Hacker News Reader

Comment by ddek | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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).

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.

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 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).

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.

> 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'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.

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.

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.

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

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"!

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com