Hacker News Reader

I gave you an updoot because I am exactly like you.

We, are introverts.

Introverts can function in the real world, but only for short bursts at a time. We can make friends, go to parties, even be the life and soul of a party - but only for short bursts at a time, then you'll usually find us chilling out somewhere quiet, recharging our metaphorical batteries.

A lot of people confuse introversy with being shy or timid or other negative connotations, and they'd be incorrect.

There are many good articles on what being an introvert is and means. For example https://introvertspring.com/what-is-an-introvert/

That may be more than just being an introvert, though. "Introverts" should take a look at the Attachment theory [1] for maybe, a bigger picture.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_in_adults

Please just no, don’t put that kind of psychological illness label on introvert people.

People are quite able to differentiate if they’re fearful if they’re under people or just exhausted.

Is "introvert" a protected status, a badge of honor? Besides, the article doesn't describe any particular "illness".

> Is "introvert" a protected status, a badge of honor?

I’ve no clue what you’re talking.

> Besides, the article doesn't describe any particular "illness".

Calling it illness might not have been the right term, but at least it’s some kind of personal development which has gone a bit into the wrong direction. And if that’s the reason why an introvert person isn’t going more out, isn’t going to meet more people, then there’s something wrong with the introvert person and perhaps this should then be changed with additional personal development, perhaps some kind of therapy.

If that’s not what you meant, then fine, otherwise that’s the reason why I’m a bit upset, because it puts introvert people into a light of wrongness, that something has to be changed in them.

Nothing at all in the comment you replied to seems to imply not feeling perfectly happy and secure with people, so I'm unsure why you think that is relevant.

> We, are introverts.

You might be, but that's not the reason why real relationships "drain [you] of energy".

> The relationships you don't consider real often makes me happier. They're as meaningful to me as face to face relationships, but a lot less exhausting.

That's more than just being introverted.

What's with those general statements that don't bring any new information? I can't downvote you but if you have constructive feedback please provide it. Don't just write "no, you are wrong" or "there's more to it" statements without any explanation.

Many people say (even just in these comments) that they're introverted but real life relationships are very valuable to them. So either all those people are wrong about being introverts ("no true introvert"), or perhaps those people that are introverted and don't value real life relationships or even see them as a "cost center" are more than just introverted.

That's not a value judgement, btw.

Being introverted and "not valuing" real life relationships are orthogonal things. I can value some real life relationships, but for the most part it's not that I don't value them as much as that I don't value them more than "virtual" relationships for the most part, and they're less draining because it's easier to pace them and shut it out when it's too much.

I mostly agree except that around very close friends you should not be spending energy and instead recharging. For years I mistook my lack of « physical » energy to go out instead of staying cozy at home for introversion, but that’s not the same thing. If you have balance in your life good but be careful of loneliness, we are social beings, even introverts.

> I mostly agree except that around very close friends you should not be spending energy and instead recharging.

That’s certainly not the case for myself. If I’m exhausted I need to be completely alone to recharge. Yes, being with close friends is a lot less taxing, but it still is not the same as recharging,

I never recharge around people, other than perhaps a romantic partner and even then only when she respects my need for quiet time and solitude on a regular basis. E.g. I can be ok if people are physically present around me, but I need quiet and not having to interact at times. Some people can do that, many people just can't. People talk, and usually require attention even when they don't explicitly verbalize it. I can be happy to be silent for hours on end, which tends to drive people crazy and think I'm upset or angry when I'm just enjoying the quiet.

I think you're making assumptions based on yourself and extrapolating. I don't really spend time around "very close friends". My closest friends are people I haven't seen for years, and I'm fine with that. It's not that I wouldn't enjoy spending time with them, because I do, and there are people I spend time thinking about regularly, but I just don't feel a need to go out of my way to see them - when it happens, it happens. And I'll need time to recharge afterwards, but that's ok.

> If you have balance in your life good but be careful of loneliness, we are social beings, even introverts.

While this is pretty much a truism, I think it exaggerates through omission. Yes, we should be wary of being lonely, and yes, we're all social beings, but that does not mean we have need for the same volume of social contact. I haven't felt lonely for decades, even when alone for extended periods of time. I don't see why I would - I don't know what it is like for someone to feel that kind of need for social contact. Again, it doesn't mean I don't like social contact now and again, but it takes very little of it to keep me happy and content.

I'm just like you. It's not that I don't like other people or hate them (that would be too draining anyways).

I have ADD and interacting with people is draining... I have to focus on the conversation and most people don't understand that sometimes they say something that gets my imagination going, which makes me lose my focus so I miss some parts of what they say. Until I notice it and zoom in on the conversation again. Which in turn makes me sometimes miss some crucial points. Even when they know I have ADD it still might upset them, even though I do my best. And that is just one example of what makes it hard for me to interact face to face. I prefer writing.

At my worst I even forget what I wanted to say mid sentence! Or I have to blurt it out and interrupt people...

I can relate to this somewhat, but was anyone saying things like this before the internet? What would someone 30 years ago think about this position. It strikes me as internet enabled behaviour. Canaries in the mine as it were - the first tranche of people to fall out of the natural social order.

Before the Internet, you had BBSes. And hundreds of years before the BBSes, people carried out intense friendships via pen and ink.

I'm not sure that you disagree with parent. Parent is saying that these online relationships are not replacements for "real" relationships. I don't think you're advocating replacing "real" relationships with online relationships. If you were, then online relationships would be better for you, or more important to you, then that of your partner and son. You seem to say that it's still important for you to be "real" with your partner and son, and so I think you still identify with the need for "real" relationships. You just don't need it at the same volume/quantity as more extroverted people. Otherwise, the implication is that you would prefer online relationships over that with your partner and son, and you see your partner and son as simply obligations to which you do not wish to abdicate responsibility, presumably due to societal norms or something else.

Or is that in fact what you are saying? I suppose there are alternative explanations I haven't thought of either.

> I don't think you're advocating replacing "real" relationships with online relationships. If you were, then online relationships would be better for you, or more important to you, then that of your partner and son.

I'm saying it really doesn't matter to me if a relationship is "real" or online most of the time. All else being equal, it doesn't make much difference. But all else is rarely equal. I can't choose to have an online-only relationship with my son. And I do enjoy time face-to-face too, it just isn't sufficiently important enough to me that I tend to seek it out for my own sake very often. Sometimes - variety is good - but not often.

Before my son came about, I didn't feel a lack of anything when I was single and childless. I remember a year I spent my summer vacation holed up in my flat coding only going out to go to the shop where my interactions with staff was pretty much single words. That was the entirety of my "real" social contact for three weeks.

I remember that vacation fondly.

I also remember vacations that brought more social contact fondly.

The point being I can be happy with people in real life, but I can also be just as happy keeping things entirely online. I don't need that real-life interaction. Sometimes that real-life interaction is nice or even great, but that is different (online interactions can be equally great). And since those real-life interactions tends to be more draining, I prioritize them only with a very few people.

> Otherwise, the implication is that you would prefer online relationships over that with your partner and son, and you see your partner and son as simply obligations to which you do not wish to abdicate responsibility, presumably due to societal norms or something else.

You're conflating my general needs with what it takes to maintain specific relationships.

That I don't need to see people in real life to be happy, doesn't mean I don't realize that others do, and since I can be happy seeing people as much as I can be happy just talking to them online, I certainly will make time for people in real life when they are sufficiently important to me and I know it makes them happy. That's not out of obligation, but because I care about them, and I accept that not everyone can make do with as little social contact.

But it is still draining, and I still need time to recharge. Even with my son. It's worth it because it matters to him and I love him and want him to happy, just as you'll do all kinds of other things that you yourself don't need if it matters to those you love.

At the same time there are people I also care about that I have never seen face to face, or haven't seen in many years, but where I don't feel that face time with me is necessary for their happiness (the wording is deliberate - I'm not saying they wouldn't be happy to see me), and so it's not a priority for me to ensure we meet face to face unless they make it clear it matters to them even though I do care how they're doing.

> not because it isn't right for some people but because it is generalising your experiences into assumptions about what is 'real' and what works for other people that does not match my experience at all.

This is the vast majority of the comments on 'hacker' 'news', including your own here.

> Not everyone is like you.

Non everyone is like you either. That's the problem with a social media site like this one where anectdata is king.

I find this curious. I made no claim that my statements generalize to everyone. I gave an example of how it doesn't generalize the other way.

I did not question that things aren't that way for the person I responded to, which necessarily suggests I accept entirely that not everyone is like me.

I also explicitly said as much in my comment in the very first line by explicitly stating that I don't suggest their statements may be right for some people.

If anything, I expect from experience that I'm in a relatively small minority.

Somehow I think dang's comment the other day[1] somehow relates to this conversation too along the lines of projecting and assuming things.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19994991