This feels like the author has made the assumption that since they are an introvert, all introverts are like them.
However, I think that introversion, like most things is a continuum, not binary. Take the characterization of introverts in the article: "They would rather sit in front of the computer than go out during the yearly college social fest." For me it isn't just a matter of "I'd rather be in front of a computer", going to a big social encounter is extremely stressful. And the idea of approaching and talking to someone I don't know fills me with terror.
That isn't to say that I never go to such activities, or try to go out of my comfort zone, but it is much, much more difficult for me than even other introverts.
If I were Aditya in the introductory story, telling me I should go talk to people would not be helpful, ot would just reinforce my insecurities and anxiety. What would be helpful is if someone, especially someone I at least knew a little came and said something like, "Hey, I hear you like Open Source, can I introduce you to <person>, I think they would like talking with you?" And then introduce me, and initiate the conversation.
And there are also difference in how introversion manifests. One person might do fine in social interactions, but is terrified public speaking or giving presentations, and someone else is the other way around.
This is mental illness not introversion. You don’t get anxious about other things you don’t like. You might not enjoy playing board games or Russian literature. Does it stress you out and make you anxious? Probably not. You just don’t care.
I'll suggest to you that the boundaries between introversion vs mental illness are probably quite blurred in some cases.
And although it may seem ridiculous to you, there are people for whom board games and Russian literature are pretty stressful and anxiety inducing in the same way that public speaking is stressful for many people.
If you had also included math in your list of frequently disliked subjects, then it might be less ridiculous an idea
It's important to remember that stress responses vary widely
I've heard one way a parent can help a shy child is to have them look after much younger children. Even very shy children seem to be able to manage talking to less-experienced, less-intimidating, pipsqueaks.
Wonder if there's a way to take that tack.
That's one thing I noticed - the author doesn't say "would you like me to introduce you to X who you could talk to about Y?". He says "hey, go talk to that guy" and thinks he's being kind. He's not. What Aditya could be hearing is "you're some kind of loser, there are so many obvious things any normal person would do, and you are doing none of them. Let me list some ways in which you are a loser. For example, you could be talking to that cool guy and you don't. And now that I told you that I'm going to leave you to soak in your loser-ness while I am going to have fun with my cool friends!". It's probably not what the author meant at all. But that's what it easily could become. Aditya clearly has some trouble connecting to strange people, for one reason or another. A kind thing would be to try to help him, not to label him "closed heart" and dismiss him. Of course, nobody owes him that, but if you proudly declare it's your job... If you think telling an introvert not having a good time "why don't you have a good time! go and have good time right now!" is going to work, you clearly don't understand how introverts work.
This doesn't seem to relate much to the parent comment. The idea of someone introducing you to someone else at a party is them helping.
It seemed to me that social interactions cause anxiety not only because you are an introvert but also due to the situation in which the interaction takes place. It seems to me that even if you are an "extrovert," you would feel anxiety when speaking at some seminar. It all depends on the context. But I might be wrong.
What I miss in these discussions is the "now what". OK, we are all born with different innate preferences, skills, interests, weaknesses.
We live in a world. In that world certain interfaces are virtually required to be implemented. Sure, some advocacy for the different is OK too, but meanwhile self-isolation is just not going to work for most. Also, we all are already learning tons that are based on our instance of the world, nobody would solve or create businesses if it were for pure intrinsic motivation.
How are we improving our weak spots? I sure as hell am going to put energy there, and not waste it all on moping, even further specialisation. Well, maybe those too, but after I spent some effort in addressing point I can identify are weaknesses for my functioning in the world I find myself in.
> the idea of approaching and talking to someone I don't know fills me with terror.
It seems you have completely missed the point of the article: this is something you need to work on. If you don't, it will negatively impact you for your entire life.
> And the idea of approaching and talking to someone I don't know fills me with terror.
I think this is social anxiety and not to be confused with introversion.
Sure, they aren't quite the same thing, but they are related.
And I used an extreme example. In general, among introverts, some have a high tolerance for social interactions, some have a very low tolerance and there are people everywhere in between. Or to use the terminology of introverts having to expend energy to interact with other people, you could say different people have different fuel efficiencies.
I’ll be nitpicking but I’m not sure they are really that related.
I’m an introvert and my wife have SA. TBH it’s pretty different : if I go to an event where I know nobody or where I don’t feel like I have something to say, I’ll just go and keep politely quiet. I’ll get more bored and lost in my own thoughts or just listening without talking than stressed.
My wife on the other hand is like you said, terrified and exhausted by such settings and even with familiar meetings. Moreover, the SA doesn’t stops when you start interacting while introversion can disappear or become unnoticeable once you are integrated to the discussion.
Also I feel like introversion can somehow be controlled as you age while social anxiety don’t or can get worse.
I’m In my 30´s, I’m still an introvert but I learned how to interact with strangers politely without giving a fuck. My wife with SA clearly can’t do that at all and is always asking herself if what she just said was appropriate.
My SO and me are both introverts, and we've talked a fair bit about it. We both enjoy social events every now and then, but we do need to recharge afterwards.
The common theme for us seems to be that we expend a lot of energy when talking with others. We analyze what they say, in order to come up with thought-through responses or follow-up questions. We don't do "chit chat" as such.
Before such events I dread them, because I know it will feel exhausting. Yet when I'm at them I have a good time. Afterwards however it feels almost exactly like I've been programming hard for a whole day, my brain is spent.
I, unlike my SO, also has some social anxiety. I'm very likely somewhere on the spectrum, as I often feel difficulty getting social interactions right. So I spend some extra energy thinking about what the right response is to this or that, or how to interpret body language. Especially if it's a new setting or a lot of new people this can cause a lot of extra mental work.
This part however has gotten better with the years, mostly because I've stopped caring so much what others think and just let myself be myself more.
I think this is a root well worth understanding. Once I grasped the concept I found it much less stressful. I've even got into public speaking, which horrified me as a child.
I came to realize that I'm really not that important. People aren't watching me. People aren't evaluating or judging me. They forget me when I move on. I'm not profound etc. They don't hang on my every word.
All that are things I put on myself. Nobody really "cares" what I say though, I'm just not that important.
Once I leave my ego out the equation, talking to people is a LOT simpler.
There's clearly a high correlation though.
One thing to me is fairly obvious: people who are introverts can be social, but only for limited amounts of time.
For example, I like talking a lot, but I can only do it for limited amounts of time. Maybe only a few hours a week. If I'm pushed past that point, I just don't want to chat any more. It's like I'm full of food, but with socialization. After that I find socialization immensely distasteful and irritating.
That's why a 9-5 workplace environment never worked for me. It was forced socialization past my limit. Maybe that's what happened to the guy in this article: they go into defensive mode because they are pushed past their limit.
Extroverts don't understand this concept of limited capacity for socialization.
Or not just limited amounts of time, but limited types of people.
I have some friends who I have no trouble talking with all day. But with the overwhelming majority of people I meet, even if we get along well, I feel exhausted after too much interaction.
Dealing with some types of "extroverts" is particularly tiring due to not caring about the weird formalities and talking around things that a lot do to seem "friendly". It's like dealing with an MBA--using pointlessly fluffy language to say pointless "pleasant" things and being so afraid to step on any toes that their statements are just boring and void of any substance. But there are also some extroverts who know how to gauge your personality in an instant and know whether you're the type who likes the fluffy stuff, or you want to jump right into talking about specific subjects.
Then there are fellow introverts, and unfortunately, it becomes obvious how bad my own personality and conversation skills are with them. Lots of super brief answers and not engaging in any discussion. But I guess when you're the one talking to an introvert, even as an introvert, it's easy to come across as one of the aforementioned annoying extroverts.
Even as an extrovert you get people who just ramble.
In a social setting you can just tune out or move on, but in a work setting... It's extremely tiring because you're trying to catch what's important and distinguish from the unnecessary fluff.
I've never been able to distinguish this from simply being shy. More shyness means more stress in certain social interactions and stress is tiring.
Moreover, I'm pretty sure you could take the most extroverted person around and take them out of their social element and they too would tire out.
And vice versa, some of the most introverted people don't get tired out by their spouse.
The difference between introversion and shyness is the difference between exhaustion and fear. They can influence each other (being afraid all the time is exhausting, for example), but they are ultimately separate emotions that need not coexist or have any relationship to each other.
My sister is fairly extrovert, she gets energy from being with others. I'm a fairly typical introvert.
Before kids she used to have parties with her ever-increasing circle of friends. She'd invite me, and I'd often say yes but as the day approached I had to force myself to go.
One day, after one of her parties, she told me "everyone really likes it when you come, you're so good at making people feel seen".
I hadn't thought about it before, but realized that I do tend to chat with most people. And I do ask perhaps non-typical "party questions", as I love to learn about new stuff so I like to find out what others are interested in and talk about that.
Almost always I enjoy these events. However after such an even I'm so exhausted, and need a day or three on my own. If I don't get that then things don't go well.
> Extroverts don't understand this concept of limited capacity for socialization.
Othering >50% of your audience isn’t the best way to make a point, and plenty of extroverts understand this concept perfectly well (myself as an example).
You are right, but it doesn't take many extroverts not understanding this concept to make it feel like it's everybody :)
My mother, for example, is a serious extrovert. When I explained to her that socializing seriously drains me and I need to, for example, spend time alone after attending a party, her response was to ask if I'd seen a therapist about it.
my own experience as someone who used to be very extroverted:
extroversion was meeting a social expectation. i had good social skills and people relied on me to carry social situations. i could entertain, organize and predict needs. i earned that expectation to feed my ego and then became trapped in a vicious cycle.
then i had a fresh start after moving to a new city for grad school and have done my best to avoid any vocal leadership for anything because i know what can happen. organizational, behind the scenes leadership is ok. i wonder how many extroverts would rather be introverts given the opportunity and some introspection
> i had good social skills and people relied on me to carry social situations. i could entertain, organize and predict needs.
Exactly how were you doing so? Were you able to predict these needs with "tells" or some other reference point? Did you get assessments wrong?
> i earned that expectation to feed my ego and then became trapped in a vicious cycle.
What caused you to think it wasn't worth it anymore?
Saying what some outliers do doesn't refute a statement about what most in a group do...
> Extroverts don't understand this concept of limited capacity for socialization.
I think there's gotta be a middle ground where someverts are more tolerant of socializing for long periods of time. It still becomes draining, but they don't have some terrible allergic reaction. More like just mild sneezing!
Introversion level is really just a measure of how much social stimulation you require on average. Everyone has some level above which they feel exhausted and below which they feel lonely/bored.
It’s a spectrum - most of us are ambiverts.
The whole concept of *verts is an early 20th century psychological concept from an era which produced practices and ideas which are now mostly antiquated.
It has become pop psychology and never had much meaning.
It seems relatively true that some people gain energy from socializing, while others expend energy to do so; extrovert vs introvert; which is what I been told is the difference between extroverts and introverts. It's not that introverts _can't_ socialize, it's just that they have a limited capacity to do so (with the caveat that there are people who have social anxiety that cannot socialize, who _also_ fall into the category of introvert).
Given how obviously true it _appears_ to be when talking to people about their experiences, why do you say that?
> with the caveat that there are people who have social anxiety that cannot socialize, who _also_ fall into the category of introvert
Interestingly, I know people who say they are socially anxious extroverts—they need to be with people to draw energy but have high levels social anxiety. This usually means they need to spend a lot of time with people they know well and trust.
The field of personality psychology continues to believe it has meaning: extraversion is a factor in the five-factor model.
the five factor model suggests nothing about "gains energy/drains energy", it simply measures tendency toward extraversion and identifies it as a highly explanatory factor in personality. There are 5 factors because those 5 are the factors that when measured appear to be independent variables, and explanatory.
> There are 5 factors because those 5 are the factors that when measured appear to be independent variables
This is not correct; they are not independent.
I'm not convinced it's a single dimension, either. I suspect it's less a spectrum and more of a blotch.
People say "spectrum" when they mean "1-dimensional ranged value". But a real spectrum is a bitfield of attributes.
Most people would understand, some play dumb, and some people just have low IQ...
It seems to me that everyone has a limit
This is me. I've noticed that I generally shut down after about 90 minutes of being at a social event.
The best description I’ve heard is “introverts are recharged by being away from people, extroverts are recharged by being around people”. As an ambivert, I experience both… sometimes I really need to be in big groups and talking to lots of people, sometimes that exhausts me I need time away.
This is only true for shallow connections. Introverts can talk for hours in deeply interesting and satisfying conversations. People they love and trust or people with whom they share a deep connection. Your task is to define and identify your tribe and work to surround yourself with those people. (Check in on your emotions regularly, identify who you connect with, identify how to replicate that) And then actively grow your tribe. One trick you will learn is that changing the way you perceive others changes your ability to connect with them.
I also find that switching between introvert and extrovert mode takes effort. If you like being in an introvert mode, then in social environments you move a lot of times between both modes (because you fall back into introvert mode, until someone starts talking to you), and this can be tiring.
> people who are introverts can be social
not if they have social anxiety or are not NT
> but only for limited amounts of time.
but yes, this is true. And it is not something you can build up like a muscle or long distance running. In fact I think trying to build up the amount of time you socialize actually diminishes it
> not if they have social anxiety
I have (frequent) crippling social anxiety, am definitely an introvert, and I can be social -in the right circumstances-[0] (albeit for a limited period of time[1].)
[0] eg. small group of people I know well, familiar surroundings, ideally without a lot of external noise.
[1] 3-4 hours tends to be my limit even under the best circumstances.
Everything is true except for the edge cases where it's not; pointing this out I think is unnecessary.
if something is true everywhere except the edge cases, it is not true everywhere.
Yes, extroverts do understand this limited capacity. It's like when you live an ultra sedentary lifestyle, and one day you realize you can't catch your breath after walking up four flights of stairs. Like any capacity, socializing requires exercise. We are all descended from a long line of people who lived extremely social lives. It's only in the last decade or two that it became possible to live a productive live by text, alone, without the intense realtime, full mind and full body experience of being with other people. Use it or lose it. And don't assume socialization is easy for some class of "extroverts" who are dominating "introverts" into being full members of the organizations which they work for. It's hard, worthwhile work for everyone. Socialization capacity is like any trait. You have to use it or you'll lose it. I say this because I think modern life is depopulating as people decide they have a condition that's some kind of innate disability. I wish y'all would accept that it's just hard, but worth it.
> We are all descended from a long line of people who lived extremely social lives. It's only in the last decade or two that it became possible to live a productive live by text, alone, without the intense realtime, full mind and full body experience of being with other people.
Most of us are descended from people who lived in small communities and rarely interacted with people who lived outside of them. It's only in the last 200 years (an instant on evolutionary timescales) that the majority of humanity ended up in a position where we have to constantly deal with more than ~30 people on a regular basis.
Sure, we spent a lot of time with those 30 people in the past, but calling that "extremely social" is pretty misleading in the modern context—today that kind of wording evokes a very different image than the small-scale village life that dominated our ancestors' lives.
I'm a hardcore introvert by modern standards, but for me that doesn't mean that I don't enjoy spending time with my small circle of friends and family, it means that when I branch out beyond that small circle socialization is actively draining. I'd have done just fine in village life, it's the completely unnatural modern world that is overwhelming to my social limits, and I get rather tired of extroverts telling me that it's just because I don't try hard enough to "exercise".
> Most of us are descended from people who lived in small communities and rarely interacted with people who lived outside of them. It's only in the last 200 years (an instant on evolutionary timescales) that the majority of humanity ended up in a position where we have to constantly deal with more than ~30 people on a regular basis.
I would be surprised if this is true. Ancient civilizations were complex. When Pompeii erupted the population was around 10k just there. Having the chance to walk around part of it. Everything was dense and close and there were large city centers and markets. I'm sure the rest of Rome is just as big and same for the other cities and empires going back thousands of years.
> When Pompeii erupted the population was around 10k just there.
And Rome (the city) had a population of 1 million or more, but that doesn't change the fact that demographers estimate at most a 10–20% urbanization rate in the Roman empire—meaning at least 80% of the population lived outside of cities in rural areas. And that's Rome, which had a notably high urbanization rate compared to periods before or after, not matched in Europe until the industrial revolution.
Compare that with an 80% urbanization rate in the US today and we're looking at almost exactly the inverse from where we were 2000 years ago in the Mediterranean. And it's even worse if we're just looking at the US, which had a 5% urbanization rate in the 1790 census and didn't even get to 20% until 1860. Where we're at now is simply unparalleled in history, and there's ample evidence that we're not well adapted as a species to this kind of density.
Rural doesn't mean your living secluded away from the world though with two other families to talk to. There was still a society and economy to be part of, governments that rule, wars being fought, religion etc
None of those things required social engagement with large numbers of people on an ongoing basis. Occasional contact with the broader world for business and religion is not the same thing as the intense, frequent, and large-scale social expectations that are a burden for most introverts.
There's a huge difference between going to church on occasion (or even weekly, which was not always the norm) and living in a city with a population density measured in the thousands per square mile.
How else would you live?
I think this idea of villages of 30 people where you don't talk to anyone is just a fantasy. Even the Mayflower had 130 people to just set up their new town.
> idea of villages of 30 people where you don't talk to anyone is just a fantasy
I didn't say that—I said you'd regularly interact with only ~30 people (give or take). You'd probably be on good terms with a few dozen more, and it's been demonstrated that we really lose the ability to have relationships entirely by about 100-300.
The average city today has about 8x that number of people per square mile. That's entirely unlike anything that evolution equipped us for, which is why I object to OP's assertion that we all descend from extremely social people. By modern standards we absolutely do not.
todays world gives you so many opportunities to not talk to anyone. if you needed to get something done in the past you need to talk with other people, people were specializing in their abilities. today you can get food delivered to your door, look up repairs on youtube, buy anything you want or need online, do your job remotely, get directions from an app.
in what way do you feel like your expected to talk to anyone in our modern world? even here online, there's no expectation for you to respond to anything I said here
> We are all descended from a long line of people who lived extremely social lives.
This is an incorrect rationalization of your own prejudices, nothing more.
> I wish y'all would accept that it's just hard, but worth it.
You need to accept that your personal experience is not universal. It's one of the most basic realizations a thinking human needs to have.
Socializing is a skill and requires exercise, but everyone has its own unique limitations and skill levels. Not everyone throughout history has led an exceptionally social life filled with constant conversation. There are plenty of references to quiet and seclusive people in the bible, for instance. In the Middle Ages, you could join a monastery or convent, which provided a community more suited for introverts. Right now, I wouldn’t be surprised if many introverts feel there is no escape from the extrovert modern life.
Yep.
It's notable to me every time this topic comes up on HN that an extrovert invariably comes on and straight up tries to argue that introverts are just people who don't try hard enough. When that happens to people with other biological differences it's immediately and rightly decried—even other mental differences have become increasingly recognized and protected from that kind of condescending judgement—but the combination of the hidden-ness of the difference and the fact that those with this difference are less prone to speak up to defend themselves means that it's okay to tell a whole class of people that the difference between them and the average case is that average people try harder.
None of that jives with any of my observations.
In my immediate circle alone - my sister is a strong extrovert and always has been. She thrives on large groups. If she's stressed and wants to relax she'll go to a party or downtown dance club or hang out with a dozen acquaintances. She's been that way since tween. I bring her up because she's very upfront, and I trust and believe her, that social engagements alone are NOT, and never have been, hard work or effort. They're natural to her, she gains energy from them, she enjoys them tremendously, and gets recharged through them. This is not my external observation but her convincing expression. I know others like that.
Then there's me :-). Lot of that, such as parties and dance clubs and even large groups of friends, sounds awful to me. Easy on assumptions though : As per my parallel comment, I've been a client-facing consultant for 20 years. I practice and teach soft skills and emotional intelligence at fairly high level at work. Having started as a hands-on techie for the first decade of my career, I haven't written a line of code since 2018 - ALL I do now is talk to and manage and coach and mentor people, meet with clients, etc. I spend about 7 hrs a day actively engaging people professionally.
And it's still as draining as it is rewarding and enjoyable. 20 years of active practice and daily high level socialization has not meaningfully moved the needle on whether I gain energy from people, like my sister always has, or drain energy even with people I enjoy doing activity I like.
Absolutely there's detail and granularity to this - I love teaching and have been a visiting professor for 3 years at local college. I love mentoring and coaching and do it daily. But at the end do the day I strongly crave alone time to recharge after social activities (which is what I call "being an introvert"), whereas I know people (I call them extrovert) who simply don't need that, at all. The notion that simply practice can change that, hasn't been the case for anybody I know.
You can gain skills and that's indeed worthwhile! But that does not automatically alter the energy management situation.
So my apologies, but your post is the most literal proof that some extroverts don't understand this, at all, and like Freud, make wild assumptions based on limited internal experience :-/. It's less of a capacity thing, which I'll agree may get expanded, and more of what does activity do and how does it draw on that capacity.
> We are all descended from a long line of people who lived extremely social lives
Do you think the hunters who were huntering kept chatting all the time? Or the gatherers looking for berries/mushrooms just talked and talked and talked and judged anyone who went by themselves?
Did the goat herder have people walk up the hill with them to prattle on about their family life or could they perhaps be alone in there? Or any craftsman for that matter. The cobbler could just spend time making shoes, they didn't need to talk to customers for 12 hours a day constantly.
Extroverts also need to work on sitting in silence, IMO...
Is anyone else like me? A little socializing goes a really long way for me. I don't hate it, it's not exhausting, I can do it well, and I'm generally seen as a fun person to talk with.
I'm an introvert but not because my "social battery" is discharged by socializing, but instead because I need to discharge in solitude
I have unlimited social stamina and can do it forever, if by forever you mean that if I'm left in socializing without that necessary solitude I will spin off into mania and eventually get in serious trouble
That's definitely me. I'm generally not social, but I love clubbing, dancing and raves. Not just the music (top reason) or the physical aspect, but all the chatting with randoms too. I love the bullshit we talk, the temporary friendships and the places you find yourself at 5am. (and if anyone's wondering, nope, just alcohol)
But I can go once and be good for months. See friends a few times a year as well, and I'm sorted.
This is hard to explain, but I think it's about "who you are/how you see yourself". As if there's a tension in my head, "am I my thoughts, or am I how other people see me?" When I have been more social recently, I ruminate less and am generally happier, but I feel I lose a bit of "depth" in my psyche. I just feel kind of "thin", like a minor character in a TV show. Though writing that, maybe that's just depression trying to pull me back in.
Good counterpoint but I think there's definitely a variance in ease amongst the population. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I am the kind of person that will socialize because I know it's a good thing in general. But I do think some people can perform "socialization feats" just in the same way the best bodybuilders can get super jacked whereas there is no way I'm lookin' like Arnold. haha.
> And don't assume socialization is easy for some class of "extroverts" who are dominating "introverts" into being full members of the organizations which they work for.
I don’t assume that - people tell me as much! I have close friends who assure me that socializing is not hard work for them, and they’d yap all day if they didn’t control themselves the same way that I would read or play games all day if I didn’t control myself.
Or maybe "I'm introverted" i just the nice form for "You are annoying and i don't enjoy being around you".
Yes. I always thought this captured it well:
”I used to think I was introverted because I really liked being alone but it turns out I just like being at peace and I am very extroverted when I’m around people who bring me peace.”
As an introvert, no.
Socializing is always draining. I enjoy being around other people and I enjoy socializing, I like going to parties and meeting people and whatever else, but it's extremely tiring for me. No matter how much I like the person it's with, I'll be exhausted afterwards and I'll need a lot of time in solitude and isolation to get all that energy back.
It has nothing to do with how much peace a person brings me. Being social to any degree takes energy and I need to be alone to get that energy back.
That's introversion. Not "I don't like people".
[deleted]
So what you're saying is that extroversion is curable with a bit of a change of social behaviours and environment, and with a bit of practice, discipline and repetition we can turn them into mathematicians, farmers, hunters, philosophers, scientists, monks, priests and witch doctors and negate this artificial always networking and hustling environment that's only been created in the last 200 years with the industrial revolution, communication revolution and growth obsessed capitalism :)
This gives me hope: there's no silver bullet, but one day we can find a cure for our modern curse of excessive extroversion :)
>We are all descended from a long line of people who lived extremely social lives.
Just because something was a necessity for a greater cause in ye olde days does not mean that it is also a good thing in itself. Now that it's not a strict necessity, a not insignificant number of people are admitting they don't like it.
Personally I consider myself more intro- than extrovert. I find people dishonest (even the most honest ones) and dealing with that reality is extremely tiring.
So you seriously think that humans two, three decades ago were extroverted because they couldn't live a productive life by not being extremely sociable and introverted is an unnatural condition where you just need more social excercise? Is this the intellectual level of this community now?
This author is deeply deeply misunderstanding other humans. They are applying a "it worked for me, therefore it works for all" mentality. And worse yet, coming to the wrong conclusions.
You do not need to be an extrovert at work to get ahead. Full stop.
Does it help in some ways? Sure, but you can be equally successful as an introvert as long as you are able to communicate clearly when needs demand it. Plenty of excellent engineers speak to almost no one, but write excellently.
I've been in this industry for decades, I'm extremely introverted (autistic), I make 750k+ a year and run large projects. I never once "went extroverted at work".
Success is about the skills
I regularly say yes to work dinners and such that I don’t personally want to attend. That sort of thing is far outside my comfort zone, and that’s exactly why I do it.
It’s good exercise to pretend to be outgoing and chatty for an evening. Like any other skill, you get better at it with practice! And the author here is so right: almost everyone else at these things besides the salespeople are probably also introverts. I can promise you that you won’t be the only one there. I never am.
Ever since I stopped doing this I’ve been much happier. Now that I’m old I don’t feel pressure to conform to social norms, I just do whatever I want. If that means I don’t see anyone else for weeks who cares. In my youth I felt so much pressure to be social and it’s just not what I want to be doing.
FWIW, I feel no pressure at all to do this. I want to get better at it purely because I want to get better at it. One practical benefit is that non-work social settings get easier, too. When I’m around a bunch of my kids’ friends’ parents, who are perfectly nice people who probably have a lot in common with me and I’ll probably enjoy being around, it’s nice to have some practice making conversation with a roomful of strangers.
I’m not doing this for work. I do it for me.
Pressure to be social is like pressure to stay fit. If you don’t put any effort it atrophies.
if you're staying fit because you are being pressured, you probably aren't having any fun. Staying fit by doing something you enjoy (hiking, sports with friends, whatever) you are probably going to have more fun, and stick with it.
If you only socialize with people you don't like because you are "forced"/"pressured" to, you aren't going to have a good time.
Socializing is supposed to be fun, if you turn it into a job you hate, you aren't going to get the benefits of being social
Unlike being fit, being social doesn't have any inherent benefit in terms of health. It's merely a preference.
That's not quite true, social isolation has been shown to be correlated with an increased risk of dementia and cognitive impairment in older age. And I reckon there are other studies that show correlations with other health outcomes.
That's probably not true. Lonliness is linked to both physical and mental health issues.
However being social and not being lonely is not the same thing.
If you have a family already what’s the payoff though. I never get any great feelings from social visits, I just do it to be an upstanding member of society and so my daughter has friends.
It might be nice to have a social safety net when you age and your children leave you.
Why? What would be nice about it?
Not being alone.
But what if I don't mind being alone? Or even prefer it?
Wife should still be around.
As a person who was very introvert at social gatherings, and the polar opposite now, I'm now convinced that being extrovert is not a skill or an "area" (outside the comfort zone), but rather a state of mind.
It's certainly an art and a science to be a good conversationalist, but being in that certain state of mind is "a lot %" of what's needed, and it actually takes no energy or comfort - although as other state, natural introverts enjoy this state for a certain amount of time. It can also take a lot to "get there", though.
The core problem is that introvert/extrovert has little or no bearings on someone's social ability.
Introvert/extrovert is the method that people use to recharge their energy. It has nothing to do with social ability despite the terms getting hijacked for that.
Signed, an extremely introverted person who talks and interacts a lot in social situations.
I don’t think it’s so simple. Brains are complicated and everyone is different.
That’s fine but how people term introvert to be reclusive is inaccurate.
I strongly agree with that. I like being around people when I’m not expected to engage with them. I’ll go to a ball game or a crowded holiday mall any time. I like the throngs busily enjoying themselves around me. I’m an introvert but I’m not even a little reclusive.
this is like saying you know all about how it is to be an orphan because you read Oliver Twist
When I first met one of my friends, I had assumed he was very extroverted from observing him at work. It was only when I really got to know him that he is, in fact, just as introverted as I am, if not more- something he even told me after we got to talking one night.
The parent post is correct: extroversion and introversion is about how you feel being in groups, not how you act.
> but being in that certain state of mind is "a lot %" of what's needed, and it actually takes no energy or comfort
Your mileage may vary but it certainly takes energy to maintain a state of mind which doesn't come naturally to you. This is bound to affect your comfort eventually. Since there are degrees of intro/extroversion, it may be easier for some people to will themselves across that divide.
It's like floating on water. Some do it naturally, effortlessly, they even rest and relax while doing it. Others have to flail around under the surface to do it, putting in effort and consuming energy.
This is an important point. Most people who I interact with would probably characterize me as an extrovert because I'm often super talkative and energetic, but the only reason I act like this is because I get time to "recharge" every day by spending time without interacting with anyone (other than my wife, who is the one person that doesn't take "energy" for me to spend time with). Even spending time with close friends and family members is something I need occasional breaks from to maintain my sanity.
I often describe this concept to people as a social "battery"; I need time to charge it (almost) every day in order to have anything to spend the next day, but it also can ruin the capacity if I charge it for too long while it's at max. Figuring out the right balance is key, especially when other circumstances can affect how much energy it feels like is expended by socializing (e.g. ambient stress level from other parts of my life.
> Like any other skill, you get better at it with practice!
Johnny Carson was an introvert. [0]
If he could be a professional-calibre conversationalist, then I refuse to believe most introverted people can't at least reach the passable cocktail party level.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Carson#Personal_life
No one is claiming that it can’t be done. Just that introverts don’t like to do it and generally don’t find it worth it.
You might be surprised at how many salespeople are also introverts. Through years of being an (introverted) sales engineer, I've learned that outgoing socialization can be tough even for salespeople. Some of the most successful sales people I've worked with need to go quietly recharge for a day after a ton of meetings, just like I do. The biggest differentiator there is that the ones who can't manage it with a smile don't last long.
Relationship building in sales, like all skills, can be learned, even if it's draining.
i treat it like exercise or eating salad. i do it because i know its good for me. also noticed that it seems like a lot of people there have the same idea.
just like exercise, i dont push it too far. ill take a break. ill excuse myself and say, "i need to cool off" then go outside for a minute. most people seem to get it.
maybe the nature of the people i hang out with, but the salespeople type stand out sore-thumb-style and their compliments and shallow conversation often come across as awkward compared to the genuine interest in listening and sharing what we have learned in work or personal life.
It sounds like you want to attend them. You've clearly laid out the reasons why you find them valuable to you. That's something you "personally want to attend."
This is a terrible article that reads like an AI generated LinkedIn post.
Nevermind the fact that the author isn't using the terms introvert and extrovert correctly; the message is quite ableist. Not everyone can achieve this level of communication in a productive manner. Telling people that management will "prefer" one over the other when it's "budget time" is also dead wrong. I've fired more extroverts than introverts in my career, and it's likely only a coincidence.
The author sounds like one of those "proud extroverts" that they made up into existence.
The author straight up says that being an introvert or an extrovert is a choice.
They clearly have no idea what it actually feels like being an introvert.
There's a choice for an introvert to put on a front once they know how, but that's nowhere near becoming an extrovert.
It also seems to assume that just because you don't want to socialize in some specific setting means you are an introvert or extrovert.
Everyone has people they like and people they don't. I've had co-workers i don't particularly like. Of course i am professional and polite to them at work and can work with them fine, but would i specificly go up to them at a party and chat? Probably not (i'd still be polite of course, just not specificly seek them out).
I think you have good points in your middle paragraph, but I disagree with your first sentence. I can see a growing trend of dismissive "this reads like it's AI-generated" when I frankly think it has been written like that. Author has a similar tone to me. That's my writing style.
> Not everyone can achieve this level of communication in a productive manner.
Correct, and it sucks. I feel like it's ableist at times too. 9-to-5 days of small-talk are so strangely exhausting t me. It's very frustrating I feel it's a mandatory part of my career if I don't want to be forgotten about.
But? I don't disagree with the author. In my interpretation, they aren't saying "I'm an extrovert and I'm great", they're saying "hey, this is a thing you can choose to do or be, and you may find it benefits you, and the introvert/extrovert thing is a stupid distinction, but being extrovert in the right way is a means of making yourself visible".
Because, let's face it, it is. There is some entrenched ableism, in a way. Last I checked like 10-20% of western population is some form of neurodiverse and a proportion of that just do not click with the predominant communication styles used by the majority population. It sucks and we are left feeling like we are not accommodated for and can easily fall into that exhausted feeling of resentment.
But? So what? You can help make things incrementally better for yourself in the system whilst still "playing the game", if you consider it as something you are choosing to expend your energy on.
I held back a similar comment about AI-generated. I think the "AI-generated" accusation is overused. This article was incoherent nonsense, but not all incoherent nonsense hallucinations are AI-generated.
People underestimate how old incoherent writing is. For that matter they underestimate how hard it is to write coherently.
> While the reality is, it takes effort to communicate and drains energy for everyone.
This is a low effort take that depends on the ambiguity of language to sound true.
"Drain" for the author apparently means literally using up a finite amount of human energy, concentration, and willpower. That's a truism.
"Drain" for an introvert can mean anything from starting a muscle tension clock that will eventually cause a headache to a straight-up panic attack that could take hours/days to recover from.
It's probably even worse for young people who are introverts and haven't been taught how to say no or set boundaries. (I remember explaining to some college-age people that saying no is a skill, and they looked at me like I had just revealed to them that, with enough practice, humans can actually fly.)
> haven't been taught how to say no or set boundaries
For more than a few of my friends, assertiveness and confrontation are incredibly unnatural and stressful for them. For some people saying no and setting boundaries isn't easy for them to learn: I'm not sure I've ever seen it taught. One socially skilled friend got a swor serious panic attack from having to try and be assertive.
You are implicitly accepting people can be introverted, but imply that people can just learn to say no.
> "Drain" for an introvert can mean anything from starting a muscle tension clock that will eventually cause a headache to a straight-up panic attack that could take hours/days to recover from.
Unless you are being hyperbolic with your usage of the word "panic attack", having one during social events is not "being an introvert," it's a medical condition.
I am an introvert and have also had unrelated panic attacks. Panic attacks effectively paralyze you, you feel a deep and uncontrollable sense of doom, often accompanied by palpitations. Sometimes you feel like you can't breathe.
If caused by social interaction, that's not a normal thing to experience, even for introverts. That is in the territory of actual medical issues: panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, etc.
Absolutely bizarre that you're being downvoted. Having panic attacks is not a normal reaction to any normal human situation, gp absolutely should look for medical and psychological help.
I have them, I'm autistic. It happens and I have support infrastructure in place to make it less intrusive.
It's a disability, but I sorta reject the framing that I'm "not normal". Mostly because it feels a bit more culturally loaded? I can't articulate it effectively, but like, what I experience may actually be extremely normal ... for folks with autism. So, maybe "not neurotypical", maybe?
It's a normal reaction to trauma, a psychological condition - not medical. I'd guess that's where the strife is driven. You make a better point to cover the gamut
So if the person has, let’s say, autism, and will not be able to endure this for longer than a few hours before becoming completely overwhelmed.
What do you want these people to do, since they aren’t allowed to respond how they might do? When and where are they welcome in society?
Hello, person with autism here. If I am tasked with social interaction for too many hours I may no longer be able to focus on people. I may zone out and in order to get into focus someone may have to bother me in an uncomfortable way. This could, depending on the person who is on the autism spectrum, escalate to physical violence in an extreme scenario.
I don’t think this describes “a panic attack”. I think “completely overwhelmed” is a real thing to be accommodated and is separate from a social anxiety triggered panic attack
I don’t find article interesting at all. I agree with others that it’s full of gaps and „sound advice”.
Subject is interesting though and I, as person that naturally is introvert I can attest that avoidance doesn’t help. Negative effects doesn’t come suddenly, but after working remotely for 15+ years and mentoring many in similar situation I am sure that sooner or later bliss of solitude develops into non fun, hard to fix conditions.
But then what author describes at start isn’t an introvert/extrovert/shy or anxious person. It’s an obstructionist, a naysayer. Someone who always have an argument for not doing something.
I avoid such people and either remove from or leave teams where it’s impossible. Maybe they have reasons for being bad apples, but that’s not my job to fix it.
I feel like a lot of these debates boil down dealing with discomfort. We seem to be creating a society where everyone feels they have the right to not feeling stressed and uncomfortable. The danger to never feeling challenged is that you don't grow. You get stuck in a rut and everyone passes you by.
Part of dealing with discomfort is learning what your limits are. No one should put themselves in a situation with you have a breakdown. I find that a small amount of stress in my life is good and results in growth. But a huge amount is overwhelming which leads to burnout.
A convenient take, when you consider that (generally) extraverts will be less outside their comfort zone day to day than introverts, because our modern Western society values extraversion more. The article is giving vibes of "extraverts are great and inherently good people, introverts are bad and need to grow up!"
"extraverts will be less outside their comfort zone day to day than introverts"
This is a grass is always greener take, and definitely not true.
"because our modern Western society values extraversion more"
Everybody throughout humanity has valued extraversion more. This isn't something new. Humans are social creatures and people that are more social will be more successful at life. This will never change.
"introverts are bad and need to grow up"
This isn't necessarily the case. However, introverts need to figure out how to navigate the world, even when they aren't interested in socializing.
I've worked with lots of introverts (I am a mix of both introvert and extrovert) in tech and it usually goes along with passive aggressive behavior (because introverts usually don't like confrontation) and other behavior that makes collaboration (which is needed in almost all business settings) a nightmare.
I agree. While some people are uncomfortable in social settings and/or talking alot, especially "small talk", other people are uncomfortable sitting in silence. BOTH types of people need to work on be more comfortable being uncomfortable. However, it's seen as rude to tell overs to just "be quiet for a bit and enjoy the silence" vs "you're socially awkward because you refuse to talk to me"...
My father in law seems unable to sit queitly in group settings. He performs too much small talk in my opinion. And it seems merely to fill the silence since they are often the same questions day in and day out. Either his memory is very bad, or he's not actually listening, just wanting to make noise. I've given up wasting my breath (re)answering the same questions. It seems he doesn't truly care about what others think, say, or feel... otherwise he might work on committing answers to memory. And even when folks start talking, he interrupts a lot... I truly hope it's not poor memory.
Maybe he's trying to "give" as per https://www.experimental-history.com/p/good-conversations-ha...
>We seem to be creating a society where everyone feels they have the right to not feeling stressed and uncomfortable.
Huh? What a strange thing to say. Yeah, sure, you can't have that right exactly, simply because life is too unpredictable and from time to time stressors will come up, but surely someone has the right to build for themselves the conditions that minimize their stress and discomfort. Not wanting to be purposefully stressed and discomforted by others seems perfectly reasonable.
>The danger to never feeling challenged is that you don't grow. You get stuck in a rut and everyone passes you by.
Perhaps, but surely the choice of whether to live like that is the prerogative of each person.
But who are you (or anyone for that matter) to decide that everyone should "grow" in areas X,Y,Z? I hate blanket statements like "We seem to be creating a society where everyone feels they have the right to not feeling stressed and uncomfortable".
For example - I hate the modern office workplace 9-5 in-office bullshit. I know exactly what I want. I don't need to "grow" any more in this area. Can I do 9-5 in an office? Yes - but I fucking hate it and no amount of growth will change that. Why should I be forced to come into an office, for a job I do better at home, because Bob from management needs to be around people? I say to this - fuck Bob, Bob can go shit bricks.
Another example - I am very comfortable with living without any social media, or a smart phone, or a Tv, all at the same time. But, you don't see me going around forcing people into this way of being, and then when they find it horrible/stressful/uncomfortable saying "well maybe we are creating a society where everyone feels they have the right to not feeling stressed and uncomfortable, fuck your tv"
Instead - We are creating a society of non-thinkers, conformists, average-results-for-all, and dumb opinions like "well, I can deal with it - why can't you? Are you lazy/introverted/mentally-handicapped?"
I think challenging yourself is great, FOR SHIT THAT MATTERS. And only you can dictate what matters, fuck Bob or anyone else that tries to impose "what matters" on you.
The problem is, your statement sounds generalised to "challenge yourself in everything". I don't care for that, I care about challenging myself in a select few things of my choosing, I am my own man. I forge my destiny, I plow my path where I want to, not where society or Bob tells me.
------
And you know what the result will be for Bob and I?
Bob will not really grow as a person at all, his life will be all soft smoothed edges, not unique in any sense. Bob will be the same as everyone else with slight variations here and there, Bob will be boring, and at the end of Bobs life, on his deathbed he will say, "well, at least I didn't rock the boat!"
I, and others like me, will grow, in a unique sense, jagged edges, sharp incline and deep depressions. I will say when I die "I wish I leant even more into rocking the boat, capsizing it, just to see what would happen"
This is the sort of take that just sounds entitled, because the person giving it is doing so from a position of not having discomfort created for them by the actions of someone else.
Like let's put this in context: replace "being an introvert" for "your friend flies you out to the forest, and then happily announces we're going to be hiking 20 km back to town. You really need to challenge yourself!"
At the risk of sounding like a jerk, the Ram/Shyam story -- it sounds like one of those people is good at getting their job done and works well to solve hard problems independently... and the other person over-relies on other people via collaboration, and compensates by making excessive "high visibility" noise. One of those people is solving critical bugs, the other one is... doing demos for other teams. It's sort of telling Shyam prefers work broken down into small, digestible, predictable chunks.
It's a shame management (in my experience) seems to consistently value Shyam's style. Too much of either working style leads to problems. Excess in the first leads to overlap, duplicated work, and incogruent pieces that don't fit together. Excess in the second leads to a lot of people talking quite a bit about work while nothing tangible or truly difficult gets done.
> No matter what role you play, you will always have to communicate and collaborate with others. If this is something you disagree with, you should go back to the drawing board and think deeply.
Sounds good, that's what I wanted.
> you should check out Thinking Fast and Slow.
I checked it out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow#Replic...
It was discovered many prominent research findings were difficult or impossible for others to replicate, and thus the original findings were called into question. An analysis of the studies cited in chapter 4, "The Associative Machine", found that their replicability index (R-index) is 14, indicating essentially low to no reliability.
Seems like you just did the most cursory of searches, found a negative pull quote about some studies in one chapter, and called it day. Much like reading the negative google reviews for a bar you were invited to instead of actually accepting the invitation and going, I'm not sure this qualifies as "checking it out"
It’s quite treacherous to identify yourself with labels: introvert, extrovert, conscientious, conservative, liberal, empathetic, neurodivergent, etc.
The act of putting a name on some traits that you have can seem liberating: I finally know what I am, and why I’m different from others, and that’s fine.
On the flipside, once you commit to a label, you lock yourself inside it, and instead of describing, it begins shaping what you are.
It doesn’t help that other people often try very hard to pin us down and assign labels to us forcefully, without considering if we’re OK with that.
The trick is to describe your behavior and separate that from yourself. Instead of being an introvert you can just say that my behavior was introverted, and that was a function of my internal psychological state.
Also, be open to experimenting with what affects that state, and reflect on it. That will remind you that you’re not a constant, you’re a function :)
Or, labeling yourself helps identify communities and systems that enable you to develop and grow more efficiently.
I'm autistic, I discovered this partway through my adult life. Labelling it has done incredible things to build support infrastructure. I have more energy and less stress now.
I'm queer, I discovered this as a young adult. It's connected me with whole communities. And most importantly, it's helped me discover and embrace the concept of a found family.
I'm a leftist. (Not a liberal, I don't vote Democrat). This label has helped me find opportunities to engage in mutual aid I genuinely find more rewarding than any charity work I've done.
Every time I add a label, I discover wonderful communities who help me explore myself, help me figure out what it means to be that label, and whether it's one I want to keep or shed.
There's nothing wrong with building an identity. You have to have introspection and periodically evaluate it, but labels are fine.
I was diagnosed with dyslexia in my 40s. It's helped me understand why I struggle with certain tasks. Overall having a label has been a net positive.
I'm hesitant to share my diagnosis with colleagues. I've been able to develop coping mechanisms and I feel like it doesn't impact my day-to-day. I don't want to cause disruption for those around me. I do have a friend with much more severe dyslexia and she does get the help she needs to be productive.
I wish we could discuss these labels at work without baggage. It's all about consideration. Forcing everyone around you to change their behaviour around you to make yourself feel more comfortable is not being considerate. On the flip side enforcing strict working policies that prevent people from participating in the workplace is also not considerate.
Regarding labels: <https://www.egscomics.com/comic/2015-05-23>
I think that one of the major issues is that people will use certain labels to help justifying behaving in a certain way, or avoid specific tasks and situations. E.g. a ton of people hate talking on the phone, for reasons that are beyond me, and they will justify this is being introvert or having some sort of social anxiety, while at the same time being outgoing and extroverted in pretty much every other situation.
As I grow old I've stopped trying to put labels on my behavior. They rarely fit and society expects that I act or believe in certain ways depending on how those labels are generally perceived.
I hate talking on the phone, because of the missing body language and often bad lossy connections/bad microphones.
Video calls I also almost never enjoyed, but maybe also because of technical reasons.
Neurodivergence is a really useful concept in that it recognises that "typical" just means a certain cognitive profile. The problem I expect is that in certain fields (STEM?) it's actually more normal to be divergent from the mainstream. If you understand how your particular neural profile makes you understand and experience the world, you are in a good position to understand how it might be different to others.
In a sense, attaching a special label to a particular neurodivergent profile is as problematic as assigning special significance to the "neurotypical" profile.
As I've grown older I realize I'm all of the labels at different times of the day, different days, with different people etc. The more I take this to heart the more I grow and allow myself to have new experiences that a self label would have stopped me from doing because I'm not "that" kind of person.
Absolutely! The labels some may seek to feel a deeper sense of community and understanding end up becoming shackles.
People don't need to just be one thing. We are fluid. And can and should have opinions and stances that wane over time.
That’s like saying it’s treacherous to lock a door. After all, you might lose the key!
I label myself in many ways. These labels are heuristics that define me to myself as well as others. These labels simplify the management of my life in a way similar to choosing a particular type of computer or a particular email client does.
I am free to change my labels, but there is a cost to that. There is also a cost to avoiding labels.
I wouldn’t say it is a treacherous matter at all. It’s a matter of personal economy and finding a comfortable way to relate to the world.
I have sometimes used your heuristic of labeling behavior rather than identity. That can be useful, too. But however you try to do that, an implication hangs in the air: “You are obviously the kind of person who does things like that.”
These labels are quite obviously overused. Like most social characteristics, there is a spectrum. I can, and have, gone without seeing another person for months - and I've barely noticed. Now, I go into work five times a week. I do think I come off as odd to people; but I don't mind, I'm not proud of it, but I'm not embarrassed by it either. I am what I am. Earlier in life I put great effort into being "normal" socially, but with great effort also came enormous stress.
I've not struggled with work or partners. There are lots of people who don't seem to mind the occasional oddity or silence in a group. Although, I do occasionally run into some self-righteous lot who try to "fix" me; but I find this condescending. There are lots of ways to be a person, and I am truly fulfilled with the way I am. Most friction this has ever caused is by someone wanting me to be some other way, usually theirs.
> “Hey man, what’s up? Why don’t you approach and talk to a few here? They are friendly, you know. You like Open Source, so maybe talk to that guy (pointing to a senior of mine) and ask him how he got started.”
This is completely wrong-headed on the part of the host of this gathering. The correct move is "Hey, man, it looks like you don't have a lot of connections in this room. Let me introduce you to a friend of mine... [Friend], this is Aditya. [Say something interesting about Aditya to justify Friend's attention.] You two have [X] in common. Aditya, I have known Friend for [Y] years. Ask him about [Z]. etc." The host mediates the introduction for a respectful amount of time, and then walks away.
That is the function and, truthfully, the responsibility, of a host at a gathering where not everybody knows everybody.
Whereas, some people would find it impertinent for a stranger to barge in on a conversation and introduce themselves as if they were important enough to deserve attention. Maybe they are, but they may be supposed to let somebody else do that for them. And likewise, many people feel slimy going around putting on an air of self-importance. It is hardly fair to characterize this kind of sensibility as "pride" or a feeling of "disgust" toward other guests.
Read some Jane Austen for more.
Fully agree. I read that intro section and closed the page. I didn't want advice from someone who could be so poor at this, and not even realize it. Instead of introspecting about his own contribution to the problematic interaction, he went ahead and made it the other guy's fault.
Honestly, I'm trying to put myself in Aditya's shoes, and I can't help but feel instant rejection at both the OP's and your approach. If I'm sitting by myself at a gathering it's probably because I'm overwhelmed by all the strangers in the room and can't (or don't feel like) figure out how to start a conversation with someone. The last thing I want in such a scenario is for someone to come and thrust me into a conversation with someone else. I can't see either myself or the other poor sap you involve in this enjoying the interaction. Now, if you want to come talk to me, by yourself, so I can get into a social mood, that's a different story.
[deleted]
As an introvert, I'd probably appreciate more of:
"Psst, there's a quiet room with a coffee maker if you're feeling exhausted or overwhelmed. Want me to show you the way?" and then not another word.
If I'm overwhelmed at a social event, I need at least half an hour of quiet time. Putting me on the spot at all just makes things worse.
(And if I'm not overwhelmed, I know how to play the part for at most 3 hours in a day, so you probably won't notice.)
I highly recommend the book "Quiet" by Susan Cain. It explores the trait of introversion in depth and makes many thought-provoking commentary about our cultural preference for extroversion. The poster can probably be described as an "ambivert".
At the end of the day, none of these terminologies matter... These labels are just "models" of how we see ourselves. I agree with the sentiment that premature self-labeling is dangerous. Because they tend to become self-fulfilling prophecies. (e.g. I'm not good at math, I'm a nerd, I'm good at hockey, I'm INTJ, I'm an introvert).
That's a very long post to say "I don't understand extraversion/introversion"
I don't find this convincing as an introvert. Dealing with shyness or being an introvert required me reading a few books and techniques how to deal with it. In the end that helped, but it was not as easy as just 'try harder' and took a few years. I also wish I realised earlier that it was an issue that needed addressing, but no one told me that. Overall the article seems to trivialize the issue in my opinion.
Can you recommend some books you’ve read? Struggling with the same thing
> everyone should be an extrovert at work
No, we shouldn't. I'm not an extravert, and I don't want to be an extravert. I don't ask extraverts to be introverted, so don't ask me to be what I am not. Being introverted doesn't mean that I'm anti-social or incapable of cooperating with others.
Absolutely agreed. No one should be obligated to be anything at work. At work, you should accomplish things. You should be able to work with others but you shouldn't have any obligation for emotional or whatever other response.
For me the "energy gain" / "energy drain" question depends MASSIVELY on who I happen to be spending time with. So much so that recently I'm doubting if I even am an introvert. With the right people it's all good.
I've always assumed people are largely the same, socially. I.e. we enjoy being with people we mesh with, and don't enjoy being with people we don't mesh with. The thing is, you can like people you don't mesh with. You might not have a single bad thing to say of a person, yet still have no interest in hanging out with them.
And then, surprise, being forced to do things you don't enjoy is draining. Especially when it involves long periods of politely choosing your words and facial expressions to pretend you're not bored/frustrated.
The only thing that makes an "introvert" is when the genre of person they mesh with happens to be more numerically rare. There is a ton of variety in humans. It doesn't mean anything significant that your "group" is small.
Yup, I've never bought into the intro/extrovert spectrum because it doesn't really seem to cover some pretty common cases.
This is me as well. For me it's not "socializing = energy drain" or the opposite. It's more about situations. In most situations I find talking with people, being in crowds, etc to be draining. But plop me into what is a relatively small list of "right circumstances" and it's the exact opposite.
> In most situations I find talking with people, being in crowds, etc to be draining
Then you are an introvert. They are talking about most situations, if there are some cliques you feel comfortable around then you are still an introvert.
Extroverts has a small set of situations where they get drained instead. It isn't like anyone loves all human contact, its just some have an issue with most contact and others like it most of the time.
> They use introversion as an excuse to not grow.
As if people who the author accuses of this sin have the same definition of, or feel the same about "growing" as the author...
Try framing it in terms of what you Need from people. Avoiding using "should" so much. It will help you become conscious of what your needs are. Confusing your needs with others needs is also a trap.
We can only talk in terms of our Needs and why those needs are important to us. Anything else sounds like passing judgement and the reaction will be negative.
> Avoiding using "should" so much.
I have two phrases I use often:
"Should is not in my vocabulary"
"Should is a lazy word"
People use words like "should" and "must" to get around explaining their perspectives.
I remember early in my career, I made a request for a feature to an employee in another team. Their SW was allowing users to specify parameters that made the whole model unphysical, and it was a burden on us users to always double check that parameter "X" was not negative. The SW wouldn't fail. It would simply not give correct results (and they wouldn't be wildly wrong that you'll quickly realize it).
I requested that they simply not allow a negative value. We didn't always put one there - sometimes it was the output of another process, and I didn't want to continually check that our automation wasn't putting in unphysical values.
The response? "The engineer should be diligent in making sure the value is not negative".
Should is a lazy word. He didn't explain at all why he's rejecting the feature request. I would have preferred "Low priority - we simply don't have the time."
Start counting how often someone uses the word as a way to avoid explaining him/herself.
> On this one particular night, a lot of people were bonding, and it was amazing. But then I saw this young boy sitting in the corner by himself. Let’s call him Aditya. It was a bit dark and Aditya was trying to just get by, unnoticed. He looked overwhelmed and disinterested. I went up to him with a big smile and a lot of kindness, and said - “Hey man, what’s up? Why don’t you approach and talk to a few here? They are friendly, you know. You like Open Source, so maybe talk to that guy (pointing to a senior of mine) and ask him how he got started.”.
> His response that day still echoes in my ear. It felt like a voice coming out of a closed heart. And my words had fallen flat on him. He said, with a smirk, “I am not an extrovert”.
Maybe i am reading into this, but the author comes across as an asshole to me. You can see the condescension dripping from the prose.
To me it sounds like the author was being a busy-body and came off as rude. Introverted kid wanted him to mind his own business.
I’m not sure if I’m an extrovert or introvert, but I struggle with two things: small talk and being stuck in problem-solving mode.
Small talk: I often don’t know what to say and end up saying the wrong thing. Prolonged small talk makes my mind feel numb, like I need to retreat and recharge. So I try to avoid it if possible.
Problem-solving mode: When I’m focused on solving a problem, I’m physically present but mentally somewhere else. I try to engage in the conversation but can’t fully tune in, leading to goof ups which I regret later.
Screw this. Guess my type.
It always bothers me how people frame it as a binary either-or thing.
I think the reality is way more subtle, with a wide spectrum that is highly context dependent.
I don't think labelling someone/one self as one or the other or trying to "be an extrovert at work" or whatever is productive or healthy.
What I learnt from this post is that no one else is going to wait for you. If you are introverted, doesn't speak up, doesn't volunteer for anything; why are you surprised that you are not growing?
If someone believes that they have nothing to gain from interacting with a group then who are you to tell them that they should do it anyways for growth? You could make the same exact argument about any form of interaction. Don't want to interact with the node.js ecosystem? Why not? You will learn so much and grow as a person. Will I? Really? How about a book on group theory? Sure I will probably learn something, will it be useful? maybe, more so than the class I already took on it in college? who knows, certainly not you more than me.
Also the idea that people just want to sit in front of the TV and not learn anything new or grow is completely insane and usually only comes up when they aren't learning the thing that you want them to know. If it appears like that it's only because they are stuck in some system, much like the one you propose, that wants them to learn unactionable knowledge
What is the Appearance of Interaction? Just because it's very obvious that you are interacting with some group doesn't mean that you interact with that group more than some other group that you don't know about. If you go to a new website your browser runs some interesting scripts, much like a TV show this attracts your attention, eventually you decide JavaScript is important and you should learn about it. You have entered the JavaScript fandom, it doesn't matter to you if gravity acts on you constantly or a krebs cycle complete in your body (~10)^~21 times a second, JS is clearly more useful to know about, right?
> The second challenge is the misconception that communication should be natural and effortless. While the reality is, it takes effort to communicate and drains energy for everyone.
Yeah, no. It's 100% effortless for me to communicate with people I'm familiar with, and a massive effort to talk to people I don't know or are mere acquaintances. For my wife it is not only effortless but a massive energy boost to interact with a person whether they know them or not.
I think the author says some right things but vastly over generalizes.
These labels do as much to hurt ourselves as they do to try and help.
The truth (for me at least) is that whether I'm comfortable and energized by others depends on my level of comfort with the people, my familiarity with the situation, my mood, the general vibe, etc.
"Being" one or the other feels like a limiting belief that we can hide behind if we're not aware of what it's doing to us.
[deleted]
I think it's all about context and intention. We should embrace growth, not labels, and recognize the beauty in both collaboration and quiet connection
This is why I hate the words "introvert" and "extrovert": everyone can just assume that their personal makeup is "introvert" or "extrovert".
This of course makes for easy straw man arguments to the effect of "Everyone is the same at the core" and "Extroversion is a skill" and "Everyone feels drained". If you honestly think that, then these words are meaningless.
I had a similar conversation with a friend the other night about smiling, where she said "you just pull up things in your mind that naturally make you happy, and then that makes you smile naturally." Once again, not for some of us. For some of us, our natural state LOOKS very unnatural to others. Every interaction requires putting on a facade, because for some reason our natural pose, facial movements, body movements, how we talk, how we smile - ALL of it must be done in a very artificial way in order to "look natural".
And THAT is why it's so draining, akin to squatting on one leg. Sure, you can train it so that you could even do it for 20 minutes instead of 4, but evenually it's just too much and you need to retreat to a safe place where you can relax your stiff muscles and behave normally for awhile (except for the small group of friends with whom you can just be normal).
And if squatting on one leg were the only way you could emotionally reach those you talk to, you'd do it sparingly - only where it has the most impact.
This is a profound misunderstanding of introversion. An introvert may choose to develop and use the skills of social connection that come naturally to an extrovert. But at what cost? If the situation demands extroverted behavior, then do it, fine. But the introvert pays a cost to recharge and come back to whatever equilibrium is normal for them. If the cost/benefit does not work out, an introvert can and should make the choice to exhibit introverted behaviors.
Being an introvert who is capable of extroverted behaviors, I always felt confused about the question, "Are you an introvert or an extrovert?" It became clear to me when I read an explanation that went like this: After a dinner party where you meet some new people are you left energized or exhausted? If you're exhausted it is because you're an introvert.
The whole concept of introversion is a regression in social skills which is only slightly genetic and largely environmental. The idea of burning social energy is mostly a skill issue, although it is worsened with new/weird people.
Well, now, don't you tell me to smile You stick around, I'll make it worth your while.
Sorry but fast thinking is needed for a lot of socialization. No one sticks around if you are not interesting and people judge harshly everyone who is taking time to build up response.
I can throw in some jokes and in general be funny but with people that I am familiar with .
Not so much meeting strangers.
Well too bad ADHD makes me a fast thinker that talks over everyone else and writes code at 6x speed, but only sometimes, when I'm not procrastinating for hours at a time and when I'm not too mentally drained to engage with other people. It makes me an extrovert at work, but only sometimes, and a great team player, but only sometimes.
These blog posts feel so dumb to me because they always assume that you're a neurotypical and that everyone around you also is a neurotypical. That if you just put in the effort, you too can do it!
Well guess what? No, it's not like that. In fact, this mode of thinking is exactly the problem that makes my life hell. Fuck this. If I'm working remotely it's because idgaf about other people - not any more than strictly necessary to complete my tasks. Stop trying to gaslight me into thinking I'm wrong, stop trying to force me to go on trips and to delegate and to talk to other people - this is an adaptation for my own survival. I went into programming because I like writing code. That's literally the start and the end of it. It's not my fault the industry is 99% web development and 1% fun stuff for people on [a] spectrum. I'm here because if I weren't I would starve, not because I care about your company or the people you hired. Even though I'll gladly chit-chat with them from time to time, and even form friendships if I deem it worth it.
Was going to write approximately this, thanks for beating me to it. Just a bit of sparkling from my own (mostly miserable) experience: the disdain for “normies” comes from them, “normies”, forcing a square peg (me, atypical) into a round hole. There’s zero intention for accommodating for the differences. Predictably, as a result you get an extremely antisocial introvert. But guess what! If you just LEAVE ME BE, respect my silence and self-isolation… I will reach out and try to connect, on my own terms. Usually, by written text, since I don’t parse voices well, and don’t read facial expressions at all.
I was a fat little kid with a skinny friend who told me the secret to losing weight (which he had never had the need to do): just don't eat so much. He was not gas lighting me in any way. He was just communicating his internal experience that this thing that I found tremendously difficult was in fact trivially easy and I just had to try it. He wasn't lying, just telling me his truth which happened to be false. Don't attribute malice to obliviousness.
I'd attribute malice when this advice comes from supposedly grown-ups.
Exactly. At some point, obliviousness itself becomes malicious.
I think you are taking yourself too seriously.
Can’t imagine this attitude makes work easier for you nor does it make working with you easier. People keep making these “I’m on the spectrum” arguments as if it’s a legitimate excuse for bad behaviour. Perhaps life is more difficult for you in some ways. Life isn’t fair, learning to accept this is much more rewarding than hiding behind some spectrum definition. ADHD doesn’t make you do anything. You choose your life.
Heyyy, take it easy :) Would you call it “bad behavior” when a mute person refuses to speak? Well, A(u)DHD kind of makes one deaf, mute and blind to the standard communication style. That’s why the afflicted prefer to WFH, and text instead of face-to-face. Some are always impaired so, while others, only when tired.
I know. I’m diagnosed. I found that when I stopped using it as an excuse and started engaging my career and life in the ways I assumed adhd made them worse, I started succeeding in ways I thought I wouldn’t. My message is don’t become a person who identifies as a person with adhd. It will only hold you back in my experience.
I understand your point better now, thanks for elaborating! I do relate to the experience of stopping using my diagnosis as an excuse for pushing people away. My life is so much better now. Yet, for me, a pair programming session (for instance) is something I prefer doing, like, once a month, or less. But I certainly do enjoy it, a lot!
> ADHD doesn’t make you do anything.
It literally does.
What, in the post you are replying to, would you consider "bad behaviour"? Seriously, give us some examples!
I mean, it literally does make you do things. That's why it's a mental disorder.
I mostly don't see the point in these terms anymore. They were presumably created to categorize people but suck at it because nobody agrees where the boundaries of the category are, and the resolution on the term is so low for how many domains of personality it touches.
This is a general problem with language.
Conversely, being too open/productive may also lead to burn out. The trap of participation
for me I've realized my problem isn't introversion/extroversion, my problem is just that I have trouble thinking on the fly. or even just speaking off-the-cuff.
Dear God please scale down the size of this website. Everything is too big!
Like so many things, introversion can now be both medicalized as a disorder and celebrated as a lifestyle choice. This allows some people to pick whichever is psychologically soothing to them at the moment and use it to justify a lack of effort, as if socializing were not a skill that many people actually have to work on.
How about "shutting up and leaving people alone" as a skill that many people should have to work on? Let's distribute the effort.
Perhaps it has been said but can we agree that it's ok to be introverted?
I’m not an extrovert, but behaving in an extroverted way is hugely rewarding. Talking to strangers, befriending fellow travelers, commiserating with colleagues.
If you’re a manager it’s literally part of the job. Asking how people are doing isn’t useless small talk, your job is to keep an eye out for things that might be hindering the effectiveness of your team so that you can catch problems early and respond to them. “How are you doing” suddenly becomes a serious and interesting question with real ramifications.
Theres a common misconception that extroverts don’t like people or are not interested in people. We do and we are. Just in a different way. Every introvert has had a best friend, maybe a lover, maybe someone they were just comfortable talking with. The problem is that most social interactions feel shallow, banal and pointless. But I think that’s only before you look at it deeply.
Buried deep in each stranger is the potential to be a best friend, a lover, a future colleague, a business partner, or just someone who teaches you something important about an interesting thing you’ve never thought to study.
Your task as the introverted traveler is leave the door open enough to connect with each person enough to get at the deeply interesting stuff inside. Who are you and what makes you tick? What lights you up? What interest or knowledge do you have that I might find compelling?
I assure you everyone has something even if they don’t know it. Approaching each social interaction with the faith that something important can be discovered is the introverts path to benefits of extroverted behavior.
You’re welcome. You can thank me later when you meet me in person, but only if you’re able to figure out through conversation that I was the one who provided you this gem.
> What they don’t realize is - everyone is an introvert and everyone is an extrovert.
Citation needed.
> I looked into his eyes and saw the disgust for everyone in the room.
That's not how human interaction or theory of mind works.
This article is "not even wrong". It's just subjective bullshit (in the technical definition of the word bullshit).
It's probably the most ill informed post I've ever seen on the front page of HN.
> It's probably the most ill informed post I've ever seen on the front page of HN.
Ever seen so far
It’s pretty shitty of you to not credit the creator of your image like they ask in their bio.
> https://unsplash.com/@lighttouchedphotography
> https://unsplash.com/photos/brown-wooden-bench-PWxcv9hKOQc
> Ram learns about Shyam’s promotion and feels a bit disappointed. He goes back home and says to himself “I am not an extrovert”, consoles himself and moves on with life.
I have seen this play out time and time again at nearly every company I've worked at and even every team I've TL'd.
I used to be a "proud introvert" myself. The "proud introverts" often feel wronged in these situations, struggling to understand that communication is just as valid and critical of a skill as writing code.
Accepting that I didn't need to make "being an introvert" my identity, and learning how to communicate, skyrocketed my career.
Articles like this are (IMHO) ableist and come from an extremely neurotypical perspective. "Just practice social skills" to me is like teling depressed people "just go outside and touch grass".
There's not a single mention of ADHD or autism in here. My own understanding of this has evolved over the years.
The first stage is to understand introversion / extroversion as simply to not like / like socializing, people, large groups or whatever. This is a shallow and pretty inaccurate understanding, one many people such as myself chafe against. I consider myself an introvert but like certain social activities so these labels never seem to quite fit.
The next stage is the "social battery" understanding of introversion / extroversion. That is, social activities will either drain or charge your "social battery".
After this you start to ask questions like "why does X drain my social battery?" and "what does draining a social battery really mean?" and you start to realize you're still describing symptoms, not causes.
The key insight is that something drains your social battery because you're masking [1]. So-called extroverts don't need to mask. So-called introverts do.
Yes, you can get better at following social norms and develop coping strategies for large groups, socializing with strangers, etc but all you're really doing is getting better at masking. That can be useful because it can change how other people respond to you but it's a bit like telling a depressed person to "just smile".
[1]: https://www.autism.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/topics/behavio...
Introverts, fight me.
What’s up with “you extroverts don’t understand we have very limited capacity for socialization?” I simply cannot comprehend how something as enjoyable as spending time with people you like can be so mentally taxing?
I tend to think that it’s because of the attitude that implies that the one has to waste mental energy on having a good time.
Consider this: you can’t read facial expressions, nor the tone of the voice. Moreover, most people you interact with misinterpret your face/voice, assuming you’re joking when you’re dead serious (and vice versa). So, you come up with strategies to cope with your deficiencies. Basically, playbooks of what to say if you hear/see so and so, filling the gaps in your sensorium. What’s handled by an “autopilot” for most, is a very complicated manual procedure for you. I’m oversimplifying here, of course. There are nuances, but it always boils down to this switch to manual controls when one is tired, and then becoming even more tired and overwhelmed. Hope this helps!
This was the best explanation. I forgot I used to be this awkward as well for many years and the autopilot/manual analogy is just great. I did get much better at this though through lots of practice and patiently wasting my mental energy and having many awkward interactions, now it’s all just natural to me. I’ll be called an ableist and downvoted, however, I don’t really understand what’s stopping others from suffering through discomfort to get used to it and not see it as discomfort anymore. Although I did get lucky with my friends groups at the university and first companies I worked for.
Thank you! I’m glad this metaphor works. As for me, practice did bring many improvements, too. I did stop aiming for “becoming a natural”, however. Good enough, is, well, good enough. I’m always trying to improve, of course! Yet, at least for me, it is so easy to accidentally end up just masking, instead of being myself. And masking is a path that brought me to the darkest places. Hence, I strongly believe that there is a hardwired ceiling, that manifests as discomfort. See, some people train hard and benchpress the weight of a small car. Other people get seriously injured before hitting 100kg. I see no reason for brain being any different.
> This was the best explanation.
It's the only one you choose to believe.
> I don’t really understand what’s stopping others from suffering through discomfort to get used to it and not see it as discomfort anymore
I wouldn't call it ableist to assume that everybody is just like you. People are different. You wouldn't say "if only everyone suffered through reading this physics book, they'd surely understand the glory of physics, and become physicists".
Or "if only someone would just read my religion's book, then obviously they'd instantly become a devout follower of my particular god?".
It all seems profoundly ignorant, naive, lacking both empathy and theory of mind.
> I simply cannot comprehend how something as enjoyable as spending time with people you like can be so mentally taxing?
Similarly, I simply cannot comprehend how something as tedious as partying with dozens of people you hardly even know can not be so mentally taxing.
But that's fine. We don't need to comprehend how it works in others. We just need to accept that it does indeed work in different ways for different people, and treat them accordingly, as we ourselves wish to be treated by those who can't comprehend how it works for us.
You find it enjoyable to be with people you like all the time. Other people don't and reach a point where it becomes uncomfortable to continue.
It's not because of some weird attitude about wasting energy on having a good time. Quite the opposite; once you reach your limit, it becomes wasting mental energy on not having a good time.
I love to waste mental energy on having a good time - chess, puzzles, board games, crosswords, programming. But spending time with people isn't like that. Talking to a group of people I half-know is like someone has slipped a hobby-knife under my fingernail and is slowly extending it. I can feasibly have a good conversation, or even notionally a good time; but it's hard to ignore the knife.
I love talking to people. Unfortunately it's exhausting for me. I have no such attitude about it being a "waste [of] mental energy." I don't know any introverts that do.
I would recommend taking a deep breath and just consider for a second that some people are just different than you.
Most introverts are totally fine with spending time with people (albeit in smaller intimate settings). They are just (a lot) more comfortable with "awkward silence" than extraverts are. Spending time with someone shouldn't mean the entire occasion is filled with talking amongst eachother. Honestly I'm glad I can appreciate both.
Introvert social recipe, mileage may vary
1. Cozy room, moody lighting
2. Nice vinyl (harder to pause ). You'll probably want a print out of the lyrics if applicable
3. Maybe some projected visualizations or visualizations on a TV
4. Vibe
5. Discussion time at the end will vary, but idk, it's still fun to me to sit around cool people and have a mutual experience that doesn't require talking, so that's enough for me. It's also an opportunity to have them suggest a new album to listen to next time, but you also have to accept you might not get immediate feedback because they want to spend more time thinking about it.
Think of basically anything else that doesn't require talking and you can spend time with an introvert doing that. Part of what makes them uncomfortable in social situations is feeling pressure to say something when they have nothing to say. Allow the silence to happen.
You do have to have introvert break out rooms at parties. A sound machine drowns out the noise. No extraverted behavior in the break out room! Extraverts who can't respect the boundary don't get another invitation.
Oh and of course extraverts should know better than anyone that sometimes people just don't like you and that's ok. That's one downside of hanging out with some extraverts... extravert-on-extravert violence is pretty exhausting.
The best thing you can do for comprehending an introvert is realize that not all social interactions have to fit your preconceived notion of what a social interaction is.
Well, you've answered your own question - "you cannot comprehend", but others can. This should inspire you to question your own views first, then look for the answers in a more humble way.
> Introverts, fight me.
Unhelpful.
> I simply cannot comprehend how something as enjoyable as spending time with people you like can be so mentally taxing?
It's not a perfect analogy, but you might as well blame people for eventually needing to sleep.
It's super enjoyable to be awake. What could possibly make you want to stop what you're doing, only to go into a dark room and do NOTHING for eight whole hours?!
Some people are also tortured by silence, and they simply MUST talk non stop. To other people, never just having a quiet moment is torture. Are you the former? If you never again in your life had two awake seconds without someone talking, would that be heaven or hell?
> I tend to think that it’s because of the attitude that implies that the one has to waste mental energy on having a good time.
You said "I simply cannot comprehend[…]". How about you stick to that, instead of baselessly saying introverts must simply have an attitude problem?
My intersect of "people I like" and "people I have to spend time with" is likely smaller than yours.
Introverts are like vegans: they won’t shut the fuck up about how special they are. Ironically, psychotherapists agree everyone is both intro and extraverted depending on the social context. But don’t let facts get in the way of your chosen identity.
To introverts I would say: just now and then try to get out of your comfort zone. Most of the time, it will feel liberating and next time it becomes much easier.
Step 1. Regularly talk to strangers. Most easily it can be done at public transport or at a shop. Start with places where you are waiting for a short time. Just ask a silly question or say something about the weather.
Step 2 speak up in small groups. Just say something funny in between. Or ask a really curious question about what someone is saying.
Step 3 take the lead in organizing a Teams call that anyways need scheduling. Be the MC or host. Just state what the meeting is about, what is to be accomplished and listen and note some things for in the summary.
Step 4 do a talk in front of an audience. That will need some prep and some rehearsal, this one is quite difficult for myself as well.
Everyting worth the effort, takes effort.
All of your advice is for shy people, not introverts
Being an introvert is not the same as being shy, and it is long past time that people stop conflating the two concepts
You cannot "fix" being an introvert by practicing being social
could you humor me and exPlain why you think this? I’m neither shy nor introverted and I have only a casual understanding of either. If I take their comment literally, I guess the only part I would see being different is “it will feel liberating.” But aside from that I do support the advice of people going out of their comfort zone, even if they hate it.
I read GPs advice as “go to the social gym.” For some people the gym ends up feeling good, others will hate it no matter what, but the advice is sound regardless.
What do you think though?
I think people need to reconcile their level of interest in making new friends or finding success in innately social environments with their level of willingness to overcome fear or exhaustion. I see a lot of people in this thread basically saying approx. "you don't get it, it's exhausting", and that's fine enough if you've determined you get no value (after exploring that prospect valiantly) in doing the thing that exhausts you, but it's not fine if you do get value out of something and aren't willing to exhaust yourself.
Exhaustion for me is often a key component in anything I do. The friends that do find social interaction exhaustion and can't overcome it, I end up seeing once a year, and that seems to be ok with them, but if they were hoping for more, they need to practice being exhausted.
Lastly, if you're not practicing the exhausting things, you're practicing the comfortable things, imho. It seems more true in more cases that people aren't willing to do anything that exhausts them, so they never walk far, they never go to the gym, they get fat and isolate themselves socially... until they realize that they've suddenly become squishy, dull, and lonely, then look for a quick fix that doesn't cost them anything, and maybe post to Reddit "Any friends out there? I'm an avid reader and single player video gamer that will sometimes come out for 30 min if it doesn't conflict with my nightly 5 hour solo stationary leisure time. We could start a group chat!". There's nothing inherently wrong with that, it doesn't need to be fixed, but it services what it services and it's worh thinking deeply about whether that is or isn't worth practicing.
Shy == social situations are scary
Introvert == social situations are strenuous
It's very simple: As an introvert, I'm neither afraid of nor bad at social situations. I'm just not (that) interested.
If this is the case, then why should we change the way everything currently works around the fact that you are capable, but not interested in socializing?
Not GP, but who's asking for that? I think all the blather is inescapable. I can't make people write an email instead of them wasting my time while they try to make sense of their own thoughts in a meeting. That's just how it is.
Good advice but we need to change its scope: All of that works if your problem is shyness or being self conscious. And indeed there's a strong Venn diagram between shyness, quietness, self consciousness, awkwardness, and introvertness. But it's not the same.
I'm inherently all of those things. After 20 years in consulting though, including dedicated training and experience, nobody believes me anymore - I've built strong social skills and come off cheerfully comfortable at work and random social situations. I've been formally mentoring people emotional intelligence and soft skills for at least 6-8 years.
But they are exhausting, even those that have become second nature / automatic. And that issue is not becoming lesser with age or skills or experience. And the more people in a group, the more exponentially exhausting every experience is :-/
what you do - even if ALL the love for it is there in you - sounds absolutely exhausting to me (especially after as many years as you have been doing it) and I am about as extrovert as it gets, much like you are described your sister in the other comment.
is it plausible that your feels are not as closely related to you being introvert and just nature of the career itself?
Plausible, but the draining is not just at work. I love one on one and can generally spend large amount of time with individuals whose company I enjoy. But groups (say 4+ including myself) are "draining" no matter the enjoyment. It's not that I'm "not a people person", I love hanging out with my friends and family! It's just that, with several people hanging out especially, I'm likely the first one to leave and find a couch or bed or comfy chair somewhere to read a book or play an instrument or video game or whatever to "recharge".
Some people misinterpret that as not enjoying hanging out with people but that's not it. It's more like, hanging our with people is as physical of an activity for me as biking or swimming or rock climbing. I love it... But I get tired eventually :-)
(analogy breaks down quickly tough - per another thread here though, unlike the physical activities here,I haven't really been able to increase my "social stamina". Social skills, hugely! Social stamina, not really)
fascinating!
I totally understand even though I don’t actually understand (if that makes any sense :) )
I am an introvert. I can talk to strangers, but prefer not to. I speak in small groups of friends or collegues, I am the lead in lots of calls, I even do training to big audiences. When in the moment, I can do it without hesitation, but in the end its always draining.
As an introvert, I have no idea what you're talking about.
As an introvert, talking to strangers is in my comfort zone. Being an introvert has nothing to do with whether I'm able to talk to strangers.
As an introvert, speaking up in small groups isn't a problem. I do it all the time when I feel like it or when I feel it's necessary. Again, what does being an introvert have to do with this?
As an introvert, I regularly find myself leasing things because other people don't want to step up. This has nothing to do with introversion/extraversion.
As an introvert, I do talks in front of an audience. Not a problem.
Learning all this was valuable, but none of it solved my introversion. Because it's not something that can or needs to be fixed.
What it did fix was my shyness, lack of confidence and insecurity around other people. But I'm still introverted because it still requires me to exert a lot of energy, which can only be regained if I'm alone.
As an introvert I do these things - actually search for opportunities to do a talk or to do public presentation works. This works (and you can find me on YouTube in these situations) but it doesn’t get easier with time. It actually feels like with time it gets harder to find the energy to do this again.
You clearly don't know what it means to be introvert. It's not a choice, it's almost like a phobia.
As an introvert, what does being an introvert have to do with phobias? If you have a phobia for being around other people, this is not being introverted.
I often think about this post when people call themselves introverts. I wonder how much is this a function of who you are (genes, etc.) vs the environment a person was exposed to in formative years. I've never seen a study about this. (I've read Quiet, which is a book that gets quoted by introverts a lot)
"A lot of you guys are not true introverts you were just expressive children who didn’t get the attention you wanted or deserved so you got comfortable at keeping everything inside and entertaining your own thoughts"
Source: https://x.com/SchrodingrsBrat/status/1834583804016484637
For the record, we introverts get very tired of having to justify ourselves to extroverts who constantly question our existence. It seems to happen far more often with introversion than with other differences.
People don't tell those who prefer cold to heat that it's just because of the way they were raised and that they should really build up their heat tolerance. People don't tell those who dislike cilantro that it's an acquired taste and they should really put in the effort. People who try to tell LGBT folks that they should just try to be straight get straight-up pilloried. But for some reason people feel that it's okay to tell introverts that they probably are just imagining that they have real differences from the average person that can't just be fixed by trying harder.