal thing to experience, even for introverts. That is in the territory of actual medical issues: panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, etc.
Absolutely bizarre that you're being downvoted. Having panic attacks is not a normal reaction to any normal human situation, gp absolutely should look for medical and psychological help.
Hello, person with autism here. If I am tasked with social interaction for too many hours I may no longer be able to focus on people. I may zone out and in order to get into focus someone may have to bother me in an uncomfortable way. This could, depending on the person who is on the autism spectrum, escalate to physical violence in an extreme scenario.
I don’t think this describes “a panic attack”. I think “completely overwhelmed” is a real thing to be accommodated and is separate from a social anxiety triggered panic attack
Absolutely. Just wanted to point out that having difficulty being in a social and potentialy rowdy and loud environment for hours can still remain after the "seek psych/medical help" advice that was thrown out!
It's a normal reaction to trauma, a psychological condition - not medical. I'd guess that's where the strife is driven. You make a better point to cover the gamut
Panic attacks, especially as described by the OP (caused by normal situations, takes "days to recover"), likely fall within the realm of psychiatric care instead of mere psychological care, so I would argue they are a medical issue in this case.
I have them, I'm autistic. It happens and I have support infrastructure in place to make it less intrusive.
It's a disability, but I sorta reject the framing that I'm "not normal". Mostly because it feels a bit more culturally loaded? I can't articulate it effectively, but like, what I experience may actually be extremely normal ... for folks with autism. So, maybe "not neurotypical", maybe?
Sure, but I'm commenting on the fact that gp believes that having panic attacks in social interactions is just an introvert trait. Parent comment and I are arguing that it's not.
> haven't been taught how to say no or set boundaries
For more than a few of my friends, assertiveness and confrontation are incredibly unnatural and stressful for them. For some people saying no and setting boundaries isn't easy for them to learn: I'm not sure I've ever seen it taught. One socially skilled friend got a swor serious panic attack from having to try and be assertive.
You are implicitly accepting people can be introverted, but imply that people can just learn to say no.
> Ram learns about Shyam’s promotion and feels a bit disappointed. He goes back home and says to himself “I am not an extrovert”, consoles himself and moves on with life.
I have seen this play out time and time again at nearly every company I've worked at and even every team I've TL'd.
I used to be a "proud introvert" myself. The "proud introverts" often feel wronged in these situations, struggling to understand that communication is just as valid and critical of a skill as writing code.
Accepting that I didn't need to make "being an introvert" my identity, and learning how to communicate, skyrocketed my career.
> “Hey man, what’s up? Why don’t you approach and talk to a few here? They are friendly, you know. You like Open Source, so maybe talk to that guy (pointing to a senior of mine) and ask him how he got started.”
This is completely wrong-headed on the part of the host of this gathering. The correct move is "Hey, man, it looks like you don't have a lot of connections in this room. Let me introduce you to a friend of mine... [Friend], this is Aditya. [Say something interesting about Aditya to justify Friend's attention.] You two have [X] in common. Aditya, I have known Friend for [Y] years. Ask him about [Z]. etc." The host mediates the introduction for a respectful amount of time, and then walks away.
That is the function and, truthfully, the responsibility, of a host at a gathering where not everybody knows everybody.
Whereas, some people would find it impertinent for a stranger to barge in on a conversation and introduce themselves as if they were important enough to deserve attention. Maybe they are, but they may be supposed to let somebody else do that for them. And likewise, many people feel slimy going around putting on an air of self-importance. It is hardly fair to characterize this kind of sensibility as "pride" or a feeling of "disgust" toward other guests.
Fully agree. I read that intro section and closed the page. I didn't want advice from someone who could be so poor at this, and not even realize it. Instead of introspecting about his own contribution to the problematic interaction, he went ahead and made it the other guy's fault.
Honestly, I'm trying to put myself in Aditya's shoes, and I can't help but feel instant rejection at both the OP's and your approach. If I'm sitting by myself at a gathering it's probably because I'm overwhelmed by all the strangers in the room and can't (or don't feel like) figure out how to start a conversation with someone. The last thing I want in such a scenario is for someone to come and thrust me into a conversation with someone else. I can't see either myself or the other poor sap you involve in this enjoying the interaction. Now, if you want to come talk to me, by yourself, so I can get into a social mood, that's a different story.
for me I've realized my problem isn't introversion/extroversion, my problem is just that I have trouble thinking on the fly. or even just speaking off-the-cuff.
These labels do as much to hurt ourselves as they do to try and help.
The truth (for me at least) is that whether I'm comfortable and energized by others depends on my level of comfort with the people, my familiarity with the situation, my mood, the general vibe, etc.
"Being" one or the other feels like a limiting belief that we can hide behind if we're not aware of what it's doing to us.
472 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 407 ms ] threadThese blog posts feel so dumb to me because they always assume that you're a neurotypical and that everyone around you also is a neurotypical. That if you just put in the effort, you too can do it!
Well guess what? No, it's not like that. In fact, this mode of thinking is exactly the problem that makes my life hell. Fuck this. If I'm working remotely it's because idgaf about other people - not any more than strictly necessary to complete my tasks. Stop trying to gaslight me into thinking I'm wrong, stop trying to force me to go on trips and to delegate and to talk to other people - this is an adaptation for my own survival. I went into programming because I like writing code. That's literally the start and the end of it. It's not my fault the industry is 99% web development and 1% fun stuff for people on [a] spectrum. I'm here because if I weren't I would starve, not because I care about your company or the people you hired. Even though I'll gladly chit-chat with them from time to time, and even form friendships if I deem it worth it.
It literally does.
Citation needed.
> I looked into his eyes and saw the disgust for everyone in the room.
That's not how human interaction or theory of mind works.
This article is "not even wrong". It's just subjective bullshit (in the technical definition of the word bullshit).
It's probably the most ill informed post I've ever seen on the front page of HN.
Ever seen so far
Nevermind the fact that the author isn't using the terms introvert and extrovert correctly; the message is quite ableist. Not everyone can achieve this level of communication in a productive manner. Telling people that management will "prefer" one over the other when it's "budget time" is also dead wrong. I've fired more extroverts than introverts in my career, and it's likely only a coincidence.
The author sounds like one of those "proud extroverts" that they made up into existence.
> Not everyone can achieve this level of communication in a productive manner.
Correct, and it sucks. I feel like it's ableist at times too. 9-to-5 days of small-talk are so strangely exhausting t me. It's very frustrating I feel it's a mandatory part of my career if I don't want to be forgotten about.
But? I don't disagree with the author. In my interpretation, they aren't saying "I'm an extrovert and I'm great", they're saying "hey, this is a thing you can choose to do or be, and you may find it benefits you, and the introvert/extrovert thing is a stupid distinction, but being extrovert in the right way is a means of making yourself visible".
Because, let's face it, it is. There is some entrenched ableism, in a way. Last I checked like 10-20% of western population is some form of neurodiverse and a proportion of that just do not click with the predominant communication styles used by the majority population. It sucks and we are left feeling like we are not accommodated for and can easily fall into that exhausted feeling of resentment.
But? So what? You can help make things incrementally better for yourself in the system whilst still "playing the game", if you consider it as something you are choosing to expend your energy on.
In this likely fabricated scenario, our initial introduction to the introvert has them also coming across as a dick.
They clearly have no idea what it actually feels like being an introvert.
Everyone has people they like and people they don't. I've had co-workers i don't particularly like. Of course i am professional and polite to them at work and can work with them fine, but would i specificly go up to them at a party and chat? Probably not (i'd still be polite of course, just not specificly seek them out).
Is there a correct use? The most social, outgoing people I know universally declare themselves introverts because they, like every human in history, occasionally likes some alone time to "recharge". It's similar to how everyone has OCD because they like a tidy desk.
Make being an introvert a positive trait somehow and suddenly 100% of people are introverts.
There are sort-of clinical definitions (e.g. "have a limited social bandwidth and need to recharge") but they're so broadly applicable they are worthless.
There are other traits like social phobia or anxiety that often get intermixed with those, but they are very different qualities even if they manifest in a way that might get categorized.
I do consider myself an introvert. At a young age I would see stories where someone broke the rules (in prison, military boot camp, etc) and would be relegated to solitary. They'd get outdoor time, books, often even craft materials, etc, but they were all alone all day long. I could never understand how this was a punishment. It seemed absolutely magical.
Sounds good, that's what I wanted.
> you should check out Thinking Fast and Slow.
I checked it out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow#Replic...
It was discovered many prominent research findings were difficult or impossible for others to replicate, and thus the original findings were called into question. An analysis of the studies cited in chapter 4, "The Associative Machine", found that their replicability index (R-index) is 14, indicating essentially low to no reliability.
I may very well be wrong, some books of the pop-psych self-help kind turn out to be pretty good. I enjoyed How to win friends and influence people. Unfortunately there are approximately nine billion similar books. This is why cursory and aggressively dismissive investigation is the correct approach.
For example, I like talking a lot, but I can only do it for limited amounts of time. Maybe only a few hours a week. If I'm pushed past that point, I just don't want to chat any more. It's like I'm full of food, but with socialization. After that I find socialization immensely distasteful and irritating.
That's why a 9-5 workplace environment never worked for me. It was forced socialization past my limit. Maybe that's what happened to the guy in this article: they go into defensive mode because they are pushed past their limit.
Extroverts don't understand this concept of limited capacity for socialization.
not if they have social anxiety or are not NT
> but only for limited amounts of time.
but yes, this is true. And it is not something you can build up like a muscle or long distance running. In fact I think trying to build up the amount of time you socialize actually diminishes it
I have (frequent) crippling social anxiety, am definitely an introvert, and I can be social -in the right circumstances-[0] (albeit for a limited period of time[1].)
[0] eg. small group of people I know well, familiar surroundings, ideally without a lot of external noise.
[1] 3-4 hours tends to be my limit even under the best circumstances.
I think there's gotta be a middle ground where someverts are more tolerant of socializing for long periods of time. It still becomes draining, but they don't have some terrible allergic reaction. More like just mild sneezing!
It has become pop psychology and never had much meaning.
This is not correct; they are not independent.
No, it isn't. The goal is for them to have high explanatory power. They aren't independent variables, and the fact that they aren't is a frequent criticism of them. But it's not relevant to whether they are useful descriptors or predictors.
Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Li... :
> In many studies, the five factors are not fully orthogonal to one another; that is, the five factors are not independent. Orthogonality is viewed as desirable by some researchers because it minimizes redundancy between the dimensions.
It was developed by people fully aware of what orthogonality is, and understanding of why orthogonality is desirable. The fact that it is not perfect is indicative of the complexity of psychology and the bluntness of our tools. There is no system that is more orthogonal that explains near as much (I qualify it that way because dead vs alive is simple and pure but of little explanatory power).
We have nothing better than the Big Five (there are proposed refinements but they are not yet generally accepted), and it is better than what came before. The Big Five separates variables that used to be mixed, and can't yet explain the unexplained, but neither can any other system.
Unless you think that "these five variables appear to be independent when measured" conflicts with "these five variables are not independent".
It doesn't seem like that tricky of a question, but maybe I'm missing something.
Given how obviously true it _appears_ to be when talking to people about their experiences, why do you say that?
Interestingly, I know people who say they are socially anxious extroverts—they need to be with people to draw energy but have high levels social anxiety. This usually means they need to spend a lot of time with people they know well and trust.
My new favourite word!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42517790
This gives me hope: there's no silver bullet, but one day we can find a cure for our modern curse of excessive extroversion :)
”I used to think I was introverted because I really liked being alone but it turns out I just like being at peace and I am very extroverted when I’m around people who bring me peace.”
Socializing is always draining. I enjoy being around other people and I enjoy socializing, I like going to parties and meeting people and whatever else, but it's extremely tiring for me. No matter how much I like the person it's with, I'll be exhausted afterwards and I'll need a lot of time in solitude and isolation to get all that energy back.
It has nothing to do with how much peace a person brings me. Being social to any degree takes energy and I need to be alone to get that energy back.
That's introversion. Not "I don't like people".
I think the discussion here suggests it's an issue of perspective. Is socialization a fact of life, or is it something you are allowed to opt out of?
It's okay to be tired. A day that leaves you exhausted should be celebrated and followed up with rest to prepare for the next day!
The discussion here is wrong and at odds with the science I've seen and my anecdotal experience. You can't just decide we're all the same and that some of us just have an attitude problem. That's asinine and irritating.
Just because something was a necessity for a greater cause in ye olde days does not mean that it is also a good thing in itself. Now that it's not a strict necessity, a not insignificant number of people are admitting they don't like it.
Personally I consider myself more intro- than extrovert. I find people dishonest (even the most honest ones) and dealing with that reality is extremely tiring.
Most of us are descended from people who lived in small communities and rarely interacted with people who lived outside of them. It's only in the last 200 years (an instant on evolutionary timescales) that the majority of humanity ended up in a position where we have to constantly deal with more than ~30 people on a regular basis.
Sure, we spent a lot of time with those 30 people in the past, but calling that "extremely social" is pretty misleading in the modern context—today that kind of wording evokes a very different image than the small-scale village life that dominated our ancestors' lives.
I'm a hardcore introvert by modern standards, but for me that doesn't mean that I don't enjoy spending time with my small circle of friends and family, it means that when I branch out beyond that small circle socialization is actively draining. I'd have done just fine in village life, it's the completely unnatural modern world that is overwhelming to my social limits, and I get rather tired of extroverts telling me that it's just because I don't try hard enough to "exercise".
I would be surprised if this is true. Ancient civilizations were complex. When Pompeii erupted the population was around 10k just there. Having the chance to walk around part of it. Everything was dense and close and there were large city centers and markets. I'm sure the rest of Rome is just as big and same for the other cities and empires going back thousands of years.
And Rome (the city) had a population of 1 million or more, but that doesn't change the fact that demographers estimate at most a 10–20% urbanization rate in the Roman empire—meaning at least 80% of the population lived outside of cities in rural areas. And that's Rome, which had a notably high urbanization rate compared to periods before or after, not matched in Europe until the industrial revolution.
Compare that with an 80% urbanization rate in the US today and we're looking at almost exactly the inverse from where we were 2000 years ago in the Mediterranean. And it's even worse if we're just looking at the US, which had a 5% urbanization rate in the 1790 census and didn't even get to 20% until 1860. Where we're at now is simply unparalleled in history, and there's ample evidence that we're not well adapted as a species to this kind of density.
There's a huge difference between going to church on occasion (or even weekly, which was not always the norm) and living in a city with a population density measured in the thousands per square mile.
I think this idea of villages of 30 people where you don't talk to anyone is just a fantasy. Even the Mayflower had 130 people to just set up their new town.
I didn't say that—I said you'd regularly interact with only ~30 people (give or take). You'd probably be on good terms with a few dozen more, and it's been demonstrated that we really lose the ability to have relationships entirely by about 100-300.
The average city today has about 8x that number of people per square mile. That's entirely unlike anything that evolution equipped us for, which is why I object to OP's assertion that we all descend from extremely social people. By modern standards we absolutely do not.
in what way do you feel like your expected to talk to anyone in our modern world? even here online, there's no expectation for you to respond to anything I said here
It's notable to me every time this topic comes up on HN that an extrovert invariably comes on and straight up tries to argue that introverts are just people who don't try hard enough. When that happens to people with other biological differences it's immediately and rightly decried—even other mental differences have become increasingly recognized and protected from that kind of condescending judgement—but the combination of the hidden-ness of the difference and the fact that those with this difference are less prone to speak up to defend themselves means that it's okay to tell a whole class of people that the difference between them and the average case is that average people try harder.
Do you think the hunters who were huntering kept chatting all the time? Or the gatherers looking for berries/mushrooms just talked and talked and talked and judged anyone who went by themselves?
Did the goat herder have people walk up the hill with them to prattle on about their family life or could they perhaps be alone in there? Or any craftsman for that matter. The cobbler could just spend time making shoes, they didn't need to talk to customers for 12 hours a day constantly.
I don’t assume that - people tell me as much! I have close friends who assure me that socializing is not hard work for them, and they’d yap all day if they didn’t control themselves the same way that I would read or play games all day if I didn’t control myself.
In my immediate circle alone - my sister is a strong extrovert and always has been. She thrives on large groups. If she's stressed and wants to relax she'll go to a party or downtown dance club or hang out with a dozen acquaintances. She's been that way since tween. I bring her up because she's very upfront, and I trust and believe her, that social engagements alone are NOT, and never have been, hard work or effort. They're natural to her, she gains energy from them, she enjoys them tremendously, and gets recharged through them. This is not my external observation but her convincing expression. I know others like that.
Then there's me :-). Lot of that, such as parties and dance clubs and even large groups of friends, sounds awful to me. Easy on assumptions though : As per my parallel comment, I've been a client-facing consultant for 20 years. I practice and teach soft skills and emotional intelligence at fairly high level at work. Having started as a hands-on techie for the first decade of my career, I haven't written a line of code since 2018 - ALL I do now is talk to and manage and coach and mentor people, meet with clients, etc. I spend about 7 hrs a day actively engaging people professionally.
And it's still as draining as it is rewarding and enjoyable. 20 years of active practice and daily high level socialization has not meaningfully moved the needle on whether I gain energy from people, like my sister always has, or drain energy even with people I enjoy doing activity I like.
Absolutely there's detail and granularity to this - I love teaching and have been a visiting professor for 3 years at local college. I love mentoring and coaching and do it daily. But at the end do the day I strongly crave alone time to recharge after social activities (which is what I call "being an introvert"), whereas I know people (I call them extrovert) who simply don't need that, at all. The notion that simply practice can change that, hasn't been the case for anybody I know.
You can gain skills and that's indeed worthwhile! But that does not automatically alter the energy management situation.
So my apologies, but your post is the most literal proof that some extroverts don't understand this, at all, and like Freud, make wild assumptions based on limited internal experience :-/. It's less of a capacity thing, which I'll agree may get expanded, and more of what does activity do and how does it draw on that capacity.
This is an incorrect rationalization of your own prejudices, nothing more.
> I wish y'all would accept that it's just hard, but worth it.
You need to accept that your personal experience is not universal. It's one of the most basic realizations a thinking human needs to have.
I'm an introvert but not because my "social battery" is discharged by socializing, but instead because I need to discharge in solitude
I have unlimited social stamina and can do it forever, if by forever you mean that if I'm left in socializing without that necessary solitude I will spin off into mania and eventually get in serious trouble
But I can go once and be good for months. See friends a few times a year as well, and I'm sorted.
This is hard to explain, but I think it's about "who you are/how you see yourself". As if there's a tension in my head, "am I my thoughts, or am I how other people see me?" When I have been more social recently, I ruminate less and am generally happier, but I feel I lose a bit of "depth" in my psyche. I just feel kind of "thin", like a minor character in a TV show. Though writing that, maybe that's just depression trying to pull me back in.
Othering >50% of your audience isn’t the best way to make a point, and plenty of extroverts understand this concept perfectly well (myself as an example).
My mother, for example, is a serious extrovert. When I explained to her that socializing seriously drains me and I need to, for example, spend time alone after attending a party, her response was to ask if I'd seen a therapist about it.
extroversion was meeting a social expectation. i had good social skills and people relied on me to carry social situations. i could entertain, organize and predict needs. i earned that expectation to feed my ego and then became trapped in a vicious cycle.
then i had a fresh start after moving to a new city for grad school and have done my best to avoid any vocal leadership for anything because i know what can happen. organizational, behind the scenes leadership is ok. i wonder how many extroverts would rather be introverts given the opportunity and some introspection
Exactly how were you doing so? Were you able to predict these needs with "tells" or some other reference point? Did you get assessments wrong?
> i earned that expectation to feed my ego and then became trapped in a vicious cycle.
What caused you to think it wasn't worth it anymore?
tells is a good way to put it. had a close friend from my hometown who lived for manipulating people and hanging out with him for 4 years taught me a lot. if he pulled some slick move or long setup on someone (including me) hed discuss the chain of tells and decisions if i asked him. boiled down mostly to confidence, conditioning, in group/out group. ugly stuff. the hook was his ability to manufacture novel, cheap thrills. this was enough to keep everyone interested in sticking around. he liked having cronies and i could do a b- version of him.
ive made many wrong assessments. i ignored the mistakes and focused on successes to keep feeding my ego. to abuse an analogy id burn a bridge without thinking of it because i was already making a new friend to fill that spot.
> What caused you to think it wasn't worth it anymore?
after leaving that environment i noticed how relaxing it was to hang out with my own thoughts. i realized how i was just playing part i had cast myself in for attention and no other real benefit. i happened to take an Excel VBA class my senior year and became obsessed with programming. became more interested in learning to code than anything else. i noticed the benefits of avoiding attention. introverts probably learn these lessons early but i learned them late.
Social energy for me is a bit like physical energy. I love working out, but then I get tired and need to rest. In this analogy the extroverts somehow gets more energy while working out. That part is very hard for me to understand.
The pandemic was a total eye opener for me. I always thought that (ever since I started working) I didn't like to go to after works, nor parties in the weekend. What I realized was that I really love those things, but that my social battery drains completely at the office so I needed the evenings and most of the weekend to keep running. Hybrid work has complete changed my ability to socialize outside work.
I have some friends who I have no trouble talking with all day. But with the overwhelming majority of people I meet, even if we get along well, I feel exhausted after too much interaction.
Dealing with some types of "extroverts" is particularly tiring due to not caring about the weird formalities and talking around things that a lot do to seem "friendly". It's like dealing with an MBA--using pointlessly fluffy language to say pointless "pleasant" things and being so afraid to step on any toes that their statements are just boring and void of any substance. But there are also some extroverts who know how to gauge your personality in an instant and know whether you're the type who likes the fluffy stuff, or you want to jump right into talking about specific subjects.
Then there are fellow introverts, and unfortunately, it becomes obvious how bad my own personality and conversation skills are with them. Lots of super brief answers and not engaging in any discussion. But I guess when you're the one talking to an introvert, even as an introvert, it's easy to come across as one of the aforementioned annoying extroverts.
Moreover, I'm pretty sure you could take the most extroverted person around and take them out of their social element and they too would tire out.
And vice versa, some of the most introverted people don't get tired out by their spouse.
In a social setting you can just tune out or move on, but in a work setting... It's extremely tiring because you're trying to catch what's important and distinguish from the unnecessary fluff.
Before kids she used to have parties with her ever-increasing circle of friends. She'd invite me, and I'd often say yes but as the day approached I had to force myself to go.
One day, after one of her parties, she told me "everyone really likes it when you come, you're so good at making people feel seen".
I hadn't thought about it before, but realized that I do tend to chat with most people. And I do ask perhaps non-typical "party questions", as I love to learn about new stuff so I like to find out what others are interested in and talk about that.
Almost always I enjoy these events. However after such an even I'm so exhausted, and need a day or three on my own. If I don't get that then things don't go well.
But the flip side is that the ability to mingle and talk to people is something that doesn't come equally naturally to everyone and some people feel uncertain of themselves when put in situations where they have to mingle with a lot of especially those type of people that are really good at that. Avoiding such situations is a natural response to such negative feelings. I've worked with an autistic colleague who explained to me the notion of these situations being mentally, emotionally, and physically draining. You'd think they'd be hermits! But the opposite is actually true. As it turns out this person had a rich online life that also spilled over into a personal life.
As it turns out, being autistic also means that these people are on the receiving end of a lot of care and training. And some of that stuff actually works. I'm not saying it's easy. But this was a hard working person that was one of the most coacheable people I worked with and in many ways a lot more senior and mature than other people I've worked with.
Socializing is a skill, that's actually something that you can work on and something that can be useful in professional situations. Or even in your personal life. Once you get better at it, you get to talk to nice people, meat new friends, etc. And once you build a relationship with such people you can meet them on your terms as well.
There's also the related trait that some people need to be talking to people all the time in order to feel comfortable. They become uncertain when having to spend time with themselves even. That's probably something that they could work on as well. A lot of these people might be equally unhappy as some lonely people are.
The act of putting a name on some traits that you have can seem liberating: I finally know what I am, and why I’m different from others, and that’s fine.
On the flipside, once you commit to a label, you lock yourself inside it, and instead of describing, it begins shaping what you are.
It doesn’t help that other people often try very hard to pin us down and assign labels to us forcefully, without considering if we’re OK with that.
The trick is to describe your behavior and separate that from yourself. Instead of being an introvert you can just say that my behavior was introverted, and that was a function of my internal psychological state.
Also, be open to experimenting with what affects that state, and reflect on it. That will remind you that you’re not a constant, you’re a function :)
In a sense, attaching a special label to a particular neurodivergent profile is as problematic as assigning special significance to the "neurotypical" profile.
I'm hesitant to share my diagnosis with colleagues. I've been able to develop coping mechanisms and I feel like it doesn't impact my day-to-day. I don't want to cause disruption for those around me. I do have a friend with much more severe dyslexia and she does get the help she needs to be productive.
I wish we could discuss these labels at work without baggage. It's all about consideration. Forcing everyone around you to change their behaviour around you to make yourself feel more comfortable is not being considerate. On the flip side enforcing strict working policies that prevent people from participating in the workplace is also not considerate.
There's a kinda funny extra level to labels and preconceived notions in that one: "sister" is a cover story for his female duplicate who was created from a tech/magic mishap early in that comic.
People don't need to just be one thing. We are fluid. And can and should have opinions and stances that wane over time.
I label myself in many ways. These labels are heuristics that define me to myself as well as others. These labels simplify the management of my life in a way similar to choosing a particular type of computer or a particular email client does.
I am free to change my labels, but there is a cost to that. There is also a cost to avoiding labels.
I wouldn’t say it is a treacherous matter at all. It’s a matter of personal economy and finding a comfortable way to relate to the world.
I have sometimes used your heuristic of labeling behavior rather than identity. That can be useful, too. But however you try to do that, an implication hangs in the air: “You are obviously the kind of person who does things like that.”
As I grow old I've stopped trying to put labels on my behavior. They rarely fit and society expects that I act or believe in certain ways depending on how those labels are generally perceived.
Video calls I also almost never enjoyed, but maybe also because of technical reasons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_bias
I'm autistic, I discovered this partway through my adult life. Labelling it has done incredible things to build support infrastructure. I have more energy and less stress now.
I'm queer, I discovered this as a young adult. It's connected me with whole communities. And most importantly, it's helped me discover and embrace the concept of a found family.
I'm a leftist. (Not a liberal, I don't vote Democrat). This label has helped me find opportunities to engage in mutual aid I genuinely find more rewarding than any charity work I've done.
Every time I add a label, I discover wonderful communities who help me explore myself, help me figure out what it means to be that label, and whether it's one I want to keep or shed.
There's nothing wrong with building an identity. You have to have introspection and periodically evaluate it, but labels are fine.
I've not struggled with work or partners. There are lots of people who don't seem to mind the occasional oddity or silence in a group. Although, I do occasionally run into some self-righteous lot who try to "fix" me; but I find this condescending. There are lots of ways to be a person, and I am truly fulfilled with the way I am. Most friction this has ever caused is by someone wanting me to be some other way, usually theirs.
I would recommend taking a deep breath and just consider for a second that some people are just different than you.
It's not because of some weird attitude about wasting energy on having a good time. Quite the opposite; once you reach your limit, it becomes wasting mental energy on not having a good time.
It's the only one you choose to believe.
> I don’t really understand what’s stopping others from suffering through discomfort to get used to it and not see it as discomfort anymore
I wouldn't call it ableist to assume that everybody is just like you. People are different. You wouldn't say "if only everyone suffered through reading this physics book, they'd surely understand the glory of physics, and become physicists".
Or "if only someone would just read my religion's book, then obviously they'd instantly become a devout follower of my particular god?".
It all seems profoundly ignorant, naive, lacking both empathy and theory of mind.
Unhelpful.
> I simply cannot comprehend how something as enjoyable as spending time with people you like can be so mentally taxing?
It's not a perfect analogy, but you might as well blame people for eventually needing to sleep.
It's super enjoyable to be awake. What could possibly make you want to stop what you're doing, only to go into a dark room and do NOTHING for eight whole hours?!
Some people are also tortured by silence, and they simply MUST talk non stop. To other people, never just having a quiet moment is torture. Are you the former? If you never again in your life had two awake seconds without someone talking, would that be heaven or hell?
> I tend to think that it’s because of the attitude that implies that the one has to waste mental energy on having a good time.
You said "I simply cannot comprehend[…]". How about you stick to that, instead of baselessly saying introverts must simply have an attitude problem?
Introvert social recipe, mileage may vary
1. Cozy room, moody lighting
2. Nice vinyl (harder to pause ). You'll probably want a print out of the lyrics if applicable
3. Maybe some projected visualizations or visualizations on a TV
4. Vibe
5. Discussion time at the end will vary, but idk, it's still fun to me to sit around cool people and have a mutual experience that doesn't require talking, so that's enough for me. It's also an opportunity to have them suggest a new album to listen to next time, but you also have to accept you might not get immediate feedback because they want to spend more time thinking about it.
Think of basically anything else that doesn't require talking and you can spend time with an introvert doing that. Part of what makes them uncomfortable in social situations is feeling pressure to say something when they have nothing to say. Allow the silence to happen.
You do have to have introvert break out rooms at parties. A sound machine drowns out the noise. No extraverted behavior in the break out room! Extraverts who can't respect the boundary don't get another invitation.
Oh and of course extraverts should know better than anyone that sometimes people just don't like you and that's ok. That's one downside of hanging out with some extraverts... extravert-on-extravert violence is pretty exhausting.
The best thing you can do for comprehending an introvert is realize that not all social interactions have to fit your preconceived notion of what a social interaction is.
Similarly, I simply cannot comprehend how something as tedious as partying with dozens of people you hardly even know can not be so mentally taxing.
But that's fine. We don't need to comprehend how it works in others. We just need to accept that it does indeed work in different ways for different people, and treat them accordingly, as we ourselves wish to be treated by those who can't comprehend how it works for us.
We can only talk in terms of our Needs and why those needs are important to us. Anything else sounds like passing judgement and the reaction will be negative.
I have two phrases I use often:
"Should is not in my vocabulary"
"Should is a lazy word"
People use words like "should" and "must" to get around explaining their perspectives.
I remember early in my career, I made a request for a feature to an employee in another team. Their SW was allowing users to specify parameters that made the whole model unphysical, and it was a burden on us users to always double check that parameter "X" was not negative. The SW wouldn't fail. It would simply not give correct results (and they wouldn't be wildly wrong that you'll quickly realize it).
I requested that they simply not allow a negative value. We didn't always put one there - sometimes it was the output of another process, and I didn't want to continually check that our automation wasn't putting in unphysical values.
The response? "The engineer should be diligent in making sure the value is not negative".
Should is a lazy word. He didn't explain at all why he's rejecting the feature request. I would have preferred "Low priority - we simply don't have the time."
Start counting how often someone uses the word as a way to avoid explaining him/herself.
Then you are an introvert. They are talking about most situations, if there are some cliques you feel comfortable around then you are still an introvert.
Extroverts has a small set of situations where they get drained instead. It isn't like anyone loves all human contact, its just some have an issue with most contact and others like it most of the time.
And then, surprise, being forced to do things you don't enjoy is draining. Especially when it involves long periods of politely choosing your words and facial expressions to pretend you're not bored/frustrated.
The only thing that makes an "introvert" is when the genre of person they mesh with happens to be more numerically rare. There is a ton of variety in humans. It doesn't mean anything significant that your "group" is small.
There's not a single mention of ADHD or autism in here. My own understanding of this has evolved over the years.
The first stage is to understand introversion / extroversion as simply to not like / like socializing, people, large groups or whatever. This is a shallow and pretty inaccurate understanding, one many people such as myself chafe against. I consider myself an introvert but like certain social activities so these labels never seem to quite fit.
The next stage is the "social battery" understanding of introversion / extroversion. That is, social activities will either drain or charge your "social battery".
After this you start to ask questions like "why does X drain my social battery?" and "what does draining a social battery really mean?" and you start to realize you're still describing symptoms, not causes.
The key insight is that something drains your social battery because you're masking [1]. So-called extroverts don't need to mask. So-called introverts do.
Yes, you can get better at following social norms and develop coping strategies for large groups, socializing with strangers, etc but all you're really doing is getting better at masking. That can be useful because it can change how other people respond to you but it's a bit like telling a depressed person to "just smile".
[1]: https://www.autism.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/topics/behavio...
Part of dealing with discomfort is learning what your limits are. No one should put themselves in a situation with you have a breakdown. I find that a small amount of stress in my life is good and results in growth. But a huge amount is overwhelming which leads to burnout.
My father in law seems unable to sit queitly in group settings. He performs too much small talk in my opinion. And it seems merely to fill the silence since they are often the same questions day in and day out. Either his memory is very bad, or he's not actually listening, just wanting to make noise. I've given up wasting my breath (re)answering the same questions. It seems he doesn't truly care about what others think, say, or feel... otherwise he might work on committing answers to memory. And even when folks start talking, he interrupts a lot... I truly hope it's not poor memory.
Like let's put this in context: replace "being an introvert" for "your friend flies you out to the forest, and then happily announces we're going to be hiking 20 km back to town. You really need to challenge yourself!"
Huh? What a strange thing to say. Yeah, sure, you can't have that right exactly, simply because life is too unpredictable and from time to time stressors will come up, but surely someone has the right to build for themselves the conditions that minimize their stress and discomfort. Not wanting to be purposefully stressed and discomforted by others seems perfectly reasonable.
>The danger to never feeling challenged is that you don't grow. You get stuck in a rut and everyone passes you by.
Perhaps, but surely the choice of whether to live like that is the prerogative of each person.
For example - I hate the modern office workplace 9-5 in-office bullshit. I know exactly what I want. I don't need to "grow" any more in this area. Can I do 9-5 in an office? Yes - but I fucking hate it and no amount of growth will change that. Why should I be forced to come into an office, for a job I do better at home, because Bob from management needs to be around people? I say to this - fuck Bob, Bob can go shit bricks.
Another example - I am very comfortable with living without any social media, or a smart phone, or a Tv, all at the same time. But, you don't see me going around forcing people into this way of being, and then when they find it horrible/stressful/uncomfortable saying "well maybe we are creating a society where everyone feels they have the right to not feeling stressed and uncomfortable, fuck your tv"
Instead - We are creating a society of non-thinkers, conformists, average-results-for-all, and dumb opinions like "well, I can deal with it - why can't you? Are you lazy/introverted/mentally-handicapped?"
I think challenging yourself is great, FOR SHIT THAT MATTERS. And only you can dictate what matters, fuck Bob or anyone else that tries to impose "what matters" on you.
The problem is, your statement sounds generalised to "challenge yourself in everything". I don't care for that, I care about challenging myself in a select few things of my choosing, I am my own man. I forge my destiny, I plow my path where I want to, not where society or Bob tells me.
------
And you know what the result will be for Bob and I?
Bob will not really grow as a person at all, his life will be all soft smoothed edges, not unique in any sense. Bob will be the same as everyone else with slight variations here and there, Bob will be boring, and at the end of Bobs life, on his deathbed he will say, "well, at least I didn't rock the boat!"
I, and others like me, will grow, in a unique sense, jagged edges, sharp incline and deep depressions. I will say when I die "I wish I leant even more into rocking the boat, capsizing it, just to see what would happen"
This is a grass is always greener take, and definitely not true.
"because our modern Western society values extraversion more"
Everybody throughout humanity has valued extraversion more. This isn't something new. Humans are social creatures and people that are more social will be more successful at life. This will never change.
"introverts are bad and need to grow up"
This isn't necessarily the case. However, introverts need to figure out how to navigate the world, even when they aren't interested in socializing.
I've worked with lots of introverts (I am a mix of both introvert and extrovert) in tech and it usually goes along with passive aggressive behavior (because introverts usually don't like confrontation) and other behavior that makes collaboration (which is needed in almost all business settings) a nightmare.
I could just as well say that extraversion goes along with overly assertive and aggressive behaviour and other behaviour that makes collaboration a nightmare - such as refusing to write documentation or write proper tickets because "we can have a meeting instead". But I don't - because everyone is different and you can't just generalise like that. Being an introvert doesn't mean you're bad at communication or avoid confrontation.
I don't really see this very often. If someone isn't writing documentation or writing proper tickets, I don't think it has anything to do with being an extrovert/introvert.
"because everyone is different and you can't just generalise like that. Being an introvert doesn't mean you're bad at communication or avoid confrontation"
I've worked with lots of introverts over the years and although you may see it as a generalization, it's just my experience. In another way, you could call it my truth.
Also how do you reconcile what you're writing here with what you wrote less than a month ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42341572 ?
Eg the terms "red" and "green" have largely converged on specific, useful meanings over time. Even more abstract words like "freedom" have mostly clear definitions (although definitely also have variance!). Introvert/extrovert I would argue have a LOT of variance in meaning when people use the words. And if people using the words can't agree on what they're actually communicating about, that might suggest that other or new concepts/words might be more useful.
Print out some rainbow and ask people to draw the line between "red" and "not-red". That would prove that convergence didn't happen and would nicely show why it probably never will.
In fact, I think it would be very hard to construct an experiment where people did not use the term red in a consistent fashion.
I agree with you that formal definitions of words come after the fact. But meaning of words are always present; everyone who uses a word uses it with some understanding if its meaning, that they want to convey. And as words converge on a shared meaning, they become effective for communicating meanings. I'm arguing introvert/extrovert have been around for a long time, and have not converged on a consistent meaning. The terms have too much variance in meaning to be useful at communicating. One person uses the word and means something very different from when someone else uses the word. In 20 years time this variance will likely still be a problem. If the definition of a word shifts over time, that's ok as long as the variance remains low; it just means it has a new definition. But if the variance is high, it means the word isn't very useful/effective for communication.
Although I will note there is always some variance, the issue happens when it's too great, and some people's definition of a word is barely even overlapping with another person's definition of a word.
A definition is something that would be in a dictionary book.
Your definition, is "the meaning of a word as specified in a dictionary".
There's definitely variance between these two definitions, but I think it's a small variance, and we can largely still understand each other despite the variance. I would say that word has converged on a meaning. We could, if we decided it was necessary, create separate words, one to mean an exact definition as defined by an authoritative source, and one to mean how every individual defines a word. But English society has decided that distinction isn't worth creating a new word at this time.
My argument is that introvert/extrovert have much more variance. When some people use the term, they use it to describe a behaviour, a temporary state, a constant personality trait, a spectrum, two perpendicular dimensions, a label on a loose set of behaviours, social skills, energy levels -- it's got so many facets! And dictionaries follow human usage -- so how is a dictionary supposed to pin this down to one or two concise definitions? That's my argument for why the terms are too variant to be exceptionally useful/meaningful.
I've identified an issue with my car's starter and my mechanic, in his wisdom, tells me that cars in general do that sometimes. It's perhaps a cruel irony in a discussion about usefulness.
As if people who the author accuses of this sin have the same definition of, or feel the same about "growing" as the author...
Step 1. Regularly talk to strangers. Most easily it can be done at public transport or at a shop. Start with places where you are waiting for a short time. Just ask a silly question or say something about the weather.
Step 2 speak up in small groups. Just say something funny in between. Or ask a really curious question about what someone is saying.
Step 3 take the lead in organizing a Teams call that anyways need scheduling. Be the MC or host. Just state what the meeting is about, what is to be accomplished and listen and note some things for in the summary.
Step 4 do a talk in front of an audience. That will need some prep and some rehearsal, this one is quite difficult for myself as well.
Everyting worth the effort, takes effort.
Being an introvert is not the same as being shy, and it is long past time that people stop conflating the two concepts
You cannot "fix" being an introvert by practicing being social
I read GPs advice as “go to the social gym.” For some people the gym ends up feeling good, others will hate it no matter what, but the advice is sound regardless.
What do you think though?
Introvert == social situations are strenuous
Exhaustion for me is often a key component in anything I do. The friends that do find social interaction exhaustion and can't overcome it, I end up seeing once a year, and that seems to be ok with them, but if they were hoping for more, they need to practice being exhausted.
Lastly, if you're not practicing the exhausting things, you're practicing the comfortable things, imho. It seems more true in more cases that people aren't willing to do anything that exhausts them, so they never walk far, they never go to the gym, they get fat and isolate themselves socially... until they realize that they've suddenly become squishy, dull, and lonely, then look for a quick fix that doesn't cost them anything, and maybe post to Reddit "Any friends out there? I'm an avid reader and single player video gamer that will sometimes come out for 30 min if it doesn't conflict with my nightly 5 hour solo stationary leisure time. We could start a group chat!". There's nothing inherently wrong with that, it doesn't need to be fixed, but it services what it services and it's worh thinking deeply about whether that is or isn't worth practicing.
I'm inherently all of those things. After 20 years in consulting though, including dedicated training and experience, nobody believes me anymore - I've built strong social skills and come off cheerfully comfortable at work and random social situations. I've been formally mentoring people emotional intelligence and soft skills for at least 6-8 years.
But they are exhausting, even those that have become second nature / automatic. And that issue is not becoming lesser with age or skills or experience. And the more people in a group, the more exponentially exhausting every experience is :-/
is it plausible that your feels are not as closely related to you being introvert and just nature of the career itself?
Some people misinterpret that as not enjoying hanging out with people but that's not it. It's more like, hanging our with people is as physical of an activity for me as biking or swimming or rock climbing. I love it... But I get tired eventually :-)
(analogy breaks down quickly tough - per another thread here though, unlike the physical activities here,I haven't really been able to increase my "social stamina". Social skills, hugely! Social stamina, not really)
I totally understand even though I don’t actually understand (if that makes any sense :) )
As an introvert, talking to strangers is in my comfort zone. Being an introvert has nothing to do with whether I'm able to talk to strangers.
As an introvert, speaking up in small groups isn't a problem. I do it all the time when I feel like it or when I feel it's necessary. Again, what does being an introvert have to do with this?
As an introvert, I regularly find myself leasing things because other people don't want to step up. This has nothing to do with introversion/extraversion.
As an introvert, I do talks in front of an audience. Not a problem.
Learning all this was valuable, but none of it solved my introversion. Because it's not something that can or needs to be fixed.
What it did fix was my shyness, lack of confidence and insecurity around other people. But I'm still introverted because it still requires me to exert a lot of energy, which can only be regained if I'm alone.
Even though getting downvotes, there's a lot to learn on HN, even about myself!
It’s good exercise to pretend to be outgoing and chatty for an evening. Like any other skill, you get better at it with practice! And the author here is so right: almost everyone else at these things besides the salespeople are probably also introverts. I can promise you that you won’t be the only one there. I never am.
It's certainly an art and a science to be a good conversationalist, but being in that certain state of mind is "a lot %" of what's needed, and it actually takes no energy or comfort - although as other state, natural introverts enjoy this state for a certain amount of time. It can also take a lot to "get there", though.
Introvert/extrovert is the method that people use to recharge their energy. It has nothing to do with social ability despite the terms getting hijacked for that.
Signed, an extremely introverted person who talks and interacts a lot in social situations.
The parent post is correct: extroversion and introversion is about how you feel being in groups, not how you act.
Your mileage may vary but it certainly takes energy to maintain a state of mind which doesn't come naturally to you. This is bound to affect your comfort eventually. Since there are degrees of intro/extroversion, it may be easier for some people to will themselves across that divide.
It's like floating on water. Some do it naturally, effortlessly, they even rest and relax while doing it. Others have to flail around under the surface to do it, putting in effort and consuming energy.
I often describe this concept to people as a social "battery"; I need time to charge it (almost) every day in order to have anything to spend the next day, but it also can ruin the capacity if I charge it for too long while it's at max. Figuring out the right balance is key, especially when other circumstances can affect how much energy it feels like is expended by socializing (e.g. ambient stress level from other parts of my life.
just like exercise, i dont push it too far. ill take a break. ill excuse myself and say, "i need to cool off" then go outside for a minute. most people seem to get it.
maybe the nature of the people i hang out with, but the salespeople type stand out sore-thumb-style and their compliments and shallow conversation often come across as awkward compared to the genuine interest in listening and sharing what we have learned in work or personal life.
If you only socialize with people you don't like because you are "forced"/"pressured" to, you aren't going to have a good time.
Socializing is supposed to be fun, if you turn it into a job you hate, you aren't going to get the benefits of being social
Not everything in life is about "having fun". Pushing yourself beyond your own comfort zone, or being pushed, is by definition not going to be enjoyable in some superficial sense, but it's the only way you'll ever actually engage with anything new or unfamiliar and grow.
Nobody who is grossly out of shape enjoys showing up at the gym the first time, but even though they don't enjoy it, it will benefit them all the same and eventually they may very well come to like it. It's the same with education, decades of trying to make education "fun" have resulted in large amounts of people being unable to absorb anything that isn't in some trivial sense gratifying.
It's perfectly A-OK not to like going to social outings with others. But until you've tried it, you don't actually know whether you like it or not.
Of course not. However i would put recreational activities squarely in the "having fun" category.
However being social and not being lonely is not the same thing.
If I meet someone genuine I will engage with them, otherwise I much rather to keep to my own devices..
Side note: I'm not sure what you mean by a "fake" social gathering. But for me, I've been taking part in a debate society, and some French meetups lately to socialise more, and I've loved it. Everyone is genuine in that they're there for a specific shared interest. And I've found that my thoughts/ideas are greatly improved from the ability to debate with others. Sometimes I'll realise I have a huge blind spot, and need to reject an idea. Sometimes I'll realise my idea had a short coming and that it needs to be adapted. Either way it just improves my thinking.
Reduces mortality, increases happiness, cardiovascular health, etc.
I’m not doing this for work. I do it for me.
Relationship building in sales, like all skills, can be learned, even if it's draining.
Johnny Carson was an introvert. [0]
If he could be a professional-calibre conversationalist, then I refuse to believe most introverted people can't at least reach the passable cocktail party level.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Carson#Personal_life
I have to keep my worksona turned on 40+ hours per week already, please no more…
This is a low effort take that depends on the ambiguity of language to sound true.
"Drain" for the author apparently means literally using up a finite amount of human energy, concentration, and willpower. That's a truism.
"Drain" for an introvert can mean anything from starting a muscle tension clock that will eventually cause a headache to a straight-up panic attack that could take hours/days to recover from.
It's probably even worse for young people who are introverts and haven't been taught how to say no or set boundaries. (I remember explaining to some college-age people that saying no is a skill, and they looked at me like I had just revealed to them that, with enough practice, humans can actually fly.)
Unless you are being hyperbolic with your usage of the word "panic attack", having one during social events is not "being an introvert," it's a medical condition.
I am an introvert and have also had unrelated panic attacks. Panic attacks effectively paralyze you, you feel a deep and uncontrollable sense of doom, often accompanied by palpitations. Sometimes you feel like you can't breathe.
If caused by social interaction, that's not a normal thing to experience, even for introverts. That is in the territory of actual medical issues: panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, etc.
What do you want these people to do, since they aren’t allowed to respond how they might do? When and where are they welcome in society?
I don’t think this describes “a panic attack”. I think “completely overwhelmed” is a real thing to be accommodated and is separate from a social anxiety triggered panic attack
I can't anticipate and make every argument, despite everyone on the internet trying.
It's a disability, but I sorta reject the framing that I'm "not normal". Mostly because it feels a bit more culturally loaded? I can't articulate it effectively, but like, what I experience may actually be extremely normal ... for folks with autism. So, maybe "not neurotypical", maybe?
For more than a few of my friends, assertiveness and confrontation are incredibly unnatural and stressful for them. For some people saying no and setting boundaries isn't easy for them to learn: I'm not sure I've ever seen it taught. One socially skilled friend got a swor serious panic attack from having to try and be assertive.
You are implicitly accepting people can be introverted, but imply that people can just learn to say no.
I have seen this play out time and time again at nearly every company I've worked at and even every team I've TL'd.
I used to be a "proud introvert" myself. The "proud introverts" often feel wronged in these situations, struggling to understand that communication is just as valid and critical of a skill as writing code.
Accepting that I didn't need to make "being an introvert" my identity, and learning how to communicate, skyrocketed my career.
This is completely wrong-headed on the part of the host of this gathering. The correct move is "Hey, man, it looks like you don't have a lot of connections in this room. Let me introduce you to a friend of mine... [Friend], this is Aditya. [Say something interesting about Aditya to justify Friend's attention.] You two have [X] in common. Aditya, I have known Friend for [Y] years. Ask him about [Z]. etc." The host mediates the introduction for a respectful amount of time, and then walks away.
That is the function and, truthfully, the responsibility, of a host at a gathering where not everybody knows everybody.
Whereas, some people would find it impertinent for a stranger to barge in on a conversation and introduce themselves as if they were important enough to deserve attention. Maybe they are, but they may be supposed to let somebody else do that for them. And likewise, many people feel slimy going around putting on an air of self-importance. It is hardly fair to characterize this kind of sensibility as "pride" or a feeling of "disgust" toward other guests.
Read some Jane Austen for more.
"Psst, there's a quiet room with a coffee maker if you're feeling exhausted or overwhelmed. Want me to show you the way?" and then not another word.
If I'm overwhelmed at a social event, I need at least half an hour of quiet time. Putting me on the spot at all just makes things worse.
(And if I'm not overwhelmed, I know how to play the part for at most 3 hours in a day, so you probably won't notice.)
The truth (for me at least) is that whether I'm comfortable and energized by others depends on my level of comfort with the people, my familiarity with the situation, my mood, the general vibe, etc.
"Being" one or the other feels like a limiting belief that we can hide behind if we're not aware of what it's doing to us.