Note, the words "Introvert" and "Extrovert" should die. It's like talking about "fatties" and "anorexics". Most people are normal. Introversion (or it's opposite, extroversion) is more or less normally distributed, unlike the bimodal distribution suggested by using polar terms.
"Male" and "Female" are examples of bimodal attributes, for which it can be pragmatic to pretend there's only two extremes. Even then, the folk who don't fit so well in either category warrant a special mention.
Spare a thought for the normal people who don't have 200 real friends (and 20,000 Facebook friends); or live alone in their mother's basement. (Not that introverts necessarily have no friends, which is a whole new can of misconceptions brought on by Myers-Briggs, as explained by Cosmopolitan in the mid-80s).
It also bears mentioning that virtually nobody understands what it actually means to be "introverted" or "extroverted." Introversion does not necessarily imply social awkwardness, nerdiness, or even shyness, per se. Rather, to be introverted is simply to prefer fewer or smaller social activities -- not out of a sense of being unable to handle such things, but out of a general preference for less social stimulation.
Popular (mis)usage, especially in the US, presents introverts as somehow flawed or unwhole, while extroverts are properly adjusted -- as if the standard is set by the extroverts, and everyone who falls short of that mark lands somewhere on the Autism spectrum. (It's reached the point where many people these days are afraid even to describe themselves as "introverted," lest others assume they're somehow damaged).
I concur. Labels add no value and hold people back from improving their lives.
Dealing with groups requires one set of skills. Dealing with solitude requires another (with much overlap).
If you don't have skills for one situation you will avoid it. Once you acquire the skills to handle it, you'll be able to handle either. If you can only handle one now that doesn't mean you can't handle the other, it just means you haven't yet.
When you have the skills and experience to handle one situation you will enjoy it and look forward to it, either one. When you don't you will not look forward to it and feel anxiety or fear from it. You don't have to be stuck that way. The same with any other set of skills.
I once didn't have skills to handle groups. Now I do. Labeling me an extrovert would have held me back from learning skills and gaining experience to handle groups. I was anxious and afraid of going to the gym before I started going, but I wasn't a non-gym person. I just had to build up skills and experience.
Even then I take issue with the terms. By all popular accounts I was extremely "introverted" when I was younger. Having made a concious decision to change certain aspects of my life, I am now far more balanced, and I have more than one story that makes "extroverts" blush. Not once have I read an article that discusses introversion and extroversion as flexible personality traits.
@wisty ++1. I dont like talking too much around certain people (too argumentative, talk from their @r$3 just to hear their own voices) but I am too polite to tell them that but they are ofcourse free to stick the "introvert-notsocial" tag on me. Fun! </sarcasm>
Some people often feel that the drawbacks of social interaction outweigh the benefits. Some other people feel the opposite. At one point both choose to believe that social interactions are or are not of high value, and through daily social friction it soon becomes a permanent pattern of behaviour in their lives. Usually all this happens unconsciously in early life, but as time goes on it becomes conscious why they choose this or that. So i believe in most cases it's a voluntarily accepted pattern, and it has binary qualities.
By the way, introverted people should not be stereotyped as living with their mothers, they are successful enough not to and, indeed most of them value their independence above all.
However most of these submissions do not sit well with me as they try to glorify introversion as some sort of superpower or an exclusive club, and contain a hefty dose of ego stroking.
I wonder if that's because of the HR/interview/need-to-network thing.
Those on the more introverted side of whatever social mound you may want to define, are as good as, if not better at actually solving problems and producing results as those who network and team-huddle and facebook etc.
It's a "pain point" precisely because there's no reason a somewhat 'introverted' individual should be organisationally penalised for their personality traits when they 'bring the goods' regardless (or even in excess of requirements).
Also it's coming from social sciences, a thing most of the people nodding in approval would be extremely skeptical (and rightly so IMO) especially if it was opposing their beleifs - at least that's my impression/my initial reaction. Confirmation bias is bad.
Still I think most of us are also repulsed by the inane "brainstorming sessions", forced "teamwork", etc. and that's an important point, I work best alone/when I'm not getting distracted.
I agree. I've been following Hacker News for a while, and I've noticed whenever one of these, "Introverts are actually misunderstood geniuses, Extroverts are really shallow and stupid"-type articles appears in a magazine, it'll probably appear on this site.
Still, while I don't agree with the Us vs. Them attitude, it does seem like a big concern that there's such a big well of introvert resentment out there, that these articles can so consistently tap into.
The comments to these stories are always pretty predictable too, on this site and others. There will be a ton of disgressions on what the word introvert really means. Some people will talk about how it's a false dichotomy. A couple of bitter people will agree with the anti-extrovert sentiment of the article. Some posters will share their story of how they changed their supposed core orientation, etc etc.
I am an introvert male and one book that really helped me be assertive, certain, spontaneous, and happy in the social arena is "No more Mr Nice Guy" by Robert Glover. Highly recommended!
Oh for god's sake I've replied to alike a dozen places in this thread, I am giving up and this will be my last.
I am an introvert. And I've always been very assertive, confident and certain, in fact in my younger days I was kind of a dick. Getting older I've practiced not being a dick.
What ever issues you had with being assertive, certain, etc, I am glad you are working on them. But being an introvert has nothing to do with it.
I think most people hare are confusing those type of challenges with introversion.
I'm an introvert. [1] Additionally, I cannot concentrate in a noisy, distracting environment. I was told -- ad nauseum -- this was my "problem" and that I needed to accommodate and "adapt" to the noise around me. Ultimately, after several decades of doing my best to do so, I burned out -- hard.
Now, "the press" is telling us that "introversion" is good. If it was more than lip service to the latest trend -- fad -- I might be encouraged. But I doubt very much that it is.
In my mind, all these "introverts rule" articles can fuck off and die. Because it's just not true. The world is full of loudmouthed, bullying assholes. And the worst part is when they manage to turn you against yourself.
If you are an introvert. If you need peace and quiet to concentrate. The best thing is NOT to support those who try to stuff you into a cube, or who blast the stereo at all hours because "college is a party".
Get away, so that you can think. And keep in mind that they will step on you and use you if they can. So, don't let them. Be kind to yourself. And to your friends. And to those who truly respect you. But fuck the "touchy feely" propaganda from the media.
1. I get along just fine with people -- in fact, I'm often considered quite "nice" and people seem to enjoy spending time with me, particularly if they and the setting are not overwhelmingly aggressive. I enjoy spending time with them, too. So, I'm not asocial.
Noise really disturbs me too and actually so does movement in my peripheral vision. Over time I have resorted to working for about 45mins - 1 hour 45 minutes at home in the morning before heading to work. I use that time to bring my days tasks to a near solved status. Once I reach that state I can "finish" the tasks off at office inspite of the distractions.
Great article! This is definitely something that I had always thought about. The extroverted bias is definitely something that should be rethought. In my experience, I feel much more productive working alone rather than in groups. It allows me to work at my own pace. In working alone, I can keep my assumptions in my head, and have a full understanding of what my tasks are and what needs to be done to be completed. I feel my preference for this work style comes off as closed off, but having worked in different environments I know this way yields the best results for me. Working too often in groups gives a false sense of unanimity, where differing approaches are suppressed. I've also seen decisions be dragged on much longer than it really should take.
I like to work alone as well, even though I'm a manager and I'm lucky if I can get 50% of my time head-down writing code. I just feel like I can process so many more ideas thinking about things internally instead of pausing to try to verbalize my thought process. This is not to dismiss the power of two or more minds focusing on the problem from different angles bouncing ideas back and forth. Maybe I just haven't found my pair programming soulmate yet, but I suspect I just prefer to work alone most of the time and get collaborative only at chosen points (design/code reviews, brainstorming, domain expert discussion, etc).
The article only touches briefly on the flaws of brainstorming and group work, but there was a recent article in the New Yorker by Jonah Lehrer that delved deeper into this issue and some of the research behind it. (unfortunately only available to subscribers http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_...) Surprisingly there is decent amount of research indicating that brainstorming is actually less productive than everyone thinks, however the article diverges slightly and explores the history of a few places like Building 20 at MIT where many people from different backgrounds were forced to mix due to the adhoc nature of the offices, etc. Of course I think he referenced another HN favorite, Richard Hamming's classic "You and your research."
It seems that balancing "quiet brilliance" and "keeping your door open" is probably something worth keeping in mind.
I wonder why people find this surprising. Groupthink involves substantial compromises so you end up with least-common-denominator solutions. Epics throughout history often talk about the accomplishments of Great (Wo)Men, but not of Great Groups. The idea that groupthink is more valuable is just a hypothesis.
I read a book by another female author that suggested the same theme as this article: The Introvert Advantage - How To Thrive In An Extroverted World by Marti Olsen Laney.
A nice read overall and made me aware of many obvious but often went explained why introverts behave they way they are.
This article gives corporate "brainstorming" sessions the what-for, with some justification. However, there are some great ways to run brainstorming sessions to help mitigate the shortcomings cited in this article.
By setting rules and depersonalizing interactions ("That wasn't me criticizing, that was the black hat talking!"), you can get productive, creative thought in groups that might not be possible at the individual level.
[+] [-] wisty|14 years ago|reply
"Male" and "Female" are examples of bimodal attributes, for which it can be pragmatic to pretend there's only two extremes. Even then, the folk who don't fit so well in either category warrant a special mention.
Spare a thought for the normal people who don't have 200 real friends (and 20,000 Facebook friends); or live alone in their mother's basement. (Not that introverts necessarily have no friends, which is a whole new can of misconceptions brought on by Myers-Briggs, as explained by Cosmopolitan in the mid-80s).
[+] [-] jonnathanson|14 years ago|reply
It also bears mentioning that virtually nobody understands what it actually means to be "introverted" or "extroverted." Introversion does not necessarily imply social awkwardness, nerdiness, or even shyness, per se. Rather, to be introverted is simply to prefer fewer or smaller social activities -- not out of a sense of being unable to handle such things, but out of a general preference for less social stimulation.
Popular (mis)usage, especially in the US, presents introverts as somehow flawed or unwhole, while extroverts are properly adjusted -- as if the standard is set by the extroverts, and everyone who falls short of that mark lands somewhere on the Autism spectrum. (It's reached the point where many people these days are afraid even to describe themselves as "introverted," lest others assume they're somehow damaged).
It's time to do away with such nonsense.
[+] [-] spodek|14 years ago|reply
Dealing with groups requires one set of skills. Dealing with solitude requires another (with much overlap).
If you don't have skills for one situation you will avoid it. Once you acquire the skills to handle it, you'll be able to handle either. If you can only handle one now that doesn't mean you can't handle the other, it just means you haven't yet.
When you have the skills and experience to handle one situation you will enjoy it and look forward to it, either one. When you don't you will not look forward to it and feel anxiety or fear from it. You don't have to be stuck that way. The same with any other set of skills.
I once didn't have skills to handle groups. Now I do. Labeling me an extrovert would have held me back from learning skills and gaining experience to handle groups. I was anxious and afraid of going to the gym before I started going, but I wasn't a non-gym person. I just had to build up skills and experience.
[+] [-] lusr|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 108|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arguesalot|14 years ago|reply
By the way, introverted people should not be stereotyped as living with their mothers, they are successful enough not to and, indeed most of them value their independence above all.
[+] [-] obiterdictum|14 years ago|reply
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=561311
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2657554
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2345552
However most of these submissions do not sit well with me as they try to glorify introversion as some sort of superpower or an exclusive club, and contain a hefty dose of ego stroking.
[+] [-] panacea|14 years ago|reply
I wonder if that's because of the HR/interview/need-to-network thing.
Those on the more introverted side of whatever social mound you may want to define, are as good as, if not better at actually solving problems and producing results as those who network and team-huddle and facebook etc.
It's a "pain point" precisely because there's no reason a somewhat 'introverted' individual should be organisationally penalised for their personality traits when they 'bring the goods' regardless (or even in excess of requirements).
[+] [-] moonchrome|14 years ago|reply
Still I think most of us are also repulsed by the inane "brainstorming sessions", forced "teamwork", etc. and that's an important point, I work best alone/when I'm not getting distracted.
[+] [-] ChrisMac|14 years ago|reply
Still, while I don't agree with the Us vs. Them attitude, it does seem like a big concern that there's such a big well of introvert resentment out there, that these articles can so consistently tap into.
The comments to these stories are always pretty predictable too, on this site and others. There will be a ton of disgressions on what the word introvert really means. Some people will talk about how it's a false dichotomy. A couple of bitter people will agree with the anti-extrovert sentiment of the article. Some posters will share their story of how they changed their supposed core orientation, etc etc.
[+] [-] itmag|14 years ago|reply
http://www.amazon.com/No-More-Mr-Nice-Guy/dp/0762415339
I have the audiobook version and it's one of few audiobooks that I've listened to more than once.
I also have a mindmap of the book if anyone wants it.
[+] [-] itmag|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bh42222|14 years ago|reply
I am an introvert. And I've always been very assertive, confident and certain, in fact in my younger days I was kind of a dick. Getting older I've practiced not being a dick.
What ever issues you had with being assertive, certain, etc, I am glad you are working on them. But being an introvert has nothing to do with it.
I think most people hare are confusing those type of challenges with introversion.
[+] [-] 54mf|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] defdac|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bstewartnyc|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pasbesoin|14 years ago|reply
Now, "the press" is telling us that "introversion" is good. If it was more than lip service to the latest trend -- fad -- I might be encouraged. But I doubt very much that it is.
In my mind, all these "introverts rule" articles can fuck off and die. Because it's just not true. The world is full of loudmouthed, bullying assholes. And the worst part is when they manage to turn you against yourself.
If you are an introvert. If you need peace and quiet to concentrate. The best thing is NOT to support those who try to stuff you into a cube, or who blast the stereo at all hours because "college is a party".
Get away, so that you can think. And keep in mind that they will step on you and use you if they can. So, don't let them. Be kind to yourself. And to your friends. And to those who truly respect you. But fuck the "touchy feely" propaganda from the media.
1. I get along just fine with people -- in fact, I'm often considered quite "nice" and people seem to enjoy spending time with me, particularly if they and the setting are not overwhelmingly aggressive. I enjoy spending time with them, too. So, I'm not asocial.
[+] [-] dman|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exch|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] delinka|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sunils34|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dasil003|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spacemanaki|14 years ago|reply
It seems that balancing "quiet brilliance" and "keeping your door open" is probably something worth keeping in mind.
[+] [-] arguesalot|14 years ago|reply
The Nytimes had a similar story recently: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/opinion/sunday/the-rise-of...
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] eblade|14 years ago|reply
A nice read overall and made me aware of many obvious but often went explained why introverts behave they way they are.
[+] [-] didgeoridoo|14 years ago|reply
One of my favorites is the de Bono hats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Thinking_Hats
By setting rules and depersonalizing interactions ("That wasn't me criticizing, that was the black hat talking!"), you can get productive, creative thought in groups that might not be possible at the individual level.
[+] [-] funkah|14 years ago|reply