Hacker News Reader

Comment by kieckerjan | Hacker News Reader

Middle aged European here. I still regularly go to parties (dinner and otherwise) and I notice that there are two kinds of people: people who throw parties, and people who don't. This sounds like a truism, but what I mean is: there are people who regularly throw a party and people who never do it.

I am solidly in the first category. I throw dinner parties, birthday parties, drinking parties, dance parties, midsummer parties, midwinter parties, game parties, etc. Yes, it costs time and money and is a lot of work. But what people (probably the ones that never bother) tend to forget is how unbelievably gratifying it is to get a bunch of people together, to feed them and to make them talk, laugh, dance, etc. Afterwards you are tired but also grateful and socially energized in a way that feels fundamental to my existence.

View on HN

It varies a lot depending on people and personality type. What's energizing to you is very exhausting and unfun to others. Extraversion / introversion basically. I don't like having many people over. 3 or 4 people who I know well is optimal for me.

Making a large party could be "type 2 fun" sometimes, ie exhausting and not very fun at the time, but satisfying to look back on as a kind of hard challenge I managed to accomplish, like climbing a cold mountain or so. But few are enough of those.

> 3 or 4 people who I know well is optimal for me.

Even that is a challenge of finding the mental energy to pick the date , see that everyone can come, picking some activity (or if you're hosting - make sure with your wife that the date is fine. What about your kids - you wanna put them in bed before?) etc etc. Some of it is probably no big deal but my brain is making it look big, perhaps because I lean introvert as well. It's so much easier to just think about the idea and say 'naaa fuck it' and open Youtube instead.

Helps if your friends are uncomplicated. We just chat, drink beer, make or order pizza, cook or bake something else, talk about work and family, sit in the sun, maybe play cards or just listen to music, talk about stories at recent events like concerts, rehash old stories, or updates about other friends, etc. There is no need to make a big deal about any of this.

But this is not a networking or new-friend-making style of party of course. Not even really a party, but fits "inviting people over for dinner".

I think a big problem is that people see this also as a thing where efficiency and productivity is important and they plan complicated activities etc. Similarly to how kids don't get much free time to just play and relax, adults also try to organize activities for themselves when just being together is often enough and the rest follows naturally.

> It's so much easier to just think about the idea and say 'naaa fuck it' and open Youtube instead.

I think this gets at the heart of the concern—it’s always easier to find something else distracting to do, but what’s the real cost? I don’t really know how to measure that, other than to say that American society and culture are doing particularly poorly right now.

This is something that has been going for generations and centuries. We are less and less dependent on people near us and more dependent on father-away large-scale systems. Same with extended families, neighborhood communities, etc.

You're right. But I think it's more than just about being an introvert or extrovert. In the past, boredome created a reason for most people to visit someone, play cards, host friends, or go somewhere. At present, more and more people (introverts and extroverts) are already turning to social media, streaming, gaming, YouTube, and any other online platforms as these offer modern, instant, unlimited entertainment with almost no coordination or planning.

> but my brain is making it look big

100%

You can say naaa fuck it and open Youtube when your friends are over, as well as putting your kids to bed when they're there. It's fine!

I understand the feeling, what worked for me was "you know what, fuck it, I will just plan it more loosely, let's see what goes wrong or who is unhappy".

Most of the times, everybody is happy even if things are not perfectly planned, and then they thank me for the "effort" (which was minimal, and sometimes can introduce confusions, as I need to adjust the date or the style as more constraints become evident).

I sometimes think it's a problem of my education of engineering as well, because I want everything planned well, think of all exceptional cases, etc.

You're right. Since I'm an introvert myself, I enjoy organizing events and inviting people over, because as the host, I always have a reason to change locations and get some “space” when the socializing becomes too much for me.

This is true as well. If you are otherwise not very social, being the organizer gives you a clear role and clearer expectations and tasks and reasons for people to start talking to you and vice versa. I find this helpful, as unstructured social environments are harder for me.

That certainly makes sense at an individual level, but it seems implausible as an explanation of the dramatic shift over the past decades from TFA, unless basic character traits have shifted dramatically over the past decades as well.

Character traits, technology, leisure time, have all changed.

It's not either or, it's all of the above: individuals do what feels good and if you're a great party thrower because it energizes you, you'll probably spread that influence some. And then possibly, the group reinforces itself by continuing to throw and attend parties.

At the same time, leisure time has changed: women work more, dads spend more time with kids, and the home offers a lot more easy entertainment that fits in with modern schedules. There seems to be less opportunities for parties with newer generations.

But of course, society seems to shun the party thrower because we're all busy. And so if nobody shows and the party thrower burns out, there's no influence spread. People dislike parties more and the idea reinforces again.

A mix of any of the above goes into our decisions about how to spend time.

I wonder if the cultural existence of the 'introvert vs extrovert' idea has reinforced this to a degree. I'm too young to know, but I doubt this was a discussion in the 80s. I'm also not too sure it's a good thing. I've seen introversion used as an excuse to hermit; extroversion as the sole reason to use drugs.

We put limits on ourselves psychologically in all sorts of ways, and we follow the ones we believe. There's a study that showed people who believe willpower is finite have finite willpower. I thought "well obviously, if you had finite willpower you'd know because you'd run out". Maybe we do just think too much?

If I don't feel like running and I go running, about two thirds of the time I feel like running after a few K. It's the same socially. The goal of introspection shouldn't be to freeze in a minute now.

It seems pretty obvious to me that this also existed in older times. It's a pretty well established and reproducible big five trait. There were always people who were lone wolf types, not necessarily hermits but people who like to be alone.

Ask your parents, it was certainly a thing in the 80s too. Even if I think about my grandparents, they didn't constantly have others over. My grandfather was a chill village guy who liked to spend time alone, working in the garden, working in his shed etc. But there were more regular externally forced events, like big weddings, gathering for a pig slaughter, coming together to renovate the house etc.

What changes is the tradeoff threshold.

Now, being alone is more attractive to more people than before. Some liked being alone even in the times when it just meant books or doing some loner hobby like gardening or woodworking or whatnot. But with Netflix and YouTube the tradeoff shifts. Also as people get more flaky, socialization is even mharder, making people more flaky.

So introverts existed before but today mild introverts may act more introvert-like, who earlier would have preferred to err more on the extravert side.

I personally find that I’m often extroverted and sometimes introverted. I think it’s less helpful to think of this as a static character attribute and more of a mood. I think the parent is pointing to the idea that by labeling something this may reinforce it such that introverts become more introverted by finding validation in books like Quiet, for better or worse. It’s a part of an interesting discussion that doesn’t seem to get talked about much at the very least.

I like the definition of extrovert and introvert that says that extroverts are regain their energy by being in group whereas introverts regains there by being alone. According to that, I'm an introvert, I need my alone time so that I can recenter myself and recover my energy. I do feel drained when being in events with a lot of people.

But, that doesn't stop the fact that I do like people, I like organizing parties (or rather I don't particularly like the organizing but I like the result of having organized parties and having close friends) at my place and regularly invite friends. It's just that after that I'm exhausted and I need some alone time to recover. So being an introvert doesn't imply that you shouldn't make effort to reach out to people or that you won't enjoy being with others. It just means that having some alone time is necessary to recover.

> I like the definition of extrovert and introvert that says that extroverts are regain their energy by being in group whereas introverts regains there by being alone.

That's the Big 5 meaning, which has some scientific backing. The other one that basically just means social/shy comes from Myers-Briggs, which while popular isn't based on anything and is pretty much just pseudoscience.

Sure, but it all depends on whether it's causing you problems or not. There are different ways to life to one's satisfaction. If you're having problems, you should change things up and push through discomfort and friction or just try things. But if you found a balance that works, then it's fine if that involves being alone a lot and just occasionally meeting people. Depends also on phase of life. In college freshman year you probably want to force yourself to go out regardless of how you feel, to establish some contacts and friends. Once you have a circle, it's fine to just live the way you enjoy it actually.

I'm an introvert. I occasionally love going to a big conference/event, including regularly speaking at them. I find it incredibly fun, and incredibly exhausting. It's fun and rewarding enough to do anyway despite being exhausting. I know other people who find it energizing.

There are people whose feelings about it vary, but there are also people whose feelings about it are consistent but they do it anyway, and that sometimes gets mistaken for variability.

I feel the same. What I found is that, you need to find what energises you, for me, a dinner party with 2 people would exhaust me. Doing a workshop with 20 people gives me energy (ideas, fun, issues to fix, satisfaction of contributing). As I write this, maybe its that feeling of contribution?

… or community?

Here's how I feel about it, FWIW:

I taught at a community college for a few years and have spoken at conferences. Those engagements are immensely enjoyable and energizing to me because they're performances. The roles of the audience and presenter are clear. I do my thing and the audience does theirs. I get that energy and enjoyment (a ton more of it, actually) performing live music. I walk off a stage jazzed. It's a wonderful high.

The dinner party scenario is absorbs energy. It's not necessarily less enjoyable than performing, but because it's peer-to-peer there's so much more protocol, nuance, and thought than performing. Even if I'm talking with people I know well I don't walk away energized. With people who are new to me it's a lot of work. Like anything it has come easier w/ practice.

Yeah, so this is the thing, i dont really like public talks with these well defined roles (audience / speaker), i really like cooperative workshops. I learn every time! Ofc i am still in a ‘power position’, but I genuinely learn a lot and compliment the participants when they find a clever hack to some issue, its amazing! Its also not about ‘walking off stage’, its about meeting people and building something, or nothing, over time for me.

I don't know that I've ever done a workshop like you describe. It sounds like it'd be a fun thing to try. I'll have to figure out a way to get into something like that.

It is super fun, its not a ‘masterclass’ or something, its not diy, it is more like diwo: do it with others.

You're making the mistake of supposing that since you are often extroverted you assume that many or even most people must be similar, just on a gradient. This is quite an extroverted think to think, so I believe you :)

I'm here to tell you that you are most certainly wrong on this point. People exist that view this kind of thinking as so bafflingly alien that they can't understand how someone would think it.

Social interactions require enormous expenditure of energy for me. They are not pleasant or energizing, they are rituals that must be accomplished to help me blend into a world that is not designed for me. I am most assuredly not being convinced of this by books I have read.

I think people assume a lot of things based on their own experience.

Some people who are actually somewhat more on the introvert side but force themselves to socialize, think that it's in fact supposed to be a struggle, for everyone, and everyone who seems to enjoy it is to some degree pretending, and is more diligent in putting up with the discomfort, so it's a character quality trait how much you get your act together and endure socialization.

It's like hating blue cheese or certain vegetables or the taste of niche foods. But in fact some people do enjoy the food, and don't eat veggies because they must or have great discipline. In fact this is also true of exercise. It is something that people do enjoy, the pump, the endorphins etc. (Usually it does take getting to a baseline fitness level to make it enjoyable, so it's not a static personality trait.) Similarly with public speaking or working with people all day etc. Some people truly love it and look forward to it. It's not only that they are tough and endure the suffering better. They do like it.

>It seems pretty obvious to me that this also existed in older times. It's a pretty well established and reproducible big five trait.

Parent is not saying there weren't introverts in the 80s. But it wasn't a big thing, and people didn't make it their whole personality, in the numbers they do now.

the last 5-10 years has seen an increasing number of people claiming "i'm an introvert" as a big facet of their personality. it's weird that there isn't a corresponding surge of self-identification as an extrovert (because if there's anybody that would be doing something loudly, it'd be extraverts).

As an introvert who grew up in a radically extroverted household, forcing oneself to be an extrovert all the time can be psychologically damaging over time.

It's also a source of chronic fatigue.

I don't think "being extroverted all the time" is the desired outcome that is being demanded. You don't need to do that to throw a dinner party a couple of times a year.

Imagine if you didn’t feel like running, and you made yourself do it, and after a few K you were like “this sucks, I wish I’d stayed home” and you finish your run and you didn’t enjoy it at all. But people keep telling you how great it is so you keep doing it and you keep hating it and after a while you eventually decide that running is not for you.

Would that be a reasonable conclusion? Or should we conclude that this is a psychological limit and we just need to stop thinking so much?

This is such a clear headed comment, so many people use this introvert trait as an excuse for not making any effort to reach out even to dear friends, to not step out of their own comfort, and to not take any risk.

I believe that all we have in the world are our relationships, maybe hermits are content in their way of life because they never could truly socialize but I don't know about them being fully happy.

What we call shyness to me could be understood as a lack of social intelligence mixed with little self-confidence, both of which you can gain by being out-reaching and taking risks. Not to put the blame on anyone of course because it does take real hard work for "introverts". But again, it is to big a deal to be an oversight and not try to be better in your own way.

It might be clear headed in tone but the argument is fundamentally absurd.

People are different. People have different preferences. Everyone’s mind works in different ways. Any argument that can be summed up as “you’re just no trying hard enough” is fundamentally unsound, unhealthy, unhelpful and entirely disrespectful.

I'm not sure, I think there is value in pushing through friction regardless of if you are introverted or not. One thing that is common to all humans is that loneliness correlates strongly with lack of satisfaction in life and being less healthy.

Before we talked as much about introversion and extroversion, people felt more obligated to do certain social events that they can more easily reject nowadays. That does mean it was uncomfortable and they had to push through friction because it's draining for introverts to do social events but being there also helped with making group of friends and staving loneliness. I do think this change in mores is one of the factors that contributes to the so called loneliness epidemics nowadays.

I'm alone most of the time, but I'm not lonely. Its by choice as I need very little socializing. I used to make an effort to be regularly social, but with the covid lockdowns I realized that I was overall happier with very little socialization. I couldn't come up with any benefit for what it costs me to socialize beyond the little that I actually need.

Hasn't your need for socializing changed over time? It sure has for me.

Thinking back, yes I think that is definitely true. Back before maybe 23 I was constantly looking to be out with people. How much care I have for what people think of me has also been decreasing with age. I socialized more than I wanted to meet other people's expectations and fit in.

People may be different, but that doesn’t mean we should accept it all the time.

I hate exercise. Like I really really really hate it.

Should I just accept this and live a life without it?

I don’t think it’s such a stretch to say that socialisation is similar.

> I hate exercise. Like I really really really hate it. > Should I just accept this and live a life without it?

That is entirely up to you. It's your personal life and your time. No one has the right to say what you should or must do with your time.

Just like socialization, it's up to you on how much you do or don't do. Pretending everyone needs to because you like to is stupid.

Socialization is exhausting, I have to do enough of that working. I am not going to on my personal time. I really don't care what other people think of it, or what justification they use to try and make it some sort of requirement, or how much finger waving they're going to do.

> lack of social intelligence mixed with little self-confidence, both of which you can gain by being out-reaching and taking risks.

I live this. Even today, I have to make myself be social, I have to practice (my first job as a waiter was the best thing to happen to me).

The human engagement muscle atrophies when you indulge "introversion" (for all definitions and causes), and our age of infinite individual delights has tipped the tradeoff towards "alone and easy". I wish the sensitivity toward and acceptance of "neurodivergent" had more recognition that the way humans have been doing things for the last 15000 years might have had some value.

We previously were more accepting, eg, if you read the accounts of various socialites trying to include shy, reclusive, or eccentric friends in high society, you see real effort and concern to include them despite the difference in behavior.

We dropped all that social connection/obligation and associated support it provided for various people when we stopped doing things that historic way.

Talking about a thing to virtue signal is not the same as doing a thing.

At least since the agricultural revolution (settling happened at various times depending on region, but we are talking thousands of years, up to 12k) up until a couple of hundred years ago most people lived in small communities of a few hundred people, where their great-great-grandparents also lived, huge extended family networks, regular festivities and behaviors tied to and strongly prescribed by farming work seasons and religious customs, semi-arranged marriages, job/land inherited from father to son.

There is nothing "natural" about living in some cramped city, meeting strangers all the time, trying to build connections and everybody leaving within 3-5 years to hundreds of miles away, navigating relationships online, working for big corporations with no stable coworkers, having to mingle with strangers all the time whose reputation, past etc you know nothing of etc.

The point the person above you is trying to make is that they lived in communities, in constant communication and contact with others. The idea of going home and hanging out by yourself is at least as unnatural as cities where you can still build a relatively stable community if you prioritize that sort of thing.

My point is that it was pretty much automatic and built in. It didn't require active effort, planning, etc. As we became less dependent on those around us and more dependent on large-scale systems of commerce and government, we are simply not forced as much. This is the same with having children and marrying. People "back then" did these things on autopilot, not as active choice. Today it requires active choice and deliberation and planning.

The expression "80% of life is just showing up" seemed like such a useless cliche to me, until I tried it.

I'm not too sure about that. Personally I feel like for myself it's tied up with self esteem. I have confidence in my skills, just never when there's strangers watching. Also to maintain the world state in your head and avoid stepping on toes etc.

I can feel my heart rate go up. Sometimes when asking or answering questions in the lecture hall I start quivering. Just the thought of standing up, preparing my question and follow ups can cause this.

You may be right in that it's an excuse. But at the same time there's this disgusting physical reaction and yes it's easier to give in than to stand up.

It's easier to interact with loved ones and close friends because you know they know you and won't judge if you say something wrong etc. But not so for any other interaction.

I don't know if it is clear headed. It disregards scientific consensus on introversion / extraversion being a real thing, and it also speaks against the actual experience of many people. Furthermore, you conflate introverts with hermits.

A lot of introverts actually like contact with other people. They often prefer smaller groups and a certain connection, they are more picky. And need some time alone afterwards.

But that doesn't mean they are hermits.

I used to think I like parties. That I have to like it. That something was wrong with me for not liking it. Now I know it is ok to not have fun at a party, and prefer a walk with a good friend or my wife. I am much happier this way.

As someone who had many years of depression, I know social isolation too. And it is just not the same.

That said, I admit it can at the same thing also be true that people cop out of a healthy way to stretch their boundaries or even expend just a little effort by mistakenly labeling themselves as introvert. Such misuse of the label doesn't mean it doesn't refer to a real thing and a real experience.

I think ADHD is a good parallel. I absolutely have it, I’m diagnosed and have had symptoms since childhood.

But even so, I often realise I self-justify not doing something and attribute it to my ADHD, excessively. It becomes a clutch, and I gravitate away from the willpower I do have.

That reminds me, it’s time to reach out to some friends and make weekend plans, even if I’d prefer having a quiet one. I’ve had too many recently :)

Also have ADHD, and yeah, I've realized that it's even easier to fall into a fixed-mindset trap if you actually have a good justification for it.

My current mantra is "I get to decide who I am." Identity is incredibly mutable, but we tend to get stuck with baked in early assumptions. It's so easy to think "I'm not good at this" and sort of silently translate that to "I could never be good at this," when not being good at a thing is everybody's natural state.

Of course, most skills are going to be easier for some people to pick up and harder for others, but that's rarely the determining factor; more often it's who's put in the time and effort.

It's so easy to forget that so many of these things are skills, and to assume that people that are good at them just got lucky, which is not only counterproductive to oneself, it's kind of disrespectful towards the others who worked so hard to get good at them.

This reply seems extremely conflating and shallow. How can you reach out if you generalise a whole range of personalities like that? Maybe you did not intend that do that but, i feel semi offended by this comment

i think some people et confronted with their shyness or awkwardness and they see that a social interaction didn't go smoothly and they conclude "oh, that must be because i'm an introvert". and then they stop practicing those social skills and it becomes self-reinforcing.

those people need to know that extraverts are also awkward and shy, but they've practiced their social skills so over time that gets better.

I think the concept has some value, but like most behavioral labels they’ve become so loosely defined and abused that they barely mean anything any more.

I can’t count how many people have chatted my ear off and bounced around the office, engaging other people in spontaneous enthusiastic conversation every day, only later to have them claim they’re introverted. The colloquial usage has expanded to encompass anyone who some times feels like staying home and watching Netflix instead of going out on Friday night. In other words, everyone.

I agree that it also becomes an excuse. I’ve had friends who really enjoy socializing and going to social events and also lament social isolation and loneliness, but being an “introvert” becomes the driving factor in their decision making about what to do on weekends or after work. You can see how much they enjoy social events when they’re basically obligated to attend (weddings, special event parties, immense peer pressure from friends trying to get them out of the house) but when left to their own decisions they’ll decide to stay home and be lazy 10 out of 10 times with “I’m an introvert” as the excuse. I’m excluding people with conditions like social anxiety disorder from this description, before anyone comments with whatabouts.

It gets really bad when they reach their 30s and 40s and they wonder why their friends have stopped sending invites to things (because they never accept) and they complain that dating is impossibly difficult (because they only leave the house for work)

I'm confused because it sounds like you're describing social anxiety, but then saying it's not social anxiety. I have social anxiety so I can't really imagine why somebody would act like that if they didn't.

Once I realized my introversion was psychological and mutable, not some fixed aspect of my personality, it changed my life.

We tend to anchor ourselves to labels. Lots of introverts I meet limit themselves in life needlessly because "I'm an introvert!" I see my old self in them.

Good on you. But this doesn’t apply to everyone. Hell, I’d even be willing to bet that your case is extremely niche.

Introversion can be a byproduct of so many different things that saying “it’s just a label” is not only absurd by itself, but utterly disrespectful too. It can be a choice too, sure, but that’s not the case for quite a lot of people.

Maybe it applies to you too. Have you tried ?

Not OP but I have. And I agree with them. Trying to acclimate and “do as the others do” has brought me nothing but misery, and greatly increased anxiety.

People are different. Just accept it.

Has everyone tried ? I know people are different, but it's pathetic to see how much people like you are attached to the idea that they can't change. Grow up.

I personally avoid to think about my self with labels about what "immutable" things "I am". Like "he is tall", "he has Z skin color", "he has 9 fingers", "he has brain type X", "he is thin", etc.

I do care about what values, passions and friends I have, and I have tried to find a set that is consistent.

I do not mind if someone tells me "I am an introvert", even if I do not find it extremely interesting. But if he says "I am introvert and will be unhappy all my life because I can't change that", I can't avoid thinking that he is focusing on something that does not help.

Labels exist for a reason. Sometimes labelling a problem puts it in perspective. Sometimes they can be hurtful. It really depends on the context.

Knowing you are an introvert (aka labelling it) can help you realise what works for you and what are your boundaries.

The point is that introversion does not mean complete isolation—this is the bit every extrovert neurotypical person in this thread seems unable grasp in the slightest.

“Prefers to be alone” does not mean “cannot function socially”.

> Knowing you are an introvert (aka labelling it) can help you realise what works for you and what are your boundaries

The problem is lots of people put this label on themselves without knowing for sure that it's the case, thus setting boundaries that don't need to exist.

How’d you lose the finger?!

> personally avoid to think about my self with labels about what "immutable" things "I am". Like "he is tall", "he has Z skin color", "he has 9 fingers", "he has brain type X", "he is thin", etc.

So do I, but when one attempts to push a square peg through a round hole (and sufficient force applied), the structural integrity of the square peg is compromised.

This is to say, if working against your inertia becomes traumatically painful, you may in reality be working against your nature rather than your inertia.

It requires a certain wisdom and a great deal of experience to distinguish between those aspects of oneself are immutable vs mutable. But I believe firmly that a loosely-held understanding of one's immutable nature is highly useful in living a happy life. I consider it equally important to what you are getting at: that some aspects which appear to be immutable are actually not, and the only way to know for sure is to stretch outside of one's comfort zone.

It takes skill and experience to tell the difference, but the effort is worth it.

Choice is a spectrum, some things are more choosey than others. My height is not very choosey, what I eat for lunch is somewhat choosey given the choices around me, and what I say is very choosey.

Certainly, what you find comfortable is somewhat choosey. Over time it changes and evolves, from your own experiences. The more you do things, the easier and more comfortable they become.

While I believe you're ultimately correct and it's important to recognize that at the macro level, that type of thinking is incredibly caustic and defeatist at the individual level.

We should take every opportunity to make life as fulfilling as possible, even if we don't always succeed due to things outside of our control. (Note: this is an abstract claim for what you want, I'm not saying being extroverted is more fulfilling than being an introvert.)

I see my old self in what you’re saying. I used to be extremely extroverted, spending nearly all my free time socializing, but now I find much more life satisfaction as an introvert. I derive a lasting sense of pleasure and peace from the things I build, especially physical things, while social interactions only created at best a fleeting sense of satisfaction. I also have much more time for reading, contemplation, and enjoying nature.

I get more than enough social time from my partner and a small handful of friends that I see on occasion. I lived quite a full social life, with a huge variety of people and activities, yet surprisingly I don’t find it all that memorable or important in retrospect. It’s a similar feeling to looking back on one of my former careers.

I am both autistic and introverted. I'm not really capable of socializing in a group larger than 3-4 people. I just stop talking when the group reaches a certain size. If I don't, I may lose hours of my life (and sleep) to an anxious analysis of what things I shouldn't have said.

I am in a small minority. My autistic colleagues do not struggle with this in the same way I do. While I may be a bit of an extreme outlier, I do exist. If I could be otherwise, I would. Throughout my life I have wanted nothing more than an accepting group of friends, and I have worked hard at trying to achieve that. I have never succeeded. At age 41 I have lost hope that I can be as you describe.

I do have wonderful experiences socializing with others 1:1. My group socialization is limited to that with my wife and two children (aged 4 and 2). I love people. I admire them. But there are some aspects of my nature which are so intractable that they cannot be changed no matter the effort expended or identity adopted (or jettisoned).

For context, the first 40 years of my life, I did not identify as autistic, nor did it occur to me as a possibility. I knew I had difficulty making friends, but I did not intentionally form an identity around that fact; to the contrary, I actively worked to change it (to deleterious effect).

I offer this in the hopes that it will loosen the "rules" around which your viewpoint is formed. It is not always as simple as your comment makes it out to be.

> but I doubt this was a discussion in the 80s

Honestly if this doesn’t sound a “the fuck am I saying?” alarm in your head I don’t know what to tell ya.

This isn’t a recent phenomenon. People have different social tendencies. People have always had different social tendencies. And this is way before you even factor in things like neurodivergence possibly tilting one towards preferring isolation or more intimate/lone activities.

It boggles the mind that anyone would think the introversion/extraversion dichotomy a product of modern times.

It’s a little odd how everyone is misreading this comment.

They are not saying that introverted and extroverted characteristics did not exist in people, they are saying that people did not run around proclaiming their introverted or extroverted status in the same way they do today and they didn’t use it to rationalize behaviour to the same extent.

> I wonder if the cultural existence of the 'introvert vs extrovert' idea has reinforced this to a degree. I'm too young to know, but I doubt this was a discussion in the 80s.

That doesn't mean it didn't exist then, it means it either wasn't socially acceptable or wasn't understood (or both) then. See also the graphs of left-handedness over time, which were basically flat at the actual level of left-handedness except for a big dip during the century or so when left-handed people were commonly forced to hide it and use their right hands.

In the 80's many schools subjected kids to the Myers-Briggs test and introvert or extrovert was one of the categories it sorted people into. I was found to be introverted which was a bit of a surprise to me. The rest of it felt right to me (I was either INTP or ISTP, I forget which).

This is never a popular take but I think you completely nailed it. Anytime I see someone who has framed their world through the extrovert/introvert lens it's always done as justification for antisocial behavior. Lots of buzz phrases like "needing to recharge your batteries" while never admitting that socializing itself is a skill that needs practice to improve at so it doesn't feel like as much work.

A skill, how funny. Thats something only a "mainstream" person can say. You can practice your social skills as much as you want, if you are for some reason not a mainstream person. Because, now, if you go out, and try to "socialize", everyone and their dog will hit on you being special, and ruin your social experience basically forever. Did you ever try to socialize as a disabled person, for instance. You know, the hardest part of that game is to have a "normal" conversion, without random strangers going for the "Oh, now that I meet you, I have this pressing question I always wanted to ask", followed by a very unreflected, many times insulting, question about your disability, and how you cope with it. You will try that for a few months. Maybe even for years. Until you finally grow up, and realize that interacting with mainstream society is useless and will ALWAYS only hurt you in the long run. Sure, you can learn to cope by ignoring certain people, and trying to pick the good parts. But the more you do this, the more you will realize it is a lost game.

So please, don't unnecessarily simplify your analysis. It leaves a lot to be desires.

I am friends with and know disabled people that enjoy socializing, some far more than I do. I guess they never grew up.

Oh, you are friends with a disabled person, that of course, is something totally different. I didn't realize I am talking to an enlightened human.

"I am friends with a disabled person" is almost as revealing as "I have experience, I am a social worker." Both types of people usually are so obnoxious, that I try to put distance between them and me as a knee jerk reaction.

> socializing itself is a skill that needs practice to improve at so it doesn't feel like as much work

So is playing basketball.

From my memory of the 80’s, the introverts dealt with the stress of dealing with so many people for so long by quietly getting drunk enough to talk to people.

With less people, this happens less nowadays.

Humans have a great capacity to convince ourselves of anything, it's the beauty of language! For every decision you want to make, you can always find one quote or idiom supporting it, and another against it. Yes we have to learn from the lessons of history yet every time "it's different this time"!

Big 5 traits like extraversion are pretty conclusively genetic and meaningful. Twin studies show strong heritability, and personality studies show meaningful lifetime outcome differences (extraverts earn more, etc).

GP appears to be using the Myers-Briggs definition instead of the Big 5 definition. It's popular but has no backing like Big 5.

MB extraversion correlates basically the same as Big 5. They are more similar than different

I agree that everyone should make an effort to exercise and socialize (as well as other difficult but rewarding tasks). But it's undeniable that different people respond to these things differently. Some people feel energized after difficult exercise, others feel drained. Some people find socialization exhilarating, others find it exhausting.

Encouraging someone to push past their comfort zone is helpful. But it seems less helpful to imply that you know more about the bounds of their comfort zones than they do, or that their comfort zone must simply be a cultural construct because it doesn't match yours.

I think the introvert vs. extrovert thing has become almost a meme. I would definitely describe myself as “generally introverted” but I still very much enjoy many “extroverted” activities. I get the same sense of satisfaction and enjoyment out of throwing a party for people as the OP described. I will not be the center of attention at my own party, but I still enjoy the act of making other people happy. In fact, most likely what will happen is once everything is running smoothly and people are having fun, you’ll find me out on the back deck where it’s quiet talking to only one or two other people.

“Throwing a party” is not an introvert vs. extrovert thing. What you do at the party is.

I used to be a classic "tech guy." Identified as introverted, said I don't like parties, etc etc. The whole bit. Id' be exhausted after social events, need time alone to cool off, and so on.

At some point my partner told me I should stop saying I'm introverted because she saw me always interacting with people and enjoying it. So I reflected, realized she had a point, and stopped identifying as introverted.

Over time I realized that actually, I love interacting with people, especially closer friends. A "party" can be 4-6 people, it doesn't have to be huge. And sure, after larger events I still need some time to cool down, but stopping identifying as introverted has been a huge improvement overall to my life.

The cultural idea of "introversion" tends to be a bit different than the psychological idea as far as i understand.

e.g. It is not supposed to be about how much you like socializing or how good you are at it.

I'm a shy introvert. I find it really difficult to make friends and to connect with people more than on a superficial basis. I have a few friends with whom I can talk for hours about anything and nothing, but when I meet a stranger I dont know what to do.

That being said, I still found a way to serve my community (my mosque). I am chartering a Toastmasters club to help grow people in their public speaking and leadership skills. It's incredibly fulfilling and also humbling because I'm probably the least accomplished person in the room (I'm a college dropout turned SWE, and there are doctors, medical and otherwise, professors, business owners, and more).

I feel way out of my league but there's so much excitement that I feel like I'd be letting the community down if I decided I don't want to talk to anyone for a while.

So yes, I agree with you. Putting yourself into situations where you may start uncomfortable but then eventually it becomes more uncomfortable to start. You just need the activation energy, i suppose.

Depends what you do. I enjoyn hosting big parties because I spend a lot of time cooking for them, which I love doing and everyone appreciates. Then I have the opportunity to interact as much as I want.

Introversion means "finding company tiring". It doesn't mean you don't enjoy company. Most (but not all) introverts find company to be pleasurable for a limited period of time.

> 3 or 4 people who I know well is optimal for me.

Then invite 3 or 4 people over. That's much more than what most people do. Sounds like the optimal party size to me.

I think of my wife and myself as extroverts and we do have a very large social circle. Still we don’t host as often as we wanted, maybe once every two months. One of the reasons is it can get very expensive. The last party we threw was a Sunday brunch for about 15 adults and a handful of kids, and we spent over $500 just in pastries. People still bring stuff but we don’t expect them to. Dinner can get even more expensive particularly if you cook meat dishes these days. Then all the time it takes which also translates into money. To host a dinner party it takes me part of the week shopping and the entire weekend cooking and organizing. So most times is better just to call a couple of friends and go out to a restaurant.

Eh, in this economy I think it's fine to request contribution, either material or monetary. Also once every two months or so is pretty decent, cheers to you

$25 a person just in pastries is pretty astounding. I think I could make it happen with the most expensive bakery (which is imo not the best in town but close to it) and eating little else. So hats off, that’s impressive. Hope they were enjoyed, great pastries are really a delight.

I could see it easily if it's a "catered" order e.g. specific numbers of each type of pastry, packaged carefully, etc. vs. just going down to a retail bakery and buying whatever they made that day and throwing it in a box.

Even introverts need social connection (perhaps more so) - research here [1]. Introverts are people who feel they have used energy when interacting socially, rather than gaining energy from social interaction. It's not shyness or anti-social traits.

It will feel like more of a chore for introverts, but it's like a chore you need to do even if it feels bad in the moment, like doing laundry or exercising.

And worse for introverts - people who never invite other people eventually stop getting invited themselves, so to maintain social connection requires introverts to sometimes be the driver of the event.

[1]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10328046/

Its unlike a chore in that there are obvious benefits to doing laundry and exercising. The same isn't true for socializing more than you require. As an introvert I definitely do need some social connection, but I don't need very much of it and I'm happiest being alone most of the time.

> The same isn't true for socializing more than you require.

That seems very much like exercising, no? You need a certain level of exercise to maintain basic physical capability but past that point there are diminishing returns. So if you truly detest exercising (or socializing) then you can stop there and still lead a healthy, functional life.

Sort of. Specifically the amount of exercise needed to maintain basic physical capability is roughly the same for everyone (barring injuries or chronic issues) where as the amount of socialization people need to not feel lonely varies quite significantly. I don't find my minimum amount of socialization to be a chore, but my minimum is quite low. Anything beyond that does feel like a chore.

> the amount of exercise needed to maintain basic physical capability is roughly the same for everyone (barring injuries or chronic issues)

Is this true?

This is only anecdotal but my experience has been that the amount of exercise people need to maintain basic physical capability seems to vary with age, gender, diet, genetics, and other factors.

Personally, I find that as I get older I have to be more diligent about exercise to maintain basic physical capability, and I have older relatives who spend time exercising just to maintain sufficient VO2 max to be able to do things like walking up stairs.

And it's not just age. I have friends who can take a break from rock climbing for half a year or more and when they come back they're climbing routes at roughly the same difficulty as before they left, whereas others take a couple weeks off and have to work their way back up from easier routes when they return.

Introversion is a skill issue. People who aren’t extroverts are just not as good at socialising, so they find it difficult and tiring, but they could get better and then it would be easy.

I think you're spot on about it being type 1/type 2: people have stopped doing a lot of type 2 fun activities, because they have many more type 1 fun activities and because it's no longer socially obligatory to have type 2 fun.

If you do type 2 fun often enough, the level of anxiety drops. Imagine hosting a game night once: you have to ensure all your friends can attend, you agonize over the snacks, over picking the right games to play.

But if you power through and establish a tradition or join an existing one, it becomes simple, e.g.: every Thursday at 7pm you meet for a game of whatever you've been playing last week and a new game the host picked, the host brews tea, the guests bring whatever snacks they want. At the end of the session, you choose which game to play next week: the old one or the new one.

I used to believe in this dichotomy but not anymore. I've seen ppl go from shutin to extroverts after they have kids. So called introverts never learn how to enjoy socialization so it drains them.

I dont know where it started but we've turned this whole introvert/extrovert stuff into some sort of immutable characteristic.

Having kids gives people instant common experiences and things to talk about.

Reproduction also causes some pretty intense biophysical changes which may well alter personality. It is silly to act like it is just due to reasoning...

I wonder if intro/extra-version is less explanatory than the people-who-enjoy-doing-things-on-vacation vs people-who-enjoy-doing-nothing-on-vacation divide. I'm an introvert who loves throwing parties because I can perform hosting chores if I feel awkward (prep food, do dishes, refill drinks, introduce people).

That said, hiking up a mountain sounds like a great vacation to me, in a type 1 and 2 way. Active recreation is my gratifying form of recreation (balanced of course with some down time after), but I know this sounds like hell to a lot of people. I'm not sure we have a word for this divide as a culture.

It me. 100% me.

I, too, like going to (some) parties, but more often I don't. I like hosting, but only small groups of people (3-6ish), and I cannot handle more than dozen at my place, though I don't mind going to parties where there are more. It's just that I end up talking with the handful of people I know.

Planning parties is, well, exhausting. Hosting them is exhausting. I'd much rather talk, chat with, go to concerts with, workout with, hike with people, than go to parties or host them.

When it comes to parties, I want to be invited, but don't want to go.

If there's one club I belong to, it's probably the Groucho Marx club. "I woudn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member."

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

We’re all tired of introverts claiming they get to do nothing in society because it’s so hard for them.

Honestly. Put up or shut up.

Extroverted what, though? Introverted what?

You can't just say "Oh boy am I an introvert." and just leave it at that.

Some people are extroverted picking their nose. Let me explain what I mean. That means they do it in front of others and don't give a fuck, or they might apologise when they get called out, and just do it all over again next minute. That's me. Other people are introverted picking their nose. They go away in private and they go ahead and pick their nose now that nobody is around. They're not necessarily in denial about it, and sometimes you can get them on the topic and compare notes. That's my wife.

I am not speaking to you personally, but I think that in general there is a very large trend right now of people who believe they are introverts when really they are suffering an accumulation of social anxiety that life has freed them from the need to work through.

I suspect that for many, if they had less social anxiety, they would actually prefer to socialize more. But the most successful way to reduce an anxiety is through exposure therapy: forcing yourself to do the thing. And in today's world it is much too easy to simply avoid exposing yourself to any socialization.

I see a lot of people who claim to be very introverted. But, also, a lot of those people are unhappy. They may be comfortable, but that's not the same as happy.

I am pretty introverted but over the years I have accumulated a large set of friends. I don’t call all of them at once. But I do sets of 6-10 at a time.

I won’t go to a bar or a club alone. I don’t like it. But a good set of friends in a familiar location like my house (or theirs) makes for a really good time. We definitely try to get together at least once every couple of months.

I agree about the two groups. I spent years trying to invite some friends to our home for dinner, but we always had "scheduling conflicts." Then one time I suggested going out to a restaurant, and we immediately scheduled it and did it that weekend. I finally figured out that they didn't want to come to our home because they thought that then they would have to recipricate and invite us over, which they didn't want to do.

What I would do is to invite people to a restaurant for a reciprocation to their invitation of us to their home. We would honestly acknowledge that we don’t know how to cook well and don’t plan to improve that before the universe dies.

I know different social circles are different, but have you considered inviting people to your house for takeout? Maybe dining out is what you'd prefer anyway, but if you wanted some sort of games/movie/casual hangout at your place but didn't want to cook, getting takeout could be an appropriate compromise.

I think it would be so nice if people just took what I said at face value sometimes… if I invite you over it’s because I want you in my house, not because I secretly want to visit yours.

> But what people (probably the ones that never bother) tend to forget is how unbelievably gratifying it is to get a bunch of people together, to feed them and to make them talk, laugh, dance, etc. Afterwards you are tired but also grateful and socially energized in a way that feels fundamental to my existence.

As someone who has (and occasionally still does) throw parties, I totally do not relate. It's just tiring. I don't have time to mingle with the guests.

I prefer small, simple invitations. Ideally 2 families. Simple food. Not a lot of ceremony. Get together and talk (or play games, or whatever).

Similarly, I've drastically reduced going to bigger parties - at least with some hosts. These are people I like and want to spend time with, but they only throw large parties, and I get virtually no time with them at the party - they're too busy.

What I'm finding is that - as you noticed - people tend to want to be all or nothing. I'm having trouble finding people like me. I want to socialize, but not this way.

When I read the article, I immediately thought of several reasons he hadn't listed. Too tired to go into detail, but some of them are: Marriage and what was previously a 2 body problem became a 4 body problem (4 being the lower bound). Dual income with kids - we barely get enough time with the kids, and throwing a big party means neglecting them much, much more. Several other factors. This really is death by a thousand cuts.

I think 2 families counts as a dinner party.

It could. But I also mentioned "Simple food, not a lot of ceremony." :-)

2 families over with simple food is still the hosting talked about in the article.

Oh I get it. The point is my social circle doesn't. They want "good" food, and ceremony.

> Marriage and what was previously a 2 body problem became a 4 body problem

I didn't relate to most of what you said, but I definitely see this sentiment. I hosted parties all the time till I got married, albeit not for logistical reasons. She's very unkeen on having people in her space, and carving out space for me was already a sacrifice for her.

Now I wish my friends hosted parties because I'd 100% go.

My wife is an extrovert and I'm an introvert. We are also the party throwers. If we didn't throw parties I don't think our extended family on her side would ever see each other. But even as an introvert, I feel very grateful and energized after hosting people at our home.

I relate to this. My extravert wife throws the parties. I’m the introvert. I enjoy parties at our place so much more than at other peoples.

Same situation for me - my wife is an extrovert's extrovert, and I am on the introvert side. However, I'm the one who organizes and hosts a quarterly cocktail party. It's a lot work - after every one of these parties I tell myself "I'm not doing those anymore". But I've received so much positive feedback from the attendees that I end up doing it again. It ultimately is very satisfying and worth the effort for me.

I love hosting, especially because I have invested a lot in my cooking skills. However, now inviting someone over means hosting an entire family and my job has evolved into cleaning, doing dishes, and prepping food, while everyone else is having the time of their life (we don't have a large space). Just not so enjoyable, so we have slowly stopped doing them and others rarely host them as well. An alternative is that we now do dinner picnics at the park, way more easier and no one is stuck doing hosting work.

A simple solution to that is to distribute the chores. For larger parties I always ensure I have help. Many people actually like contributing to a party in non-material ways by doing prep work or some cooking, doing the dishes, selecting the music, etc.

Totally agree with this. People are usually pretty eager to help out (particularly the introverts - this can give them a momentary break from socializing, while alos making them feel included).

> Middle aged European here. I still regularly go to parties (dinner and otherwise) and I notice that there are two kinds of people: people who throw parties, and people who don't

Middle aged American here. I go to more social gatherings than I have in any time since college.

I would add a second dimension to your stratification: People who have kids and those who don’t. Once you have kids who enter school age, there are more social opportunity than you have time for. Even many of the people who never threw parties before now host a few cookouts or birthday parties per year.

The events are based on people who attend the same school or whose kids are friends with your kid, so you’re not always hitting it off with all of the other parents as future best friends. However you do get exposed to a lot of new people and each new introduction increases your odds of finding people you connect with.

One realization is that it didn’t actually require having kids to start doing all of this. Inviting people over for a backyard cookout or a simple dinner was always easy. Easier without kids, actually. Most simply don’t make the initiative.

Another problem is the increasing burden that people create for themselves or their friends with social events: Expectations of bringing gifts, showing up with a bottle of wine that isn’t too cheap, dressing nicely, and the biggest event killer of all: Trying to find a date that works for everyone of the guests. Parent get together dispense with all of that. Everyone’s busy with kids. If you show up for 30 minutes in shorts and a T-shirt bearing no gifts and you have to leave early, everyone is just happy you came. A date is sent out and whoever is available can come. If not, we’ll see you next time.

That’s so interesting because I feel like I always hear the opposite from my friends with kids (in the US) - that it’s so hard to throw / attend ‘real’ parties and events, especially as a couple, when you’re a parent of a young child who’s not yet old enough to be on their own for a night.

The way they talk about it, they’re limited to only hanging out with people who similarly have kids, and whose kids get along with their kids. They’re cut off from most of their other friends’ normal social activities, even if they have a really good babysitter, which is a rare luxury. Sometimes they hang out with other parents they don’t even particularly like, just because both of them having kids makes it possible.

I can think of several times in the last year alone where I’ve been looking forward to meeting my friends, only to have our plans ruined upon arriving and realizing that the venue we’d chosen didn’t allow minors. Brunch at a cafe, wine tasting and lunch at a winery.

idk. I understand how there’s a sort of solidarity and flexibility to the friends you make with fellow parents, but just from the outside, it looks like that’s barely making do with what you’ve got, not free to be socializing the way you actually want to.

> that it’s so hard to throw / attend ‘real’ parties and events, especially as a couple, when you’re a parent of a young child who’s not yet old enough to be on their own for a night.

This is only true if you limit your definition of "real" event to one without kids.

The social gatherings I was talking about have people bring their kids.

If you're not a parent and your only experience with parenting is through friends' lamentations about parenting, this probably won't land. What I'm trying to communicate is that the events are different, but they're not bad or unenjoyable. It's actually a lot of fun, and you meet a lot of new people too.

I know a few parents whose kids will only get along with a small number of close friends, but that's a minority. We takes our kids to different parks and they've learned to play with random kids that they've never met and may never see again. This is common for well socialized kids.

> that the venue we’d chosen didn’t allow minors. Brunch at a cafe, wine tasting and lunch at a winery.

I'm sorry to say, but this seems a lot like a you problem. I don't know why you'd think that wine tasting at a winery would be a kid-friendly event without checking.

Your location might play a part in it. I literally cannot think of a brunch venue, including $100/person places with reservation lists here, that don't allow minors. When making a reservation you tell them how many adults and how many kids, so that should have come up unless this was they were really unfamiliar with going out with kids? Either way, these problems are not frequent. As a parent you do a cursory check of a venue to make a judgment call if it's kid friendly or not.

Question for you or anyone else: as a forty-something single person without kids, is it reasonable to try to make friends with this crowd?

Most people my age do have kids, especially given that I'm living somewhere fairly quiet. I like kids and get along with them well -- indeed, to the extent that I'd happily occasionally babysit for free. But parents seem to be living in a different world.

One difficulty is that most parents seem to be deeply invested in their home lives and daily routines, in a way that I find difficult to relate to, which can make small talk difficult. But one way or another, I should probably make some attempts to expand my social life.

Yes this definitely happens. School events, or having a groups of kids who are together on a soccer team, brings a group of parents together. But in my experience they are relationships of convenience. I've never formed any friendships from this that have persisted after the kids got older, dispersed to other schools/teams or went off to college. Without that common focus (the kids) the adults realize they actually don't enjoy each other's company all that much.

> Without that common focus (the kids) the adults realize they actually don't enjoy each other's company all that much.

That's too bad. I would say most of the other parents I meet aren't people I'd hang out with outside of kid events, but when you go to a lot of events you meet so many other adults that your odds of finding new friends goes up substantially

I'd get more energy from sitting alone in a dark room than by throwing a - or attending a - party...

That doesn't mean I don't enjoy attending (never throwing) parties on occasion, but it's exhausting to me. Whenever I come home from a social occasion I need time to recover.

It's very much down to different personalities.

> but it's exhausting to me. Whenever I come home from a social occasion I need time to recover.

Going to the gym is exhausting, running a marathon is exhausting, spending a day weeding your garden or laying a new carpet could be exhausting.

Usually people feel great afterwards because of the experience and despite it being hard work and taking time to recover from. Parties etc. can be the same.

> Parties etc. can be the same.

They can for some, but to be very clear, I don't. I feel mentally drained in a way I absolutely do not enjoy. The experience can be fun during, but the net benefit to me is low enough, and for many types of socialising it's firmly in the negative, that I restrict myself very much in terms of what socialising I consider worthwhile.

As I said, it's very much down to your personality - most of the time I'd rather spend time in peace and quiet alone or with my wife or son (and I need some of that time to be entirely alone)

This is true on some level, and what you describe has been called type 2 fun. But for plenty of people, partying and socializing is really type 1 fun, they find it enjoyable the way some of us find working on programming or other nerd things intrinsically rewarding in the moment, which they may see as unfun but potentially good for you long term.

My point is, yes, sometimes it's good to just ignore the discomfort and push through, but we should also know that it's not how everyone feels about it. Some people actually willingly go down into a crowded basement club with loud music and not just as some kind of tough challenge to survive and shape your character to have tbuilt tolerance for that harsh environment,but they find it enjoyable, no matter how baffling it seems to the rest of us. I don't know proportions, but these people exist. Of course plenty of people are somewhere in the middle range, where they enjoy some aspects while hating the rest, and the thing they enjoy about loud clubs is likely about prospects getting laid and similar stuff.

> Some people actually willingly go down into a crowded basement club with loud music and not just as some kind of tough challenge to survive and shape your character to have tbuilt tolerance for that harsh environment,but they find it enjoyable, no matter how baffling it seems to the rest of us.

The funny thing is that I used to go clubbing regularly because to me that was not about socialising per se. I'd be happy to go alone into an anonymous mass of people and just dance and switch off. I'd still need time to recover, but not nearly as much as with a group of people I'm expected to talk to.

That's universally held for me in other contexts as well. E.g. I can speak in front of thousands - and have - and not stress out at all. They're a non-descript mass at that point. I'm just talking, not conversing. But if any of them try to corner me to talk to me afterward? That is exhausting.

Only a specific subset of people enjoy running a marathon. Hell, as it is a fixed length (and not a fixed duration), it is even worse if you are not at the top of fitness and VO2max: how many people would enjoy running for 6+ hours?

Call me introvert or not, before doing the exercise I feel a little resistance to do it, but after - feel very energized. For parties: it's diametrically different - feel big boost of dopamine before party, but after - I feel some regrets, so I'm just trying to not think about later.

I don't feel regrets per se, but I do certainly need to recover, while after exercise I feel good. Regular exercise usually makes me more likely to exercise more, while with social functions that's not viable for me.

> Going to the gym is exhausting, running a marathon is exhausting,

Those don't make me feel great afterwards either. I'd just feel I spend half a day just to end up where I already was.

> spending a day weeding your garden or laying a new carpet could be exhausting.

These would give me a good feeling. The result is what gives me the dopamine hit.

The result is the only thing about exercise that I enjoy. It's the data, not the feelings. I don't like going to the gym. I don't like doing my exercises. I don't feel better afterwards (usually the opposite: I'm tired and sore). I don't compete or compare myself to anyone else. But I do like seeing that e.g. my bench press is 5 lbs better this week. That's the entire reward for me.

I do think it’s possible to move between categories though. I used to have potlucks and house parties every month in my twenties, but now a decade later I just don’t really have much interest in the idea.

It might just be a rationalization, but the way I justify it is that as I’ve gotten older, I’ve realized more what actually matters to me, and being a party host / spending time at parties doesn’t fit that category. I’d rather spend my time doing something else.

> It might just be a rationalization, but the way I justify it is that as I’ve gotten older, I’ve realized more what actually matters to me, and being a party host / spending time at parties doesn’t fit that category. I’d rather spend my time doing something else.

Well it's happening to the vast majority of people all at once, I don't think it's age, at least not only that. I haven't read the whole article yet perhaps he offers ideas on why this is happening but I'm guessing - better alternatives (Netflix), increased individualism etc. Society has changed a lot.

Fair point, although I do think it’s fairly typical generally for people to become less social as they get older, find a partner, get more serious about their career, etc. with the trends aside.

I am not sure that's 100% the case. Sure as children and even through college it's easy to make friends, but as we get older, we certainly are exposed to more people and more opportunities if we choose so.

I think the major problem though is due to the way the world is rapidly shifting, and people's utter mental exhaustion, it's easier to sit and do nothing and become a mindless drone to 'the boob tube' or rather your phone than it is to be with your community.

This isn't something new, it's just becoming more evident, especially as there are less and less communities.

Just think about it, you likely live in some sort of apartment, town house, or suburban area, and how well do you know your neighbors? One apartment/house over, two, three? Or maybe just a friendly nod when you pass, but nothing more.

I don't know that I agree. My dad used to be pretty solitary when he was younger, but now that he's retired, he's constantly socializing and has built a large network of friends (which is really good for his mental health).

I think you are agreeing with me. Retired = not worried about career. People aged late 20s to say, mid-50s tend to be very career-focused.

I'm not sure if it's by desire though. Perhaps there is less time to spend with others to build durable bonds or less opportunity to socialize. With many of the people I know it seems that people are eager to socialize again when the kids are out of the house. So it doesn't seem to be older -> less social.

The main bullet points I get for reasons involve

1. People work more. In particular, the shift to dual-income households means that women, who traditionally planned most parties before, no longer have time.

2. the shift to "lots of kids, sparse parenting" to "few kids, lots of investment" becomes another time sink focusing families inwards on themselves instead of outwards on the wider community

3. People just have less friends. especially so for a) single b) non college-degree and c) lower-income people. Probably due to #1 and the whole dating app epidemic no one has had a serious conversation about yet.

4. And yes, as you alluded to, it is "more fun to be alone" in the modern day. Less incentive to go out if you don't "feel" lonely nor bored.

I guess I could have just quoted the provided summary, but where's the fun in that?

>In sum: The death of the host is the story of lonely unmarried people and harried married dual-earner households; anxious parents spending more time with their children and less time with friends; and the typical home becoming such a riot of diverting comfort that people no longer have to invite human beings to interrupt their boredom.

Is that it though, parents with no time? Do single people with no kids socialize more than parents once they are past high school and college? Im not so sure.

I think I had the opposite as I got older. I didn’t really like the bigger parties after something like high school, but now that I’m middle aged I like the idea of uncomplicated social interactions with strangers.

This. It’s also why I started celebrating my birthday and throwing a party. I am not doing it for me, I am an introvert and it is a lot of work, but I am doing it for my guests who have a great time.

(For perfectionists: people always have a good time when there’s some food and drinks and other people. Everything else, even music, is really optional.)

Personal experience and observation so take it for what it's worth: people are more flaky and less committal now.

It used to be if you throw a party and invite a bunch of people, the ones that say they'll come will probably come. Now, you invite a bunch of people, you get mostly a bunch of maybe and half don't show up.

It makes it both harder to plan and have the social risk of a dud of a party. Worst thing you want as a host is people not having a good time.

I used to throw parties not long ago. At least once a week, often more than that. Anywhere between 5 and 35 people.

Then I became a single father and I haven't thrown a single party since then.

Damn I miss throwing parties.

How about potluck brunch and guests get to hold the baby? If they’re old enough for vaccinations of course.

People might be getting fatter or more unfit. Still there are subcultures where people are fit as all --. The commitment is unreal. The amount they can talk about fitness is truly endless. And if you asked them it would be all about character and social milieu. Things might have changed in the last decades, but that’s at best uninteresting facts to them.

More and more divergence, subcultures, while the mean tends towards a bad direction. And no understanding. Because why don’t they Just Do It?

Edit: But I hear that Europe is a large country.

> But I hear that Europe is a large country

Some say it isn't even a country /s

This is my experience exactly. We used to host a monthly board gaming party before we moved and it was very energizing and exhausting at the same time.

After the two kids the games disappeared and it just became a normal party where we could talk and such and a playdate for the our and the other parents kids.

We will probably do it again when we settle into a new home at least I hope.

I doubt its that they forget - it probably just isn't gratifying to them. Different people find different things gratifying.

>people who regularly throw a party and people who never do it.

I have no doubt it might seem that way, but it doesn't seem like an interesting divide because the categorization doesn't really tell you anything about the people. But it's definitely a good rule of to thumb to remember the next time someone feels annoyed that "so and so never throws parties." It's also true when you visit friends in cities you never been. Some are natural and enthusiastic tour guides, some shun such a role.

But my guess is many the "never hosts" threw at least one party in the past and had a terrible experience and decided they suck at it.

I'm also assuming the never people you know are capable of throwing parties in terms of house size etc, and that you accounted for the ineligible in that respect.

I know people who are self-conscious about their messy houses and the idea of maintaining a presentable tidy house for parties would be enough for them to dismiss the idea outright even though they would like to do it in theory.

This also depends on the pennies we have to spare. I also as a middle aged and middle class European like to invite friends over, but the youth these days (and many many adults, at least around here) don't have the money to spend on this. Not the only reason, but a substantial one IMO.

I'd like to share my experience throwing parties, and some thoughts on introversion & extroversion.

I held weekly board game nights at my home for a year or two during the latter part of COVID. I loved board games and missed the weekly meetups that stopped happening due to lockdown. I only invited very close friends, all of whom are still very close. And I genuinely ruined my love of board games from how frustrating the experience proved to be. I put in a lot of effort to be a good host and everyone sure seemed to want to play board games, but over and over it was like herding cats once they were over. They were all acting in good faith, and yet that experience burned me out so much and my brain now associates board games with that experience so much that I barely play anymore, and don't enjoy it like I once did.

Now whether you want to use the label "introvert" or not, I was determined to push outside of my comfort zone that was staying in alone. But each of those dozens of nights drained me in a way that that cumulatively has left an emotional scar deep enough to impact my identity (being a person who loves board games was part of who I was, a part I liked)

I suspect that of the ways people will respond to this story, there are two that will be most common

1. What the heck are you talking about? I can't imagine having that experience

and

2. Yeah, that tracks

Whether or not you call those groups extrovert & introvert, and whether you believe such preferences are inherent, learned behavior, or social conditioning, here is a truth:

Trying to change your nature, however you came to have it, comes with a cost and can go wrong.

So for those who consider introversion to be mere choice, I encourage you to be less flippant in how you try to convince people of that.

We used to have parties. But then my wife had a few realisations:

1. "I hate losing sleep, and there are very few things in the world now important to me than a good night's sleep".

This has been a life changer for both of us. I used to be a late owl, but when she started going to bed at 9:30,I did too. We now have competitive "what was your sleep score" in the mornings over breakfast

2. "I do not enjoy conversations with more than 3 other people at the same time"

I don't mind crowds and can "hold forth" with entertaining stories and have fun doing it, but my wife has social anxiety that really only emerged in larger groups. She doesn't even like going to parties or bars, and after a few drinks, leaves me to it.

3. "I don't like getting wasted, and I don't even like getting slightly drunk if it screws up my sleep"

For me it's more medical. While I'm perfectly healthy, I noticed around the age of 45 that red wine gives me palpitations and tachycardia. Lots of beer (especially really nice beer) does the same. My father is 99 years old because he never drank alcohol. I honestly believe a single hangover would actually kill him. But certainly, years of "not kicking the shit out of his insides with booze" have contributed to his long life.

I self-identify as an introvert and don't much like social obligations. Nevertheless it's nice every once in a while that my wife drags me into them. If she's not there as a catalyst, I would probably be rotting at home with vitamin D deficiency.

Grateful for people who host and provide social opportunities even though I'm sometimes not outwardly social.

I can feel equally socially energised meeting people outside and I don't have to spend hours cleaning up after!

I think people who throw parties are invited to parties.

People who don't throw parties might want to think about this. :)

Thanks you for this comment.

I’m bad at throwing parties and I’m a bad cook.

So instead I invite friends/family to stay over. Even with kids.

Thats also very gratofying, play some board games, sit next to the fire and then have breakfast together.

Best way to copē with the world at it’s current state.

(Also a European here, mildly affectrd ny war)

> Afterwards you are tired but also grateful and socially energized in a way that feels fundamental to my existence.

Every culture with a tradition of being a welcoming host has a saying along the lines of, “the pleasure is in the preparation”.

For those of us that live that life, it’s hard to imagine it any other way.

100% I have been a "party thrower" for years and it is obvious that the bulk of our friend group never hosts an event. I think this is probably the way it's been with humans for a long time though. It is an interesting observation.

This is my experience too, and I'm more of an introvert who finds throwing a party both gratifying and exhausting. There are friends who reciprocate and friends who don't, and I don't judge.

My wife and I have hosted dinner parties a few times. I have never gotten the same sense of gratification that you have.

There's a third and fourth group. People who get invited to these parties and people who are never invited to parties

And if you're in the third group, but don't actually accept the invites, you will find yourself in the fourth group. People eventually stop inviting those who never show up.

I got tired just reading this comment.

there's more than two types, because the type that never throws parties can be subdivided into smaller groups of people who throw parties due to familial requirements - kids, visiting relatives from other countries and so forth.

This seems to be the divide between introverts and extroverts.

asabiyyah is a vital component to the survival of civilization

> But what people (probably the ones that never bother) tend to forget is how unbelievably gratifying it is to get a bunch of people together, to feed them and to make them talk, laugh, dance, etc.

Nope. Its a bunch of work and stress and thoroughly beaten by a dull night in. If I want to bring people together, I'll pay for it to be done - e.g. a restaurant.

It depends who you invite. I organized a lot of parties in my youth with some that escalated and that burned me a bit. Now I am very reluctant to organize something and have not done so in a while, but when I do and it works, it is amazing. Helping bringing people together. Connecting, having a good time and people feel grateful for it.

Now with the great late summer, it would be a great time for something like this again, but I just did not felt the energy, but also am a bit sad now to not just make something happen.

> It depends who you invite.

True. If I invite nobody it about matches the night in.

The article actually mentions lower income people rarely hosting anything, and simply having less frienships. So it is also in some small part an economic issue.

You're doing the Lord's work. Thank you so much for that, even though I don't directly benefiting from it.

There is an epidemic of disconnection and loneliness, Putnam and others are 100% right. There's an organized effort by some people to isolate humans from each other as much as possible, and they have their own swarm of useful idiots to aide them.

The solution to this problem needs explicit action, this is not something that will take care of itself, or people would adapt to it.

I bought a domain recently, https://clubs.fyi that I will devote to this purpose of human connection[1], if anyone wants to join shoot me an email, there's nothing there yet but there will be stuff in a week or so. :)

1. Not connection in the SF-sense like Facebook, Meetup, etc.

>there will be stuff in a week or so

AI is amazing. https://clubs.fyi/.

(I already had the backend but vibecoded a frontend in about an hour)

It's almost unbelievable that people like you exist. Attending a gathering is torture enough. Hosting one, repeatedly at that, sounds like living in the ninth circle of hell.

Thanks for your service to humanity.

In the almost 11 years I have owned my home, I just hosted a group for the second time. It was a game night with dinner.

You are right: It was work, it was money. I am not exactly a social butterfly, but even I was able to pull off a gathering of four other people. It was so worth it, because we all had an absolute blast.

It was also very much needed. So I, for one, plan on doing my part to counter this trend.

There is no joy for me in bringing people together. I’m plenty happy in my little bubble with my wife and kids. All get togethers seem like bringing acquaintances briefly together for some thing that no one enjoys. I think it would take fundamentally different kind of people to enjoy these get together and I think over the past few decades culture has bifurcated people into these two buckets and the “extroverts” are significantly fewer than the “no party throwers”. For us the only get together we throw is a “splurgy” birthday party for my kids each year and thanksgiving where all the family visits. They’re both nice but nothing that I look forward to. Maybe me and a bunch of other folks are fundamentally broken on enjoying get togethers.

Absolutely true about the two divisions in people.

I had an introverted girlfriend who enjoyed my tradition of inviting couples over for small dinner parties, but if said couple didn't reciprocate the invitation within some arbitrary period, she would claim they were impolite and we shouldn't invite them anymore.

My view was and is: the number of people happy to be invited to a party is lower than the number of people who are happy to host. It's not rudeness, nor even selfishness; it's sometimes just a flavor of introvert behavior.

If this weren't true, you'd be too busy with invites to think of some friends as "they always throw great parties".

One thing you may not have thought about is that not everyone has a big enough social circle to throw parties.

I'd love to throw amazing parties, but I can't reliably expect more than 2-3 people to show up, so I don't try.

alright, where do I rsvp?

> But what people (probably the ones that never bother) tend to forget is how unbelievably gratifying it is to get a bunch of people together, to feed them and to make them talk, laugh, dance, etc.

I haven't forgotten anything. As I read your sentence I felt revulsion filling my soul. The idea that someone might find such thing gratifying adds another layer to already a terrible feeling.

Sometimes I'm hosting one or two people, rarely more. Talking, laughing, feeding sure, dancing never, unless you consider Beatsaber dancing. I never feel it gratifying. It's just a mental price of having an interaction.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com