Comment by NikolaNovak | Hacker News Reader

Comment by NikolaNovak | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com