Comment by jasode | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasode | Hacker News Reader

I'm an introvert and this writer (though well-intentioned) completely misunderstands what introversion _is_.

A sample of his misleading analysis:

>, this framework rests on the unspoken assumption that introverts and extroverts remain constant in their identities. [...] What if that weren’t true? What if we could deliberately act more one way other the other?

>That is: am I promoting extraversion simply because I’m an extravert? The answer is: I am a little bit of both. [...] I think we’re all a bit of both.

No, introversion is not how one voluntarily acts in solitude for a little while and if that same person is later eating lunch with friends, he does not become an extrovert.

And no, you can't be "a little bit of both".

The way I like to explain introversion vs extroversion is it's an underlying personality trait that doesn't change such as being left-handed or right-handed. When we say we're "right-handed", that "right-handedness" trait doesn't go away just because we play the low bass notes on the piano with the left hand, or flick the turn signal levers of the car steering with our left hand. Just because right-handed people use their left hands some of the time for many tasks doesn't mean they are a "little bit of both". Our category of "left-handed" vs "right-handed" is specifically labeling the underlying tendency of which limb is favored and not about the cherry-picked tasks that use the opposite limb.

I've been to hundreds of parties and yes I do hang out with friends from time to time. I'm still an introvert. I'm not a little bit of both. The author's article does more harm than good in understanding what true introversion actually is.

> And no, you can't be "a little bit of both".

This is absolutely untrue.

Extroversion - Introversion is a spectrum and people can exist anywhere along it.

From personal experience, I am an introvert. I recharge from time alone or with a very small group of good, close friends and colleagues. Regardless, I was developer evangelist #3 for Twilio (circa 2011-2013) covering literally all of North America at some point where a major part of my job was to speak in front of large groups regularly (spoke at 15+ confs/year, no clue how many user groups) and spend every spare moment trying to understand every person, project, and community I came across. I can thrive and get recharged (much more slowly!) from that too. I've continued similar things at Okta for the last 3 years.

After most of those trips - I found 3 days is my threshold - yes, I need to stop and be back among that small group/alone to recharge. But those quiet times alone are when I came up with the best solutions to the ugliest problems and helped me do my job.. and many others do their own better.

Like anything, it's a balance.. but it's not one that most people can adjust without significant work.

>, it's a balance.. but it's not one that most people can adjust without significant work.

Instead of engaging your other points, let me focus on that one I quoted. Does "significant work" mean you agree with the author's idea that we can change our introversion?

If so, you're using the term very differently from me and it's not productive for us to even debate it because we're not even on the same page of what introversion _is_. Because I'm saying this: if I go to another social function, and even if I enjoy that social function, that does _not_ make me "less introverted" and I have not become "more balanced".

Yes, I'm using it as the author did, not as you've defined.

Introvert vs Extrovert is where you draw your energy or what recharges you, not what you enjoy though those things often overlap.

It's not a switch, it's a slider. People operate at different points along it and can even shift or operate within a range depending on a variety of things.

> no, you can't be "a little bit of both"

I’m a little bit of both. I enjoy my alone time, when social interaction is draining. And I enjoy my social time, when people and conversations are invigorating.

I can be outwardly interactive and introverted (pleasant, but in my head and looking forward to the end of the day). Or I can be shy and extroverted (forcing myself to be quiet, or feeling like I would prefer to be, so I can listen to the conversation, closely paying attention to and getting energy from it).

(I’m also ambidextrous.)

Personalities aren’t scalars. They produce behaviours with their surroundings. A personality can be one stereotype in one environment and another in another.

>I enjoy my alone time, [...] And I enjoy my social time,

>I can be outwardly interactive and introverted [...] Or I can be shy and extroverted

You are using introversion/extroversion differently from me. Your usage seems very similar to the author's: introversion/extroversion is based on the environmental situation instead of an underlying personality trait.

Yes, I can acknowledge that I also enjoy social time with people, but that does not mean I'm both extroverted and introverted. The introversion -- as I'm using that term -- is my underlying neurological tendency. All the hundreds of various social functions I've enjoyed still doesn't change my underlying tendency.

> my underlying neurological tendency

And I’m saying for some people, this tendency is not stable. It’s something we observe, and can’t directly control. It’s a real variance in base psychology, and one I embrace as a core piece of my personality.

(Given consciousness is subjective, it’s tremendously difficult to differentiate innate tendencies from reactions to one’s environment.)

It's definitely not a simple categorization like that though--some people are so introverted they almost need to completely isolate themselves from society. Some people are barely introverted and require just a little time alone to gather themselves occasionally.

I'm definitely both--I've had periods of my life where I can't detach myself from groups of people, and I've had periods of my life where I spend multiple days inside without going out. There are definitely some environmental factors.

Introversion is tied in with neuroticism, which is definitely on a spectrum. The big five personality traits are also a spectrum.

>Some people are barely introverted and require just a little time alone to gather themselves occasionally.

If the behavior is occasional, that's not introversion or "barely introverted".

E.g., if an extroverted-outgoing girl who is the cheerleader & prom queen & organizer of the 10-year high school renunion needs a few hours of alone time in her bedroom to cry because her boyfriend broke up with her, that does not mean the cheerleader is "barely introverted". She's also not 1% introverted and 99% extroverted. Sure, all humans need some alone time for various situations. But that's not what introversion _is_.

And just because I attend social functions and smile and laugh with friends for a few hours doesn't mean I'm "somewhat extroverted". My baseline is introversion and even if I do activities that outwardly appear like extroversion, that does not change the baseline of my underlying tendencies. I have been playing the lower bass notes of the piano with my left hand for decades but that doesn't change my underlying right-handedness. My right hand is still the dominant hand.

> And just because I attend social functions and smile and laugh with friends for a few hours doesn't mean I'm "somewhat extroverted".

You sound pretty introverted, but it doesn't explain all behaviors, which is my intent. To do so, you have to also explain why sometimes I am introverted by your description, even for years at a time, and then at other times I am extroverted, with similar time scales.

> If the behavior is occasional, that's not introversion or "barely introverted".

I mean to say it's between occasional (extroversion), and constant (introversion). This means there's a certain probability of it happening, so you're right, it could be rarely, occasional, sometimes, most of the time, almost all of the time, and all of the time.

So I don't disagree with you, you can make a clear demarcation, but then the words are much more useless. And if you're close to either side then you might as well call yourself an introvert or an extrovert.

So I'm completely with you on the author's total misunderstanding, but I'm curious on this:

> And no, you can't be "a little bit of both"

1. Would you agree that introversion/extroversion is a spectrum? At what point is someone "on the line" basically a bit of both, so to speak? Is there anyone in true neutral?

2. Why do you think it's so static as to never change? I feel like I have certainly seen people go through very slow/steady shifts before.

You say they are wrong, but never actually explained what it is, though.

We don't all fall into one of your two buckets, and I relate to nothing you wrote, so I suspect your definition of introversion won't apply to me as much as you'd expect it to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com