Hacker News Reader

Comment by vinceguidry | Hacker News Reader

Historically, the ability to spend time alone with one's thoughts has always been a luxury, available only to those with the means to own or rent their own living space. Everyone else in the world dealt with highly-communal living spaces where you didn't have any choice but to socialize with virtually 100% of your non-sleeping time.

You simply didn't have an option to develop introversion unless you were extremely lucky.

View on HN

Maybe in cities, in rural areas it's pretty fucking easy to end up alone for a while, even in the middle ages or antiquity.

Actually, it's probably easier to be alone in a city, depending on your definition of what being alone means. It's in the small towns where you can't take a walk without being harassed by one of your obnoxious neighbors because everyone knows everybody else. In a large city, you do not know most of its inhabitants and most inhabitants don't know you, and everyone minds their own business. And unlike rural areas, you've still got the social presence without the unwanted social engagement.

It depends on what your preferential definition of "alone" is. For some it's environmental quiet, for some it's freedom from personal attention as you mention. But still, in a denser place there's a ton more non-human factors (like advertising) battling to inject themselves into your attention.

See Henry David Thoraeu for ref.

Not really. He was rather active in his community.

> The premise of Walden—a man adventuring in a hut he builds for himself near a lake—seems like the ultimate boy ’s fantasy, and the convenient proximity of Thoreau’s cabin to friends and neighbors can remind one, a bit wryly, of a child pitching a tent in his parents’ backyard.

https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2012/septemberoctober/feature...

Yeah Ed Abbeys probably a better example.

not to mention he had his mom who lived nearby do his laundry

You've made a great point easily dismissible with the word "fucking". (Sorry for being annoying but it's a key point I wished I learned when younger.)

Profane words cannot possibly invalidate a point by themselves. I personally don't mind swearing, unless it is used in a context to offend someone/something (which can always still be done with an alternative, "safer" selection of words).

While that is true, it was the most efficient way to state that while putting emphasis on how easy it was. "Freaking" or some other substitute for the word "fucking" is the next easiest. Simply leaving out the word completely changes the meaning a little.

I'll eat the downvotes without caring, in case it makes one person think, because it's the advice I needed 10 years ago to be a more effective communicator, which I didn't take.

Consider "In rural areas, which reflect the dominant lifestyle of human beings for 10,000 years, it was common to have many hours alone to think while performing labour. Hence it's obviously not a privileged mode of thought."

While you've made a cogent point, brevity is often your friend when it comes to communication. Becoming a more effective communicator is the ability to say more with less. Not say the same amount with more.

That's a fine wording if the setting calls for such a tone, but is it not the same tone as the original. Your sentence is too formal for many settings. Occasionally, it would be correct for HN, but HN trends towards a more informal yet educated tone. Used in the wrong setting, it just seems at best wordy or at worst like you are trying to prove you are smarter than the other.

It is difficult to replace such an intensifier as "fucking" without simply using a common replacement (bloody, for example). The most neutral I could come up with is something akin to "counfoudedly", and naturally one would do away with the word "very". Another simply worded option would be to repeat the word "very" once or twice more. I'm more likely to use the latter in some spheres online or with my mother or in an English speaking workplace, especially in the US. (Norwegians seem a bit freer with expletives, especially the English word "fuck").

Just my opinion, but the original sentence containing the vulgarity is more clear and concise. It feels more human because that's how lots of people talk when they are in an informal setting (which an internet message board certainly is).

Well, you could just replace "pretty fucking easy" with "very easy", and then you'd have even more brevity and the same clarity, but without the extra distraction.

If you use expletives all the time, they lose their value, which is the ability to make a very strong point, such as expressing utter disgust.

Also, HN tries to be more than just your average internet message board, and making it just a little less informal may be what helps keep it a generally civil place. Our comments are going out to the whole world here, not just to a small group of our friends who have similar backgrounds and preferences.

It's much more concise, and much less persuasive to someone entering the discussion with preconceptions.

I try to not judge an argument by it's language. It feels close to ad hominem reasoning to me.

That was my argument ten years ago. I'm just challenging people to think of communication primarily in terms of how an aggregate of how hundreds or thousands of people will perceive it, because this was a key that led to me being much better at making my points and getting what I want. Letting go my ego that it violates a core value of being true to myself.

In other contexts I just want to fucking vent about some stupid shit that dumb people say. But I'd suggest this site isn't the best place for that, and I wouldn't expect such a tone to help people consider my point of view more carefully.

Huh? There are still plenty of hunter gatherers around that don't hunt or gather shoulder to shoulder and neither do farmers or shepherds. Communal living did not mean spending all your time in company of others.

If you weren't, you generally were working. A lot of that was accomplished with others too.

All I'm saying is, that the things introverts take for granted today, like the ability to opt out of social hierarchy, was not available to most people throughout history.

I don't really see why you couldn't walk away for some period of time, and something tells me plenty of people did. Not to mention, we don't know that much about those time periods in general, so this seems like an odd statement to make.

"Well, it was a lot worse before, so you should be happy!" is a terrible message on multiple levels.

Last week a documentary aired about our (Belgian) National Rail Service. They interviewed the "punctuality manager" and he was kind of angry about how all personnel wants fancy IT infrastructure and better tablets and integrated systems that communicate quickly and smart. He was angry because when he started working carbon paper had just been invented and how much harder his job was back then.

I thought dinosaurs were extinct but that guy proved me wrong.

> "Well, it was a lot worse before, so you should be happy!" is a terrible message on multiple levels.

That wasn't my intent at all, rather to add weight to the thesis of the article. Aloneness is something humans naturally seek out, not something to fear.

I am guessing you are not an introvert yourself.

We certainly cannot opt out of social hierarchy and being one does not mean I want to be alone every waking moment. It does mean however that I like and need to be alone some of the time (alone, not idle).

I happen to like being idle some of the time too, because I think it makes me more creative in the long run, but I don't actually need it otherwise.

For the past 2k to 4k years maybe. Before, it was very easy to spend time alone. Walk 10 minutes away from your tribe and bam - you're all alone.

Make a habit of doing it for very long periods of time and it affects your social situation.

Think back to high school. Sure, you could go off and study by yourself if you want. But the ambient social situations around you can't be banished for long.

That reminds me of my experience, haha—

I spent a lot of spare periods buried in mid-20th century Canadian and American literature and would often isolate myself in the cafeteria to read since a lot of classes would occupy the library during regular periods.

The school's resident radio DJ-hopeful (and a swell guy) would hop up on the table in a reclined pose, head-on-hand, and ask me why I was sad.

Not sad, just reading. It was surprisingly hard to communicate that to some people. And I was one of the AV/creative guys producing the in-school TV show!

Yeah, the "you're being quiet, you must be sad!" thing is awful. No, I'm really just enjoying myself, alone.

Ahhh.... stop bringing relevant context to everything.

I wanted to just use this article (without reading it) to explain to my wife and kids why I need a few hours of alone time on Saturday.

My desire of being alone most of the time is what has made me avoid marriage. But if I continue down this path, I'm sure that in my old age I'll regret it and long for company. I don't know whether to favor the present or the future.

i'm sure you have at least a few counterparts among whatever gender you find attractive. no need to rule it out altogether.

Unless, of course, one were to go for a walk, or go outside.

I don't think this is a true statement. Children can be pretty vocal about their needs. I grew up as an introverted child and refused to go to relatives/gatherings etc. whenever I didn't want to. My parents understood early on and gave me space.

I am pretty sure other kids have done this as well in at least the recent human history.

You dont develop introversion, you have it or you dont.

There is a high correlation between high IQ and introversion. I don't actually believe most high IQ people are innately introverted. I think many of them become introverted due to being treated poorly by most social groups they encounter.

On one gifted list years ago, someone anecdotally reported being very extroverted and becoming introverted over the course of a year of severe bullying during middle school.

One of my sons is borderline between introversion and extroversion. He was an attention monger as a toddler, but became more introverted after starting school. He didn't like the weird, problematic attention he was getting at school for being more sociable and intentionally chose to disengage.

I'm highly social in nature, but my values are the opposite of what people think that means. So I never taught my kids they were required to be crowd pleasers. So he felt quite free to choose.

He is very talkative with me and his brother in private and I get reports that he is pretty popular in forums where he participates, which I have seen firsthand in the past. But most mere acquaintances describe him as quiet and shy and are quick to conclude he is ASD, which is probably true, though he has no formal diagnosis. But he turns it on and off at will according to what makes sense to him.

I am quite skeptical that introversion and extroversion are something you are simply born with.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case. My experiences with the subject are very mixed and weird. I generally call myself an introvert because I can be by myself for weeks without being too bothered by it. But I also really enjoy spending time with people, as long as they're the right kind of people. But those people are hard to find, and mentioning this on its own tends to bring ire...

If I don't want to meet with someone, there's often a very distinct draggy feeling as if meeting them is associated with something unpleasant.

Yes. I was there for the founding of a list for the "extra" gifted and trying to get people to talk was quite the challenge. Everyone was apologetic, embarrassed, uncomfortably aware that just joining the list was a form of bragging, etc.

I was the lead moderator and I think I ultimately led by example because this was a support group. So I just leaned heavily on "We all have terrible baggage over this and we all have our war stories." and I think I got people talking about that stuff and people eventually opened up.

But I never had to work so very hard at getting people to talk. I am just a magnet for total strangers wanting to overshare like I am their new BFF and I actually have worked at trying to tone it down and discourage such. So it really stood out to me as a stark contrast to my usual experiences. I have moderated lists where people became so chatty that people complained of the excess chatter because just getting people to spill the beans by existing seems to be my peculiarity.*

* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Peregrine's_Home_for_Pe...

I think that question is far from settled.

Also, it is a characteristic of your personality you can take action to change, if you desire to.

Monks

Reply on news.ycombinator.com