If you want to get everything done, leave an introvert alone(hackertourism.com)
hackertourism.com
If you want to get everything done, leave an introvert alone
http://hackertourism.com/leave-an-introvert-alone
20 comments
Chris Coyier (CSS-Tricks) provided personal insight into this similar position last week. As an introvert, I've heard it before, but it is always helpful to be reminded that I'm not that unusual at all:
http://the-pastry-box-project.net/chris-coyier/2013-april-3/
> The truth about the difference between introverts and extroverts lies in how personal energy is used and gained. Introverts need a lot of recharging time to gain energy. Being out-and-about, especially in social situations, is draining. Alone time is the only way to get that energy back. For me, it’s a lot of alone time. Not sitting in a dark cave staring at the wall, but somewhere comfortable where I can do other activities I enjoy. Laying on a hotel bed catching up on the internet totally counts. At home cooking dinner totally counts. Even reading a book at a coffee shop counts.
http://the-pastry-box-project.net/chris-coyier/2013-april-3/
> The truth about the difference between introverts and extroverts lies in how personal energy is used and gained. Introverts need a lot of recharging time to gain energy. Being out-and-about, especially in social situations, is draining. Alone time is the only way to get that energy back. For me, it’s a lot of alone time. Not sitting in a dark cave staring at the wall, but somewhere comfortable where I can do other activities I enjoy. Laying on a hotel bed catching up on the internet totally counts. At home cooking dinner totally counts. Even reading a book at a coffee shop counts.
>I like socializing, hanging out with friends, and going to parties, but they make me feel tired and I need time alone to "recharge" afterward. It's especially draining to meet new people.
This sounds like a Forer statement to me, to be honest. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect) Just about everyone needs time to relax by themselves sometimes. Wanting to be left alone once in a while doesn't make you an introvert.
This sounds like a Forer statement to me, to be honest. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect) Just about everyone needs time to relax by themselves sometimes. Wanting to be left alone once in a while doesn't make you an introvert.
I think this is one of those cases where unless you personally know a lot of people who fall on different places on the scale and perhaps if you personally don't sit at one of the extremes then it can be harder to believe.
While this sort of grouping is certainly a huge oversimplification it does hold a great deal of truth in my experience and observation. I personally am naturally introverted and the whole "alone time to recharge" thing has always been true for me. Even if I'm having the time of my life hanging out with my close friends it's still the case that once I get back home I will typically crave alone time, often even in preference to sleep even if it's super late at night. I also used to have a roommate who was a pretty classic extrovert and his behavior fit into the "recharge by interacting with people" model perfectly. There's certainly a lot more complexity to social interaction than just introversion and extroversion but to a first order approximation it is astoundingly accurate.
While this sort of grouping is certainly a huge oversimplification it does hold a great deal of truth in my experience and observation. I personally am naturally introverted and the whole "alone time to recharge" thing has always been true for me. Even if I'm having the time of my life hanging out with my close friends it's still the case that once I get back home I will typically crave alone time, often even in preference to sleep even if it's super late at night. I also used to have a roommate who was a pretty classic extrovert and his behavior fit into the "recharge by interacting with people" model perfectly. There's certainly a lot more complexity to social interaction than just introversion and extroversion but to a first order approximation it is astoundingly accurate.
> Just about everyone needs time to relax by themselves sometimes. Wanting to be left alone once in a while doesn't make you an introvert.
I think it's more of a spectrum than a binary thing. I agree, everyone needs to be alone sometimes, but I guess it differs on how much time they need to relax by themselves, and how much or how often they want to be left alone.
I think it's more of a spectrum than a binary thing. I agree, everyone needs to be alone sometimes, but I guess it differs on how much time they need to relax by themselves, and how much or how often they want to be left alone.
You're right, it's definitely a spectrum. But I guess just generally speaking I find the whole introvert/extrovert dichotomy to be massively overblown.
I used to strongly define myself an extrovert because I can be loud, gregarious and I'm passionate about great conversations- but I also hate large crowds and large parties.
I'm okay with meeting new people if it's a relatively small setting of 4-5 people. Otherwise it's usually a waste of time.
Now I don't know how to define myself.
I get energized by doing energizing activities and being around energizing people, and I get drained in the opposite. I used to play in a rock band and I enjoyed entertaining crowds- and that was simultaneously energizing and draining, in separate spheres.
I suppose it can be useful initially to identify as one or the other, but as you really begin to feast on your life you start to realize that life is far too complex to be binary.
I'm okay with meeting new people if it's a relatively small setting of 4-5 people. Otherwise it's usually a waste of time.
Now I don't know how to define myself.
I get energized by doing energizing activities and being around energizing people, and I get drained in the opposite. I used to play in a rock band and I enjoyed entertaining crowds- and that was simultaneously energizing and draining, in separate spheres.
I suppose it can be useful initially to identify as one or the other, but as you really begin to feast on your life you start to realize that life is far too complex to be binary.
Now I don't know how to define myself.
Perhaps you're a person, rather than a label.
Perhaps you're a person, rather than a label.
>Perhaps you're a person, rather than a label.
Or maybe labels are ok until some singularity style computer can know exactly what each individual is and how to exactly optimise their happiness maybe the approximations labels give us make us better off.
When used correctly they can allow us to better know ourselves and also be more understanding of those around us.
Or maybe labels are ok until some singularity style computer can know exactly what each individual is and how to exactly optimise their happiness maybe the approximations labels give us make us better off.
When used correctly they can allow us to better know ourselves and also be more understanding of those around us.
I've read a lot of blog posts on introverts and a few on extroverts, but I've yet to hear of this 'person' thing. Seems kind of odd, you sure it's real?
I like to think of them as tags rather than labels: you can have more than one.
You don't know how to define yourself because human psychology is more complex than a simple A/B choice like introvert/extrovert. Even something like gender, which you think would be cut-and-dried due to clear physiological differences, has complexities. Something as vague as 'how do I generally behave in the presence of others' doesn't stand a chance.
Introvert and extrovert are fine as loose labels, but they're really not suitable to be used as actionable terms.
Introvert and extrovert are fine as loose labels, but they're really not suitable to be used as actionable terms.
> Now I don't know how to define myself.
From Susan Cain talk linked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion#A...
But while labels are handy as a shortcut to talk about or research something easily, at the end of the day everyone is different.
From Susan Cain talk linked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion#A...
But while labels are handy as a shortcut to talk about or research something easily, at the end of the day everyone is different.
Introvert and Extrovert are just two ends of a spectrum, most people are balanced in between these two ends.
I don't think so. I used to think I was a huge introvert. I'd stay quiet in social situations and being in groups exhausted me. But now I've started to make some deep friendships with people around me, and it's almost the other way. Sometimes I can be so drained from work that I want to call up some friends to hang out, and sometimes I get tired from hanging out and want to go solo for a bit.
I think it's the same as the Night Owl vs Early Bird thing, where I don't think there is a real distinction either. I've experienced a complete shift from staying up until 1am to getting at 5am and now I don't think there's a real personality type associated with either schedule. I can do both fluidly, so I see it just as a lifestyle difference.
I think it's the same as the Night Owl vs Early Bird thing, where I don't think there is a real distinction either. I've experienced a complete shift from staying up until 1am to getting at 5am and now I don't think there's a real personality type associated with either schedule. I can do both fluidly, so I see it just as a lifestyle difference.
Anecdotal evidence, but I find that part of being an introvert is that you have fewer, but deeper, relationships. There might be research / articles to back this up.
People are social beings, so both introverts and extroverts need friendships. The difference lies in the quantity and quality.
People are social beings, so both introverts and extroverts need friendships. The difference lies in the quantity and quality.
I agree with those definitions, especially after reading "Quiet". It's a book that I highly recommend to anyone that has to work with other people, especially people who manage other people.
I was wondering if this energy drain could be caused by the need to compensate something. For instance if we would need to be more careful of what we say and relationships. For most of us walking is something natural and automatic. Imagine someone who would have to think and be attentive of every step he makes. This would be energy draining.
Myres Briggs was not based on science, but Jungian pseudo-science. It's since morphed from an interesting theory (which happened to be mostly incorrect) to a pop-culture superstition.
There's a myth that people are "introverts" or "extroverts". It's a continuous unimodal attribute, not a bimodal one. There's people who are more "introverted", just as some people are really tall, but most people are just average. The "normal" person quite enjoys hanging out with friends, for a few hours a day.
I think there's another issue here - people always have double standards. It has little to do with introversion and extroversion. Try interrupting an extroverted person when they are busy, and they'll be just as pissed off.
It's probably true that highly introverted will tend to shy away from interrupting people (it's called forethought, which can be one of the things that makes them introverted). It's probably also true that extroverted people will be more direct when they want to shoo someone away. I think the main point is, people need to have the social intelligence to respect other people's personal space, and to defend their own space.
It's fashionable to think personality is a zero-sum game - introverts are smart, but lack social intelligence. That's not really true. Most people have pretty good social intelligence, but only use it when it suits them.
There's a myth that people are "introverts" or "extroverts". It's a continuous unimodal attribute, not a bimodal one. There's people who are more "introverted", just as some people are really tall, but most people are just average. The "normal" person quite enjoys hanging out with friends, for a few hours a day.
I think there's another issue here - people always have double standards. It has little to do with introversion and extroversion. Try interrupting an extroverted person when they are busy, and they'll be just as pissed off.
It's probably true that highly introverted will tend to shy away from interrupting people (it's called forethought, which can be one of the things that makes them introverted). It's probably also true that extroverted people will be more direct when they want to shoo someone away. I think the main point is, people need to have the social intelligence to respect other people's personal space, and to defend their own space.
It's fashionable to think personality is a zero-sum game - introverts are smart, but lack social intelligence. That's not really true. Most people have pretty good social intelligence, but only use it when it suits them.
Similarly I think there's a tendency to paint extroverts as being lacking in 'book-smarts'. Of course, anyone who has ever read a Richard Feynman book can tell you that's not the case.
Since light travels faster than sound, isn't that why some people appear bright until you hear them speak?
With an introvert you can only assume their level of incompetence. An extrovert will gladly extol the level of his ignorance.
With an introvert you can only assume their level of incompetence. An extrovert will gladly extol the level of his ignorance.
"Myres Briggs was not based on science, but Jungian pseudo-science. It's since morphed from an interesting theory (which happened to be mostly incorrect) to a pop-culture superstition."
Just because something starts from intuition, does not make it non-science. (Although, I suppose that's usually the case... there's plenty of pseudo-science to go around.) I've heard that Maxwell was motivated by "elegance" when he came up with Maxwell's equations.
The question is: does it stand the test of scientific rigor?
You said that Jung's theory "happened to be mostly incorrect". Do you have links to research on this? I am genuinely curious.
I think that the Myers-Briggs temperament sorter can and should be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
Let me propose a hypothetical personality test: "Do you prefer Pepsi or Coke?" From here, we can do simple statistical correlations. Suppose we dug a little deeper and discovered that: 62% of the people who prefer Coke prefer going to movies over sports games on Friday night. 71% of the people who prefer Pepsi prefer going to sports games over going to the movies on Saturdays. (This is a hypothetical example that I just invented in my head.)
There might be a deeper reason for this... Coke advertises at movie theaters like crazy, and Pepsi advertises at sporting events like crazy. Or whatever.
So... if you are oblivious to the underlying science of the questionnaire, and if you answer honestly, then I can use basic statistics to guess something about your personality, at above chance levels.
(BTW, these are just preferences. Just because you prefer Pepsi doesn't mean that you don't occasionally enjoy a Coke, etc.)
Likewise, there could be a study of the Myers-Briggs temperament sorter. (For those who don't know, the Myers-Briggs temperament sorter has four dimensions: Extrovert-vs-Introvert, iNtuitive-vs-Sensing, Feeling-vs-Thinking, Perceptive-vs-Judging.) We can do plain-old statistical correlations between people's answers on the test and their life choices. Are "SJ"s more likely to become police officers or school teachers? Are "NT"s more likely to become programmers or scientists? (And/or, if they don't become those things, do they wish that they did?)
It's a straight-forward question to put this onto rigorous scientific grounding. I'm curious if this has been done yet... (you said that it "happened to be mostly incorrect"... do you have links to research papers?)
Just because something starts from intuition, does not make it non-science. (Although, I suppose that's usually the case... there's plenty of pseudo-science to go around.) I've heard that Maxwell was motivated by "elegance" when he came up with Maxwell's equations.
The question is: does it stand the test of scientific rigor?
You said that Jung's theory "happened to be mostly incorrect". Do you have links to research on this? I am genuinely curious.
I think that the Myers-Briggs temperament sorter can and should be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
Let me propose a hypothetical personality test: "Do you prefer Pepsi or Coke?" From here, we can do simple statistical correlations. Suppose we dug a little deeper and discovered that: 62% of the people who prefer Coke prefer going to movies over sports games on Friday night. 71% of the people who prefer Pepsi prefer going to sports games over going to the movies on Saturdays. (This is a hypothetical example that I just invented in my head.)
There might be a deeper reason for this... Coke advertises at movie theaters like crazy, and Pepsi advertises at sporting events like crazy. Or whatever.
So... if you are oblivious to the underlying science of the questionnaire, and if you answer honestly, then I can use basic statistics to guess something about your personality, at above chance levels.
(BTW, these are just preferences. Just because you prefer Pepsi doesn't mean that you don't occasionally enjoy a Coke, etc.)
Likewise, there could be a study of the Myers-Briggs temperament sorter. (For those who don't know, the Myers-Briggs temperament sorter has four dimensions: Extrovert-vs-Introvert, iNtuitive-vs-Sensing, Feeling-vs-Thinking, Perceptive-vs-Judging.) We can do plain-old statistical correlations between people's answers on the test and their life choices. Are "SJ"s more likely to become police officers or school teachers? Are "NT"s more likely to become programmers or scientists? (And/or, if they don't become those things, do they wish that they did?)
It's a straight-forward question to put this onto rigorous scientific grounding. I'm curious if this has been done yet... (you said that it "happened to be mostly incorrect"... do you have links to research papers?)
Yes, if you pick 4 attributes (almost any attributes) then they'll correlate to something.
Myers-Briggs tends to emphasise classification, which implies bimodal distributions. In reality, the traits it measures are more normally distributed.
Also, every attribute but introversion seems pretty meaningless. If it were a scientific model, the traits would be open to debate. But people treat it like an astrology chart that's been handed down through the ages. It's not the initial attempt at creating a framework which I'm critical of, but the way it's so uncritically accepted.
Myers-Briggs tends to emphasise classification, which implies bimodal distributions. In reality, the traits it measures are more normally distributed.
Also, every attribute but introversion seems pretty meaningless. If it were a scientific model, the traits would be open to debate. But people treat it like an astrology chart that's been handed down through the ages. It's not the initial attempt at creating a framework which I'm critical of, but the way it's so uncritically accepted.
I agree that it shouldn't be uncritically accepted. We need to measure, statistically, just how accurate it is, and for what.
Sorry to nitpick, but:
> every attribute but introversion seems pretty meaningless
Every attribute is defined. In fact, every question on the test assigns one point to one attribute. Therefore, implicitly, every question is an example of one attribute and a rejection of the supposed opposite attribute.
But you're right -- too often it's treated like astrology. Too often, people are more concerned with assigning categories than with understanding people and what makes them tick.
Sorry to nitpick, but:
> every attribute but introversion seems pretty meaningless
Every attribute is defined. In fact, every question on the test assigns one point to one attribute. Therefore, implicitly, every question is an example of one attribute and a rejection of the supposed opposite attribute.
But you're right -- too often it's treated like astrology. Too often, people are more concerned with assigning categories than with understanding people and what makes them tick.
FWIW -- the Wikipedia article on MBTI gives several links to several studies that argue that the MBTI isn't very useful...
"get everything done"
aw, come on. Seriously? It's a sad world when the only way we can get our points heard is to make grandiose claims like these.
It's the equivalent of saying, say, "If you want life to persist, treat women with respect." Yes, women should be treated with respect no matter what, but this sort of bombast just strikes me as... petty, really.
I could be being butthurt or something, but please don't make grand claims in your arguments just to get people to listen to you, even if what you're saying is true.
Because then all signal is noise and you can't trust anything you read and it's just a sad life to lead, in my eyes. :(
aw, come on. Seriously? It's a sad world when the only way we can get our points heard is to make grandiose claims like these.
It's the equivalent of saying, say, "If you want life to persist, treat women with respect." Yes, women should be treated with respect no matter what, but this sort of bombast just strikes me as... petty, really.
I could be being butthurt or something, but please don't make grand claims in your arguments just to get people to listen to you, even if what you're saying is true.
Because then all signal is noise and you can't trust anything you read and it's just a sad life to lead, in my eyes. :(
I'm not sure I'd end by signing "the people who designed the hardware, software and network infrastructure you're reading this on," but I do know the feeling.
It's especially poignant in relationships. I feel compelled to provide a justification for why I want to be alone, because people assume that "because I need time alone" needs further translation. Sometimes it does, but for me it is how my mind settles. For a long time, I tried to change that part of myself -- I was told it is a maladaptation. Now, I think it's just how I am, and I don't feel a justification is required.
I like quiet.
It's especially poignant in relationships. I feel compelled to provide a justification for why I want to be alone, because people assume that "because I need time alone" needs further translation. Sometimes it does, but for me it is how my mind settles. For a long time, I tried to change that part of myself -- I was told it is a maladaptation. Now, I think it's just how I am, and I don't feel a justification is required.
I like quiet.
"the people who designed the hardware, software and network infrastructure you're reading this on"
The article implies that everything gets "done" by introverts, to which I call "bullshit"(unless the point was to show that being an arrogant prick isn't a function of being introverted or extroverted). Studies have show that for leadership at least, extreme intro/extro-version is a bad thing while being more moderate (i.e. knowing when to speak up and when to listen) is an asset.
The article implies that everything gets "done" by introverts, to which I call "bullshit"(unless the point was to show that being an arrogant prick isn't a function of being introverted or extroverted). Studies have show that for leadership at least, extreme intro/extro-version is a bad thing while being more moderate (i.e. knowing when to speak up and when to listen) is an asset.
One thing that really grates me as a more-introverted-than-not person is the modern Open Plan Office.
Constantly having to hear the annoying voices of other people, interruptions, etc. I'd must rather be in a little corner office with the door closed. I really have no problem going entire days without interacting with another human being and I'm way more productive that way. Music is also not an option really. I don't want or need any further "stimulation" to concentrate. Just the thoughts in my head are enough.
(I know this from experience as I worked for more or less 1 year on my own from 9-5 with no human interaction doing development).
Constantly having to hear the annoying voices of other people, interruptions, etc. I'd must rather be in a little corner office with the door closed. I really have no problem going entire days without interacting with another human being and I'm way more productive that way. Music is also not an option really. I don't want or need any further "stimulation" to concentrate. Just the thoughts in my head are enough.
(I know this from experience as I worked for more or less 1 year on my own from 9-5 with no human interaction doing development).
Open plan offices suffer from a few very difficult to fight effects. One, a lot of people think they are great for "collaboration". Often this is because they have collaborated successfully in some way in the past in open plan offices and imagine that there would be no way to achieve the same level of collaboration with a different office plan (classic "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy). Two, it's currently very popular and hip, especially in the tech. community. It feels more informal and less "old business" so a lot of startups and companies that want to project a youthful image adhere to it. Three, it's often significantly cheaper than offices.
When taken together you end up in a situation where open plan offices become the de facto choice and where fighting against them is a huge uphill battle.
When taken together you end up in a situation where open plan offices become the de facto choice and where fighting against them is a huge uphill battle.
The first sentence alone should be enough to ward people off from reading this post.
Yeah, it's really a bit of a strained analogy. It's not like there's been a long running history of discrimination and objectification of introverts... or that introverts make 70 cents to the dollar that extroverts make.... or that introverts aren't allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia....
I don't know if I am an introvert or if I just have poor (awkward) social skills (?)!
I like hanging out with close friends; but I prefer hanging out with one or two friend at a time (as opposed to a group of friends). That makes me an introvert?
I don't usually go to clubs because loud music makes it impossible to talk (but this means, I have a 'need' to talk, so does that make me an extrovert?)
I have very awkward speaking skills - like if I were to tell you a joke, it'd sound monotonous and you'd miss the punch line. But I often fantasisze of having such awesome speaking skills that I'd walk in a room of very large audience and just own the room with my amazing stand-up comedy or some other entrainment act. But I am neither skilled at telling jokes, nor writing jokes. I have less-than-averagish sense of humor, in fact. So, that makes me WANNA be extrovert!?
I guess I am just a socially awkard person.
I like hanging out with close friends; but I prefer hanging out with one or two friend at a time (as opposed to a group of friends). That makes me an introvert?
I don't usually go to clubs because loud music makes it impossible to talk (but this means, I have a 'need' to talk, so does that make me an extrovert?)
I have very awkward speaking skills - like if I were to tell you a joke, it'd sound monotonous and you'd miss the punch line. But I often fantasisze of having such awesome speaking skills that I'd walk in a room of very large audience and just own the room with my amazing stand-up comedy or some other entrainment act. But I am neither skilled at telling jokes, nor writing jokes. I have less-than-averagish sense of humor, in fact. So, that makes me WANNA be extrovert!?
I guess I am just a socially awkard person.
Ive worked with introverts who are mean, judgemental bitter people who call all the work that gets them paid "wasting time" while they code in circles imagining their products are consumed due to their own greatness.
And I've worked with introverts who are kind, thoughtful, humane and design great products with little or no complaint.
I find that the former are paid well and are constantly getting raises by discovering that complaining can be a temporary form of leverage and the latter are taken advantage of and underpaid.
And I've worked with introverts who are kind, thoughtful, humane and design great products with little or no complaint.
I find that the former are paid well and are constantly getting raises by discovering that complaining can be a temporary form of leverage and the latter are taken advantage of and underpaid.
I wonder why looking for a idea on the actually percent of people in each I can't find any idea on what it actually is on the interwebs, they all differ and top results aren't seeming to link peer review articles.
It shouldn't be hard stuff, people are not generally embarrassed about the topic so any one should be able to pop out a study. It involves work productivity so it should be a popular. There should be some sort of biomodal graph showing percentages.
It shouldn't be hard stuff, people are not generally embarrassed about the topic so any one should be able to pop out a study. It involves work productivity so it should be a popular. There should be some sort of biomodal graph showing percentages.
Can one not be "introverted" when he wants to be alone, and "extraverted" when he wants company?
Even more than arbitrarily defining human beings into categories that don't necessarily have a scientific basis in reality, the "introvert/extravert" paradigm is one of several that negates the concept of free will, that we, as humans, ultimately have control over our own actions.
Even more than arbitrarily defining human beings into categories that don't necessarily have a scientific basis in reality, the "introvert/extravert" paradigm is one of several that negates the concept of free will, that we, as humans, ultimately have control over our own actions.
For me it was kind of ironic - a post on introversion followed by... an invitation to talking on Twitter.
[At least for me, Twitter is a way-of-the-limit too extraverted, short attention-span and distraction-full tool. I'm not saying it's bad, just well... just not too much introvert-friendly.]
[At least for me, Twitter is a way-of-the-limit too extraverted, short attention-span and distraction-full tool. I'm not saying it's bad, just well... just not too much introvert-friendly.]
[deleted]
This is a major reason why I hated working at Thoughtworks. They act like introversion is is a disease that needs to be cured in order to be an effective developer. Fuck that, I just need time away from people to recharge.
When introverts and extroverts are in the same family (or romantic relationship), there can easily be enough drama to justify the tone of the post.
Beware of mixed marriages.
Beware of mixed marriages.
I find that my rather extroverted wife compliments my introversion rather nicely. Fortunately, she understands my desire to limit large social settings, and my need to "recharge" after, and often leave early. After 16 years, she can even tell, at a glance, that I'm nearing my exhaustion point. I rarely have to declare that it's leaving time these days (she does it before I have to).
On the other side, she often says, "I'm going out for a few hours, I'm taking the kids, can you do x, y, z," and it all gets done.
On the other side, she often says, "I'm going out for a few hours, I'm taking the kids, can you do x, y, z," and it all gets done.
I consider myself to be pretty introverted, but I find that, in purely social situations, I can get along rather well with extroverts so long they respect my quietness. When someone intelligent and funny likes to be in the spotlight, I'm usually happy to let them.
It's when people expect the conversation to be equal (we each take turns asking and answering the same boring questions about "so what do you do?" and that sort of thing) that I get exhausted.
(Actually, though... I guess either way it depends largely on the "intelligent and funny" aspect. Boring people are boring people...)
At work? Please don't interrupt me... I'm working. (or... heh, posting to HN, as the case may be... :-)
It's when people expect the conversation to be equal (we each take turns asking and answering the same boring questions about "so what do you do?" and that sort of thing) that I get exhausted.
(Actually, though... I guess either way it depends largely on the "intelligent and funny" aspect. Boring people are boring people...)
At work? Please don't interrupt me... I'm working. (or... heh, posting to HN, as the case may be... :-)
Do you also recommend that a Taurus should avoid Libras?
Only in the context of Battlestar Galactica.
"we're not allergic to people — just ones that are uncomfortable in silence".
that alone.
that alone.
I recommend fixing the typo on the picture. It is distracting.
Being an introvert is soo cool these days. Sometimes I try and act like one at start-up meetings so people can assume I have great ideas! hahah j/k. I would consider myself a hybrid! :)
For an extrovert, being alone expends energy and socializing replenishes it.
For an introvert, socializing expends energy and being alone replenishes it.
It's not about social skills, or whether you enjoy the company of others. It's just that if socializing feels like it requires effort and makes you tired, you are probably an introvert. By this standard, I am most definitely an introvert. I like socializing, hanging out with friends, and going to parties, but they make me feel tired and I need time alone to "recharge" afterward. It's especially draining to meet new people. Among people I already know well, there's less "friction" so it uses up less of my social energy.
I also think (anecdotally, I don't have any statistics to back this up) that introverts are the majority, while extroverts are a highly visible minority. They tend to connect people and provide "social glue."