> I would say that I'm an introvert who's really good at pretending to be an extrovert for small amounts of time
In other words: an introvert. There seems to be a widespread misconception that introversion means being "shy" and not talking to people, when in reality it is more about where you draw energy from. The result is tons of people self-identifying as "extroverted introverts"[1], presumably in an attempt to signal that they are not totally devoid of social skills, when in reality introversion has nothing to do with that.
[1] When I was single I saw this surprisingly often in online dating profiles. Interestingly, for all the many people I've seen identify this way, I've never seen a single person self-identify as the opposite: an "introverted extrovert".
It's a very common misconception. One I even held myself until recently. The more I thought about it, I realized that while I am introverted, I do like being around people. I'm perfectly happy to be with and socialize with people - as long as I don't have to be the center of attention or life of the party. Interestingly it was a 3 month stint doing full-time remote work that made me realize this.
Luckily when socializing with other introverts, they're generally OK with silence and gaps in the conversation, it's not awkward. And when socializing with extroverts they're happy to dominate the conversation and I'm happy to let them and just listen.
Sure, I feel that too sometimes. Sometimes it's because I don't know the other person well so I don't know how they feel about it, so I start to worry that it feels awkward to them and that makes me want to alleviate it for their sake. Often I'm probably just overthinking it.
It can also be tiring when someone dominates a conversation, it really just depends who it is. I have some friends who I could listen to all day, and they'd happily talk all day.
You tapped into something here. I think for some people, like myself, it depends who I am with and my relationship with them. It can be extrovert and they have a constant stream of interesting things which is mostly fun, so it flows naturally... or there are awkward thoughts or moments that lead to "when will this person shut up".
I wouldn't limit and label myself a certain way based on a few situations with a few people. Keep exploring folks!
I think the reality is that the word has two established meanings. One is the professional clinician meaning you describe here, and the other is the more popular meaning of "shy".
The bigger point is that when you try to communicate with people, if they're using the word as introvert(2), you're being a jerk if you're pretending they meant introvert(1), because that's the "correct" meaning.
Not to turn this into a culture war, but as introverts in a world of extraversion, the more people who understand the distinction and recognize that introverts don't need to "just get out there", or reform themselves to be "less shy", or any of that nonsense, the happier everyone will be. So it's worth raising this. The misunderstanding may be broad, but it's not necessarily a fixed state.
And, to be frank, people who insist on labeling an acquaintance as introvert(2) are not exactly engaging in non-jerk behavior either. In fact, it's that very thing that leads young introverted people to self-describe as "shy" and then do their unconscious best to fulfill that description, to their detriment.
> And, to be frank, people who insist on labeling an acquaintance as introvert(2) are not exactly engaging in non-jerk behavior either. In fact, it's that very thing that leads young introverted people to self-describe as "shy" and then do their unconscious best to fulfill that description, to their detriment.
Descriptivism breaks down when encountering jargon.
Consider the phrase "begging the question", for example. The phrase means something specific when discussing logical syllogisms, and was coined by academics as a piece of jargon to refer to that particular concept.
Even if everyone who doesn't know what a logical syllogism is, now thinks that "begging the question" means something entirely different from what those academics mean, that doesn't mean that the phrase has lost its jargon meaning. You can't redefine away jargon. Jargon gets written down into scientific papers and people continue to read and cite those indefinitely, so the jargon use of the term gets promulgated in academia indefinitely in order to understand those papers.
Yes, there is a lay-term "introvert" that now means something pretty much non-differentiable from "shy." But that's irrelevant when the useful term isn't the lay-term, but the jargon term.
To think otherwise would be like expecting a biblical scholar to stop using the word "apocalypse" to refer to the set of apocryphal texts of the Bible, just because the lay-term refers to an eschaton event.
Yes, lay-people will think you mean the wrong thing. But the solution to that is not to abandon the jargon word, but rather to specify that you're speaking academically and that you intend words to have their jargon meaning; and to terminate the conversation (or, grudgingly, teach an entire intro course to the academic subject to your interlocutor) if they don't know the appropriate jargon.
I don't entirely disagree, but my main gripe is that the former definition is extremely useful so it is unfortunate to have it subsumed by the concept of "shy" (for which we already have a widely-understood word), since it then becomes difficult to communicate and reason about the former. Maybe the solution is that we need yet another word to use for the former meaning, although I wonder how long will it take until such a word would yet again become co-opted to mean "shy"...
I sometimes identify as a socially-anxious extrovert. I gain energy from being around people, but sometimes the idea of interaction or going up & meeting new people makes me anxious enough that I just stick to the wall
People often equate introvert to mean "doesn't prefer to be around people" and extroverts to mean "loves to be around people", but that's essentially a myth.
The best layman explanation I have heard is that extroverts are "recharged" by being around others whereas introverts recharge by being alone. For example, I really like being around people, but the idea of not having time to myself to recharge can be exhausting.
> The best layman explanation I have heard is that extroverts are "recharged" by being around others whereas introverts recharge by being alone
That's a good step 1.
Step 2 is realising that introverts often do get energised by one-on-one or small group socialising, or socialising in a more meaningful way around a real shared interest.
Step 3 is realising that the concept of introversion/extraversion generalises past social interaction to preferences for levels of external interaction / stimulation in general. So for example, some people may not be super-sociable, but may love lot's of external physical stimulation (music/lights/exercise, etc), others may love to be exposed external ideas (or alternatively have a preference to only be exposed to small amounts of these things).
^ This is the notion of introversion/extroversion captured by the MBTI / Jungian Type Theories, where Extraverted Feeling (Fe) roughly function corresponds to the popular notion of extraversion, but there are also Extraverted Sensing (Se), Extraverted Intuition (Ne) and Extraverted Thinking (Te) functions which present differently.
> Saying that talking about a book is meaningful but talking to a person about their life, is not is immature inferiority-complex bigotry.
I would include talking to a person about their life as meaningful conversation. But lot's of extraverts like to chatter about nothing at all. Like, they literally cannot let there be a silence. (because it helps them think / keeps them stimulated).
To introverts that's infuriating, because they can't think while the chatter is happening, and they are over-stimulated.
I am infuriated when someone starts pushing priority-preserving NULL tokens at me non-stop. It's even more infuriating when I have to do linguistic analysis calculations to reduce all those possible content-carrying strings down to to disappointing priority-preserving NULL tokens.
I love priority-preserving pauses, maybe even with explicit priority-yielding tokens, but there are so many people that just take any pause in the conversation as their opportunity to seize priority and keep it, and this is what produces the culture of babblers and chatterers. Silence is a resource devoured by the tragedy of the commons.
Some people need you to shut up, in order to think their own thoughts. And when they are not allowed to stop and think, they get angry and frustrated with you. So pause. Take a breath. Take another breath. When that silence starts to get uncomfortable for you, that other person is still assembling their meaningful contribution to the conversation into a sentence. Hold it just a few more seconds... aaand... let them speak.
I feel like that is immature. You're implying that a conversation about the kids cannot be pleasurable and informative. I recently moved to an all women team (running joke was that I was a diversity hire) and the kind of things they need to do to prepare for pregnancy blew my mind. When my colleagues talk about their kids asking weird questions and putting their parents in weird situations it's as stimulating a puzzle to solve as any of the philosophical masterbation.
I agree. I can enjoy both, but I get a particular energy out of discussing ideas. Small talk about one's life or vacation is less interesting/energizing to me.
And that's okay. I'm not sure why this had to involve a sermon on immaturity and—of all things—bigotry.
If you haven't done it, check out wandering earth on netflix, it's based off of a short story by him.
I didn't know that going in and about halfway through I remember thinking China must have a lot of amazing Chinese sci-fi writers because the ideas in the movie reminded me of the vastness of Liu Cixin. Then afterwards I look up more info and find out it's based off of a short story of his.
Of course N=1 and all that, but as a meme that describes how my life went from my teenage years to now, 20 years later, it fits very very well. Maybe you don't like the word, but as a recharge-alone-overt, I don't particularly care about the specific label, I just want to spend Sunday afternoon quietly with a book :)
yep, that's correct. Me and my fiancée are both text-books introverts, but I'm not shy at all, have no fear of public speaking etc. while she is the opposite.
But for both of us, even having a drink after work with people is super exhausting and we just want to go home and relax, while an extrovert would be depressed staying alone and needs to recharge by having fun with people.
It's very hard for me to disentangle skill and enjoyment. I feel like I'd enjoy socializing more and would energize me if only I was better at it. It is certainly something that gets easier with practice but some people are just generally not that verbal or good at reading social situations in large groups quick enough to jump in the banter quickly. Or if they can, it may require conscious effort that can get tiring.
Same here. I was invited to a party late last year and it was the first time really getting out in a long time. It was enjoyable, but I didn't do much socializing till the end. Haven't had an opportunity to get out since tho
Some good news though! Shyness, social anxiety, etc, can be overcome with effort, if desired. I've definitely witnessed a number of people "coming out of their shell" so to speak over the years.
Also you can be an extrovert with severe social anxiety. At least that's what I consider myself, because I don't share any traits with introverts other than being considered shy, because I struggle in social situations.
Forget the introvert/extrovert trap that so many comments/articles fall into.
I don't join book clubs precisely because I don't want to commit to reading that material on that schedule. The idea of simply meeting up with friends for an hour to silently read whatever we feel, hey, I like that. I can read LotR or HP again, someone else can read sci-fi or mysteries, and we can chat about that or whatever else. It's a great alternative to reading one and only one book.
Indeed! I have had similar... hesitation? when it comes to getting in a book club. I love reading, I have several friends that love reading, but I couldn't possibly imagine regularly reading something that we all agree upon in order to talk about on a regular basis. We'd all rather read our own stuff.
It's not even about not wanting to read something - I just want to feel engaged with what I'm reading and my friends seem to agree. It's how you can let a book sit on a shelf for 6 months then pick it up and read it in 3 days - sometimes it just 'grabs' you.
An unpopular opinion that I'm sure will garner negative reactions because everyone likes to self diagnose themselves, but I find the introvert/extrovert dichotomy quite weak.
Most people who I meet who proclaim they are "introverted" have just not invested any time into building their social skills.
Most people who I meet who proclaim they are "extroverted" are people who are not comfortable with being alone for whatever reasons.
It is seemingly obvious to me that both social skills and being with one self are both equally important.
Deciding which one you are by taking a shallow survey with surface level questions seems unintelligent.
Choosing one to identify with seems irrationally limiting to who you could be.
Introversion / Extroversion refers to the way someone recharges one's "batteries". My girlfriend and I are prime examples. Once Friday rolls around, I want to put 40 miles on my bicycle, and play guitar all weekend. She, on the other hand, wants to see friends, go to an event, etc. We try to compromise.
The social aspect, in terms of one's anxiety around it, or the ability to be social, doesn't factor in. At least not in the sense that introverts are bad at being social. And vice versa.
In fact, my girlfriend is quite a bit more socially awkward then I am. Especially in new situations, and around new people. She gets anxious about it, worries how she's going to be perceived, and either clams up or talks too much. I'm the one who breaks her in to these situations. Which, considering how most people define these two terms, is ironic.
> An unpopular opinion that I'm sure will garner negative reactions because everyone likes to self diagnose themselves, but I find the introvert/extrovert dichotomy quite weak.
Most psychologists don't view it as a dichotomy but rather as a scale with introversion on one side and extraversion on the opposite side. People are not either introverted or extraverted, they are somewhere on this scale. Which means that they tend to prefer introverted or extraverted behavior depending on their position on the scale. So even a very introverted person can display extraverted behavior, although it will be unlikely to happen often.
> Most people who I meet who proclaim they are "introverted" have just not invested any time into building their social skills.
The further people are on the introverted side, the more they prefer to be by themselves. Any skill you don't practice will not improve much, this is also true for social skills.
> Deciding which one you are by taking a shallow survey with surface level questions seems unintelligent.
> Choosing one to identify with seems irrationally limiting to who you could be.
You can influence the outcome of the survey, but the idea is to determine where you are on the scale, not to decide or choose. It is a model of personality/temperament and has proven itself quite useful over the years. But obviously it has its limitations.
I think that there is for sure an aspect of underdeveloped skills. That could come from lack of interest, background/culture/environment, or any other number of reasons sure. But I think a bigger aspect is how psychologists often phrase it (sure it is wishy washy) but where do you get your energy. Some people are going to be more comfortable with people around and others feel more relaxed alone. That can and most likely will change over any individuals life but it is important to recognize what environments to go to when you need a recharge. And yes, people love to self-diagnose and take surface level quizzes, but this also does seem to be a real phenomenon different personalities have and understanding your own and others personalities will improve everyone's social interactions. So I agree, we should all work on being with ourselves as well as how to interact with others. But we also need to know, when feeling stressed, if we should retreat to a quiet room or a crowed get together.
And just a last point is that it seems like this silent book club is doing what you suggest, it is an introvert going to a place they feel more comfortable which will in time develop their social skills.
Developing a skill should have a payoff. When someone does not perceive as great a reward in social interactions, the motivation to develop their social skills is less.
If social skills were on a tech tree, introverts would put points into the "polite disengagement" branch first, while extroverts are still putting their early points into "bonus friend slot" and "multiple-participant schedule coordination" and such.
Some people might just recruit an extrovert for their sole friend slot, drop a single point on "Irish Exit", let the friend set up all the social events, and just vanish whenever they're done. That's a perfectly reasonable social skills build, up until the extrovert reaches their friend cap and drops the introvert into the acquaintance pool, to free up a slot for someone with better synergy bonuses.
And this is the sort of thinking that tends to drive off people who don't view (or don't want to view) the universe as a simulation that could be hackable with a better understanding of the data structures, and who don't want to have nerdy, speculative-fiction conversations about whether "deflect blame for loud fart" is a skill or a perk.
I simplify it as such, because it makes sense to me: Other people's energy flows into an extrovert. While an introverts energy flows into other people. If I spend even a few moments with an extrovert, I feel so drained.
I more generally think limiting your identity-surface is a good idea, because I suspect strongly-held identities do subtly hem you in and shape your choices (which can be exacerbated if your identification was mistaken.)
That said, I narrowly disagree that it's a weak distinction (I wholeheartedly agree it's a messy one) that only has currency because people are desperate to self-diagnose.
A few thoughts:
- We are (broadly) too quick to self-diagnose, but I think it's mostly a byproduct of more general behavior. We're too quick to identify. We lean too heavily on categorization and especially exclusive categories and once the categories are reified, have a hard time seeing the variety they were trying to carve order out of.
- I don't want to project, but I wonder if you find the distinction weak because you mostly experience the middle of a normal distribution produced by a messy attempt to quantify a forest of human emotion and behavior.
- I think the I/E spectrum has salience because it has at least a little power to explain how people, relationships, and societies all work at scale in a way that defuses/de-personalizes a common source of friction.
- About like I'd expect, I can only think of a few people I've ever known for whom their status as an introvert or extravert is so essential that it's part of my own model of their behavior.
The folks far on each E/I scale have brains that work quite differently. They prefer different chemicals with different effects. There's more or less of certain structures. There's a different, longer pathway for introverts. Might be more things we haven't found yet. So far, they're neurologically different followed by different behavior that's a consistent default despite their environments.
From there, I can agree that introverts can improve at interacting with extroverts by investing energy into doing it better, desensitize themselves a bit, etc. It will still drain their energy because their brains work differently. They'll be acting the whole time while others are just casually talking in a way that builds their energy using a different chemical.
I am an introvert, but people at work usually don’t realize it for quite a while. I spent years “training” myself to be sociable and can do so quite effectively, but I still dislike it and would much rather be alone. Sometimes that builds up to the point where I need to take time off work just to recover from social interaction.
Yeah, that's one of the most painful parts of, for example, the r/Introvert subreddit. There's a mix of people who just need alone time to recharge (per the current popular description), and people who seem to have terrible social skills or absolutely crippling social anxiety.
At least the community is sort of good at distinguishing between the two and sometimes encouraging people to find help.
This doesn't make sense. You've defines the terms in approximately the usual way noted that you have observed them, and then declared they don't exist.
Yes, you can learn to change much of your behavior. That doesn't mean you don't have strong preferences.
Would you say that someone who says they aren't athletic based on a shallow survey of behaviors and inclinations is unintelligent? Someone who answers a shallow survey on their sexual orientation is unintelligent?
A clear definition for introvert/extrovert certainly exists, but the term has drifted. This happens pretty often, since most people enjoy talking about personality types. "I'm so OCD!" seldom means "I have to keep checking the fridge to see if I locked my cat in there, even though I know he's not in there."
Note that OP wrote about people who proclaim they are "introverted"/"extroverted".
This is quite different from the technical distinction psychology professionals make when using the words, which is what most people seem to respond to.
I remember my college library being sort of a refuge and doorway to the world of knowledge without any attached expectation of socialization. I spent my time reading on everything that I found interesting/new (excluding the subjects I was studying for getting my degree). This knowledge didn't directly add to my grades (I think) but really opened my mind to the (pre-internet) world and its past, present and possible future, more so since I never had exposure to this amount of concentrated source of knowledge before.
The difference between that and what we do on internet now is that these were books by authors who spend a good chunk of their lives being authorities on the topics instead of someone dumping their musings on the internet (admittedly not all of which is substandard).
I think this kind of focused consumption (because you have to be physically there) of high quality content in an "aimless" manner is underrated and happening less.
I have a vague idea that maybe some people need "framework" for socializing. Making it clearer task like framework for developing applications. I still don't know how that "framework" should look like.
I am a person who can't "just call and talk to him/her aimlessly" or "just ask friends to go out" as some relatives recommended me to do.
I can spend hours trying to crack the task of "socializing" as if it is some hard puzzle.
I am skeptical that this really gets at the heart of what makes socializing as an introvert different than for an extrovert. Being in a social situation brings some level of anxiety to the table even if everyone is silent and that eventually becomes taxing enough to need to be alone for awhile. Maybe it would take longer to reach that point, but there is nothing wrong with the way interacting with people currently works for an introverted individual.
That's a fantastic idea. Just to escape from kids/work and have a good read sounds kind of magical. For some reason it seems more appealing than just going to a park or library and doing it. The socialising would be kind of reliant on reading roughly the same genre I suspect - don't think a romance and sci-fi would lead to a lot of conversation starters, but you never know.
The use of the word “novel” in contexts like these is a pet peeve of mine. It seems to be used solely for making an idea sound good regardless of merit. Yes, there is value in signaling originality, but the tone feels self congratulatory. Perhaps this is just a product of my experiences in academia, where the use of the word “novel” seemed like a goal.
I read it as sarcasm, in the sense that the organizers seem to be putting a lot of effort into pretending they're not merely appropriating college age "study in commons" lifestyle.
So you take your psych 101 textbook to the commons and read mostly quietly for a half hour and then party all night with whoever else shows up to "study" and the only difference is you're older and not paying $50K/yr for the privilege to do so.
I sympathise with your allergy to the word "novel". When I see that word in the title of a paper I tend to assume that the author is a desperate PhD student describing some method that is slightly different from the normal and obvious way of doing things and which works only slightly less well. The first sentence of the abstract SHALL contain the word "ubiquitous".
"Classic rock is blaring from the speakers, but at this table, silence rings out."
Just what I want: classic rock while I'm trying to read something of moderate complexity.
If I want to be around people all reading their own books in silence, I can catch the Metrobus. (Actually, most days I catch the Metrobus willy-nilly; what with cell phones, the reading isn't as silent as it could be, but the bus gets me to and from work.)
HN is nearly all small talk about the news. We aren't posting and critiquing each other's research papers.
And we get a list of preassigning topics every day.
As a way for people to talk about unimportant topics, small talk serves a few vital functions:
1. it allows politeness without deepening the relationship.
2. it can be a breadth-first search of mutually-stimulating topics for in-depth conversation (which may lead to a deeper relationship if desired).
3. it can avoid accidentally offending someone with controversial topics or opinions.
4. is quick to disengage from, unlike a story or debate, so is useful as a conversational holding pattern.
HN doesn't really fit any of those. Sure, some comments will say "my kid does this", but I find they're rare on HN (and usually downvoted); in general, comments are adding new data or engaging in debate.
If you're in one of the cities where it meets, the Homebrew Website Club is great for that. If you aren't, think about starting one yourself. They're great.
In the article, "Once the bell rings, silent reading time commences. After an hour, the bell rings again. [...] [Participants] chat about anything, before and after the designated reading time."
So presumably the 1 hour of coding in silence would be followed by as much time as you liked for pizza and socialising.
I call this "sociable vs social." I'm regularly out and doing things in public locations where I may end up interacting with people beyond basic greetings/nods/"tall Pike," but that doesn't mean I'm there to socialize so much as to get some undemanding human contact.
Huh, I (and many others) kind of used to do this in undergrad. We’d get a study room, read things from our different classes to ourselves, and schedule breaks every 20 or so minutes to talk, and repeat. It was very effective and enjoyable studying.
> The idea began with two friends reading together at a bar in San Francisco, annoyed by the assigned reading of a demanding book club.
Because everything was invented in San Francisco in the last 20 years.
I can't for the life of me figure out how to read around other people (even in silence). Is there something wrong with me? I bet I could learn but I'm not sure how.
You just have to try to read around other people, until you can. You can't literally shut off your sensory inputs, but you can learn to hear without listening, and see without observing.
Eventually, you may reach the point where you won't realize that someone is trying to get your attention until they actually poke you with a sharp stick. Or maybe just tap your shoulder.
I have no social anxiety, and I genuinely enjoy meeting new people, or talking to small groups of friends. but I need my alone time, and that isn't up for debate- it's a genuine need. Took me longer than I'd like to admit to realize that.
Whether this is the natural result of just getting older, or a sea change in general society as the less-social of us find ways to connect anyway, I am not sure. I do think it's a little of both.
Honestly, it seems to me more that, in some circles, it's just become more acceptable to talk about. Plus, over the last decade or so, there's been enough talk about it in popular media that it's become somewhat more normalized.
It's cool for me. I'm not shy. I love standing in front of a room and teaching. I'll happy go do social things. And if I do too many in a row, I get completely exhausted. First comes an overwhelming urge to sleep, followed by a strong desire to stay home with my dogs and a book and just read in silence.
15 years ago, living in University dorms, it was the same thing, but instead of having a framework to describe it, I had to make excuses to have alone time. Sunday was perfect for that... Sometimes there was a real hangover, and sometimes there wasn't, but it was always a good reason to chill out solo.
As society becomes more polarized and extreme, introvert vs extrovert is probably the most harmless identity topic to discuss.
There are vast swaths of identity people used to diversely discuss, that are now either completely off limits for discussion or only one extreme view is currently permitted. We are witnessing the death of multiculturalism, where the only "multi" allowed anymore in public is extroversion vs introversion.
Perhaps some environmental changes have caused people to think more about whether or not they're introverts. Open offices seem like a strong candidate to me (but there might well be others).
well, in the last couple years people actually realize that not everyone is an extrovert. So introverts are more vocal because they now exist/ get recongized
In other words: an introvert. There seems to be a widespread misconception that introversion means being "shy" and not talking to people, when in reality it is more about where you draw energy from. The result is tons of people self-identifying as "extroverted introverts"[1], presumably in an attempt to signal that they are not totally devoid of social skills, when in reality introversion has nothing to do with that.
[1] When I was single I saw this surprisingly often in online dating profiles. Interestingly, for all the many people I've seen identify this way, I've never seen a single person self-identify as the opposite: an "introverted extrovert".