Myths About Introverts | Hacker News Reader

Myths About Introverts

carlkingdom.com

77 pointsjonah27 comments

This is straight-up plagiarism. I've seen this article before, and there's no attribution. He even claims that this list is based on his own life experience! Repugnant.

However, in trying to find the original source, I've found that there are many other people also content to plagiarize this exact article:

http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Introverts+are+perfectly+co...

Does anyone know who originally wrote this so that we can at least give them credit here on Hacker News?

FWIW, I spent a few minutes picking up arbitrary links from that search, and following the "via" or "source" links. Some chains dead-ended in a 404, a few were on blogs that looked at first glance to lift a whole lot of stuff without attribution, and the rest all filtered back to this article. That was just a small subset of the hits, but at first glance this may be the original here.

On a tangent, I've always thought it'd be neat to see a DAG drawn out for items like this as they get copied, referenced, linked, and commented on throughout various blogs, social networks, and whatnot. Is anybody working on this?

I've seen it before too, but googling now returns several sources attributing it to this Carl King fellow (and this URL).

yep, same feelings,

this one is from April 2011

http://www.myspace.com/heathengoddes/blog/542781609

the earliest one I found by quick googling

Looks like it might be http://jerrybrito.org/post/6114304704/top-ten-myths-about-in... but i could also still have it wrong.

Sorry, top of the sidebar: "via dearfox" (who has it via ohohmydarlin (who has it either from pewells or hey-lovers (who are both 404'd)))

Down the tumblr rabbit-hole!

I dislike unattributed material or posting write-ups which aren't the original writeup or at least contribute meaningful criticism or analysis. So, I apologize if this is indeed such an item.

I do not know but I also remember reading this word for word! It really is blatant plagiarism. I think the intro paragraph was different (or maybe not) but everything after that was verbatim including the title.

OK just an FYI for everyone on here who does spend some time reading this article: other than being plagiarized, this article is also fairly inaccurate in its assessment of Introvert vs. Extrovert.

Intraversion and Extraversion have nothing do with how smart the person is. Both types have issues that they need to overcome (society calls it 'maturity'). For example, a typical intravert may need speak more often while a typical extravert may have need to think before speaking. This characteristic only provides for the perception of one's intelligence and is no measure of the actual faculty.

Both, intraverts and extraverts, are equally suited to whatever jobs they do desire. That said, an intravert will have to work harder at being a salesman and an extravert, at a night watchman. The degree of hardness involved isn't that high... people overcome it on a daily basis. Its just a matter of experience and the resulting maturity.

The dopamine bit could be correct, I don't know about that. Its true that intraverts need more alone time to get reenergized - a situation in which extraverts would feel zapped out and very tired. Extraverts prefer more to be around people - a situation that makes intraverts very very tired.

Source? Two years of studying and experimenting with the Jungian theory of types.

Perhaps I'm not reading this correctly, but all of this seems to be presented as a static personality trait, which doesn't match my experience.

When I was younger, I used to fit the description of an introvert precisely. I found myself drained in social situations and people would frequently ask me if I was "OK" and why I was so quiet. I was the silent, quiet guy who hadn't even kissed a girl through high school but who had no difficulty being top of the class without studying or paying attention during lessons (i.e. I wasn't retarded). On the MBTI in my first year of university, I scored very high on "I".

As I grew older I started realising that many of my "introverted" behaviours were making it difficult for me to have a fulfilling, healthy life. As I started exploring the problem space, I learned I suffer from a lot of social anxiety and self-esteem issues. I realised, for instance, that is wasn't people I found draining in social situations, it was the constant feeling of being "different" and not understanding social interactions, as well as taking social gaffs personally as though I were flawed as a person. Feeling inadequate used to stress me out enormously (and it's still something I suffer from) and drive me to avoid social interaction.

As I've begun tackling these things over the years, nobody tells me any more that I need to relax or that I'm too serious (although I do find I have distinct 'modes' where if I'm in work mode I just won't get somebody joking around with me, for instance). At times I'm excited to go out (with or without friends), and other times I am still reluctant to go out, i.e. I've learned to enjoy socialising but I'm not a social butterfly. I have become more interested in small talk with random people after experiencing the positive upside of meeting interesting randoms, but I still can't stand pointless small talk in the office (when, for instance, somebody asks about my previous evening rather than just getting to the point about why they walked over to my desk). All of this makes me skeptical when I see "introverts" resort to "extroverts just don't get it" rather than explaining what there is to get -- I'm not convinced that the "introvert" has explored the possibility of social anxiety or depression driving their behaviour, the symptoms of which were largely invisible to myself while I was in the midst of dysthymia.

In the past 2 years I did the MBTI twice as part of training separated by a year and in both cases I scored 50/50 on I and E. I've never seen anybody talk about shifts in MBTI, but it certainly does happen and makes me skeptical about articles such as these which treat I/E as all-or-nothing traits (or which pay lip service to a gradient of introverted/extroverted personalities, but don't discuss important matters such as social anxiety and low self-esteem as being a source of behaviour). Finally, I've noticed that in social situations I tend to be more "I" but in intimate relationships I'm very "E", which is something I've also never seen really discussed.

It's probably worth mentioning that the MBTI, at least the way it was explained when I did it, is meant to show a preference.

The example that I was given was clasping your hands together. If you interlock your fingers to clasp your hands now, you'll do it in a particular way, one thumb on top of the other. Now, it's perfectly possible for you to clasp your hands in such a way that the other thumb is on top. It doesn't feel completely natural, but it's possible.

Preferences, depending on your energy level or mood, etc, can alter.

Personally, I use my MBTI result (INTP) as one of many reference points when I find myself getting frustrating for no obvious reason, or just as a way to understand that other people have basic motivations and preferences that can rationally differ wildly from my own.

gained a lot from this comment. thank you

Here's a Pinterest post on introverts for your wives/gf's: http://pinterest.com/pin/72057662757405469/

It says:

How to Care for Introverts

* Respect their need for privacy.

* Never embarrass them in public.

* Let them observe first in new situations.

* Give them time to think. Don't demand instant answers.

* Don't interrupt them.

* Give them advanced notice of expected changes in their lives.

* Give them 15 minute warnings to finish what they're doing before calling them to something else.

* Reprimand them privately.

* Teach them new skills privately, rather than in public.

* Enable them to find a best friend who has similar interests.

* Do not push them to make lots of friends.

* Respect their introversion. Don't try to remake them as extraverts.

While not all true for me, it seemed to help my wife and I understand our problems a little better and that we were not unique in them.

Not put there last time, but a recommended reading on this topic is http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/03/caring-f...

Thanks for reminding me of this excellent piece. It was incredibly liberating when I first read it.

I think that the OP is full of generalizations and inaccuracies, but the Atlantic piece hits the nail on the head.

Yes, have your significant others and friends read this.

Myths about the feasibility of reducing the spectrum of human personality into a binary value.

@rcfox

I too remember reading this article before somewhere else.

Of course, with the Internet. You never know if a "copy" is the original or the "original" is a copy.

These aren't myths. This is the author attempting to redefine the meaning of the word "introvert". For example:

Myth #2 – Introverts are shy.

From dictionary.com:

noun: 1. a shy person.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/introvert

If you want to use the word "introvert" to support some psychological theory, that's fine. Just don't act like everyone else has been misusing the word all along.

Well, actually that's true. From Man and His Symbols by Carl Jung (the guy who came up with the terms introvert and extravert):

"But if one is an introvert and the other is an extravert, their different and contradictory standpoints may clash right away... The extravert, for instance, will choose the majority view; the introvert will reject it simply because it's fashionable."

That doesn't sound like shyness at all to me. So yes, the original definition of introversion all along hasn't been shyness.

Dictionaries aren't necessarily a good reference for technical terms.

Exactly. Dictionaries don't always reflect current usage. Take a look at how the Oxford English Dictionary defines "sarcastic": "a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark." By that definition, "you're stupid!" is sarcastic.

I like to emphasize "Dictionary editors are historians of usage, not legislators of language." ( http://lesswrong.com/lw/od/37_ways_that_words_can_be_wrong/ )

This issue has been raised and discussed quite at length at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2657554 (article was in essence the same list).

You should post this at the article-level so it gets seen.

Maybe I use the word wrong, but I'm an introvert and I'm certainly not shy.

I accidentally downvoted you. I still disagree, but disagreement doesn't warrant downvoting (I think it's totally abused lately). Anyway, I think you're just reading into it too much. The author is just saying that they're misunderstood. What may appear to be shyness is in fact something else entirely like really super deep thoughtfulness.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com