Why aren’t extraverts rich?
betonit.substack.com
betonit.substack.com
Extraverts are people too. On average, people aren't rich.
Although lots of talking can help, using socialising to gain social status requires only a few key moves at key moments. Talking continuously, being fun at parties and showing off is just one strategy. A good strategy, but probably not even optimal based on what I've seen.
In short, I suspect this piece is written by someone who is confused about what "extravert" means.
Extroverts charge their batteries by being around people, they are invigorated by it. Introverts get tired by social interaction.
I consider myself a people person. I can talk to strangers without issue and ask for help. I'm pretty good at negotiating requirements and corporate bullshit bingo speech when needed.
I'm also completely exhausted after a full day of meetings and require a hour or two of complete solitude to be sociable again. But if I spend the day coding with some intermittent chat over slack and maybe some informal lunch or water-cooler talk, I'm fine to socialise after work.
Below is a portion of the page contents from https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2016/01/extrovert-extrave... to discuss this issue.
Extrovert or extravert? January 11, 2016
Q: I make a point of using “extravert,” not “extrovert,” because that’s how Myers-Briggs spells it. I did the personality test and learned I’m neither an “introvert” nor an “extravert.” I’m right on the line—I call myself an “ambivert.” Your thoughts?
A: We’ve checked six standard dictionaries and all of them list “extrovert” as the principal spelling for someone with an outgoing or gregarious personality, though five include “extravert” as an acceptable variant. The two spellings showed up in writing at about the same time, “extravert” in 1916 and “extrovert” in 1918, according to citations in the Oxford English Dictionary. Etymologically, “extravert” is the term one would expect. In Latin, extra means outside and vertere means to turn. So an “extravert” turns outward.
...
Despite the questionable etymology of “extrovert,” speakers of English overwhelming prefer it to “extravert,” which explains why “extrovert” is the principal spelling in standard dictionaries. The term “extravert” is more at home in the literature of psychology. That’s why the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the personality questionnaire you filled out, lists “extraversion,” not “extroversion,” as a psychological preference. As Oxford Dictionaries online explains, “The original spelling extravert is now rare in general use but is found in technical use in psychology.”
In fact, standard dictionaries generally define the term one way in the language of psychology and another way in common usage. In psychology, according to the online Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged, it refers to “one whose attention and interests are directed wholly or predominantly toward what is outside the self.” In general usage, however, it simply refers to “a gregarious and unreserved person,” Merriam-Webster’s says. However, the principal spelling in dictionaries is “extrovert,” whether the word is used in the psychological or the general sense.
...
There are way more similarities between Myers Briggs and astrology.
At this point I would choose people leading with astrology over Myers Briggs because of the broader appeal and expectation to be criticized. Whereas people leading with Myers Briggs take themselves way too seriously.
If anything, Myers Briggs is worse because it fools people into thinking it is supported by data and is “scientific”.
no one knows who you are. already you can tell this was not written by an intelligent person
“Yet most empirical studies fail to find any connection between extraversion and career success.“
right off the bat, obviously the most “successful” people don’t have careers at software companies. this sounds like those conversations people have like “are we living in a simulation” that would only make sense if you were unfamiliar with the subject matter. obviously the most powerful people in the world are the types of people who can form relationships with other powerful people. it seems like the premise of this article was to make nerds who make six figures feel better about themselves compared to the popular kids they went to high school with.
I didn’t read the article so you could be right, but I think it’s good to keep in mind that the authors of these articles often read the HN comments. Would you say something like that to them if you were face to face? It may even be true, but it wasn’t kind, nor was it important that it be said. So why say it?
If you had to get this sentiment out, you could have said something like “this article doesn’t give the impression of being written by an intelligent person”, to add a layer of indirection and make it less personal.
The author has created an article which largely hangs together. The elephant in the room is - maybe your maxim is wrong?