Being Shy Is Just a Bad Habit, and You Can Break It With Regular Practice | Hacker News Reader

Being Shy Is Just a Bad Habit, and You Can Break It With Regular Practice

lifehacker.com

56 pointsobtino59 comments

Mention introversion and shyness, especially around geeks, and many people will come out saying, "I like being shy," "I'm an introvert, that's just the way I am," and things like that.

Different people learn social skills differently. For me they were incredibly hard to learn, but my life improved so much with each bit that learning each bit motivated me to learn the next. Now nobody can believe I was ever not outgoing.

Saying "I'm X" doesn't mean you have to be X forever. But putting it that way reinforces your X-ness. Some people say shyness is like gayness, something your born with. I haven't observed that to be the case, not that I've researched it.

To me the problem with being shy isn't that others look down on it. It's that it prevents you from solving many problems. Most of life's hardest problems as well as greatest solutions are social.

Saying "I like being shy"... well, everyone likes being shy sometimes. But I doubt anyone who also knows a million other ways of being would prefer losing everything but shyness. Do you like having no option other than being shy?

To anyone who says you can't learn social and emotional management skills to overcome shyness, that wasn't the case with me or others I know. You can say those cases are anecdotal, but so is yours.

>Different people learn social skills differently. For me they were incredibly hard to learn...

Precisely. I like the introvert/extrovert description of recharges alone/recharges with other people. I grew up as a serious introvert, but my parents knew the value of social skills. One day my father turned it from a chore into an introvert-style learning exercise by framing it as a skill to be learned and not a quality to be had.

I joined the orchestra, got comfortable with public speaking, learned how to make small talk. I'm not a natural at it, but get by fine today, even in very public sales and lecture/teaching roles.

I still like to go home at the end of a day and recharge alone, but I can use it like a skill and it's been incredibly valuable.

I read your definition, and thought, "Yeah, I'm an introvert because I like to recharge alone." But then my next thought was, "Actually, it depends on how I'm feeling." Often I seek company because I like to recharge with other people.

Am I an extrovert or introvert? I don't feel like I'm in one or the other for the particular majority of time. I don't believe it's a great model for describing everyone.

For the record, I used to be shy but forced myself out of it. I also felt I had to learn new skills (sometimes a painful process), but I still don't believe I'm naturally either introverted or extroverted - neither really describe me or my behaviour.

It's a continuum, not a constant, and can definitely be based on the situation or who you're with.

I agree, there are some people, close friends & usually in small groups of 2 or 3 people, I love to spend lots of time with and don't feel worn down after spending time with them.

And in certain groups with a good vibe they can be incredibly fun.

But in the general case I'm definitely an introvert. A week of sales calls runs me into the ground by the end for example.

How did you overcome it?

I was shy well into my 20s. My problem initially was that my parents weren't very social people and never taught me the social skills I needed. This combined with low self-esteem (which I think built-up from the low social skills), made me a really shy person.

The real problem is that opportunities can and will pass you by when you aren't social (in most companies, you most likely won't get promoted). I wasted a lot of time at home, because I avoided social situations at all cost. You won't know what you miss as a shy person until it's too late.

How did I fix it? 4 years of forcing myself into social situations. I joined a few groups on meetup.com and just recently started my own.

This is what it takes. You need to push yourself. Some people can't do this on their own and actually need therapy.

It's great if it worked for you. I did the same and forced myself into social situations for years. I became quite functioning socially after a few years but I never got really comfortable and in the end had to stop because I was completely exhausted. I also went through therapy with the same result and the therapist basically telling that I am a loser. Psychological problems are difficult. Most obese people probably know pretty well how to lose weight but they just can't do it. Same for alcoholics.

"Some people say shyness is like gayness, something your born with. I haven't observed that to be the case, not that I've researched it."

It actually is the case, for those who have researched it. Simplistic example that demonstrates this: I have two 1-year-old nieces. If you say, "Hi!" to one she gets excited, looks you in the eye, and smiles and giggles. Do the same with the other and she'll smile but immediately bury her face in her shoulder.

I think what you're talking about -- and many of the other comments on this page -- isn't shyness, but something completely different that actually has a much more descriptive name: Social Anxiety Disorder.

I like being introverted. I enjoy spending time alone with my thoughts.

I hated being shy, which made me anxious in social situations. People confuse these a lot. Anxiety is pretty much always a negative. Introversion can be a big positive.

Getting over being shy took a long time and it basically just took a lot of practice...putting myself in social situations despite my fears.

This comment nails it:

"""Please read "Quiet - The power of introverts in a world that can't stop talking" by Susan Cain

Saying its a habit is saying that you can easily overcome it. I don't feel it's a choice, do you know how many times I thought about ending my life because I hated being born an introvert and shy?

This article might as well be called: If you are shy, its you're fault, stop being lazy and change.

Once gays are accepted the biggest issue is probably going to be that introverts dont feel accepted in this extravert world."""

The conflation of terms like shyness and introversion (etc) has been discussed before, so I'll leave that one alone. The last two sentences of the comment are more interesting. If you are shy, is that necessarily bad? And is it your "fault"?

The other issue applies as well. It's not OK to fire someone because of their gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, etc; but firing someone because they are "shy" or "introverted" or "not a people person" seems to be perfectly acceptable and legal. Shouldn't that be considered discrimination as well? (Assuming that "being good with people" isn't a requirement of the job.)

> This article might as well be called: If you are shy, its you're fault, stop being lazy and change.

There seems to be a tendency to conflate someone saying "You can change X" and "If you suffer from X, you're a lazy and bad person." That's not productive. It's an emotional response to a logical issue. pg goes into depth about these responses in the article "Keep Your Identity Small": http://paulgraham.com/identity.html

A huge percentage of people can improve their social skills to practice, and we as a community can accept that without taking it as an insult to anyone who has weak social skills.

Well hold on though – there's a big difference between saying "you can change X" and "X is just a bad habit". A habit is supposed to be something you can overcome with a relatively trivial amount of practice and persistence, and that is why there's a stigma about having them.

Yes there are treatments for social anxiety, but labeling a medically recognized disorder as a "habit" is demeaning and not cool.

> A habit is supposed to be something you can overcome with a relatively trivial amount of practice and persistence, and that is why there's a stigma about having them.

I haven't heard this connotation of habits being easy to change before. There's such a huge industry around developing good habits or getting rid of bad ones, and Google shows more results for "changing habits is hard" than "changing habits is easy".

The author also didn't address Social Anxiety Disorder, just shyness, which is not a medically recognized disorder. Again, I think this is a case of reading too much into what the author says because people are emotionally attached to the subject.

Ironically, this thread has degenerated in to exactly what pg is describing. People are binding their identity to their preferred style of social interaction.

"I'm an extrovert..." "Oh well, I'm an introvert"

Isn't someone's style of social interaction integral to their identity?

seeing as personality is defined as a preferred set of reactions to external events, your preferred style of social interaction is part of your identity by definition.

this is shorthand for saying "I prefer alone time to recharge" or "I am energized by the company of others," which is a fundamental aspect of identity.

factor analysis of personality breaks down personality into related sets of consistent behaviors. introversion/extroversion exists in even the simplest model. the distinction was first noticed by Jung. it was even observed in dogs by Pavlov, who found that dogs that were active around other dogs fell asleep when left alone, where as dogs that seemed exhausted by the same events perked up when isolated.

introversion/extraversion is not a constant preference. sometimes introverts like parties. but individuals have a preference for one or the other that forms a preferred set of responses to external events, which makes it part of the definition of personality.

this is an article based on folk psychology written in ignorance of thousands of articles on this subject, starting with Jung, experimentally noted by Pavlov in animals, and made rigorous in the work of Hans Eysenck. Eysenck used factor analysis to rigorously define extraversion and identified it as a basic dimension of human personality.

this is an incontrovertible finding of modern psychology. extraversion/introversion form one of the parts of the five factor model, which uses factor analysis to identify five core factors of human personality. some models have more, some less - that's the art of the technique. but they all have introversion/extraversion.

there is a distinction between shyness and introversion, where the former is mostly likely meant to mean socially anxious. however, introversion is an enduring personality trait that factor analysis consistently identifies.

Sure it's part of your personality, but that doesn't mean it has to be part of your identity. There are people who don't consider their gender part of their identity, there are people who don't consider their (lack of) religion part of their identity, and there are definitely people who don't consider intro-/extrovert part of their identity.

(Note that "identity" has the same meaning as in pg's article, above.)

well, pg is some dude defining identity on a blog, and the people i mention are famous scientists who quantified personality and isolated introversion/extraversion using a statistical theory with predictive value. this theory explained the behavior of dogs that Pavlov had noted in the fifties. the preference was eventually linked by Eysenck to levels of cortical arousal.

whether you consider it part of your identity or not is moot since introversion/extraversion still defines a consistent set of reactions to external events.

the article is wrong on every level. introversion has nothing to do with confidence. i speak very confidently when i want to. i was an excellent ta and can present on subjects clearly. in the course of my studies and career i have had several people tell me that i was the only person who could clearly explain complicated mathematical concepts to them. i enjoy talking to people and discussing with them.

i am still an introvert and have a preference for isolation that is consistent in my reactions to external events. this preference does not determine my reaction to all events. how introverted i am is a measure of the consistency of my preference towards solitude. i like talking with people - i just don't like it all the time.

i'm sure some people don't consider them introverts or extraverts. they usually fall on the middle of the scale, with no distinguished preference towards either category. however, their existence does not disprove that other people have strong preferences towards introversion or extraversion.

Nobody is arguing that intro-/extraversion does not exist and is not a valuable component in predicting human behaviour. pg 's article predicts that people self-identifying as X will have certain hangups around X, e.g. people self-identifying as shy are less likely to learn to be less shy, even if this would be desirable. Looking at this thread, that is exactly what happens. (And I'm done with this thread.)

I like being an introvert; I wouldn't change that for anything. I have learned not to be shy, to function in social situations. I think that's what the article means, learning to function, but unfortunately people will continue to confuse shyness with introversion and assume you can change either. It annoys me the number of times people have told me I need to "stop being a lone wolf" or "come out of my shell." That would get a two-word answer nowadays.

"Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes."

I'd like to risk being facetious and suggest that "being good with people" is a requirement for most good jobs, the ones where it's not are the first that get outsourced/replaced with robots/laid off.

Well, yeah. Admittedly the phrase "being good with people" is kinda vague. In most jobs you have to deal with people in some way or another. But when people use this phrase, they often mean something similar to "extroverted", "talkative", "persuasive", etc. Like for jobs in sales, these qualities (?) are often required and expected. However, I don't see how they matter much in a desk job, assuming you manage to communicate well (in some form or another) with your co-workers and clients.

There are different ways of being good with people. You can be good at talking with people you need to talk to, professionally, but not enjoy chatting about nothing with random strangers. Somehow not doing the latter makes you "shy". OK, so be it, but if you as a manager base your hiring/firing decisions on that you are a fool.

"Shyness is a habit, it can be fixed!" reminds me of the "Homosexuality is a medical condition. It can be cured!" attitude of the mid twentieth century.

We all know how that ended.

I hope that as a society, we can find acceptance towards the introverts, much like how many straight people today are finding acceptance towards those who are different from them, realizing that in our essence, we are all the same.

The idea that any 'habit' manifesting itself socially/mentally are malleable and subject to the waning nature of societal confines. We, as members of the 21st century, may reprove of homosexuality as a disease because we are tolerant of love on a same-sex basis and believe that homosexuality cannot be cured but the same could be applied to many mental disorders. People who have aspergers or social anxiety are labelled as mentally ill because they do not conform to what we deem 'socially acceptable' - a coveted title that we cannot all claim to inherit. Our entire concept of what's a 'bad habit' or what's a 'disorder' is all a matter of social convention, leading us to label and shun people who do not fit the convention.

We live in a world where extroversion and all-roundedness are redeemable qualities, just as stoicism and reservedness was valued in Ancient China. The problem lies in the fact that society - the sole determinant of economical value - sees certain values as appropriate to the state of world and beneficial to its continued function. Human beings are biologically wired to adapt to social changes, and despite our wishes for society to adapt to accommodate us, there are instances where we need to make ourselves viable assets to an ever-evolving society. We obviously cannot change our personalities completely, but every course of action we take - from putting on deodorant to forcing ourselves to pass niceties to people we detest - are testament to the fact that we conform to what society demands of us.

'It's not OK to fire someone because of their gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, etc; but firing someone because they are "shy" or "introverted" or "not a people person" seems to be perfectly acceptable and legal. Shouldn't that be considered discrimination as well? (Assuming that "being good with people" isn't a requirement of the job.)'

What do you mean by 'a requirement of the job?' Is that a concrete, unchangeable list that had to be agreed upon at the hire date? Employers aren't infallible. Imagine you hire a programmer and you didn't specifically say "must be easy to get along with" or "must be willing to state objections in team meetings." Two months later you find that this person's rudeness or shyness is causing train wrecks on the team. You want to be able to fire them if all else fails, right?

I think the idea of shyness as a legally protected trait is silly. There are a whole host of personality issues that may make a person unsuited for a job. Let's not handcuff employers here. It's as fair for an employer to fire me because I never speak up when I should as it is for me to quit because I don't like their corporate culture.

I think the important distinction should be between "traits that have nothing to do with the job". and those that do. Race, gender, sexual orientation, spiritual creed etc almost always have nothing to do with your job (examples such as a priest naturally exist).

Shyness or introversion pretty much also fall into this category, though with a bigger grey area. So no, I don't think shyness should be a protected trait by itself, but the category it mostly falls into should be.

It's a huge gray area. To expand on your point, if you're a socialist Buddhist and I'm a libertarian Muslim, there's nothing legitimate about that difference that makes me unable to code alongside you. We might not hang out, but we can debate the merits of application designs and help each other with bugfixes.

But I'd say personality is very different. Personality is basically a summary of what it's like to work with me. If I'm too shy to express ideas or passive aggressive or so extroverted that I won't stop talking and let you work, that's a real, practical problem.

"I can't get along with you" is a perfectly valid reason for me to quit if you're my boss or fire you if you're my employee. Anything restricting that will create dysfunction. How can this be compatible with making personality a protected class?

Heck, personality isn't even clear-cut like gender or disability is; I'm not clear on how you could even write such laws.

I think that comment actually misses Susan Cain's point entirely. Here's a quote from Ms. Cain:

"Shyness and introversion are not the same thing. Shy people fear negative judgment, while introverts simply prefer less stimulation; shyness is inherently painful, and introversion is not." [1]

If you accept that definition of shyness, then it is necessarily bad. Living with fear and pain is bad. Missing opportunities to connect with people because of a remote possibility of being hurt is bad. Simply wanting more time to yourself is not.

Regarding fault, it doesn't really matter who's to blame (and I didn't see anything in the article about fault). As an example, some people are born with type 1 diabetes and have to constantly manage their blood sugar levels. It's not their fault that they were born with this disease, but it's their problem to manage it. The same goes for shyness. Your shyness may not be your fault, but you're the only one that's hurt by it.

[1] http://ideas.time.com/2012/01/26/dont-call-introverted-child...

Shy people fear negative judgment

What? While I absolutely agree that introversion and shyness are not the same thing (although they probably often reinforce each other) I've never heard and deeply disagrees with that definition of shyness. Shyness has nothing to do with fearing negative judgment.

Wikipedia says: In humans, shyness (also called diffidence) is a social psychology term used to describe the feeling of apprehension, lack of comfort, or awkwardness experienced when a person is in proximity to, approaching, or being approached by other people, especially in new situations or with unfamiliar people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shyness

That is a much better description in my eyes.

And shyness itself isn't by definition a bad thing. Depends on context and what is valued in society. That said I really believe that being able to challenge your shyness is valuable (needs practice) and that you should be aware of what opportunities you might dismiss because of your shyness.

"Shy people fear negative judgment" is a bit facile on its own; it was sort of mentioned in passing in her TED talk. But it's actually not far from my understanding of the subject. (IANA psychologist, though.)

The wikipedia quote you gave lists apprehension, discomfort, and awkwardness as the feelings that are symptomatic of shyness. Those feelings strongly imply a fear of something—some negative consequence that might result from a given social interaction. If that weren't the case, why would you feel apprehensive, uncomfortable, or awkward?

Many people recognize their anxiety, even if they don't label it, but either don't notice or actively deny that there might be an underlying belief that causes it. Beliefs can be things like, "She's going to notice how awkward I am," or, "I have no idea what to do in this situation," or, "If I screw this up I'll never live it down." An eye-opener for me was reading an inventory in a social anxiety book and seeing exactly how many of the distorted thoughts I accepted about myself without even knowing it.

It's also worth mentioning that cognitive behavioral therapy is largely about becoming aware of these anxiety-provoking beliefs and developing different responses to them. If anyone reading this is interested in trying to reduce their shyness, I recommend researching this approach.

If that weren't the case, why would you feel apprehensive, uncomfortable, or awkward?

Because it is irrational? People can have phobias against pretty much anything, even if you know that the fear is irrational and groundless you can still be petrified by it.

Shyness is particularly common among small children, I don't think they fear negative judgment.

Yes, it's irrational, but usually if you ask someone to really unpack why they fear X, they can explain an exact scenario. Often just the process of explaining it oneself helps you get over the fear.

Children certainly fear negative judgement. Think how many times they hear the word "no" and get a nasty look from their parents.

As I read the comments, I see people becoming polarized very quickly. People are comparing shyness to homosexuality, etc.

I think we need to calm down. As I read the article, it is saying that if you think you're handicapped (as in, at a disadvantage, before someone brings up physically disabled people) in society due to shyness, then it is possible to work on it and overcome the handicap to a large extent. If you are happy with being shy, it's OK; no one wants you to change :)

I find being shy an impairment to making new friends and dating, and it bugs me. The weird part is: I used to be a TA in the university, and did a great job. I was able to lecture very well, and got good reviews. But in a social setting, I clam up. However: if I know the people well, I can become quite the life of the party. But when I'm with strangers, I can't just come out of my shell. For example: I could never go to a bar by myself and strike up a meaningful conversation with a strange woman.

Saying "shyness is ultimately a symptom of you being uncomfortable with who you are" in the first sentence of the article does not sound like "it's OK; no one wants you to change :)" to me. That is the problem with the article, it presumes that there is something wrong with shy people. It could instead presume that there is something wrong with outgoing people, or that they are simply two equally reasonable ways of being, but it doesn't.

It's too bad that it bugs you - your way of being makes sense to me, you open up with those who have put in the time to deserve your openness and don't with those who haven't. Contrary to popular American male belief, pretty much everything in life is more important than being able to go to a bar and talk to a woman you don't know.

"Contrary to popular American male belief, pretty much everything in life is more important than being able to go to a bar and talk to a woman you don't know."

That may as well be; but not being able to initiate a meaningful conversation with a stranger won't get you into a relationship (if that's what one desires, of course). Once you get out of college and move to a strange town, it's very hard to strike up friendships; especially so if one is a shy person.

That is true, but talking with a strange (presumably attractive) woman at a (presumably crowded and loud) bar is at the most uncomfortable extreme of the average shy man's social comfort scale. Friendships and relationships are important, but there are plenty of ways to pursue them that are at the other end of that scale.

Not really if you approach it correctly. Find people that share interests with you, that enjoy same things you enjoy, etc. - internet makes that much easier. Visit places where such people assemble. Chances are you will encounter some people that you enjoy keeping company with. Then you will discover when you are in a suitable company, you're not shy at all.

Why you think you would necessarily enjoy conversation with random person you know nothing about, probably share no interests and have no common goals? Unless by "conversation" you don't actually mean conversation...

Discovering each others interests and performing an intersection of the two sets is also a conversation ... :)

Yes, sure, but you may pre-screen before - random selection of people happening to be in a particular bar at particular time is not the promising method. I'm not saying it can't work - I'm just saying it's not the one that people should be crushed if they're not having much success with it. It's like being depressed that playing lottery still didn't make you a billionaire and thinking there must be something wrong with you because of that.

It seems to me this article has been pitched badly. It does come across as "If you're shy, you're broken", where in my opinion it's actually trying to say:

"If you're worried that your shyness is stopping you enjoying yourself/making the most of opportunities then don't worry, it is possible to get past that".

I think it's a poor decision that they didn't differentiate between people who are quiet and happy with it, and people who are quiet and are frustrated by it.

I used to be the latter, and now even though I'm still pretty quiet, I'm a lot happier knowing I can open up a conversation or get involved in a group if I want to.

And I do have to say that I think it's a lot better having gotten over that bump, certainly I've been able to make a lot more opportunities for myself. But it does take work and it does take other people to help you.

For a lifehacker article, that contained very little of pithy, "try it now" practical advice one expects from that blog.

Some people have sensory issues. Too much, too loud, too long is physically overwhelming.

They can be plenty communicative in smaller, quieter settings.

Contemporary society can drive them nearly crazy, insisting they "speak up", over the din of dozens crammed into a loud, poorly ventilated room. Insisting they tune out multiple conversations 3, 5, 10 feet away from them, for 8 or 10 or 12 hours a day, every day.

Give them some peace a quite, and they are quite effective. Give them high signal to noise ratio, and they exceed their peers.

One size does not fit all. The first thing a "shy" person often needs to learn, is this. Really learn this.

P.S. They can even learn to do the "crammed room" thing, for limited stretches and when there is a specific purpose that centers on those people being gathered together in that setting. (E.g. presentations, conferences, etc.)

That doesn't mean that the goal should be to thrive in such, 24/7. Nor to indiscriminately partner up with whoever happens to be in the room, just because they're sharing physical proximity.

/grump

If anyone is shy and wants to reduce it, here is a simple, tested, and effective method: Say "Hi" to strangers, people at work, anyone you bump into. I do not mean a low hi, without eye contact. I mean a LOUD "hi," with a It's-nothing,-I-am-just-happy-to-be-alive smile on your face, and keep the eye contact.

Turbo mode: say "Hi, ___" whenever you know their name too.

There are underlying reasons why people are 'shy.'

Shyness could just be being shy talking to girls or boys you're attracted to, it could be shy talking to anyone. It could be shyness that occurs when presenting.

Shyness has a base of one having their guard up. Their energies will lock up, close off, and then it's difficult to impossible to use feeling to know you're safe (or not) in a situation.

Figuring out what these guards are, allowing the thoughts that come up and feelings triggered that cause your guard to go up is the only way to let your guard start to come down and stay down when it doesn't need to be up; If you go on medications you could even further distance yourself from being able to connect to your inner-self (to your body and emotions, and 'intuitive' understanding that comes from that connection).

The most effective treatment for shyness I've found, was by far retail customer service.

Anyone can get these jobs, probably even somewhere fun part-time. The bar is so low for this type of job they will take almost anyone. It's very easy to distill a business interaction down to a short, easy script. Then repeat that dozens of times a day for a year and suddenly you're an expert at small talk with every kind of person.

It really worked for me, highly recommended.

Or do some charity collecting. I mean with a tin in the street, not the UK thing we have at the moment of hordes of paid street spammers trying to get contact details.

Similar situation to shop work, but only nicer people will approach you, the ones who know the charity and want to give something. People like to tell their stories as well, which can help.

Didn't read the article, but I read the headline to my wife who has a Masters in Clinical Psychology and is studying for her MFT license exam. Her response, "That's garbage. Shyness isn't a bad habit, it's a personality trait; and it's perfectly normal." She went on, "The American culture tends to favor the extraverted, but studies show that introverts have just as meaningful lives as extraverts. They tend to have a more refined sense of self, they tend to know what they like, and they tend to be more selective with their friends. Introverts make great leaders and work well in groups, they don't demand extra attention."

She points out that people conflate anxiety with shyness. Same with anti-social habits and behaviors. Being under-socialized and not open to new experiences... I'd guess that's what this lifehacker article is doing. So if it's encouraging people to open themselves up a little more, more power to it. But please stop making "shyness" out to be some kind of defect!

Being introverted is one thing, being shy is another.

Introversion is a personality trait. It means you tend to spend more of your time on internal thought processes - that is, you tend to "reflect" more, as opposed to "interacting" more. Also, introverts are more self-aware. That's completely normal.

On the other hand, being shy is just avoiding exposing yourself. If taken to extremes, it keeps you from living life. That's not normal.

It's perfectly possible to be introverted but not shy. In fact, if you talk to actors and musicians (or anyone involved with artistic expression), you'll find a surprinsingly high number of them consider themselves introverts.

The last bit the author mentions is something I've thought about recently, which is - where do I live? Inside my head or outside of it? I find myself primarily living inside my head, which is a very different world than the one around me.

While the inside vs outside distinction likely correlates to intro/extraversion, I think it's quite likely a scale of its own. I think this is a much more interesting topic than the introvert extravert war this thread became and is worth everyone taking a second (or a day) to think about - where do you live?

Shyness is NOT "ultimately a symptom of you being uncomfortable with who you are." What an offensive statement to make!

Sure, shyness is easily surmountable--just start talking. It's like jumping off the high dive 'cause everyone behind you's already started climbing the ladder.

Awkwardness, however, is not so easily dispatched. So shyness has its uses and I'm perfectly comfortable resorting to it when necessary.

That's a rather ableist point of view. Being shy may be a "habit" for some people, but some of us actually have anxiety disorders.

I think I finally realized why Internet flamewars are as a rule comprised of insults and poor spelling and grammar:

Passive aggressive, thinly polite, well written (In a grammatical and syntactic sense.) posts on the same flame-inducing subjects are actually more painful to read.

writes article about his own experience accounting for an infinitesimally small fraction of all cases, gives advice to all cases with a boatload of preconceptions

its a survival technique.

Response to Kodess's comment on the site, being approved:

Agreed, being scared of a situation isn't necessarily habit, but it's definitely not good, and as you mentioned, can even cause you to become suicidal. Put into that perspective, it seems it would definitely be beneficial to not be shy if you had the choice - and that's what the author here is trying to get at. I was suicidal and shy all throughout school, until sophomore year of high school. That's when I became so fed up with my piece of shit life that I gave myself an ultimatum to change it. Started throwing myself into social situations (for me, it was primarily my utter inability to be attractive to girls that was making me suicidal - I couldn't even start to speak to a girl - any girl), and bit by bit, sophomore year entirely changed the trajectory of my life.

In retrospect, I was enormously awkward in all my first attempts to break my shyness, and it was entirely fueled by feelings of inadequacy and coming to identify with my current state - seeing it as an inherent part of me. I was born shy, this is the way I'm am, I can't change it, it's impossible, this is just who I am and it sucks shit and I'll kill myself eventually. Utterly defeatist talk. If you think that way, if you never even make the concerted attempt (do it for 3 months, at least, concerted full force and then you can say you've made the attempt and it failed miserably), then of course you're never going to change and it might as well not be a choice, even though it truly is.It's tough as shit, but you can get over it. And over time, what the author means is that it becomes more than habit - it becomes so deeply ingrained into your own perception of yourself that you can't escape it. At some point, you don't even try, and you condemn yourself to a pointless life of suffering and missed potential. Don't let it happen.

Anyway, to finish up my personal story - I've fairly completely lost all my shyness, though there are still times where I can't think of anything to say and am entirely out of my element at a social gathering. I'm just now realizing that I'm almost certainly a massive introvert, but as has been said already here, introversion isn't the same thing as shyness. Those who are shy will very likely tend towards introversion and those who are introverted may quite likely become shy as a lack of exposure to social situations, but learning how to cope with social situations and not be afraid is simply a result of experience, practice, and exposure. Do it enough and you'll realize there's nothing to be afraid of.

As a result of my first forays with girls in sophomore year, I realized I could change almost anything about myself that up to that point I had assumed were inherent failings in my being - I started taking the hardest classes in school, joined cross country (had never been athletic before), hell, even joined Speech and Debate Team and started my own microfinance organization...went on to fairly unequivocally become the highest achiever in my school, first person in its history to attend Harvard, now on leave to build a startup, traveled to all 7 continents last year largely on my own, etc. etc. No longer suicidal at all. Needless to say, my life was entirely transformed by that one simple decision I made in the summer before sophomore year of high school - to be fed up with the subpar person I was being, to refuse to accept my shyness, and to do something about it. Small changes can take you a far way.

Tangential, but pertinent in attitude: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=q...

Best of luck!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com