When Introverts Act Like Extraverts (and Vice Versa) | Hacker News Reader

When Introverts Act Like Extraverts (and Vice Versa)

learningandthebrain.com

85 pointslaurex51 comments

One thing I don't see mentioned very much is that introversion/extroversion is a very different axis from shyness/outgoingness. I feel like these two axes get conflated really often (like in this article) but they really are two different things. I'm an introvert, I get energy being alone, but when I need to I can be very outgoing and make small talk and all of the things that introverts supposedly hate. I just need time to recharge by myself afterwards. On the other hand I've had friends that got energy from others but tended to be a wallflower (for lack of a better term) when they were around others. I hope people recognize it's more subtle of a distinction than just introvert/extrovert and don't let their self chosen label define them.

I wasn't aware of and failed to draw this distinction until I read Quiet Power by Susan Cain. A wonderful book for anyone interested that really helped me understand that introversion is not inherently undesirable, but also how to distinguish shyness to avoid falling into that trap, as this can be undesirable.

Yep. I was introduced to this two-axis model several years ago, and it's been very helpful for me to understand my own personality and energy flow.

> I just need time to recharge by myself afterwards

Yes!

The way I've started explaining this to people is it's like going to the gym: I like going to the gym. I make sure to go to the gym regularly. But I can't spend all day at the gym, and if I spend many hours at the gym I'm going to be very sore and tired and need a day or two off.

Good analogy, and I find it slightly ironic, because the introvert will go to the gym, focus for an hour, and be tired out, while the extrovert will go to the gym, talk to people half the time, and not put in nearly as heavy a workout...

This is also a big area where I think there may genuinely be discrimination in the workplace. Employers try to conflate introversion with shyness because they can more easily defend the idea that outgoing behavior is required for adequate performance of a role. If they can systematically avoid hiring introverted people because “they’re shy” then they are less likely to be forced to make workplace concessions that allow introverts the mental bandwidth needed to recharge and engage in outgoing behavior (which they may be quite good at).

For example, I think this is a major contributor to the perpetuation of open-plan office layouts, which are quite actively harmful to introverts.

To be fair, there are certain roles for which extroversion actually is beneficial. Specifically, sales. The ability to be always on is definitely an asset to a sales executive.

Also, I don’t think this has anything to do with open-office layouts. There’s a much, much simpler reason for that: it’s way cheaper. Having individual (or shared) offices costs way more - you need doors, lots of walls, lots of construction, etc. for an open office space? All you need is tables, chairs, and headphones. Way cheaper. Maybe not more productive (there are arguments to be made in either direction here, though I suspect I know which direction your argument will take), but definitely much cheaper.

A this point I’d love to go back to proper cubicles, with 5 ft high walls.

But even those are expensive. I wonder if there are ways to lower the costs.

> I wonder if there are ways to lower the costs

Lower the cubicles' walls to 1-2 ft and made them out of frosted glass (added bonus if the glass amplifies noise). /s

This is bigotry pure and simple. It’s so sad that it’s socially acceptable to talk about introversion this way, and it will never undergo an advent like sexual orientation or gender to be seen as a protected class so that you can’t discriminate against introverted people like this.

Separately, open plan offices are not cheaper, not even in dense urban areas. They only appear cheaper in a very narrow, very short term sense that ultimately loses money overall.

I’d also add that I’ve worked in a company before that actively paid tens of millions of dollars to completely rip out private offices from a large Columbus, OH, campus where only corporate HR employees (who had offices for decades and sincerely needed private offices for their work), even though the staff was not growing in Columbus and there was no plan to increase worker seating density. The CEO just decreed “innovative people love open spaces” and that’s all.

On my exit interview from that company, a woman who had worked 25 years in HR at the company was telling me how she needs to talk to people who are being laid off, or giving specifics about medical leave or grief leave for a death in the family, stuff that requires privacy. She had her own office for the past 13 years, and now she was relegated to competing for 15-minute slices of time in Jabbrbox-like phone booths which couldn’t serve the full needs of the staff.

Open plan offices are not at all chosen to save money. It’s a combination of status signalling, trend following and surveillance culture. Absolutely not about saving money.

With all due respect, I’m not sure why you’re taking umbrage with my statement. I am not being bigoted; by and large, successful salespeople are extroverted. That is not an opinion. This is true because extroversion generally leads to more time spent with people, rather than less (which is not to say introverts never spend time with people), and thus extroverts tend to be more successful in field sales. Similarly, it is not bigoted to state that conventionally attractive people are more successful in field sales; you may not like it, but that isn’t an opinion - people buy more from people they see as attractive. Intelligence and subject matter expertise plays a (often much larger) factor as well, depending on the industry of course. The point is that there are absolutely legitimate reasons to discriminate hiring on certain factors. You also would be unlikely to hire someone afraid of heights as a helicopter pilot; that doesn’t make them any less of a person, just less suited for the job than someone who isn’t afraid of heights.

Please explain what you mean by them not being cheaper long-term. In terms of pure expense, and now that nearly every company has built open office plans as their main plan, they are actually cheaper in the long term too.

That CEO sounds like an idiot. That doesn’t mean every CEO is an idiot. Nor does it mean open plan offices never make sense. It also doesn’t mean they aren’t cheaper.

Open plan offices have very little to do with status signaling or trend following, though I will grant you that this does occur. And it certainly has nothing to do with surveillance culture; if it did, there are much better ways to do that, like periodic chat log reviews (a real thing at some companies).

Open plan offices are about saving money, and about not having to plan. It’s that simple.

There is a sort of common knowledge definition of introversion that involves 'recharging' while alone, but it's not a dictionary definition, and it's not an academic definition. The dictionary will just say shyness, while academic sources are a little more nuanced, generally circling 'unsociable' or 'not attention-seeking' or 'experiencing fewer positive sensations'.

I'm very much an introvert, but if I spend a few days without human contact, I start to come apart. I expect extraverts encounter in long-term social contact the exhaustion I experience in the short-to-medium term. Further, I find that I can have extensive conversations with individuals I know well without needing to recharge whatsoever. There's something to the notion of feeling drained in either scenario, but it isn't boolean or single-factor.

Myers-Briggs asks about recharging, but you can say you experience nothing of the sort and still wind up with an 'I'. It is an adjacent effect, but not neccesarily core to what is being measured there.

All in all, while recharging is certainly an existent related element and worth discussing, it doesn't make sense to criticize the article for conflating two terms that are academically the same thing.

Personality psychology is very underdeveloped. Probably personalities shift minute to minute on thousands of axes, and while Big 5 tests can be helpful for modeling and understanding your own behavior, you have to recognize them as massively oversimplifying an 86 billion neuron network. They are potentially a serious limiting factor on how one defines oneself.

I agree l but it's literally the number one point I expect to see when this topic comes up. Everyone and their mother is quick to point out that the two axes are different

Trying to force introverts into pro-longed extroversion is exhausting. It is not how we are built. I think oftentimes people view introverts as anti-social, which is not always the case. We are just differently social.

Instead of trying to force introverts to be more like extroverts, encourage them to share their skills/talents in a positive way. This is where you will see us shine and you might even forget that we are introverts.

Throwing us into a party with 100 strangers and expecting us to thrive, is not gonna do it. Asking us to teach a large group of strangers something valuable or lead a project that we know a lot about will energize us like nothing else. This is how we connect with people and how we make our mark in society.

A lot of introverts are quiet leaders and have a way of making a huge impact in ways that extroverts just don't understand. Don't get me wrong, I love the extroverts in my life, but I don't want to be like them :)

I think I agree with you. I am an introvert, but have vast variety of interest in science, technology, startups etc. I don't like at all to do small talk with friends, i get bored and tired really fast, unless the topic hits one of these areas. I liked to socialize on forums on programming, and made a bunch of friends sincr when i was in middle school or high school that way. I gave a bunch of talks and raised enthusiasm on some programming concepts back in the day. Everything else was too boring.

I'm an extrovert, and I am also interested in "science" and "technology" (but not startups). One of my primary hobbies is very math-heavy, and involves hours and sometimes days of intense focus. I also gave talks in the past, e.g. on functional programming.

The point is, I have no idea how any of this is related to being introvert or extrovert (and was wondering the same in the post you replied to).

People can shut themselves into their room with only oscilloscopes and MATLAB as company on one weekend, and meet up with friends on the next one.

Exactly. Trying to force extroversion on introverts because it makes them "feel happier" is like pressuring them to take recreational drugs, which will likely have similar short-term success.

Sometimes a short term good experience is exactly what you need. I wouldn't discount the value in that.

I don't think you're wrong but I do think you need a better example because extroverts can do both of the things you mentioned.

More inane pseudoscience about the moronic introvert/extrovert dichotomy. A two week study with 130 students and we’re supposed to learn something? Change our behavior? This is just astrology for people who love Ted talks.

>A two week study with 130 students and we’re supposed to learn something?

Of course not. Merely a study, done by professionals, and involving 130 students?

As everybody knows the real way to learn something needs a snark layman comment with a facile dismissal!

> the moronic introvert/extrovert dichotomy

Why is that dichotomy moronic?

There is no scientific foundation for it. Jung dreamt it up with an extremely literary approach. Then the swindlers Briggs and Myers popularised it with their 20th century astrology.

The introversion-extraversion personality axis is the only part of the MBTI that modern psychometrics accepts basically without reservation. It lives on as the introversion-extraversion factor of the Big 5 Personality Model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

I find it interesting that the rest of the MBTI is so thoroughly rejected -- in particular, I read in work that accepts the MBTI (uh-oh, red flag!) that males tend to split 75% T / 25% F and females do the reverse, 75% F / 25% T.

It seems to me that this very large difference in responses should be sufficient to show that the T / F axis is capturing something. If the T / F distinction were meaningless, it wouldn't be able to predict anything, but it clearly can predict the respondent's sex.

It is capturing something right. But it is flatting down a much more complex reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi...

Because most people are somewhere in the middle in almost any way you define it. Most people need both time with other people and time alone. Most get tired when being with people all the time and their mental health goes down when being isolated.

Whether you derive energy from other people or whether they are draining is also dependent a lot on who those other people are and whether you have have social skills currently (e.g. how much effort it takes to you to figure out what to say).

To add to watwut's comment - replacing a dynamically changing behavior with a permanent personality trait is detrimental to any attempts at changing things.

It's not pseudoscience if there has been an empirical study, almost by definition. You're right that the value of self-reports is pretty low, but there have been plenty of studies done similar to this, this is not a new concept.

I completely agree with you and think introversion/extraversion introvert/extrovert is complete crap. But the author is actually arguing that its not as strong a divide as people make it out to be.

This reads like a jumble of fragmented maybes.

The first thing that bugs me is the casual spelling of "extravert," where "extrovert" is the common spelling unless you're referring specifically to the Jungian interpretation of the trait(s).

The second thing that bugs me is the "acts like" construction. The students in the experiment were indeed acting when they explicitly adopted traits they don't usually express for a period of time, but to also use "acting" throughout the rest of the essay as a fundamental organizing principle is to assume a person's motivations absent evidence, vs. sometihng like "appears to," which maintains the relationship that a person's motivations are a matter of interpretation by the observer.

He gives a nod to neuroplasticity toward the end, which...fine, but it appears to be a euphemism for "nobody is really anything" when balanced against the rest of the text.

I'm an introvert and this writer (though well-intentioned) completely misunderstands what introversion _is_.

A sample of his misleading analysis:

>, this framework rests on the unspoken assumption that introverts and extroverts remain constant in their identities. [...] What if that weren’t true? What if we could deliberately act more one way other the other?

>That is: am I promoting extraversion simply because I’m an extravert? The answer is: I am a little bit of both. [...] I think we’re all a bit of both.

No, introversion is not how one voluntarily acts in solitude for a little while and if that same person is later eating lunch with friends, he does not become an extrovert.

And no, you can't be "a little bit of both".

The way I like to explain introversion vs extroversion is it's an underlying personality trait that doesn't change such as being left-handed or right-handed. When we say we're "right-handed", that "right-handedness" trait doesn't go away just because we play the low bass notes on the piano with the left hand, or flick the turn signal levers of the car steering with our left hand. Just because right-handed people use their left hands some of the time for many tasks doesn't mean they are a "little bit of both". Our category of "left-handed" vs "right-handed" is specifically labeling the underlying tendency of which limb is favored and not about the cherry-picked tasks that use the opposite limb.

I've been to hundreds of parties and yes I do hang out with friends from time to time. I'm still an introvert. I'm not a little bit of both. The author's article does more harm than good in understanding what true introversion actually is.

It's definitely not a simple categorization like that though--some people are so introverted they almost need to completely isolate themselves from society. Some people are barely introverted and require just a little time alone to gather themselves occasionally.

I'm definitely both--I've had periods of my life where I can't detach myself from groups of people, and I've had periods of my life where I spend multiple days inside without going out. There are definitely some environmental factors.

Introversion is tied in with neuroticism, which is definitely on a spectrum. The big five personality traits are also a spectrum.

>Some people are barely introverted and require just a little time alone to gather themselves occasionally.

If the behavior is occasional, that's not introversion or "barely introverted".

E.g., if an extroverted-outgoing girl who is the cheerleader & prom queen & organizer of the 10-year high school renunion needs a few hours of alone time in her bedroom to cry because her boyfriend broke up with her, that does not mean the cheerleader is "barely introverted". She's also not 1% introverted and 99% extroverted. Sure, all humans need some alone time for various situations. But that's not what introversion _is_.

And just because I attend social functions and smile and laugh with friends for a few hours doesn't mean I'm "somewhat extroverted". My baseline is introversion and even if I do activities that outwardly appear like extroversion, that does not change the baseline of my underlying tendencies. I have been playing the lower bass notes of the piano with my left hand for decades but that doesn't change my underlying right-handedness. My right hand is still the dominant hand.

> And just because I attend social functions and smile and laugh with friends for a few hours doesn't mean I'm "somewhat extroverted".

You sound pretty introverted, but it doesn't explain all behaviors, which is my intent. To do so, you have to also explain why sometimes I am introverted by your description, even for years at a time, and then at other times I am extroverted, with similar time scales.

> If the behavior is occasional, that's not introversion or "barely introverted".

I mean to say it's between occasional (extroversion), and constant (introversion). This means there's a certain probability of it happening, so you're right, it could be rarely, occasional, sometimes, most of the time, almost all of the time, and all of the time.

So I don't disagree with you, you can make a clear demarcation, but then the words are much more useless. And if you're close to either side then you might as well call yourself an introvert or an extrovert.

So I'm completely with you on the author's total misunderstanding, but I'm curious on this:

> And no, you can't be "a little bit of both"

1. Would you agree that introversion/extroversion is a spectrum? At what point is someone "on the line" basically a bit of both, so to speak? Is there anyone in true neutral?

2. Why do you think it's so static as to never change? I feel like I have certainly seen people go through very slow/steady shifts before.

> no, you can't be "a little bit of both"

I’m a little bit of both. I enjoy my alone time, when social interaction is draining. And I enjoy my social time, when people and conversations are invigorating.

I can be outwardly interactive and introverted (pleasant, but in my head and looking forward to the end of the day). Or I can be shy and extroverted (forcing myself to be quiet, or feeling like I would prefer to be, so I can listen to the conversation, closely paying attention to and getting energy from it).

(I’m also ambidextrous.)

Personalities aren’t scalars. They produce behaviours with their surroundings. A personality can be one stereotype in one environment and another in another.

>I enjoy my alone time, [...] And I enjoy my social time,

>I can be outwardly interactive and introverted [...] Or I can be shy and extroverted

You are using introversion/extroversion differently from me. Your usage seems very similar to the author's: introversion/extroversion is based on the environmental situation instead of an underlying personality trait.

Yes, I can acknowledge that I also enjoy social time with people, but that does not mean I'm both extroverted and introverted. The introversion -- as I'm using that term -- is my underlying neurological tendency. All the hundreds of various social functions I've enjoyed still doesn't change my underlying tendency.

> my underlying neurological tendency

And I’m saying for some people, this tendency is not stable. It’s something we observe, and can’t directly control. It’s a real variance in base psychology, and one I embrace as a core piece of my personality.

(Given consciousness is subjective, it’s tremendously difficult to differentiate innate tendencies from reactions to one’s environment.)

> And no, you can't be "a little bit of both".

This is absolutely untrue.

Extroversion - Introversion is a spectrum and people can exist anywhere along it.

From personal experience, I am an introvert. I recharge from time alone or with a very small group of good, close friends and colleagues. Regardless, I was developer evangelist #3 for Twilio (circa 2011-2013) covering literally all of North America at some point where a major part of my job was to speak in front of large groups regularly (spoke at 15+ confs/year, no clue how many user groups) and spend every spare moment trying to understand every person, project, and community I came across. I can thrive and get recharged (much more slowly!) from that too. I've continued similar things at Okta for the last 3 years.

After most of those trips - I found 3 days is my threshold - yes, I need to stop and be back among that small group/alone to recharge. But those quiet times alone are when I came up with the best solutions to the ugliest problems and helped me do my job.. and many others do their own better.

Like anything, it's a balance.. but it's not one that most people can adjust without significant work.

>, it's a balance.. but it's not one that most people can adjust without significant work.

Instead of engaging your other points, let me focus on that one I quoted. Does "significant work" mean you agree with the author's idea that we can change our introversion?

If so, you're using the term very differently from me and it's not productive for us to even debate it because we're not even on the same page of what introversion _is_. Because I'm saying this: if I go to another social function, and even if I enjoy that social function, that does _not_ make me "less introverted" and I have not become "more balanced".

Yes, I'm using it as the author did, not as you've defined.

Introvert vs Extrovert is where you draw your energy or what recharges you, not what you enjoy though those things often overlap.

It's not a switch, it's a slider. People operate at different points along it and can even shift or operate within a range depending on a variety of things.

You say they are wrong, but never actually explained what it is, though.

We don't all fall into one of your two buckets, and I relate to nothing you wrote, so I suspect your definition of introversion won't apply to me as much as you'd expect it to.

What’s the supporting scientific evidence for the idea of an introversion-extroversion personality trait?

Extraversion is one of the "Big Five" personality traits [1]. As far as I understand it, this means that it's been verified that it empirically exists as an independent-ish variable based on statistical analysis, but it's also not based on any underlying psychological or neurological model that's been independently validated. Also, the descriptions of this variable in Big Five literature don't always match popular ideas about what the term means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

That covers about all I’ve heard too. Wonder how solid / convincing / replicable that really is.

I don't think there is really anything substantive in this article, but if there is one thing we can learn from it, it's that we need to be much more clear what we're talking about when we use the words introvert and extrovert. I prefer the definition that introverts gain energy from being alone, and extroverts gain energy from being with others. People often make the mistake of coupling other things to this: shyness and introversion tend to be associated, and it leads to people saying things like "I'm an introvert there I can't (it's impossible) be a good socializer". The fact that introversion/extroversion is a spectrum certainly doesn't do us any favors either.

I guess one test of introversion is whether being in a group is invigorating or tiring. I am tired after interacting with most groups except with my closest friends.

this seems pretty straightforward. "introvert" and "extrovert" are grammatical traps that lead to fallacious reasoning, because these are not things that we are.

introversion and extroversion are just groupings of behaviors we each exhibit based on social context. sure, some people tend to skew one way or another statistically, but it's not an intinsic attribute.

(it's more interesting to examine the specific situations in which one exhibits one or the other set of behaviors.)

The author references Quiet, which is a great read but it doesn’t seem like they understood it at all.

Coincidentally I started reading 'Quiet' this week. Really recommend it, interesting book!

Humans are not that different from animals but surprisingly show mixed behaviours, unlike other animal species. Are we even one species and not many subspecies pretending to be one?

A cooperator engages prey both when it is alone or with a companion. Most common behaviour of extroverts.

A cheater only engages when it is the first to find prey, but lets another individual make the kill if it arrives second. The author of the article in this case. Plenty of extrovert cheaters too pretend to read books by citing cliff notes. Ambiverts I suppose.

A scavenger and a solitary hunter never hunts and waits for another individual to make a kill. A solitary avoids others and always hunts alone. Dangerous l33t hackers on the loose.

Taken from https://doi.org/10.1086/284844

Reply on news.ycombinator.com