The author doesn't know the difference between introverts and extroverts, so this article falls completely flat. The difference is really simple:
* Introverts get tired when interacting with people and recharge their energy when they're alone
* Extroverts get tired by being alone and recharge their energy when they're with people
Extroversion and introversion doesn't say anyone about how shy or social people are. There are a lot of introverts with great social skills and a lot of extroverts with good inward skills.
That being said - it's obviously much more normal to be a shy introvert than it is to be a shy extrovert. It does happen though.
I'm an introvert and used to be a really shy guy with low social skills. In the last years however I gained a lot of confidence and social intelligence. Have I become more extroverted? Nope, I've just improved my social skills drastically.
The belief that how social people are is an unchangeable genetical trait is downright dangerous. Unfortunately a lot of people are misled into believing that it's unchangeable. It's just a skill like any other skill, it can definitely be learned!
Thank you for this. The "official" definition of extroversion and introversion and the "colloquial" definitions are bit different, I think. I have a greater tendency to buy the colloquial version. The former was a definition invented by one dude and never substantiated, whereas the latter is the current evolution of the word as defined by what people find most useful.
In much the same way, though, the classification of bats as mammals is something one dude came up with, while human language naturally evolved to call them birds. Which more accurately identifies their pedigree?
You missed the "and never substantiated" bit of my reply. The post I was responding to had asked for verification. Of course, there is none, so we are left with one guy vs. many.
In your scenario, we have had verification. It's called comparative genomics. And before that we had morphology.
First, I have never heard anyone, anywhere, ever call bats "birds." Second, the relationship between bats and other mammals is well established through genetics. In other words, that classification has been tested in ways that the personality types have not (that I am aware of, hence, my question).
"And I hope we value and develop other skills, like independence, focus, persistence, deep thought and careful reflection, which might not be as natural for extroverts."
Amen. Extroverts ruined my K12 education, how about yours? Now they're busy doing the same to the political system, entertainment, etc.
And what're the introverts doing? Oh, they're off building the next Facebook/LinkedIn to facilitate the extroverts...
What do you expect? How can you have someone that doesn't like talking to crowds be a politician or someone who avoids cameras be in the entertainment business? I guess, then, that leaves the extroverts to fill the gaps...
I hate the idea of cliques (jocks, nerds, etc.) just as much as I hate the idea of baseless notions that extroverts are the slime balls while introverts are the silent heroes. If people hailed the qualities of introverts, then they would be in the position of extroverts, and since introverts presumably dislike being in such situations, they would cease honing the skills like "independence, focus, persistence..." they are admired for.
If the introverts are truly "building the next Facebook/LinkedIn," then their success is derived from the extroverts using it.
It might not be a pretty world, but at least it's balanced (to a decent degree).
What do you expect? How can you have someone that doesn't like talking to crowds be a politician or someone who avoids cameras be in the entertainment business? I guess, then, that leaves the extroverts to fill the gaps...
Many introverts are quite good at talking to crowds. Speaking as an lifelong introvert myself, crowds are easy. It's individuals that can be difficult.
"Introverted" and "shy" are not the same thing.
Many entertainers are introverts--the actor who vanishes back to his trailer the second the cameras stop rolling is almost a stereotype. Introverted politicians are less common, but they exist as well. Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter are both famously introverted.
The distinction between introvert and extrovert has little to do with willingness to appear in the public eye. It's about where you find your energy: The introvert is drained by dealing with people and recharges in private, while the extrovert finds social interaction invigorating and solitude draining.
So true. Giving OK presentations is a technical skill that can be acquired with a bit of training (and a sympathetic audience to bounce off for your unsuccessful shows). Most people who are brilliant public speakers are extroverts, but many extroverts are only passable or downright terrible at public speaking, because they never have acquired the skill, while an introvert can train themselves to be quite interesting and engaging.
These are unscientific observations on the basis of a bunch of academic conferences (which give you the opportunity of observing the same person in a public-speaking context and informally). YMMV.
Last year I left a job I had for 5 1/2 years where I had to do speeches and presentations right, left and centre. You get used to it---even "skilled" at it. People praise you for your presentation skills; sometimes they even ask for advice.
Being chummy with people afterwards didn't get one iota easier, though.
Maybe we need more introverted politicians... Seems like nowadays being a politician is more about kissing babies, and accepting bribes^Wdonations than about trying to do something meaningful with their time in office like:
- Make an attempt to understand the laws that they are passing and their implications
- Cut 'riders' out of bills
- Try not to make laws that only benefit lawyers (so ambiguous that there will be multiple precedent-setting cases before the legal grey area is gone).
> It might not be a pretty world, but at least it's
> balanced (to a decent degree).
How so? If we accept the idea that extroverts are in the CEO / politician / sports star / etc positions, then you have to accept that the extroverts are the ones the hold all of the power. If the introverts are 'building the next Facebook/LinkedIn,' that gives them relatively little power: 1) politicians can make your product illegal 2) there are relatively few success-stories that give founders enough money to be considered in a position of 'power' (how many failed Facebooks are there for every Facebook).
I'm not throwing in on either side of the 'this is reality vs this is fantasy' argument, but if we assume that it is reality, your idea that it's balanced doesn't seem to hold up.
I wonder what would be the introvert/extrovert ratio for politicians be in countries such as China? From what I've heard, more of their politicians there have an education as engineer or scientist, instead of laywer or MBA which is common in the west (or at least, USA).
I'm not sure how to take that... (as purely inquisitive, or as a subtle attack on my argument -- i.e. more introverts as politicians => China => Socialism / Communism => Game Over).
On the same token (introverts in Washingon == Communism), I could say that few con-men are introverts, thereby implying that an extrovert-heavy government would be full of con-men. The introvert-vs-extrovert argument certainly isn't a battle of good-vs-evil, though I don't think anyone here is saying that we should have a population of 100% introverts (or extroverts) either.
My take on that comment was that it was not a subtle attack at all -- it was merely an observation that it's not a logical necessity for the leaders of a large country to be extroverts.
Indeed, that was my reasoning. I'm simply curious. It didn't even come into me to think of it as an attack. Any anti-communism or anti-introvert bias he might have read in my message is completely his own. I'm an introvert myself and I don't regard either capitalism or communism as evil in itself.
I may have been overreading into your comment. I tried to make my comment seem like I wasn't just assuming the worst of you, but it looks like I failed at that. My initial read of your comment was that it was just curiosity, but for some reason a second reading made me realize the 'oh noes! communism!' angle too.
You bring up a very good point, but if we take the politician example, I view extroverted as engaging with the public and facilitating what the public needs.
Maybe what's wrong with the political system boils down to false promises and inability to effectively determine what the people want. That is an introverted quality (lack of proper social communication). The bad politicians who pass crappy laws are more a testament to the people who vote for them anyway.
And there's no reason to suggest CEO's are anything like public figures. In fact, I would argue a good many of them are introverts. If you view their respective companies as teams, then introverts shine just as well as extroverts do in team settings.
I think some of the issue is 'pleasing the public' vs 'giving the public what they need.' There are a lot of poor political choices that are made in order to put on a dog-and-pony-show for portions of the public that don't like to think too much (e.g. prosecuting sexting teenagers as child pornographers just so that they can claim to be 'tough on crime' or 'of strong morals' or 'pro-family').
> How can you have someone that doesn't like talking to crowds be a politician
Calvin "Silent Cal" Coolidge. (Possibly. He wasn't averse to press conferences, certainly, but he certainly cultivated the image of being a, in his words, "solemn ass" and was pretty universally known as a reticent man.)
> someone who avoids cameras be in the entertainment business
I'm a programmer and have always preferred a late-night hacking session or a deep intellectual late-night conversation with a likely-minded soul over going to pubs/house parties and doing keg stands, being obnoxiously loud and other misc. "bro-ey" antics.
But I think your thinking is too binary (but I can relate to that as well as I'm a geek at heart) - who says that extroverts can't be introspective or sensitive when you are being sensitive to them or that under the right circumstances, when somebody puts the move on you, your favorite music is playing at the bar or just feel-good atmosphere, an introvert flips into the life of the party. Not exclusive to the programming world, I feel that most people put unfamiliar cliques into bins and give themselves the self-label of "martyrdom" and "misunderstood geniuses" when we are all confused, insecure yuppies secretly nursing our individual quarter-life/mid-life crisis.
Like when you are debugging an application, would you expect if you don't change code or step-through to examine deeply your stack, the program would just magically work? But too often in the real world, programmers (including me) bang our heads in frustration of "us vs. them" and pine for better results without actually debugging our control flow.
But I can empathize with that too - too often as programmers, we are taught to grind through the code, not to give in no matter what; there's a masochist pleasure to drill down and resolve the bug no matter - "do not go gentle into that good night!" But I'm also a options trader and one of the hardest lesson that that field humbles you is "do not try to fight the market, do not take your emotions out on the market" - because the market is like an ocean, swimming against the current is difficult and strained whereas giving yourself to the vast tides is relaxing and liberating.
So like the financial markets, so is the "meat" market; and the trend there is that you have to go out, put yourself out there, flirt with strangers - because how else would someone who's interested in you be able to consummate that relationship if you are sitting at home. Do that and then tell me if you still have the same opinion about obnoxious/rowdy extroverts and non-programmers.
And as a programmer, I'm going to give you unsolicited advice about how to break into the extroverts scene. It's all about desensitization to let yourself go. First, you should sign up for a volunteering opportunity in your city; it's a good structured environment for people to meet up and people there by the nature are friendly. Once you get warmed up in volunteering, you should go daytime to a cafe by yourself and get a cup of coffee and try to flash smiles at strangers. People go to coffee shops by themselves all the time and it's expected you smile at people in public. Then you should go to a bar and try to have a beer by yourself. Do not worry about appearing awkward because actually people there probably have lots of respect for you for having the balls to come in by yourself and not rely on friends' crutches; and don't get surprised that extroverts will approach to talk, get your phone#, or more. Next, go to a night-club when there's a dance night that's playing your favorite genre music; again just dance the night away and don't feel self-unconscious, just concentrate on the music.
By then, you would have been approached by tons of interested strangers and/or developed confidence to approach potential cute romantic liaisons yourself that you'll know what to do. I can't believe typed out this rant but please disregard if this isn't particularly relevant to your situation but this is what happens I'm drunk at 4:48am on Sunday.
I moved to another country, I don't know anyone there, I do go out on my own and I do sit in cafés on my own from time to time - heck absolutely EVERYWHERE I go I am alone since 2 years.
I have not been approached by ANYONE not even a single time. I can hardly catch anyone's eyes to so much as get a chance to smile at them.
Your suggestions sound smart and useful but ultimately they probably only work for very attractive people and/or people who are not shy and already extrovert anyway - at least in my experience.
Seriously, I've countryhopped myself and once you have a decent grip of the language, the best way to get low-friction contact with the locals is to strike random conversations with old people. With few exceptions, they love it when anyone at all talks to them, have interesting stories to tell, and are much easier to approach than your random person-your-age on the street. Try it. Give yourself a quota of one conversation a day. Talk to that granny that lives two floors above you to start with. Keep it up.
It's a two-way street. When you're willing to approach other people, you're more likely to present noticeable-but-subconscious cues that you're an approachable person. If you're sulking in the corner, morose that no one will talk to you, then you probably don't look like someone others want to approach.
I try to do something similar to what noname does, but I also try to seize opportunities to talk to people. In a crowded coffee shop, it's inevitable that you'll overhear conversations, and people realize this. If the conversation isn't too personal, and you have an insight or something meaningful to add, try interjecting. I'm always apologetic when I do it, flashing smiles and trying to be as polite as possible. If I feel they were actually bothered by the interjection, I say my piece, apologize and leave it at that. But people often are receptive to the interjection, and I've met some good people that way - people that I now consider friends.
Hmm. In the spirit of even more unsolicited advice, I would say that it's also your attitude. Sorry to get all philosophical but there are certain things that you can control (say your emotions/thoughts/what you can do next) vs. things you can't control (other people's emotions/background).
Being social is about being independent of other people's positive and negative feedback about you. Suppose a stranger looks down or frowns when you try to tell them a joke or to get them to open up on a bus or something, your thinking could go either, "well, this sucks; people think I'm nerdy, unattractive, etc." or you could think, "well, it's alright; maybe she's just having a bad day or just being shy and really appreciated me; well, there's always next time!"
Kind of like debugging, "first you don't succeed, dust yourself up and try again!" (well, I guess it's more like re-compile and try again, doesn't have the same ring to it though).
Myers-Briggs is one of the dumbest things in psychology. Psychologists, who generally accept the stupidest theories generally admit it's useless, and Big-5 is much better. It's only popular because it's so value-free - nobody gets offended by any of it's factors (except introversion-extroversion: the only useful one).
Introversion-Extroversion is the only factor that is really a big factor. There other MB factors - (Sensing (S) - (N) Intuition, Thinking (T) - (F) Feeling, and Judgment (J) - (P) Perception) are so meaningless nobody even remembers them. The other big 5 factors (Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism) are much better descriptors of people. Are you interested in stuff? Openness ++. Do your homework on time? Conscientiousness ++. Say "yes" too much? Agreeableness ++. Crazy? Neuroticism ++. Honesty, intelligence, and empathy could be added; but they are a little prickly to measure. But Big 5 is still fairly descriptive of most people.
Personality traits are (roughly speaking) normally distributed. It's stupid to classify people as "extroverts or introverts", as most people are basically just "meh". Sure, there's the geek who never speaks, and the cheerleader, but most people just talk with a few friends, and feel a bit sick when they have to talk to strangers. The dichotomy that's implied by using two classifiers ("extrovert / introvert"), rather than just scoring "extroversion" on a scale of (say) 1-10 is just brain-dead.
"Introversion does not describe social discomfort but rather social preference". I like reading books, but in high school I could talk to anyone except a hot girl. Now, I guess I would prefer to read than make "connections", but that doesn't totally disqualify me for having a job that requires a lot of communication. Of course, I'm quite good at jobs that require a bit of thinking, and enjoy them more. So, um, I guess I won't be selling Avon any time soon. My loss, I guess.
And who says introverts aren't successful? I would pick Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Larry Page, Allan Greenspan (yeah, he caused the crisis, but virtually no-one else new better), David Letterman, and quite a few other successful people as un-extroverted people. Possibly Barack Obama, and quite a few other presidents too (but I know next to nothing of US history). Maybe Bob Dylan. Possibly John Lennon. Not Ringo though.
Having "social skills" can be important. But not all extroverts have them (think - the bully, Mr. Foot-in-mouth, and the guy who just won't shut up), and most introverts have adequate social skills. Most people do.
The dichotomy that's implied by using two classifiers ("extrovert / introvert"), rather than just scoring "extroversion" on a scale of (say) 1-10 is just brain-dead.
Perhaps more importantly, it's unfalsifiable, untestable. There's no possibility of identifying a person who is neither introverted or extraverted.
This is like having a theory that people are either short or tall, and then trying to determine shortness vs tallness by having people take surveys about whether they are comfortable in airline seats or have trouble reaching items on the top shelf. Of course everyone will fall into a little of both categories, but mostly all you are doing is wasting time.
Wonderful. The concept of falsifiability is a gift Karl Popper gave to humanity, and we mustn't forget it.
So from a statistical standpoint, you're estimating theta, some parameter that indicates your level of extroversion. What does this parameter get you? Will you then predict this person's success in life? Why would you want to do that?
Much worse, could you possibly point to this untestable parameter as being the _cause_ of one's success? Hardly.
But from an epistemological standpoint, there is some benefit to identifying what we take to mean intro/extroversion. So that's why we give Jung credit, but more as a philosopher and less as a scientist.
I think your view of the MBTI-traits is a little too black and white.
Being an introvert indeed does not meen that you lack communicatoin skills or are uncomfortable in social situations, it only means that you enjoy solitude more than an extroverted person, and even need it sometimes because social situations can be draining.
It basically could be described by getting your energy from being alone VS getting it from being with people.
The other traits aren't meaningless either, though I think their naming can be a little misleading. For example, always keeping deadlines or finishing prior to them is a high indicator of someone being a J. Ss tend to be more detail oriented, in-the-moment people, why Ns see the big picture, etc. I think if you spend some time really understanding the MBTI it can be of great help in dealing with people that are different than you.
So what I'm really trying to say - those traits don't describe how people behave, but how they process information and handle certain situations.
I'm not saying that MB was a bad idea at the time. It was genius to classify people on a few principle components.
The problem is, the factors are dated (Big 5 is much better), it's polarising (black-and-white descriptions of people, rather than a gradated scale), and it's widely used by HR workers, managers, educationalists, and basically every other soft science department except psychology.
It's like people in the field are still using steam engines, while researchers are building petrol engines.
"The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, called MBTI for short, more properly owes the bulk of its credit to the great Swiss analytical psychologist Carl Jung. In 1921, Jung published his book Psychological Types, in which he laid out all the same concepts found in the MBTI [...]"
"An American woman, Katherine Briggs, bought Jung's book and was fascinated by it. She recommended it to her married daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers, who had a degree in political science. The two of them got hooked on the idea of psychological metrics. Together they sat down and codified their own interpretation of Carl Jung, making a few important changes of their own. Jung had everyone fitting into one of four basic buckets. Myers and Briggs decided that each person probably combined elements, so they modified Jung's system and made it a little more complex, ending up with four dichotomies, like binary switches. Any combination of the four switches is allowed, and Myers and Briggs reasoned that just about every personality type could be well described by one of the sixteen possible ways for those switches to be set. Basically, according to Myers and Briggs, we're all represented by a four-digit binary number."
It's important to note that Jung's definition of introvert vs extrovert differs from what most people think these words mean.
Usually, people think that extroverts are social and outgoing, while introverts are shy loners.
But that's not how Jung saw them.
For Jung, introversion was a tendency to focus inwards (think daydreamers, people with a rich fantasy life, someone form whom ideas are important).
Conversely, for extroverts the outer world is more significant than their inner world. It's just a matter of different focus or emphasis.
So, you could very well be an extrovert and be a loner. Focusing outwards, on (for instance) a personal project or (another example) exploring the external world alone.
Or you could be an introvert and be quite comfortable in social situations, and not the least bit shy, but at the same time have a rich fantasy life.
On the Big 5 system, people often confuse the introversion-extroversion axis with the neuroticism axis. Neuroticism is more associated with social anxiety, poor social skills, and the like. From wikipedia:
"[Neuroticism] is an enduring tendency to experience negative emotional states. Individuals who score high on neuroticism are more likely than the average to experience such feelings as anxiety, anger, guilt, and depressed mood.[1] They respond more poorly to environmental stress, and are more likely to interpret ordinary situations as threatening, and minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. They are often self-conscious and shy, and they may have trouble controlling urges and delaying gratification. Neuroticism is associated with low emotional intelligence, which involves emotional regulation, motivation, and interpersonal skills.[2] It is also a risk factor for "internalizing" mental disorders such as phobia, depression, panic disorder, and other anxiety disorders (traditionally called neuroses)."
I'd like to point out here that Myers-Briggs isn't entirely an indicator of personality traits and skills. It's sources of energy, so to speak. Are you revved up to go out and interact with people or are you happier on your own doing your own thing.
> Society rewards extroverts. They get the job, the money, the girl (or boy), and the front page.
I'm not entirely sure this is true. A lot of the top inventors, industrialists, writers, and artists in any generation are introverts.
What less people realize is that the most accomplished statesmen and politicians are often introverts too.
Augustus Cesar led the height of the Roman Empire, Tokugawa Ieyasu unified Japan, Abraham Lincoln crushed the Confederacy and led to modern strong-Federal America, etc, etc. All introverts.
Anecdotally, it seems like it's easier for an introvert to learn how deal well with people than it is for an extrovert to learn to enjoy the solitude and meditative periods necessary for serious hardcore expansion.
It's probably easier to become moderately popular and get external trappings of success as an extrovert. But if I was trying to massively change the course of history, I'd want the bulk of my top personnel in leadership positions to be introverts.
I am highly skeptical of his assumption that skills like working on a team, communicating with others, and leading others all imply extroversion.
Now that I think about it, most of the people I've worked with (as a programmer) have probably been introverts, and excepting one or two, they've all had excellent team and communication skills.
I am an introvert (reading HN and programming on a Saturday night, and I have no problem with it!), and I am sympathetic to the idea that extroverts are a problem, but I don't think this article articulates that problem in a particularly convincing way.
I think the point is that if those 3 things (working on a team, communicating with others, leading others) are what we start selecting for as the most desirable skills for engineering students, then we effectively have started selecting out introverts and selecting in extroverts. Granted these skills aren't limited to extroverts, but it's much more common to have extroverts with those skills than it is to have introverts with them.
> I think the point is that if those 3 things (working on a team, communicating with others, leading others) are what we start selecting for ... then we effectively have started selecting out introverts and selecting in extroverts.
I think this was the very assumption I was questioning. I am simply unconvinced that these skills imply extroversion. I guess I'm not sure what it would take to convince me, as anecdotally at least, I've found my generally introverted friends to be very competent in these areas.
I also do not frankly believe that these skills are prioritized above technical competence at companies that highly value technical competence. For ho-hum business software, this may be the case, but in that case, it may be that people skills are more important than developer skills, because the problems being solved are just not that challenging from a technical viewpoint. On the other hand, at companies where innovation is very important (well-run startups, Google, Amazon), the interview process will tend to heavily favor technical skills.
Edit: I felt I should explain something better. It is certainly the case that people who have abominable social skills will have a very difficult time getting hired. But frankly, at tech companies, the bar is basically "is able to communicate with people without being an asshole." I'm sorry, but if that is your definition of extrovert, than there is a confusion of terms going on here.
This doesn't make sense to me. I'm definitely an introvert: shy, lousy at casual conversation, and can happily go for days without talking to anyone. However, I have no problem in my software development job with teamwork, communication or leadership (I was even a manager for many years before deciding to go back to being a senior developer). I can work effectively with others to get things done, taking the initiative when necessary. And, as someone else pointed out, I've seen many extroverts who have poor skills in these areas.
This is a classic misunderstanding of what a introvert is. It does seem to be true that introverts have weaker social skills than extroverts. This is not however, inherent! It is simple a function of practice, and as introverts need alone time to recharge, they are less likely to have practice in social settings. It's a subtle distinction but an important one to make. The article claims that people skills come "naturally" to extroverts, but that's an oversimplification of the underlying issues.
Put simply, the difference between introverts and extroverts is how they recharge energy. Imagine a party in a packed apartment. An extrovert can spend hours there and feel refreshed and energized at the end. On the other hand, an introvert will feel tired and drained. But this has nothing to do with how they act at the party. Being shy and awkward doesn't mean you are an introvert! This misunderstanding is fairly pervasive. I'm a huge introvert and I go to parties all the time. I act very outgoing, friendly, and confident. Close friends are in fact quite surprised when they find out I am an introvert at heart. But I could never sustain going to parties twice a week every week because I would get too drained.
All of that said, the author does raise some important points about the place of introverts in society. Caring For Your Introvert is absolutely recommended reading: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/03/caring-f.... It touches on some of the issues raised in the article and provides a much better overview of extroversion versus introversion. Previous discussion of this excellent article here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=561311. Rands also has a nice article about nerds which does not explicitly touch on introversion. It does however, address many issues introverts typically deal with: http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2007/11/11/the_nerd_ha....
But this whole concept of recharging energy sounds pretty unscientific to start with, unless you're talking about sleep and digestion. Although interestingly I did see an experiment once that showed introverted people salivated significantly more than extroverted people, while carrying out a group task (licking envelopes).
The other day, I saw a discussion on reddit entitled something like "What is it that people actually do at parties?" I thumbed through it, not really that interested, but I had just been to a gathering the evening prior and had a small realization while thinking about it.
Quite simply, people talk about themselves.
There's some skill and filtering involved (you have to do things to have something interesting to say when you talk about yourself, and you don't want to focus the whole conversation on yourself), but the most important part of this epiphany was that I realized that growing up, I was always taught that the best way to be a conversationalist (and the best way to get girls to like you, and the best way to get support for your decisions, and the best way to get important people to listen to you) was to minimize yourself in the conversation and take interest in the other person, asking questions and responding with more questions...
and that this advice is sabotage, created by extroverts to make introverts easier to spot so the E's don't have to spend as much time trying to engage us and can just move on. It's like telling someone who has a hard time picking up skiing that snowplowing down the side of the run is just as fun as actually skiing, so they should just stick to that (and incidentally stay the hell out of the way of everyone else).
Extroverts naturally ignore this advice (or never see it, because extroverts don't need to seek out advice about how to engage others), and when introverts internalize it they further push themselves into a corner.
The most rewarding thing for me in extrovert situations has been figuring out what makes me an interesting person, and talking about it.
Wow, oversimplify much? I happen to much more on the extrovert side of the spectrum and while, yes, people do sometimes talk about themselves at social gatherings many of us, myself included, also make an effort to hold an actual back-and-forth conversation. It's unfortunate that your experiences have been so negative but don't classify all people based on that.
Though let me just say that:
"this advice is sabotage, created by extroverts to make introverts easier to spot so the E's don't have to spend as much time trying to engage us and can just move on"
Sounds like "Toot, toot, all aboard the crazy train!" to me.
The Tyranny of the Extroverts title reminds me of "The Smart Talk Trap" (stanford-online.stanford.edu/apm04csia/docs/SmartTalkTrap.pdf) from the Harvard Business Review which talks of these poisonous extroverts who excel in the language of "No, it wont work" and revels in shooting down ideas to fix something and not coming up with any actual steps to solve the problem. I recommend it if you havent read it already.
This essay is ridiculous on a number of points, but the point that stood out the most to me is below. The author writes:
"I shouldn't have to say this, but there is a place in the world for introverts. Show me the ten most innovative minds of the 20th Century and I will show you ten introverts. From Einstein to Wittgenstein, not one of them could carry a conversation if you put handles on it."
He picked two out of a ten not mentioned and you rail against him because he missed Feynman? You make the claim that it is ridiculous on a number of points but what you site is not a point at all--- just an exclamation that you don't like. I guess his real mistake was not to have gotten into a time machine and zoomed ahead to ask your blessing.
When someone makes extraordinary claims about the "tyranny of extroverts" and says that the 10 most innovative minds couldn't carry a conversation if it had handles, then I think that person has shown a critical research failure to miss Feynman. He's not exactly an obscure figure and he's an obvious counterpoint to this guy's flame.
As for the other points I mentioned, they arise because his entire thesis is based on unsubstantiated conjecture. His very thesis, "society rewards extroverts" seems sound, but he's not exploring any of the reasons for this. Maybe society rewards extroverts because society is, by definition, a group activity and people who enjoy group activities will tend to gain the favor of the group.
Maybe society rewards extroverts because without communication skills, no idea will ever leave the mind that thought it. It's the human equivalent to the "if a tree falls in the forest" koan. Or maybe this guy is right, and society rewards extroverts because the bastards have it in for introverts and it's a tyrannical conspiracy. This guy jumps right to my last point. His justification? That society is run by extroverts to the detriment of thinking people everywhere.
He conflates extroversion, a defined psychological term meaning, roughly, the tendency to derive pleasure and energy from social interaction, with conversational skills. The two overlap but it doesn't take a great deal of insight to see the difference - one can have exceptional "people skills" without deriving pleasure or energy from them. I suspect that more than one of the D.C. extroverts he tried to skewer in his opening paragraph are, in fact, introverts who have simply developed their ability to communicate in an effort to get stuff done.
He then points out that there are people who prefer things to people, and that we should make room for them in society instead of fixing them. Guess what. There is already room for these people - as engineers. Nobody is hunting introverts down and shooting them in the street. We aren't having pogroms. Society has simply made a decision about what it values and has set the rules of the game, so to speak. If these thing-preferring people he mentions are smart enough, they'll figure that out and actually work on communication skills and being able to work as a team because that's how you get influence in society. Olin wants its alumni/ae to be successful and well-known after graduation, so it provides opportunities for students to develop these traits. No conspiracy there.
For myself, since you point out that I seem to want his blessing - I don't care about his conclusions. I actually agree with them to a degree, but I take issue with the sloppy thinking he takes to get there.
tl;dr - This guy jumps to unwarranted, overdramatic conclusions about society's preference for extroverts and makes huge leaps in logic to try to justify what is essentially just his opinion.
> Fortune 500 companies are run by 499 extroverts, plus Bill Gates. There are 435 extroverts in the House of Representatives and 100 in the Senate, two from each state.
Edited to add: I read an amusing story about Gates' childhood once. His mother had called him to dinner and he didn't come right away. She called out "What are you doing?" and he shot back, "I'm thinking! Have you ever tried thinking?"
Granted, thinking is an activity normally associated with introverts. But that doesn't mean extroverts can't do it. And the aggressiveness Gates showed in this incident -- and indeed, has shown many times in his life -- is not a quality of an introvert.
I am very introverted. I always have been. The fact is that the unique challenges that programming and web design are suited to introverts. Can I be an A-list actor? No. But I can use the talents I have to make something from nothing. So don't try to change yourself to fit some idea you have of what you aren't. Embrace the personality you have and the talents you're given and make something amazing.
I've noticed that I have the ability to go between introverted and extroverted (regardless of alcohol consumption haha)...
When I'm solving problems and piecing stuff together while glued to my computer I definitely get into a zone or mode or whatever, and don't really care for much outside interference. Most of the time it actually annoys me to get interrupted. But it only takes a few minutes away from it (sometimes an hour or two if I've left something unfinished haha) to get into the extroverted, outgoing talkative mode.
I've actually noticed a little bit of a curve in how well I communicate. The first few minutes after ending problem solving mode consist of me pausing a bit in my sentences (thinking ahead and seeing the conversation as a whole) and as time goes on I end up speaking very quickly and fluently without much thought at all.
Any other developers here transition between intro and extroverted like this?
What sucks is that it takes a few minutes for my brain to switch modes... because at work everyone probably just thinks I'm some really quiet, super serious guy.
Emotional Strength > Intellectual Intelligence in determining societies winners. You have to convince people that you are entitled to lead, to get them to grant you leadership.
Other than because it's easy, what's the appeal of using stereotypes to create these supposed normative behaviors? Of all the people I've met in my life, most come closer to being balanced than not. We're all extroverted in some situations, and introverted in others. Maybe being divisive makes it easier to swallow the bitter pill of unrealized potential, but it's not productive.
As an introvert, I tend to agree with the author. Introverts generally make up the extreme ends of the population distribution in terms of being "successful", success being defined the way it is generally accepted. On the other hand, extroverts are spread out much more evenly. For example,the CEO of a big corporation might be an introvert, but most of the middle level managers are extroverts. Then there are those introverts who find it difficult to move up in the management hierarchy, for one reason or the other. I believe that those who are exceptions are so in spite of being introverts and not "because" they are introverts.
This is a letter I sent to the author of essay few minutes ago:
Hi,
As you probably know already, your essay landed on Hacker News main page:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2345552 Also, here you can see comments.
Congratulations for that.
However, being keenly interested in applied psychology I’d like to point out few things about your essay.
First thing that made me worried is that you actually didn’t mention Emotional Intelligence. I’m not sure whether it was so known back then in 2005. You rely on extrovert/introvert factor to categorize people. The same what Jonathan Rauch did.
Very latest researches and publications tend to categorize people by low/high Emotional Intelligence (EQ), which is a good choice in my opinion. Note that EQ covers wide range of factors, but generally relates to understanding one’s own and others’ behavior. So this not only applies to dealing with any social interactions, but also to dealing with one’s self.
You may now assume that introvert means low EQ and extrovert means high EQ, but it isn’t necessarily true. I’m in one of very top high schools in Poland. And we have an AP Computer Science class, which has a program that is very similar to what is done on University on Algorithmics. Also we have analogical Mathematics class.
Obviously, we observe EQ drop when comparing these special classes to others. However we do not observe introverts/extroverts categories. Of course those extroverts – low intelligence guys are quite funny ;) , but that’s not the point. The point is to show that there’s not so much connection between EQ and being extro-/introvert.
Now, you are right that introverts are generally ranked lower in “life/people categories”. That happens because emotions plays key role in human brain. They were introduced by evolution to help species survive, but now it turned against us.
High EQ people (not all extroverts and not only extroverts, also some introverts) know how to use this to help themselves in many life situations. They know how to negotiate, how to talk people into something, how to have great friendships and fulfilling marriages. In our times EQ became one of the most important factors in life.
So I believe we should stop complaining against people treating others worse because these others are introverts. Rather we should improve our EQ to be aware of our own behavior, of what controls us, because this is the way to living our lives better.
With equal EQ levels introvert and extrovert will be dealing with life very similarly, they both will be able to find a way in difficult situations. Unfortunately, extrovert will always have an advantage over introvert, e.g. extrovert will have more connections and that as we know is better in business. But it will not be that significant.
What I want to point out is that we need to help people improve EQ and choosing people by high EQ levels (observe them in social interactions) is not so surprising from the point of chooser. Fortunately, Emotional Intelligence is not something like “being tall”, which cannot be changed.
At last I’d like to thank you for this essay. I’m sure it is going to have positive impact on its readers. When hunting for those EQ guys we sometimes forget that there is also a place for IQ guys. And they are going to find it too. Also, they are in lucky situation, because they have high IQ, which cannot be changed and probably low EQ, which can (easily) be changed. The life would be theirs, only if they did a little to improve Emotional Intelligence.
Extroverts can be bad team members when they're assholes. Assholes come in many flavors, but an extroverted asshole often makes a worse team member than an introverted asshole.
Introverts can be effective communicators when they've thought through the problem at hand and therefore know exactly how to make sense of it. Extroverts are sometimes too distracted to think deeply about something.
I think the article is talking about a specific way of talking about "team skills" and "communication skills". Some people tend to equate those terms with the ability to make small talk with everybody, be popular at parties, etc. Those kinds of "skills" are definitely lacking in introverts, yet expected of everybody where extroverted assholes are in positions of power.
"our emphasis on collaborative, active learning tends to encourage it."
In my childhood experience, 'collaboration' means that one person does all the work while the others screw around. Since no outside pressure is exerted to ensure that all parties contribute, this just amplifies existing social biases. If you put the 'cheerleader' with the 'nerd' and don't check in to make sure they're both working, all you did was hinder the 'nerd'.
I wonder where he gets his supposed statistics from. Seems like he's basically equating social awkwardness ~ extroversion. Which, as many posters here have pointed out, is plain silly.
* Introverts get tired when interacting with people and recharge their energy when they're alone
* Extroverts get tired by being alone and recharge their energy when they're with people
Extroversion and introversion doesn't say anyone about how shy or social people are. There are a lot of introverts with great social skills and a lot of extroverts with good inward skills.
That being said - it's obviously much more normal to be a shy introvert than it is to be a shy extrovert. It does happen though.
I'm an introvert and used to be a really shy guy with low social skills. In the last years however I gained a lot of confidence and social intelligence. Have I become more extroverted? Nope, I've just improved my social skills drastically.
The belief that how social people are is an unchangeable genetical trait is downright dangerous. Unfortunately a lot of people are misled into believing that it's unchangeable. It's just a skill like any other skill, it can definitely be learned!