Hacker News Reader

Comment by dandellion | Hacker News Reader

He is providing a counter example, which is not the same as generalising.

Apart from the line "does it help in some ways, sure" the overall message of their post is that the author is wrong and that you can be equally successful without being sociable, which is a general statement.

It's not really supported by the anecdata that OP is a skilled, unsociable, successful person. That only tells us that this person, in their particular line of work, with their particular set of skills, can be successful. It also doesn't consider whether a version of them that was more sociable would be more successful.

That an introvert can be successful is a generally true statement if at least one introvert is successful.

Given parent is an introvert and succesful the statement is true.

Yeah but the statement in question is (quote) "you can be EQUALLY successful as an introvert" - and we're talking about whether people should, generally, strive to be more extroverted at work. That there exists a successful introvert is not in question and isn't a good criticism of the article to me.

Equally to what?

The maximum success of extroverts or the average or the mean?

What exactly is meant by succesful? What's the measure?

Is it really not clear from context? "If introverts made an effort to be more extroverted, would it make them more successful?" Success I don't know what OP meant, but pay, seniority, I don't know that it changes the answer much.

By that logic there exist introverts who are more successful than extroverts.

If they become more successful if they act against their self is questionable, like asking straight people to become a little more gay or vice versa.

I agree with you, but how do you know to use “he”?

Amusingly, "he" is incorrect! You are right to call this out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com