Hey Extraverts: Enough is Enough

This article is total overgeneralizing scientifically embarrassing bullshit. Not one single argument actually makes sense. Not even the spelling one. As a latin-cultivated person I can tell you: extrovert is THE correct spelling. Introvert, which is the opposite, comes from intra (inside) + versum (directed). It is intrOvert, as it is extrOvert. Second, there is no scientific evidence suggesting extroverts are less creative than introverts. All the other arguments are so ridicule and coming from gross scientific misinterpretations, that it is actually not even possible to bring them into consideration.

"It has consistently been found that people produce more ideas when working alone as compared to when working in a group. Yet, people generally believe that group brainstorming is more effective than individual brainstorming. Further, group members are more satisfied with their performance than individuals, whereas they have generated fewer ideas."

I've never judged the productivity of a group session by the number of ideas produced. I think that's a terrible measure. I judge it by the quality of the few that the group settles on by the end. And in my experience, group sessions produce ideas of a quality that I could not have produced by myself. When working with good people, we riff off each other and fill in the gaps in each other's ideas that we wouldn't have even realized were there if we were working on our own.

It's very hard to spot your own weaknesses. I'm convinced that feedback is great and that getting out of your own head is great, and a good meeting can deliver that. Not always, of course. I'm a programmer. I like my me time, and I'm definitely not arguing for group work all or even close to most of the time. But I'm definitely a better person for the trips I take away from my shell.

> The world is run by extraverts.

Sure is. Collaboration is the trait that made humanity advance to where we are today. And things are better today than they have ever been in the past for introverts: much more collaboration is done remotely.

> The problem with extraverts — not all of them, I grant you, but many, so many — is a lack of imagination.

This is "the" problem? I think it more accurate to say that the author's problem with extroverts (see below) is that they want to socialize with him. Socialization is mentally good for most people, including most introverts.

Honestly, the three paragraphs starting here make me wonder if he has something deeper than simple introversion. I mean, it's fine to prefer to be alone, but it's less fine to feel fear about standard social interactions. If he does the latter, that's kind of a problem to my mind.

(A problem, by the way, that I deal with. I force myself to go to get-togethers with more than about five people. I'll be upset about it as the get-together looms, but I almost always enjoy it once I'm there.)

> So, extraverts of the world, I invite you to make a New Year’s resolution: Refrain from organizing stuff.

Oof. He's asking the majority of the people of the world to change their (generally healthy) habits for his benefit.

Humans are built for socialization. Socialization is a mentally positive activity for most people, and most people crave it.

> extrovert is common but wrong, because extra- is the proper Latin prefix.

extra- being the proper Latin prefix does not imply "extrovert" is wrong. We're speaking English, not Latin.

Interesting article. One of the biggest benefits I noticed, when I first started doing contract work remotely, was that I absolutely did not miss meetings. Previously, I had been working for a fairly large corporation and I switched to contracting to do my old job. Without the forced meetings, I was much more productive overall. 99% of the time, the outcome of a meeting was just as easily accomplished via a well thought out email or a quick chat session.

Even better, I noticed that meetings forced people to change their behaviour. They would "work to the meetings" meaning they would orient their efforts in order to be able to contribute in the meeting. Sometimes that meant holding back good ideas till the meeting and other times it meant working specifically on an area just to show it off in a meeting. I think this has a lot to do with the extrovert/introvert argument. The introverts in the office were already worried about the meeting itself so they had to over prepare in order to not be anxious about it. This was a totally foreign concept to the more extroverted in the office.

I personally think the majority of meetings helped management types feel more connected with what's going on, especially if they were mostly disconnected the rest of the time, and for the people involved they ended up being almost always just a waste of time.

I've never met an introvert as introverted as the author. I'm not sure if he's caricaturing his own thoughts, or is something way out of the ordinary.

I'm not sure whether I'm an introvert or an extravert. I identify as the latter these days when forced, but definitely identified as an introvert in grade school; I don't really like either term. In any case, I certainly quickly grow tired of parties, or social situations where I need to meet a lot of people.

But throwing a spelling bee just so I wouldn't have to meet more kids sounds like something qualitatively different from anything I've ever felt or known anyone to ever feel.

The author is propagating the stereotype that introverts are anti-social. This is not the case. We simply require more time to ourselves for mental wellness. This does not preclude socializing or going to larger events.

The author could politely decline these invitations, citing personal reasons, while asserting that he appreciates being invited, but rather seems to take a confrontational approach. Lack of social grace, rather than introversion, seems to be his problem.

This article, subtle culture-war subtext aside, traffics in the most vapid and disingenuous kind of generalizations. No craning of my neck will find an angle from which this adds value. Flagged.

It should be pointed out that the author is not a programmer but a college english professor so he is likely being invited to different sorts of meetings than the tech crowd may be used to.

Also, I happen to know the author to some small degree and I'm pretty sure his tongue is somewhat in cheek...

This article flies in the face of so much contradictory experience that I'm not sure what to make of it. Here on HN we regularly see articles espousing the concepts of pair programming and code reviews and SCRUMs and other techniques involving groups. In research settings we regularly get together for lab meetings and journal clubs and conferences and discuss ideas, and generate lots of new ideas. Heck, people regularly convene on sites like Stack Overflow, not to just get answers, but to discuss ideas. These are all meetings which are productive and generate ideas, not just the convening of pontificating idiots.

There was a TED talk linked here on HN a while back, called "where good ideas come from" [1]. It completely disagrees with this article, but with facts instead of generalizations.

[1]: http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_johnson_where_good_ideas_com...

Perhaps I'm reading the article wrong, but I believe some of you are getting too upset over what I took to be self-deprecating humor.

> “The more the merrier, right? It’s a proverb, you know.” Yes it is: a proverb coined by an extravert.

I mean, I started laughing right here, so I don't think an overly critical analysis is apt for this article.

I feel like this guy is just whining about how hard his life is because he can't grasp basic social skills.

I personally have a hard time designing without talking with team members, friends, or random bystanders about the work. I do make breakthroughs when I sit down for some good ideation by myself, but before moving forward, I have to talk to someone. At work, this is a meeting (although informal). Working by yourself it's easy to get spun out onto random tangents and think for hours about rabbitholes, that in reflection with someone else aren't that important.

Both solitary work and meetings have their place.

(I'm an intorvert, mostly.)

So, I'm an introvert, and I'm not antisocial. I don't agree with the author's argument at all. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that his opinion doesn't end there, either, and it's to get people talking and thinking, so I'll do that :)

Some of my best friends are extroverts. What's important is they understand that I approach social situations (and, indeed, many things) differently than they do. As well as just being fun people, they really help me to navigate (and organize) social situations and to meet new people. Without them, I think I would be pretty boring, and I would be even less creative than I am. After all, a big part of creativity is making unexpected connections, and you can't do that if your own ideas have all developed in a vacuum.

Sure, I think it's puzzling that some people really do appear to benefit from those regular meetings in which they sit in a circle and think aloud (and slowly) for 45 minutes every week, but I've met enough conscientiousness extroverts to know that I need to appreciate what works for them, let them have their time, and (where it's appropriate) try to work with them on their terms. Really awesome people will return the favour, and there are more than enough really awesome people out there. Honest.

If ever there was proof positive that Groupthink was alive and well it is the HN comments page.

As an introvert, I sometimes wonder how much my introversion is due to (1) my public-social-self-sensitivity (i.e. how much i care what other people think) AND/OR (2) an exaggerated reaction to my disappointment with throwaway superficial extroversions (i.e. dumb obvious chatter).

And which (if either) should I hope for?

Do take into some account, however small the effect may be, that there will inevitably be more extr[o]verted opinion said/posted here than those supporting introversion, because no matter how much easier it is for introverts to type their answers here than to say it in real life, it is still easier to type nothing at all.

This has NOTHING to do with being extro or intro verted.

Meeting suck because they have a diminishing return that is hard to see. Being on the same page is awesome, spitting out "ideas" and "visions" for the company are rarely productive. Save that for going out to drinks after work.

I think he misunderstands the purpose of meetings, or maybe I'm just cynical.

Meetings are about showing social status. It's a way of establishing your control over others' time. It's not "Let's get together and be awesome." It's usually a show of either dominance, or deference (to a higher-status entity; you are deferring by committing your reports' time). Obviously, a few meetings have a real purpose, but most don't. Most are on the calendar to confirm authority and status relationships.

I once heard it said that status meetings (as in project status) are actually not about reporting status, but confirming the (social) status of the boss.

This is why so many terrible meetings are called.

This article is itself complete hyperbole, and seems to just be glossing over a social disorder. Being a hermit and being an introvert are not the same, we have not come so far in society by ignoring one another, even animals work together and the ones that refuse are shunned. This is such a terrible generalization of something totally incorrect in the first place.

> I invite you to make a New Year’s resolution: Refrain from organizing stuff. Don’t plan parties or outings...

All in the name of productivity! If the author feels parties are taking too much of his time away from work, can't he just not attend? No need to try and ruin everyone else's fun just because he wants to be miserable.

Up next: the problem with X, they just don't get Y. They love [things people love to whine about].

Blah.

I've noticed two types of introverts: easy-going ones and curmudgeony ones. Likewise, I've noticed two types of extroverts: excited extroverts and unhappy ones. This is still a gross simplification, but it makes it easier to think about people's perspectives..

Are we still calling them extroverts? I thought the term was "douchebag" these days ;-)