Hacker News Reader

Comment by mihaic | Hacker News Reader

I dislike the introvert/extrovert dichotomy, especially in the oversimplified US interpretation that has now become global. I'm for instance gregarious and outgoing with people I like, even if I might have met them very recently. At the same time, I may have an instinctive dislike/mismatch reaction for someone in the first few minutes of meeting them, and then it's a struggle to go through polite conversation (circumstances might force me to hang in there).

The article is a bit short on how "introverts" can improve their interactions, but it would surely help to not label people inside these limited buckets and push everyone to communicate and interact with others better.

View on HN

Introversion/extroversion is probably the most robust aspect of personality--virtually every personality spectrum includes an introversion/extroversion dimension. However, a lot of people probably misinterpret what it actually means. The best explanation I've heard is that it's essentially about how you "recharge": introverts recharge by being alone, and being in a large social function is draining; extroverts recharge by being in large social functions, and are drained by being alone.

Of course, the annoying thing about US culture in particular is that introversion is often seen as something undesirable--witness all the articles about how introverts should learn to be extroverts, where you don't really see the inverse about how extroverts should learn to be introverts.

> Of course, the annoying thing about US culture in particular is that introversion is often seen as something undesirable--witness all the articles about how introverts should learn to be extroverts, where you don't really see the inverse about how extroverts should learn to be introverts.

I think part of this is misunderstanding what it means. I'm very introverted, I'm not shy. No one tells me I should practice being extroverted and it feels like the people who say that really mean "you should try learning to be more social" which is related but on a different axis and might genuinely be a good idea for someone in a collaborative environment even if they need to recover after.

Problem being, 'collaborative environment' is aggressively pushed almost everywhere, even areas where the benefit of being 'highly collaborative' is questionable at best. At that point, they are asking introverts to put in more to compensate than extroverts, for something which cannot be confirmed to be an improvement.

If anything, most places suffer from being too collaborative at the cost of everything else. 'Silence is golden' seems to have been forgotten.

I think the push for "collaboration" is mostly out of interest for the company. They want people to be easily replaceable (for good and bad reasons), which is easier when several people work on the same thing. They also want people to share resources so that they don't have to spend as much, open floor plans are a great example: they are simply cheaper than offices.

What I saw is people are just lazy, they need help because they don't want to do anything, and no matter how much you collaborate with them, they won't become your replacement, they just forget everything on spot. That's what happens when people are not suitable for the job. And if it's not enough, add job hopping to the mix.

> it's essentially about how you "recharge": introverts recharge by being alone, and being in a large social function is draining; extroverts recharge by being in large social functions, and are drained by being alone.

I've literally never heard it explained any other way. There's no real reason to assume that criticism of the concept comes from ignorance of the concept.

Just have to look a couple of comments down to see the most common lay definition: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33421136

Or up, this thread was started by someone using a different definition.

I often hear/see it misused as a synonym for various other traits - being shy, or not being comfortable socialising or speaking publicly, for example.

I’ve also seen it used as a shield: e.g. someone believing they’re shy because they’re immutably introverted, and therefore believing that is how things will always be.

> witness all the articles about how introverts should learn to be extroverts, where you don't really see the inverse about how extroverts should learn to be introverts.

As a means to an end, extroversion has a carrot. Introversion not necessarily. It just doesn’t make sense to tell an extrovert “learn to recharge by yourself” because there isn’t much to gain by going against your norm. Extroversion is only pushed because the resulting social connection have real value. That said, all things in moderation is the key and main point of the article. As a leader, you shouldn’t create an extroverted workplace and expect introverts to perform in that environment for long periods of time. As an introvert, it’s up to you learn to manage your own energy and push back where needed as no one else will.

It is fascinating that you don't identify self-reflection, individual thought and contemplation, and social rest as having inherent "real value".

They do have value. Extroverts just don't acknowledge that value because it isn't what they want to do.

was gonna say the same exact thing. The comment you replied to is and example of internalizing the idea that extroversion is good and introversion isn't - the values of introversion have had their value stripped away in popular consensus

Perhaps poor or incomplete word choices.

Those have no value… to the extrovert… because they get it elsewhere, or feel are unnecessary. I’m not an extrovert so can’t speak directly to what their thought process is. But there’s just not a lot of tangible/practical reasons to tell an extrovert “you need to go sit at home and do some self reflection”. Where as, if for example, you’re having trouble fund raising or career pathing the advice of “you should network more” is pretty damn practical.

I acknowledge it and value it for myself but find that I’d often would not recommend it to others as a way to create value in a quantifiable way. Things like networking can be more directly linked to positive outcomes.

I was introverted my entire life. I enjoyed it. I never really needed any contact with others except for a small circle of people and that too quite infrequently. I definitely recharge by being alone. Sitting in front of my favorite book, listening to music, watching a movie... doing all of these activities alone were something I always looked forward to. Walking along the beach coast, driving a motorcycle all alone were some of my most memorable activities.

Then.

I got into a relationship briefly for around 6 months. She was extroverted. After 6 months I slowly became gregarious. I enjoyed being around people and going out. I enjoyed building a community of people around me. My entire personality changed. Those who knew me from years back were surprised by my transformation. Previously, I wouldn't say much but now I can talk quite a bit. Its night and day.

The problem with labeling oneself is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It becomes your identity and you start putting limitations on yourself.

My life was good as an introvert but it was great when I became outgoing.

Aaron Swartz had a similar experience.

" I believe fervently that intelligence can change and that talents can be learned. Indeed, I’d say I’m almost pathologically growth mindset. But even I began to notice there are some things I have a fixed mindset about.

For example, I used to think I was introverted. Everyone had always told me that you were either an extroverted person or an introverted person. From a young age, I was quite shy and bookish, so it seemed obvious: I was an introvert.

But as I’ve grown, I’ve found that’s hardly the end of the story. I’ve started to get good at leading a conversation or cracking people up with a joke. I like telling stories at a party a story or buzzing about a room saying ‘hi’ to people. I get a rush from it! Sure, I’m still not the most party-oriented person I know, but I no longer think we fit into any neat introversion/extroversion buckets."

Yeah, I also made the switch. It was something like a ten-year process, and I have a lot more relationships and connections from pushing myself a bit to be more outgoing and social. With the changes in behavior my personality shifted as well, and I now like a balance of intro and extro to recharge.

You’re replying to a post about the frequent misuse of “introversion”, and are (I believe) misusing the term in the manner discussed, yourself :)

It was mentioned above that in USA there's a forced meme that introverts should be extraverts, it was just an instance of that astroturfing.

I went through something similar in high school and college, my personal theory is that extroversion is very similar in a lot of ways to physical fitness.

Some people are naturally predisposed to a higher baseline, it's easier for them to maintain muscle mass, etc. However most people can significantly improve their fitness level with dedicated effort.

If you are in good physical shape something like going for a short run might be a massive mood/energy boost, but for someone out of shape they will find themselves exhausted very quickly.

Carl Jung, the first person to create a personality typology and to popularize(create?) the introvert/extrovert dichotomy, insisted that engaging your "opposite" type is important for personal growth. "Live what you have not yet lived."

That said, he also believed that people do have relatively fixed personality types on a fundamental level - you have both traits(introversion and extraversion) but are inclined to express one more than the other. I don't know if he thought it was impossible to drastically change from one end of the spectrum to the other on a fundamental level, but I know he spoke of cases where peoples superior trait was suppressed(e.g an extrovert might suppress their extroversion if they had bad/traumatic experiences interacting with the outer world) - in those case someone can appear to be an introvert and then reclaim their natural extroversion later in life after dealing with the underlying complex related to their suppression.

That's just based on his model of the psyche though - maybe he's wrong and there is no real difference fundamentally, and intro/extrovert is simply a matter of what you express throughout your life without some deeper aspect of the personality guiding it, but his explanation makes more sense to me

Doesn't that amount to the same thing? It's easier to "recharge" when you're among people you like and trust. And it's even possible to not like yourself.

The thing is that I recharge by being alone AND by being with friends, and am drained by being with people I don't like. Either I don't fit the standard, or the definition is too narrow.

Then you are probably just in the middle between both. Like with most of these categories it's a spectrum.

Also not all being with social is equal. You may converse less together just enjoying the presence. Have deep passionate conversations or the dreaded forced encounters.

>introverts recharge by being alone, and being in a large social function is draining; extroverts recharge by being in large social functions, and are drained by being alone.

Very few to no people fall into this dichotomy - whether or not I feel "recharged" by social interaction or solitude is not static. It highly depends on my mood, who I've been spending time with lately and and what I've been up to. It also depends on who, specifically, are at the social function.

It also has changed at various times in my life.

Its so true that US society is strongly tilted towards extroverts. As an introvert I feel like I'm forced to live on the edge of everything, keeping my head down while still engaging in performative socialization just to keep the extroverts from expressing hostility towards me. Their culture is often one of pushiness, aggressiveness, and wealth/status competition games and none of those appeal to me on any level.

Meanwhile its very difficult to find other introverts, no doubt because they are also hiding.

>performative socialization

Lol, this explains it wonderfully.

Honestly, I always found this model terrible also. To me it would imply that e.g. introverts would arrive at a social event active, cheerful, outspoken, comfortable and then as the event progressed they would gradually become quieter, less comfortable, more detached. And extroverts the other way around - would arrive tired (assuming they were alone earlier) and gain steam as the event went on. I can't think of a single person in my life persistently matching either of those. If anything, it seems to better model person's reaction to alcohol.

Some research on book "Quiet" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CVJBzvaylH8

It is yet another easy dichotomy for low quality pseudo-journalism and LinkedIn/medium posts of attention seeking writers. It was the same with the whole millennial, gen XYZ people putting stickers on things and inventing irreproducible rules based on short-sighted observations of non-representative samples.

> it would surely help to not label people

Would it help? For better or worse, people tend to like having a label that bundles up characteristics; it puts a face on a complex of factors that might be bothering them, and it facilitates communication. It's easier to say "I'm mostly an introvert, but I'm friendly with people whom I like" than it is to go into detail.

Further, although you can push everyone to communicate and interact with others better, there is a large subset of people for whom that's difficult. By pushing them to interact with others "better" without acknowledging that, you could be doing them a disservice. Labels, even imperfect ones, can make it easier to do that acknowledgement.

I see it as a bit of both. Labels can and absolutely do help people in the ways you describe. You might be down about a certain characteristic of yours until you discover others like yourself. What once made you feel like an outcast is now how you are able to maintain a sense of belonging in a community. Everybody deserves that.

However, in my experience, the issue is when that label feedbacks so heavily and so strongly as to become a defining piece of one's identity. It can easily become less about self-exploration and understanding and more about fitting in. The difference between the two is very subtle and I'm intentionally being very non-prescriptive about it as I believe that line is different for everybody.

You can sort of apply Goodhart's Law to it. As it shifts into being a target for who you should be, it ceases to be a good way to measure who you are.

Yeah the label helps to understand your own condition.

I think the main reason for the "introverts" draining, is a set of preconceived notions about social interactions, they expect certain answers and not receiving them will be frustrating and confusing.

Therefore, the best thing they can learn is to be "outcome independent" in all their social interactions.

The real reason why for "introverts" social interactions are draining is because they would rather do something else that is very nice and comfortable that they are very used to. i.e Staying alone + eating tacos + Watching Netflix etc.

If you were watching the Super Bowl on a Sunday and you had to go out and meet someone for 15 mins you would find it "draining" too. At the back of your mind you want the conversation to quickly end so you can go back to doing your favorite things.

Only when a person genuinely appreciates the advantages that come with making long term long lasting connections and relationships can they even try and make the switch happen. If your social circle is large enough serendipitous things start to happen.. i.e a crazy job opportunity or getting funding or an amazing partner way out of your league etc.

Sounds about right. There is no real introvert or extrovert. Just people who like hanging out with and people we don't. With people whom we like to hangout with we are extrovert, and other then we are introvert.

This is remarkably reductive. Some people -- including me -- would prefer not to hang out with anyone, including people they ostensibly like. For some, the scope of people with whom they'd be comfortable hanging out is quite low. If we can't call such people introverts, then I don't know why we bother making up words for things at all.

This is absolutely, scientifically, false.

Introversion and extraversion are very robustly defined and proven traits. Maybe you don't understand what they are, or maybe you're one of those people who's not strongly one or the other so it seems to you like "everyone" just has both of those, but there is no real question about whether the traits exist.

> This is absolutely, scientifically, false.

You are overly confident in an unhelpful way here.

How would you react if someone came in and said "there is no real gravity; it's just that the earth loves us very much"? Or "there are no viruses and bacteria; we get sick from bad air and evil spirits"?

That's more or less the level of wrong that deepstack is. The Big 5 Personality Inventory is probably the most robust, reproducible piece of psychological science we've got, and while there might be arguments that it needs more nuance in places, the bare existence of introversion and extraversion as traits is not even slightly in question in the scientific community.

Your feeling that it might not be true—or that I'm "overly confident" in its truth—just doesn't hold up to decades of scientific consensus.

Almost like it's more of a spectrum than a binary dichotomy :thinkies:

>How would you react if someone came in and said "there is no real gravity; it's just that the earth loves us very much"? Or "there are no viruses and bacteria; we get sick from bad air and evil spirits"?

Gravity can be measured more objectively than social science (such as psychology) concept such as introvert/extrovert, which is determined by committees such as DSM IV or maybe now V. Introversion and extraversion are just one thing that is measured within a certain context.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com