Hacker News Reader

> 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.)

'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.

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."

"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.

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.