Hacker News Reader

Comment by xyzelement | Hacker News Reader

Introverts can make good leaders but too often these "introverts are great" articles are pointed to by those who just want an excuse for their poor social skills and lack of impact.

Case in point, my last boss was a visible, forceful woman who emphasized relationship building. It took me a year to learn she actually is heavily introverted and spends her weekends not talking to anyone. She was an effective introverted leader but she was also just an effective leader, period. It wouldn't occur to her to share this article.

On the other hand, plentny of low impact people believe they have great ideas but they aren't able to articulate them to get any traction or even feedback. Rather than learning how to handle these situations, they chalk up their ineptitude to introversion. That's the kind of people I find takes comfort in these articles.

View on HN

Different people have wildly different definition of introvert vs extrovert as well.

I find that "gets energy from interaction vs lose energy from interaction" is more productive than "shy vs loud".

I was visibly shy for first two decades of my life; I look (and am) a "people person" for the last two decades and most recent friends/colleagues wouldn't know I'm an introvert; and I'm doing reasonably well in people-manager role. But whereas after a hard day my sister wants to go out and party and this will rejuvenate her, after a hard day I want... nay, need, some "me time" - alone with book or computer or tv or music to recharge. I'm stereotypically the first person to leave a party of my best friends - I love them, I love our time together, but at some point I had enough input and need to depart.

My point is: I think "introvert" is a defining characteristic of me; but "have people skills" is just that - skills. I don't think I'll ever change whether I gain or lose energy from social interactions; that seems a pretty built-in aspect of my personality. But I can and did tremendously change how I actually interact with people - it may come easy to some, harder to others, and seemingly impossible to yet others, but it is in principle a learnable, acquirable skill.

So, "6% of Business executives think introverts have people skills needed" makes me think this is an accidentally tautology - I'm pretty sure they mentally have defined "introverts" as "those with poor people skills", and that's not I think the most accurate definition.

My wife and I are both introverted, but people often don't believe that, especially with her. But after a party, or an event we are both exhausted. For me at least I think it comes from the effort I have to use to model the mental state of others. It does not come naturally.

Fascinating insight.

I understand what you say 5/5. I spend a lot of energy trying my best to understand others, to go beyond their facade, to ask about thing I disagree with, etc. Also, I have hard times when people judge or mock me (even if done in friendly way), etc. I hardly pass over it so, again, takes some energy.

It's more complicated then introversion or extroversion. You are describing high empathy and fear of not pleasing others.

You act a certain way to cater to other people and possibly spend way too much energy on it, hence the exhaustion.

Most people aren't constantly modelling the mental state of others. You don't need to be in a constant state of anticipating the emotions of the other party when talking to them.

Just talk. Don't spend too many cycles overly concerned about what others think.

I tend to be rude, insensitive, or even offensive if I don't run a background process to prevent it. I don't want to hurt people's feelings, it just happens because I think differently, so my instinctual model for reasonable speech is different too. Those things I say wouldn't offend me for instance. After people get to know me and understand I can mostly turn it off and they will forgive. Strangers, or clients, I keep it running.

I think the ideal is likely some middle ground between no filter whatsoever and trying to meticulously model the mental states of others, which definitely does sound exhausting.

Rather than focus so much on others, it may work better to focus on making your own mental state relaxed, amused, lighthearted, etc. and then try to include others in that without worrying much about their states of mind. A lot of what attracts people socially is simply maintaining the ‘right’ mood—one that is enjoyable and accessible to others. The details of what someone says or does are less important.

You might notice that many life-of-the-party types aren’t necessarily that empathetic or “good listeners” or whatever when you talk to them. These things can help, but aren’t necessary or sufficient to make people generally enjoy being around someone. Much more important is simply that the person is visibly, genuinely having a good time, and is generating that sense of well-being for themselves rather than relying on others to supply it for them.

If I'm around nerds I don't have to model state, they are similar enough to me that just being myaelf works. But in the company of the non analytically minded, what I have in rude moments referred to as muggles, I have been told my conversation seems random, jumping between topics. They are connected but the ties aren't apparent to that audience. I also have been told I seem like I am trying to show off by how much I know when I bring up topics that they see the connection to but it feels like an obscure reference to them, when I'm really just keeping the conversation going with something I thought they would find interesting, because I would have found it interesting.

The idea that there is such a huge difference between nerds and people who aren't nerds is misconceived.

Not only are people who aren't nerds capable of being analytical, but nerds themselves are highly able to be irrational and stupid.

Case in point I've seen nerds who are so stupid they think of themselves as autistic savants who can't "understand" normal humans and must "model" them in order to interact.

No nerds are just people typically on the lowest rung of the social ladder with interests in specific technical topics like anime, chess, etc. They are not more analytical then the rest of the population.

You've been told what you've been told because it's true. There are tons of people like you and it's not people who are analytical.

It's people who like to think of themselves as more analytical then the rest of the population. You think some topic your switching to in a conversation could only have been discovered by your powerful analytical mind but it breaks the flow of conversation and is literally not as intelligent as you think it is.

You are not intelligent enough to comprehend the purpose of conversation. Conversation is a two way street it is not a platform for you to show off your intelligence. Think of it like this, when you go off on your intelligent tangent, does the other party understand but remain uninterested? If they understand what your saying then that means they have the analytical ability to keep up with you. It's just they find it not interesting enough to continue. So the problem isn't your analytical mind. It's your lack of analytical ability to comprehend the situation at hand.

Additionally I doubt you actually are that much more intelligent. Do you have genuine IQ scores to back up your claim? Even people at 150 can be quite normal. The things you describe typically happen at much higher IQ scores, so people who think of themselves this way, by probability are more likely to be deluding themselves rather then actually being that much more intelligent.

The "muggles" thing illustrates pretty well what I mean. Regardless of whether it's true or not, if you're standing with a group of people at an event thinking "these people are boring muggles who don't get me--this sucks", people will pick that up and most of them will probably find it off putting.

Instead you could try to adopt a mindset more like: "these people may not be intellectually interesting to me, but every human has the potential to be interesting, funny, or otherwise enjoyable in some way--I'll make the best of it and have some superficial fun without getting too deep". You're going to get much better results this way and it's easier/less tiring than focusing on the feelings of others.

Wow! Fantastic insights! Now I have a clue about why introverts lose energy from interaction... Would love to see more materials on this topic - why introverts lose energy from interaction.

I've had similar experiences in my own career. People skills are just that, skills which can be practiced.

As an aside, your last paragraph made me think of a funny edge-case, the extrovert with poor people skills. This might look like a person who seeks out social interactions and may try to start or force a conversation without knowing when to end it or whether the other participant is enjoying it or feels like they're being held hostage.

Sooo.... Will Farrel? 0:->

I find the "gets energy from" definition to be too situation-dependent. All personality trait definitions suffer from this, but some more than others.

Consider an extrovert who just spent a whole week not getting any privacy, not even to use the loo. That person may very well test as an introvert at the end of the week.

Or consider an introvert who has been isolated from her closest friends for a month due to an illness. That person may test as an extrovert at the end of the month.

I tend to think of introversion as "tendency to be content with solitude", the difference being that instead of needing to recharge by being alone, an introvert is OK with being alone for a time. Most introverts still need social interaction, but they want to set the terms of that interaction.

I also think of introversion as "tendency to rely on inner dialogue". I have to go away and be alone to understand a problem, then come back and discuss the solution. Other people need someone else to provide that dialogue; I imagine them as having an inner monologue, but I can't see inside their minds.

I'm not a psychologist and I don't know if these definitions hold water. I'm just an introvert who over a lifetime has learned it can fun to be outgoing, and that being a leader requires practice and a good role model, regardless of whether you are introverted or extraverted.

> Other people need someone else to provide that dialogue; I imagine them as having an inner monologue, but I can't see inside their minds.

One of the most surprising realisations of my life was reading that a portion of the population don't have an inner dialogue. The constant stream of verbiage that the voice inside my head uses to articulate my experiences seems such a fundamental part of consciousness that I struggle to picture life without it.

I wonder how much, if at all, that phenomenon contributes to the personality of people who think out loud.

> Or consider an introvert who has been isolated from her closest friends for a month due to an illness. That person may test as an extrovert at the end of the month.

As an introvert who lives alone and took an extended break from work around the time the COVID lock-down started, I can tell you for certain that I would not have tested as an extrovert at any point.

Is there any actual correlation between low social skills and introversion or is this just something people like to whack introverted people over the head with?

In my own experience I've witnessed people, in general, who struggle to communicate or communicate effectively. I've also witnessed people who over communicate or dominate communication and are equally destructive. There's also something else I've noticed, which is that leaders are often perceived as effective when they're leading people whom their leadership style is compatible with.

Perhaps, but only because the introverts have been beaten over the head repeatedly by the extrovert dominated culture. A socially intelligent introvert looks like a councillor, adept at understanding people in one on one situations, able to bring out the best in people.

> There's also something else I've noticed, which is that leaders are often perceived as effective when they're leading people whom their leadership style is compatible with.

Puts the finger right on the important spot. People "get" you more if you relate to them in a familiar way.

Which means that being an effective leader requires stuffing your "but I'm an X" ideas, and adapting to the people you're leading. (Step 2 is teaching them to adapt as well - it's not about permanently disguising yourself)

I would expect that one develops skills mostly by practicing, and extraverts typically get more practice with social interaction, simply because that is how they enjoy spending their free time.

On the other hand, introverts may compensate e.g. by reading literature on social skills, or spend more time reflecting on what happened; and unless they are isolated, after a few decades they also get lot of experience. While extraverts may get stuck in the "high-school style of human interaction" and have difficulty move forward.

Overall, I would guess that an average extravert will be much better than average introvert e.g. at small talk. But if you need a specialist, e.g. a therapist, the chances are more balanced, because for either it requires going beyond just following their instinct. But this is all just a guess.

> There's also something else I've noticed, which is that leaders are often perceived as effective when they're leading people whom their leadership style is compatible with.

Yep. But imagine that you have ten people in a room, five extraverted and five introverted. The extraverts will create a group in the middle of the room, and introverts will sit alone near the corners. If you randomly pick a leader, you will probably tell them to lead the group in the middle of the room -- and that is a task better suited to an extravert.

Yes logically there should be. The more skilled you are at something in general the less energy you expend in it. This includes socializing.

Without data it can't be truly known. But such data is likely garbage as it's very hard to quantify good social skills.

However if you remain impartial the intuition and logic is inescapable.

The less skilled you are at socializing the more energy you spend on deploying that skill. This means a good portion of introverts are introverted because they are bad at socializing.

I mean if you think about it what I said is utterly and completely obvious. It's this oversupply of "the benefites of being an introvert" articles that is making people think otherwise.

This stuff is BS science. The introvert extrovert classification is an arbitrary division. Doing science on this division is like doing an experiment on "do people with long hair make better leaders?"

You are still confusing effective leadership with extroversion. One on one relationship building is something that introverts excel at.

I am? I am citing a deep introvert who richly invested in developing that skill.

You make it sound like introversion is a disability rather than a default orientation.

No, you are saying that you cannot be an effective leader using an introverted style. It is not necessary to run around hustling relationships in an extravert way in order to be effective. An introvert leader at their peak looks like the patrician from Terry Pratchet, Havelock Vetinari. He doesn't spin around burning energy building countless relationships, but understand the motion of people well enough to influence with out really being seen to influence. Subtle control through deep understanding rather sheer force of will.

> One on one relationship building is something that introverts excel at

But...didn't you also just do the same thing?

People are good at things they try to be good at. Being an introvert has nothing to do with that, nor does extroversion. Meaning, people that prioritize interpersonal skill and relationship building have the potential to become good leaders, regardless of their particular alignment.

Perhaps...but then you've mis-categorized the person as an introvert when they are actually socially awkward or, as you say, they have: "...poor social skills and lack of impact."

There are both introverts and extroverts who have "poor social skills and lack of impact".

Noisy extroverts who don't know when to stop talking is one example off the top of my head.

Introverts can make good leaders, but it can be difficult.

Note I'm using what I feel is the most common definition of introversion/extroversion even if it is somewhat of a "pop" psychology definition, i.e. introverts recharge by quiet time alone, extroverts by being around others.

When you are a leader, a huge part of your job is being around other people a lot, and communicating with them, often times having difficult conversations. I'm introverted, I think I have fairly good (or at least OK) social skills and I'm emotionally introspective, I was an engineering director and I think I was pretty good at it. However, it left me feeling completely exhausted. Every day I would come home and basically crash because I was spending a huge portion of my day talking to people. It negatively affected my relationship because it was hard for me to be available to my partner when I was so tired from interacting with other people all day.

Contrast this with an extrovert, who actually gets energized by all of those daily interactions. It's very difficult to compete with that behavioral mindset in a job where a majority of work is person-to-person interactions.

Not saying my experience is the same across all introverts, just expressing my frustration at a lot of these "introverts have super powers!" type articles that have an underlying message that some jobs (i.e. "leaders") are intrinsically more valuable than others.

> Case in point, my last boss was a visible, forceful woman who emphasized relationship building. It took me a year to learn she actually is heavily introverted and spends her weekends not talking to anyone. She was an effective introverted leader but she was also just an effective leader, period. It wouldn't occur to her to share this article.

Maybe if workplaces would be more acceptable of introverts she wouldn't have to spend the whole weekend recharging. Indeed this is not the first article making the case for introverts and it is obvious that introverts can act like extroverts and vice-versa. But there is a price to pay, e.g. needing some recharge time.

> On the other hand, plentny of low impact people believe they have great ideas but they aren't able to articulate them to get any traction or even feedback.

Plenty of high impact people just spill out their ideas and let other people spend many iterations to proof that those are bad ideas. Many introverts come up with excellent ideas and let them speak for themselves.

Apart from that one shouldn't forget why people have been hired in the first place. So they bring something to the table and not everything was on the job description or is common knowledge. I wish there was more appreciation for different approaches, also given that almost half of the population is considered introverted.

One of my former managers ( very much an extrovert ), summarized it to me thusly as he tried to show me his way:

"If you turn out to be right, that is great. If not, that is ok too. But it is vital that you remain calm and confident irregardless."

And the most fucking annoying thing about his approach is that it works.

> irregardless

Did he really use this non-word?

Yep. With full conviction of a person that he will not be corrected by his underlings.

It's been used for over a century; I think it's time to accept that it's a word.

Probably because his approach has nothing to do with introvert vs. extrovert, and is just normal baseline professionalism.

I very much disagree. I am not sure if it is a question of culture, nurture or what, but when I do mess up, I acknowledge the mess up, ask for forgiveness and move on. Up until that point, it certainly would not occur to me to either ignore it or just keep pressing in the wrong direction despite being objectively wrong.

I would not call it professionalism at all.

Unless you did not correctly quote the advice, nothing that you said in this post invalidates the previous advice. Being wrong _is okay_, but if you're suggesting something, you should remain calm and be confident your suggestion is in line with your current understanding of a problem space. If wrong, continue to remain calm, acknowledge, apologize and move on. Being wrong shouldn't shake your confidence (again, even if you're an introvert).

I think I am willing to agree with your interpretation of the quote. It may have not been a good example since I can't really go into more details here.

I do have a philosophical objection though. Unlike Dr. House, I do not possess merely theoretical capacity for being wrong. I recognize I can be wrong and I recognize that me being wrong has real world consequences that I need to consider.

It is not about shaking my confidence. It is about whether it is possible I am wrong in this particular case. Confidence is pointless here since the consequences involved will not be BSed away.

> I think I am willing to agree with your interpretation of the quote. It may have not been a good example since I can't really go into more details here.

All good. I totally accept that that individual quote did not do justice to the situation you were trying to convey. I am not trying to be aggressive.

> I do have a philosophical objection though. Unlike Dr. House, I do not possess merely theoretical capacity for being wrong. I recognize I can be wrong and I recognize that me being wrong has real world consequences that I need to consider.

I am an overwhelming extrovert. I believe that your gripe is less about inro vs. extro, and much much more about culture. I have worked in environments where being wrong but trying hard is applauded, and I have worked in environments where being wrong (regardless of how or why) is shamed. The latter feels bad to me, as it sounds like it would you.

> It is not about shaking my confidence. It is about whether it is possible I am wrong in this particular case. Confidence is pointless here since the consequences involved will not be BSed away.

I totally agree with you. If getting something wrong will cause any kind of problem (beyond just, "lets fix it and keep going"), it's a culture problem and rightly will impact your confidence.

I would say, your boss was probably a moron, but not necessarily because they were an extrovert.

>> but not necessarily because they were an extrovert.

I had to think about it, but I think I agree. Him being an extrovert had little to do with this particular approach. I just associated it with him, because, well, he was hard to miss.

Thank you. That was an interesting conversation:>

I find the kind of generalization and meanness in your comment is counterproductive: and also commonly trotted out when justifying the extroversion dominance in organizations.

Also: social anxiety and shyness are very real problems that can easily be induced by the shame, ridicule, and lack of acceptance that introversion often is accompanied by. The fact that these things are often equated with “socially inept/incompetent” is extremely problematic.

No offense but it sounds like you are more interested in being offended than comprehension and evolution.

My whole point is that social skills and interaction are just that - skills. You can invest in them if you are introverted or even if you have some social anxiety (as, I suspect, I do.)

If someone instead insists that there's nothing for them to learn, that their "badness" with people is a badge of honor in some way, then they just justify being bad at the expense of people around them.

But, I guess we can just ignore that, forego the opportunity to improve, because you find it problematic :)

You’re the one suddenly bringing up an unwillingness to learn.

It’s quite telling, too, as the language you used suggests you don’t view these things as medical conditions or disabilities, but instead personal failings to overcome.

Also, pointing out meanness in a comment isn’t the same as being offended: it’s quite presumptuous really.

When you find yourself starting a comment with "No offense but", perhaps look at why you felt your comment might cause offence. Then rewrite it in a kinder and less mean way that doesn't need a disclaimer.

Your comment would have come across better—as trying to help, not trying to mock—without the first and last lines, which seem to break the guidelines.

Anxiety and shyness is not the same as introversion. Extroverts have as much anxiety and are shy too. Introverts give public speaches or perform publically.

Extroverts can be also socially inept.

I think you are onto something here. On the other hand, current breed of leadership is primarily full of type A, highly visible, forceful personalities that are, at best, difficult to ignore, but hard to take seriously.

But I do like your point about how introversion is used an odd excuse. One of the first videos on the subject in one of my MBA classes was on that ( Susan Cain, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0KYU2j0TM4 ).

This reeks of "Extrovert privilege"

I think we just witnessed a murder.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com