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).
Not trying to be pedantic but the literal meaning of introvert is someone who looks inside for approval or decision making.(Etymology "Intro"-in vert-"look").
You can be a very social person and have tons of friends etc etc but at the end of the day if you are not too affected by other's opinions about you then you are an introvert.Introverts are totally okay with being alone for extended periods of time as they very much enjoy the conversation they are having with themselves.But they can also go out and talk to people confidently if they so desire.(Yes there is probably some correlation between introversion and social anxiety especially in young people).
On the other hand, extroverts who are looking outward for approval and decisions get depressed when they are lonely.This is not necessarily a bad thing.Personally I would have saved so much time if I had bounced my crazy ideas of someone else before going and implementing them.
When it comes to leadership, both can be good leaders.A brilliant example of a very introverted leader is Steve Jobs and an excellent example of an extroverted leader is President Barack Obama.
Don't worry about, or apologize for, being pedantic. I rather enjoy it.
While I appreciate your point about the literal meanings of the words "introvert" and "extrovert," I would submit that the axis around which both personality types hinge is not so much approval-seeking in specific, but rather, stimulus-seeking in general. Hence, my point about introverts needing or seeking less social stimulus, and extroverts needing and/or seeking more social stimulus.
In the case you cite:
"You can be a very social person and have tons of friends etc etc but at the end of the day if you are not too affected by other's opinions about you then you are an introvert."
This is not wholly correct. Introverts can be affected by others' opinions, and indeed, some are very affected. I do agree, however, that it is entirely possible for an introvert to be sociable and to have a lot of friends. Conversely, it is entirely possible to find extroverts who lack social graces and thus, can count few friends.
On the whole, however, I believe you and I are more in agreement than disagreement. I think we could both agree that the words have been twisted and overused demotically. And perhaps we'd also agree, as I believe, that the division into the world of "introverts" and "extroverts" as binary personality types represents a somewhat primitive and unsophisticated view of things -- regardless of how we choose to define those words.
Yes I do agree on those things.I think MBTI somewhat tries to differentiate between types of introverts.For example the introvert INTP is very different from the introvert ISFJ.
I guess I was referring to the I(NT) type introvert.The I(SF) or I(NF) type introverts are very different personalities indeed.
I'm pretty sure that's Agreeableness, not Introversion. Often, the term "extrovert" is used to describe someone who prefers social gatherings, while "introverts" would be just as happy reading a book.
You'd definitely describe Steve Jobs as a disagreeable leader, while Barack Obama is agreeable.
And "prefers the company of others" is not an essential attribute of leaders. Belbin (one of the better leadership / teamwork gurus) suggests conscientious "Shapers" or creative "Plants" make the best leaders. Agreeableness (which you call Extroversion - the terminology doesn't really matter) doesn't seem to play a big part. Most management writers suggest that open communication and integrity are important in leadership roles, not a willingness to make smalltalk.
You can be a very social person and have tons of friends etc etc but at the end of the day if you are not too affected by other's opinions about you then you are an introvert.
Source?
I am introvert. And I also I am not affected by other people's opinions. Those two have nothing in common. Me being an introvert is not responsible for this.
I also have a lot of friends and by all objective measures am very social. But after a lot of very fun and enjoyable social interaction I feel mentally tired and need alone time to recharge. That is ALL that introversion is.
Extroversion on the other hand means you feel invigorated after social interaction.
This has nothing to do with approval seeking behavior which is an entirely separate personality trait, which can be found in both extroverts and introverts.
The type of introversion I was referring to is found most commonly in INTJ people(and you sir most likely are one!).But yeah, other kinds of introverts exist too.
I think GP is arguing over the meaning (and etymology) of the term, not how introverts (which I would define as people would prefer their own company) behave. Definition debates over the meaning of 'introversion' are common, because the term is often used very badly.
The most annoying definition is "good with people". There's no such thing - the star quarterback, class president, class drug dealer, guy who's dated every second girl in class, the couple who have been together for 3 years, the president of the math club, and the class comedian are all "good with people" in very different ways.
People like to think there's a general skill of "being good with people", because they think that if they acquire it they'll be good with people. It's a combination of the "grass is greener" and "silver bullet" fantasies.
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.
By all popular accounts I was extremely "introverted" when I was younger. Having made a conscious decision to change certain aspects of my life, I am now far more balanced...
I'm guessing your level of introversion has not changed one bit. But that your sociality has grown with conscious practice.
Social skills are something you practice. Introversion is something you are born with.
I'm an introvert and everyone tells me I have great people skills and that I am charming and wonderful to have at parties and other events. And I have lots of friend. So how the hell am I an introvert? Simply, after a lot of social interaction I feel mentally drained and need some alone time to recharge my mental batteries. That's introversion.
Not having a lot friends or having anxiety about large social gatherings - that's social shyness and it actually runs rampant among extroverts as well as introverts.
Personal anecdote time:
Every introvert I know, including myself, has no real fear of public speaking. Most get bored by the sound of their own voice when speaking to large groups. Every extrovert I know has a huge fear of public speaking, some honestly fearing it more than death.
I felt, and feel, drained in social interactions where my social anxiety becomes an issue. Where it's not an issue, social interactions are great and non-draining. For instance, I'm really looking forward to spending this weekend at a music festival where I'll be floating around with a thousand other people on a river watching some bands play and I know I'm going to have a great time meeting tons of random people.
I also know that nearly every single extrovert attending that festival is going to be just as drained as I am on Sunday morning - empirical proof is the fact that pretty much everybody leaves these things at the same time (even though the gates usually close much later, and the bands are still playing). In fact, I don't know ANY extroverts who don't eventually need time to themselves, either, so I find your definition to also be lacking.
These observations lead me to again question what "introversion" and "extroversion" really is. It seems very difficult to know what's really going on:
EITHER
1. "introverts" are really just e.g. socially anxious people who subconsciously use "introversion" as an excuse to avoid social situations where their anxiety causes them to feel drained and exhausted; they aren't aware that it's social anxiety causing these issues. It took me YEARS of CONSCIOUS effort to reduce my social anxiety, nevermind the years it took to recognize what it was. I have to wonder how many people have HONESTLY made a similar effort before resorting to claiming they are "introverted" and that's just how they are.
OR
2. people like myself are really just "extroverts" at heart with a love & approval addiction, and therefore place high value on social situations, which they find draining to the extent they lack self-confidence because that lack of self-confidence reduces the perceived love & approval they receive in those social situations; this would explain why extroverts fear public speaking so much - their outward focus makes them more susceptible to fears of social rejection
How does one begin to test which of these theories is correct? If you think they're both realistic, I really don't see much of an in-born difference between "introverts" and "extroverts". As far as I can tell they might just be very narrow labels describing the symptoms (social anxiety, low self-esteem, etc.) of a set of dysfunctional beliefs.
Indicates that the default mode for the introvert brain is to keep the parts of the brain responsible for internal stimulation busy. In extroverts it seem default mode is to pay attention to external stimuli.
While unpleasant social interaction will force everyone to take a break, this would explain why introverts like me find even very pleasant social interaction tiring. It just takes energy to pay attention to external stimuli. Extroverts don't have to spend that extra energy.
That's why one of the tell-tale signs of real introversion is a dislike for music while working. It doesn't matter if it's your favorite music, it's distracting. But for extrovert it would not be.
Born introverts are also a tiny minority of the total population, and this combined with everything else makes me suspect extroverts with social anxiety are in fact most of these "introvert" cases.
Now that's an interesting, testable theory. That being said, by that definition I seem to switch between both modes of operation. I typically enjoy music initially when I start working on something... but after a while when I'm really into it I have to switch the music off otherwise I can't maintain focus. Maybe I'm just a very confused person :)
I could make a really strong case that I'm introverted deep down and I get nervous about public speaking.
I think what this really speaks to is that we should talk about specific traits one at a time, instead of trying to lump a million things under terms like 'Introvert'
It's always interesting to see how others experience their introversion, not least because by definition introverts do not exchange much. For me it's not about "time to recharge", i tend to think like an introvert even when being the center of attention and don't feel shy about it. As a geek, i need rules and regularities, so i 've ended up with a law that there has to be a fundamental balance between "time spent" (because time is the ultimate limited resource) vs "reward". Usually, time spent with "things" is more rewarding than time spent with people, except when the person is truly exceptional but those moments are rare. And it all depends on the definition of "reward".
The ability to function well socially is something introverts don't work on, but they should, not in order to become extroverts but because most (of those i know) are quite more interesting to talk to than the average Joe.
It also has better traits (or types) - it's quite useful to think of people having a certain level of Introversion, Conscientiousness, Openness to experience (aka inquisitiveness, previously known as "culture" but that's not PC), Neuroticism and Agreeableness. All those traits are interesting.
The main advantage of Myers-Briggs seems to be that its traits are all value-neutral (while Openness to experience is basically good, and Neuroticism is basically bad), and the Keirsey Temperament Sorter claims it can sort you into career bins (like "Fieldmarshal" or "Healer"), and compare you to famous people whos behavior seems "consistent" with that personality type.
Perhaps someone should write some book classifying historical figures into Big 5 categories.
Interesting that you consciously chose to be more "outgoing". I believe that (ex-)introverts still have less need for others. Do you believe that your needs have changed too, e.g would you be OK if you went back to living like an introvert tomorrow as you did in the past or would you be overly depressed about it?
The major reason my first relationship (at 28) failed was because of the love/approval addiction I had. At its core that was because of a set of dysfunctional beliefs I had about myself, and had little to do with introversion or extroversion. This is essentially why I'm suspicious of these labels because my experience of these traits time and again comes down to my beliefs, not some inborn characteristic I can't change. Thus the answer to your question becomes: Why would I want to go back to a set of dysfunctional beliefs about myself?
would you be OK if you went back to living like an introvert tomorrow
Being alone and not having a lot of friends is NOT introversion! Seriously, this is like calling narcissistic personality disorder extroversion. Those things are not the same!
@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.
There's some types of social behavior which are binary - you can speak in public or not, chat up girls (or boys) or not, and go to a Star Trek Convention without getting too freaked out. It's contextual.
But I think people tend to have roughly normally distributed general social skills. There's very few people who's social skills are so bad they don't develop them further. People tend to develop their skills to the point where they are confortable with the kind of interaction they want.
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).
I really hate the implication that being an introvert means you are not as good at interviews or HR type networking.
I am an introvert. I have a huge professional network. How? Simply by being nice to people and caring to build a network! And I know plenty of extroverts who have a much smaller network than me because they tend to burn bridges when they leave companies, because being an extrovert doesn't keep you from being kind of a dick.
And as hackers we are often stubborn and passionate about objective truth and I think these HR/networking problems have nothing to do with introversion.
I think introversion is being used as an excuse. And I suspect a lot of introverts are either not introverts at all, or have entirely separate issues in addition to being introverts.
Certainly a lot of what I read about introversion has nothing to do with it, but is clearly about social anxiety.
It's a "pain point" precisely because there's no reason a somewhat 'introverted' individual should be organizationally penalized for their personality traits when they 'bring the goods' regardless (or even in excess of requirements).
That does not happen! The only way I can imagine that happening is if you are an introvert who happens to be a professional party host, or maybe sales. But introverted personality traits do not get you punished professionally if you do any kind of intellectual work like programming! What ever punishment you're seeing, I'm guessing it's due to social issues entirely apart form introversion.
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.
I did some self-selected schedule shifting (or more often, extending) and the like. I would not recommend it as a long-term strategy. In fact, I would not recommend it as more than a stop-gap tactic.
(Meaning, when you are "working around", as opposed to choosing the schedule and/or work environment you really want, in the first place.)
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.
Brainstorming is shoved down our throats from middle school on (in the US, at least) and continues into the workplace. We've probably all sat through painful brainstorming sessions in the process of software development, and in some cases the supposed wisdom of the group is formalized in processes like scrum. So I found it somewhat surprising that this continues despite research indicating it might not be productive.
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.
"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).