How to Succeed as an Introvert(h30565.www3.hp.com)
h30565.www3.hp.com
How to Succeed as an Introvert
http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/How-to-Succeed-as-an-Introvert/ba-p/1522
17 comments
I didn't have the emotional energy to be schmoozing, wheeling, and dealing; I'd much rather have invested that same time and energy in learning, growing, and producing great work.
I can recommend Finland to you, as far as introversion goes. Anyone here who's talking loud, fast, or talking at all gives a suspicious impression, in general. A very energetic and talkative salesman would hardly make any sales in Finland. People appreciate individuals who only talk when they have something important to say. Granted, this sort of aversion has its downsides as well but most foreigners I've talked to say that the thing they love in Finland is the lack of pressure to talk all the time. Or become visible by talking: you can become visible more effectively by not talking. And, of course, it applies to non-work environment as well: you can sit in a train in peace without nobody trying to small-talk you out of your thoughts.
(Reminder: this is a generalization, of course. But not such a ridiculous extrapolation out of a few stereotypes, after all.)
I can recommend Finland to you, as far as introversion goes. Anyone here who's talking loud, fast, or talking at all gives a suspicious impression, in general. A very energetic and talkative salesman would hardly make any sales in Finland. People appreciate individuals who only talk when they have something important to say. Granted, this sort of aversion has its downsides as well but most foreigners I've talked to say that the thing they love in Finland is the lack of pressure to talk all the time. Or become visible by talking: you can become visible more effectively by not talking. And, of course, it applies to non-work environment as well: you can sit in a train in peace without nobody trying to small-talk you out of your thoughts.
(Reminder: this is a generalization, of course. But not such a ridiculous extrapolation out of a few stereotypes, after all.)
I wouldn't conflate 'bullshitting' with bullshit. The ability to schmooze is largely about communicating personal emotions and resonating with others in obvious ways. You acknowledge their feelings, regardless of how trivial it is, and now you're connected. But I've seen some people use this in very bad ways. Almost in predatory ways.
However, despite how much I hate being forced to schmooze with someone (say on an impromptu conference call) or be able to talk about nonsensical things in a clever funny way when meeting a new girl or being out in social situations, I resigned myself that what I really hate is being UNPREPARED.
So for me Toastmasters, learning simple comedy routines, exercising, dressing nice, knowing current events and some pop culture, recent sports news; all give me confidence to speak smoothly, conversate well etc etc. I'm more referencing dating and meeting people than office situations but it's all the same thing -- getting people to like and notice you.
So prepare and improve yourself how you can. And if you are okay labeling yourself an introvert then learn to play the guitar and take dance classes. No words needed with those but they will tremendously help your social life.
However, despite how much I hate being forced to schmooze with someone (say on an impromptu conference call) or be able to talk about nonsensical things in a clever funny way when meeting a new girl or being out in social situations, I resigned myself that what I really hate is being UNPREPARED.
So for me Toastmasters, learning simple comedy routines, exercising, dressing nice, knowing current events and some pop culture, recent sports news; all give me confidence to speak smoothly, conversate well etc etc. I'm more referencing dating and meeting people than office situations but it's all the same thing -- getting people to like and notice you.
So prepare and improve yourself how you can. And if you are okay labeling yourself an introvert then learn to play the guitar and take dance classes. No words needed with those but they will tremendously help your social life.
Your boss should be fighting to make you recognized. That's a big part of his job. If he isn't making that effort, and if he isn't helping you find opportunities to be noticed, then you should look for a new boss who will.
If course, if you ARE a manager, then you should bang the drum for your best employees if you want them to be happy and continue to contribute.
If course, if you ARE a manager, then you should bang the drum for your best employees if you want them to be happy and continue to contribute.
"Your boss should be fighting to make you recognized. That's a big part of his job. If he isn't making that effort, and if he isn't helping you find opportunities to be noticed, then you should look for a new boss who will."
Agreed, though I've come to learn that this isn't always going to happen. While you can certainly control what company you work for, you can't always control who you're going to have as a boss. And my old boss's behavior seems, to me, to be more the rule than the exception.
My strategy these days is to focus a considerable amount of effort on foolproofing my boss's ability to champion me. Regular, systemized communication prevents him from ever not knowing what I'm working on. Communication timed in advance of big "alignment" meetings, and other executive functions, ensures that I will be top of mind when he has occasion to discuss employees with other leaders. And so forth.
Ideally, yes, a boss should be fighting for his best employees. And if you're pretty sure you're one of his best employees, you should be giving him the ammunition he needs for the fight.
Agreed, though I've come to learn that this isn't always going to happen. While you can certainly control what company you work for, you can't always control who you're going to have as a boss. And my old boss's behavior seems, to me, to be more the rule than the exception.
My strategy these days is to focus a considerable amount of effort on foolproofing my boss's ability to champion me. Regular, systemized communication prevents him from ever not knowing what I'm working on. Communication timed in advance of big "alignment" meetings, and other executive functions, ensures that I will be top of mind when he has occasion to discuss employees with other leaders. And so forth.
Ideally, yes, a boss should be fighting for his best employees. And if you're pretty sure you're one of his best employees, you should be giving him the ammunition he needs for the fight.
In a smaller company, couldn't it be against your boss's interest?
Could easily be against your boss's best interests, or at least what your boss thinks is their best interests, in a large company, too. That's the hole I'm currently trying to fight out from.
I don't see how it's in a manager's interest to not promote good work that their team members are doing. If your manager says to his/her superiors things like, "look at the talent that's thriving under my leadership", that's a good thing for everyone.
Examples that come to my mind, would be the risk that the employee gets promoted over the boss, or alternately, that the employee is poached and shifted out of the group by a different group boss.
> "look at the talent that's thriving under my leadership"
Perhaps because the said employee is thriving despite his manager's leadership.
Perhaps because the said employee is thriving despite his manager's leadership.
You have a shitty boss. It's his job to recognize your work and reward you. It's his job to justify and defend your promotion to other people in the organization. Your work and contribution not visible to people in other parts of the organization means in the management meeting, he doesn't associate your name with the accomplishments and probably taking credit for himself under the guise of "MY team did it."
For your benefit, you should manage your relationship with his boss, i.e. your boss' boss. Promotion/raise choices usually is the negotiation between your boss and his boss. He needs to justify to him why he should promote you. So if your work and accomplishment are known to your boss' boss, half of the battle has been won.
For your benefit, you should manage your relationship with his boss, i.e. your boss' boss. Promotion/raise choices usually is the negotiation between your boss and his boss. He needs to justify to him why he should promote you. So if your work and accomplishment are known to your boss' boss, half of the battle has been won.
"You have a shitty boss."
Had. Past tense. Which is key. :)
Had. Past tense. Which is key. :)
Glad to hear it's in the past. I added more after some thought on how the usual management process work.
I'd say something more along the lines of:
"If a tree falls in the woods, and it doesn't make a sound, who even knows it fell?"
"If a tree falls in the woods, and it doesn't make a sound, who even knows it fell?"
> that the schmoozers and bullshitters would always rise to the top
The opposite of introvert is extrovert, not "schmoozer/bullshitter".
The opposite of introvert is extrovert, not "schmoozer/bullshitter".
"The opposite of introvert is extrovert, not "schmoozer/bullshitter".
Yes, but my point was that it took me awhile to figure this out in praxis. When you're as introverted as I am, you so detest the act of self-promotion that you tend to conflate it with schmoozing and bullshitting. That's a mistake I made, and my point is that it's probably a common mistake.
Yes, but my point was that it took me awhile to figure this out in praxis. When you're as introverted as I am, you so detest the act of self-promotion that you tend to conflate it with schmoozing and bullshitting. That's a mistake I made, and my point is that it's probably a common mistake.
Nice strategy. While I'm sure office politics plague many companies, I think some just aren't able to dig deep into each project and group to find out who deserves recognition. It's often important in larger companies to create visibility for the instances you do a great job, and this can often be construed as office politics.
The issue of extrovert/introvert is an ancient issue:
Cicero, On Moral Duties, cites examples of the power of creating great impressions amongst groups of people:
"14. But while there are two kinds of speech, to one of which conversation belongs, to the other public debate,2 there is no doubt that the latter is most conducive to the acquisition of fame (for it is that which we dignify by the name of eloquence); yet it is hard to say to what a degree agreeableness and affability of conversation win favor. There are extant letters of Philip to Alexander, of Antipater to Cassander, and of Antigonus to Philip, — all three, as we learn, men of the greatest practical wisdom, — in which they advise their sons to allure the minds of the multitude in their favor by kindliness of address, and to charm the soldiers by accosting them in a genial way."
The entire resource is here: http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfi...
Vivtruvius, one of the greatest engineers of all time, explained the difference between great artists and great well-known artists in his book De Architectura, Book III. It basically says without being a saleperson or being well-connected your work is of little value.
"1. ...Socrates the wisest of men...observed that it had been well if men's breasts were open, and, as it were, with windows in them, so that every one might be acquainted with their sentiments. Would to God they had been so formed. We might then not only find out the virtues and vices of persons with facility, but being also enabled to obtain ocular knowledge of the science they profess, we might judge of their skill with certainty; whereby those who are really clever and learned would be held in proper esteem. But as nature has not formed us after this fashion, the talents of many men lie concealed within them, and this renders it so difficult to lay down an accurate theory of any art. However an artist may promise to exert his talents, if he have not either plenty of money, or a good connexion from his situation in life; or if he be not gifted with a good address or considerable eloquence, his study and application will go but little way to persuade persons that he is a competent artist."
The best modern day summarization is "Showhorses are loved, Workhorses are abused"
Now, enough ancient references, there are surprisingly few books that deal with the introvert/extrovert issue. Please don't think eloquence is a skill that comes naturally. Clint Eastwood, Chris Rock, Emeril Lagasse and Johnny Carson have all been described as introverts. Below I have a few business leaders and some resources they used to become emotionally intelligent - a more accurate term for extroversion. Learning this is like learning anything else, you will be able to critique other people once you learn.
1. Huey P. Long, governor of Louisiana - grew up selling goods door-to-door
2. Sam Wiley, earlier computer pioneer - IBM training program, Church of Science examples: Wiley says never reveal ideas in their infancy due to extreme prejudice against new ideas Book: "A Thousand Dollars and an Idea"
3. Marc Ecko, read Daniel Goleman's book "Working with Emotional Intelligence" https://www.mercy.edu/faculty/Georgas/inbs640/files/WhatMake...
4. Warren Buffet - Attended Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People training programs
5. Youtube: "Keys to the VIP" Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's Game Show shows how to influence people http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHyt1BscZdg&feature=relat...
A resource I have used lately is a Teachers Training program. I learned how to control a classroom through establishing expectations.
Maybe someone can compile a list of training, instructional, and leadership programs
Most Holloywood stars attend an interview class before they appear on TV. I learned this when a guest on the Jay Leno show said "Oh Mr.X helped you prepare for interviews, I went to him too. He's great isn't he?"
Unfortunately, I do not think there has ever been a book written about influence and social intelligence. The Carnegie courses are expensive - your work might pay for it - and I do not know if the focus has changed to a more business-oriented format. Hopefully Ms. Susan Cain's book is helpful in this regard.
"14. But while there are two kinds of speech, to one of which conversation belongs, to the other public debate,2 there is no doubt that the latter is most conducive to the acquisition of fame (for it is that which we dignify by the name of eloquence); yet it is hard to say to what a degree agreeableness and affability of conversation win favor. There are extant letters of Philip to Alexander, of Antipater to Cassander, and of Antigonus to Philip, — all three, as we learn, men of the greatest practical wisdom, — in which they advise their sons to allure the minds of the multitude in their favor by kindliness of address, and to charm the soldiers by accosting them in a genial way."
The entire resource is here: http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfi...
Vivtruvius, one of the greatest engineers of all time, explained the difference between great artists and great well-known artists in his book De Architectura, Book III. It basically says without being a saleperson or being well-connected your work is of little value.
"1. ...Socrates the wisest of men...observed that it had been well if men's breasts were open, and, as it were, with windows in them, so that every one might be acquainted with their sentiments. Would to God they had been so formed. We might then not only find out the virtues and vices of persons with facility, but being also enabled to obtain ocular knowledge of the science they profess, we might judge of their skill with certainty; whereby those who are really clever and learned would be held in proper esteem. But as nature has not formed us after this fashion, the talents of many men lie concealed within them, and this renders it so difficult to lay down an accurate theory of any art. However an artist may promise to exert his talents, if he have not either plenty of money, or a good connexion from his situation in life; or if he be not gifted with a good address or considerable eloquence, his study and application will go but little way to persuade persons that he is a competent artist."
The best modern day summarization is "Showhorses are loved, Workhorses are abused"
Now, enough ancient references, there are surprisingly few books that deal with the introvert/extrovert issue. Please don't think eloquence is a skill that comes naturally. Clint Eastwood, Chris Rock, Emeril Lagasse and Johnny Carson have all been described as introverts. Below I have a few business leaders and some resources they used to become emotionally intelligent - a more accurate term for extroversion. Learning this is like learning anything else, you will be able to critique other people once you learn.
1. Huey P. Long, governor of Louisiana - grew up selling goods door-to-door
2. Sam Wiley, earlier computer pioneer - IBM training program, Church of Science examples: Wiley says never reveal ideas in their infancy due to extreme prejudice against new ideas Book: "A Thousand Dollars and an Idea"
3. Marc Ecko, read Daniel Goleman's book "Working with Emotional Intelligence" https://www.mercy.edu/faculty/Georgas/inbs640/files/WhatMake...
4. Warren Buffet - Attended Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People training programs
5. Youtube: "Keys to the VIP" Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's Game Show shows how to influence people http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHyt1BscZdg&feature=relat...
A resource I have used lately is a Teachers Training program. I learned how to control a classroom through establishing expectations.
Maybe someone can compile a list of training, instructional, and leadership programs
Most Holloywood stars attend an interview class before they appear on TV. I learned this when a guest on the Jay Leno show said "Oh Mr.X helped you prepare for interviews, I went to him too. He's great isn't he?"
Unfortunately, I do not think there has ever been a book written about influence and social intelligence. The Carnegie courses are expensive - your work might pay for it - and I do not know if the focus has changed to a more business-oriented format. Hopefully Ms. Susan Cain's book is helpful in this regard.
Emotional Intelligence is not extroversion. There's plenty of extroverts with poor social skills, you call them "jackasses". And while social anxiety might be associated with introvertedness, not all introverts are shy.
Also, the division between introverts and extroverts is a Jung-era myth which got picked up by Myers-Briggs. Extroversion is a continuous variable (with most people being neither introverts nor extroverts), and is also contextual.
If people think there's a silver bullet for dealing with people (called "EQ" or "extroversion"), they're. EQ is a broad set of skills. They are probably correlated with general intelligence, but not strongly. I doubt they are all correlated with each other - in some context a certain trait (say - assertiveness) is a big advantage, in other contexts it can be a disadvantage. Some people are great in some situations, some people are flexible, and can adjust to many situations, and some people are losers in many situations, but it's not simple.
So I like that you've suggested a lot of different resources.
Also, the division between introverts and extroverts is a Jung-era myth which got picked up by Myers-Briggs. Extroversion is a continuous variable (with most people being neither introverts nor extroverts), and is also contextual.
If people think there's a silver bullet for dealing with people (called "EQ" or "extroversion"), they're. EQ is a broad set of skills. They are probably correlated with general intelligence, but not strongly. I doubt they are all correlated with each other - in some context a certain trait (say - assertiveness) is a big advantage, in other contexts it can be a disadvantage. Some people are great in some situations, some people are flexible, and can adjust to many situations, and some people are losers in many situations, but it's not simple.
So I like that you've suggested a lot of different resources.
What Jung meant by extroversion is not what's commonly known as extroversion today.
Today, what most people mean by an "extrovert" is someone who's very outgoing and social, while an "introvert" is typically seen as a shy loner.
But for Jung, who coined these terms, an extroverted person was one interested mostly in the world outside of himself, while an introvert was interested primarily on what was going on inside himself.
Jung would have seen no contradiction in introvert who was very gregarious and outgoing, if he was mostly interested in his inner world (since it would be the latter quality that made him an introvert).
Likewise, Jung would have seen no contradiction in extrovert who was very solitary and shy, if he was mostly interested in the world around him (since it would be the latter quality that made him an extrovert).
Now, as for whether this is a "myth" or not is a matter of opinion and debate. Psychology is far from a settled discipline, where all participants agree on the "great truths" like "the law of gravity" or "the laws of thermodynamics". There aren't any such things in psychology, since there are in fact many different psychologies, with radically different explanatory frameworks. What is a myth to one psychologist might well be established dogma to another.
Today, what most people mean by an "extrovert" is someone who's very outgoing and social, while an "introvert" is typically seen as a shy loner.
But for Jung, who coined these terms, an extroverted person was one interested mostly in the world outside of himself, while an introvert was interested primarily on what was going on inside himself.
Jung would have seen no contradiction in introvert who was very gregarious and outgoing, if he was mostly interested in his inner world (since it would be the latter quality that made him an introvert).
Likewise, Jung would have seen no contradiction in extrovert who was very solitary and shy, if he was mostly interested in the world around him (since it would be the latter quality that made him an extrovert).
Now, as for whether this is a "myth" or not is a matter of opinion and debate. Psychology is far from a settled discipline, where all participants agree on the "great truths" like "the law of gravity" or "the laws of thermodynamics". There aren't any such things in psychology, since there are in fact many different psychologies, with radically different explanatory frameworks. What is a myth to one psychologist might well be established dogma to another.
[deleted]
Excellent! Do you have any resources for helping yourself become more "visible"?
This is very true. I think of it like marketing: you need to sell yourself. The people that don't want to play politics or just want to code will always be left behind.
I would imagine the readership of HN is over represented by 'successful' 'introverts'.
I am not rich, but I am reasonably happy and by pretty much any reasonable measure have a 'successful' life. At 29 y/o I command an hourly wage that puts me in something like the top .05% of humanity, I have a gf I love, etc.
And, I am an introvert. I am also a tiny bit shy with folks I don't know.
I think my ability to navigate a loud, look-at-me world comes chiefly from self awareness and really just NGAF.
Put in a high-schoolesque way; the key to being a succesful introvert is by coming across as mysterious rather than boring. There can be an inherent urge to justify ones actions when confronted with things like 'why are you so quiet.. or you havent said much over there..'.
The difference between blubbering and trying to defend yourself with excuses and calmly showing your palms, or saying 'im just listening' is the difference between someone who knows who they are and someone who doesn't.
I think really though the title of this submission/article is generally implying something that isn't so true: that it is particularly difficult to succeed as an introvert. The advice for an introvert is really the same as an extrovert: do what you are good at and what you like to do; and don't spend so much time and effort on things you don't like.
I am not rich, but I am reasonably happy and by pretty much any reasonable measure have a 'successful' life. At 29 y/o I command an hourly wage that puts me in something like the top .05% of humanity, I have a gf I love, etc.
And, I am an introvert. I am also a tiny bit shy with folks I don't know.
I think my ability to navigate a loud, look-at-me world comes chiefly from self awareness and really just NGAF.
Put in a high-schoolesque way; the key to being a succesful introvert is by coming across as mysterious rather than boring. There can be an inherent urge to justify ones actions when confronted with things like 'why are you so quiet.. or you havent said much over there..'.
The difference between blubbering and trying to defend yourself with excuses and calmly showing your palms, or saying 'im just listening' is the difference between someone who knows who they are and someone who doesn't.
I think really though the title of this submission/article is generally implying something that isn't so true: that it is particularly difficult to succeed as an introvert. The advice for an introvert is really the same as an extrovert: do what you are good at and what you like to do; and don't spend so much time and effort on things you don't like.
I don't really like the article. It seems to cultivate the mindset that introverts are somehow disabled or lesser than extroverts in social situations, which obviously isn't true: otherwise, how could we have had any introverted presidents? (I'd argue to be the president, you have to have quite a bit of social finesse.) The reality is that introverts are not incapable of dealing with social situations and don't really need advice on how to "tackle" group situations, as one of the questions implies. As an aside, that question is what inspired me to write this response, because I found it very offending that an introvert would need 'tips' on how to tackle a group situation.
For instance, I am extremely introverted. When I am in a group situation (especially in a position of leadership), it's not that I balk at the contact with others or have difficulty interacting socially. Instead, I am very quiet and much less chatty than the rest of the group because I am listening very intently and analyzing what they are saying. The net effect is that when I do actually start to speak up, everyone else listens because they have a pretty good idea that what I'm going to say is going to be relevant and/or interesting, at least hopefully.
What this boils down to is a different style of management. I'm only in college, but my experience so far is that extroverted 'leaders' tend to guide discussion through conversation and heavy interaction. As an introvert, my approach is quite a bit different: I try to let the discussion happen organically and guide it through questioning/assent if it's absolutely necessary. And if I hear an idea I really like but feel like the person explaining it hasn't done it justice, I'll agree with it and try to add some more reasons. In other words, I only intervene when I feel like it's actually necessary, and that means that when I do talk, people tend to listen more, as a general rule.
I don't really know what method is better, and like I said, I'm only in college so I don't claim to be some manager with a few decades of experiences by any means.
Beyond the manager scenario, typical social interactions aren't much different for me. The real difference that I prefer downtime between big social events, whereas it seems to me that extroverts don't like that downtime. But most of that is based on my trying to classify my friends as introverted/extroverted and looking at their behavior; i.e., this reply is mostly anecdotal.
(I'm also not sure introversion/extroversion is so black and white, which most people tend to treat it as.)
For instance, I am extremely introverted. When I am in a group situation (especially in a position of leadership), it's not that I balk at the contact with others or have difficulty interacting socially. Instead, I am very quiet and much less chatty than the rest of the group because I am listening very intently and analyzing what they are saying. The net effect is that when I do actually start to speak up, everyone else listens because they have a pretty good idea that what I'm going to say is going to be relevant and/or interesting, at least hopefully.
What this boils down to is a different style of management. I'm only in college, but my experience so far is that extroverted 'leaders' tend to guide discussion through conversation and heavy interaction. As an introvert, my approach is quite a bit different: I try to let the discussion happen organically and guide it through questioning/assent if it's absolutely necessary. And if I hear an idea I really like but feel like the person explaining it hasn't done it justice, I'll agree with it and try to add some more reasons. In other words, I only intervene when I feel like it's actually necessary, and that means that when I do talk, people tend to listen more, as a general rule.
I don't really know what method is better, and like I said, I'm only in college so I don't claim to be some manager with a few decades of experiences by any means.
Beyond the manager scenario, typical social interactions aren't much different for me. The real difference that I prefer downtime between big social events, whereas it seems to me that extroverts don't like that downtime. But most of that is based on my trying to classify my friends as introverted/extroverted and looking at their behavior; i.e., this reply is mostly anecdotal.
(I'm also not sure introversion/extroversion is so black and white, which most people tend to treat it as.)
You're right, there's nothing black and white about this introvert/extrovert business.
At one extreme, there are highly extroverted people who simply can't imagine not interacting with hundreds of people on a regular basis. At the other extreme, there are people who actually suffer a medical condition known as autistic spectrum disorder (which itself contains a large gradient). Everything in between is a gradient. Psychiatrists still have no idea how to distinguish a person with mild Asperger's from a person who is simply introverted.
This, of course, doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with taking a slice of the gradient and analyzing the hell out of it. Writing about a complicated topic always involves a certain amount of simplification and drawing lines where it's actually quite blurry. I've read articles that do this job much better than the link does, but this one isn't the worst, either.
At one extreme, there are highly extroverted people who simply can't imagine not interacting with hundreds of people on a regular basis. At the other extreme, there are people who actually suffer a medical condition known as autistic spectrum disorder (which itself contains a large gradient). Everything in between is a gradient. Psychiatrists still have no idea how to distinguish a person with mild Asperger's from a person who is simply introverted.
This, of course, doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with taking a slice of the gradient and analyzing the hell out of it. Writing about a complicated topic always involves a certain amount of simplification and drawing lines where it's actually quite blurry. I've read articles that do this job much better than the link does, but this one isn't the worst, either.
"Psychiatrists still have no idea how to distinguish a person with mild Asperger's from a person who is simply introverted."
Classic rule of logical argument: Two things which are equal to one thing are equal to each other.
Or rather: If "Introversion" and High Functioning Autism (HFA) both essentially meet the DSM guidelines for diagnosis, what difference is there besides how pop psychology abuses the concept?
Classic rule of logical argument: Two things which are equal to one thing are equal to each other.
Or rather: If "Introversion" and High Functioning Autism (HFA) both essentially meet the DSM guidelines for diagnosis, what difference is there besides how pop psychology abuses the concept?
I think the way to treat them. There are tons of illnesses or syndromes out there that have similar symptoms. Take stomach pain for example, or flu-like symptoms.
"Psychiatrists still have no idea how to distinguish a person with mild Asperger's from a person who is simply introverted."
Most psychiatrists still have no idea how to distinguish, but those few who actually study autism are very much able to tell the difference. Asperger's syndrome doesn't just affect how one interacts socially, although that is the most visible manifestation.
Most psychiatrists still have no idea how to distinguish, but those few who actually study autism are very much able to tell the difference. Asperger's syndrome doesn't just affect how one interacts socially, although that is the most visible manifestation.
I applied for a job that had one of those idiotic 'personality tests'. They could have boiled it down to one question: Introvert or not.
I was told they thought I scored too low to consider. For some reason I had decided to answer honestly instead of the choice they were obviously looking for. One question in particular annoyed me was something along the lines of when not at work do prefer to be in a crowd of people or at home. What does not at work have to do with anything work related?
I was told they thought I scored too low to consider. For some reason I had decided to answer honestly instead of the choice they were obviously looking for. One question in particular annoyed me was something along the lines of when not at work do prefer to be in a crowd of people or at home. What does not at work have to do with anything work related?
If a company seriously uses such tests to select hires, you're probably better off not working for them. Personality and "cultural fit" are important aspects (for some jobs more than others), but a much better way to assess those is to spend an hour talking to the potential employee; not through some standardized test.
I've also heard that some companies still use graphology in their screening process (though this may be just an urban myth).
I've also heard that some companies still use graphology in their screening process (though this may be just an urban myth).
Introversion means you charge energy by being alone and enjoying your own company, and you discharge when you spend time with others. Extraversion is the opposite.
Introverts can exhibit extraverted behaviour, just like extraverts can exhibit introverted behaviour. It's just more taxing and the key is to balance between charging vs. discharging so that you won't run out of juice.
Introverts can exhibit extraverted behaviour, just like extraverts can exhibit introverted behaviour. It's just more taxing and the key is to balance between charging vs. discharging so that you won't run out of juice.
Deep-thinking, sensitive and publicity-shy, introverts.
Sensitive and publicity-shy is NOT introversion! Screw this, I give up. From now on "introvert" means shy and other social problems.
Sensitive and publicity-shy is NOT introversion! Screw this, I give up. From now on "introvert" means shy and other social problems.
So, shyness is a social problem now?
Well if you're shy enough it will stymie your social life.
Also it has nothing to do with introversion.
But I think the OP's point is that "introvert" now means anyone who could be either, shy, or socially anxious, or any number of other things.
I remember not that long ago the on-line geeky community embraced Asperger syndrome as an excuse for lacking social skills, or being socially anxious, or forever alone, etc. People who clearly did not have it claimed they had a "light" version of it. Other people called them on it, fortunately that meme did not sick.
But the all my social awkwardness is due to me being an introvert (when in fact you could very well be an social super awkward extrovert) meme is sticking.
That's too bad for those who are not socially awkward at all, but are introverts. But oh well. We just need to invent a new term which will not be co-opted by every shy and socially rough extrovert who thinks she's an introvert because he doesn't have enough friends or enough recognition at work.
But I think the OP's point is that "introvert" now means anyone who could be either, shy, or socially anxious, or any number of other things.
I remember not that long ago the on-line geeky community embraced Asperger syndrome as an excuse for lacking social skills, or being socially anxious, or forever alone, etc. People who clearly did not have it claimed they had a "light" version of it. Other people called them on it, fortunately that meme did not sick.
But the all my social awkwardness is due to me being an introvert (when in fact you could very well be an social super awkward extrovert) meme is sticking.
That's too bad for those who are not socially awkward at all, but are introverts. But oh well. We just need to invent a new term which will not be co-opted by every shy and socially rough extrovert who thinks she's an introvert because he doesn't have enough friends or enough recognition at work.
Don't waste time worrying about how to succeed as an introvert. You'll find examples of successful communicators, entrepreneurs, leaders, and CEOs that are all introverts. I would write more about examples and experience, but back to point #1. Don't waste time worrying about how to succeed as an introvert.
I am a bit wary of the introvert/extrovert labeling, but have bought the bought and decided to read through it. Playing the game, I'd say I'm an introvert, and to be honest, the cool thing about this is realizing that all I really need is time for myself. It doesn't really matter what happens or what the circumstances are, as long as I have a book or a computer or a pencil I'm pretty much happy in my own little bubble.
Because I used to love sharing what I discovered in that little bubble so much, I went through a phase where I learned public speaking, and also connecting to people. I usually do this one and one, but find it very easy to establish deep connections by actually cutting through the "bullshit". I then started a company, and had to put myself out there quite a bit more. Having had no real experience of social contacts before though (except these connections with I have to admit people pretty much far out there), I went far overboard, which came back to bite me. I think that is the biggest issue with all the "introversion" (not really thinking about reaching out to other people, maybe even not really thinking about myself as a person nor other people at all). I have no real concept of emotions, of how people could react, that people can do things that hurt, that you can do things that hurt other people, etc... I am now 30, I still believe that people are fundamentally good, but I see the shades of gray in their actions. That's stuff that more "extrovert" people probably learn at age 15.
The older I get the more I realize that I actually need social contact, at least a few times a week. And I'm definitely struggling with that very much. After that "getting out there thing", and running into a few quite hurtful things, I completely lashed out to the other side, going back to my hacking and art and what not, but actually actively destroying everything I produce (unless it's for a client) so that other people won't notice, and I don't feel the need to talk about it. It's a hard habit to get out from. And I still don't actually know if it would be better for other people to notice, or if being the submarine in a society where most people you notice are actively craving for recognition. Recognition feels empty, while being happy on your own is much more rewarding.
I hope that this book (it may be nicely written and founded, or just another substanceless self-help book) will instill a small spark of self-confidence by just putting a label on my behaviour. That never hurts.
Because I used to love sharing what I discovered in that little bubble so much, I went through a phase where I learned public speaking, and also connecting to people. I usually do this one and one, but find it very easy to establish deep connections by actually cutting through the "bullshit". I then started a company, and had to put myself out there quite a bit more. Having had no real experience of social contacts before though (except these connections with I have to admit people pretty much far out there), I went far overboard, which came back to bite me. I think that is the biggest issue with all the "introversion" (not really thinking about reaching out to other people, maybe even not really thinking about myself as a person nor other people at all). I have no real concept of emotions, of how people could react, that people can do things that hurt, that you can do things that hurt other people, etc... I am now 30, I still believe that people are fundamentally good, but I see the shades of gray in their actions. That's stuff that more "extrovert" people probably learn at age 15.
The older I get the more I realize that I actually need social contact, at least a few times a week. And I'm definitely struggling with that very much. After that "getting out there thing", and running into a few quite hurtful things, I completely lashed out to the other side, going back to my hacking and art and what not, but actually actively destroying everything I produce (unless it's for a client) so that other people won't notice, and I don't feel the need to talk about it. It's a hard habit to get out from. And I still don't actually know if it would be better for other people to notice, or if being the submarine in a society where most people you notice are actively craving for recognition. Recognition feels empty, while being happy on your own is much more rewarding.
I hope that this book (it may be nicely written and founded, or just another substanceless self-help book) will instill a small spark of self-confidence by just putting a label on my behaviour. That never hurts.
It's fitting that a story that hit the front page on Hacker News about introverts has no comments. </meta>
I sense a certain disdain from much of the HN community for introvert/extrovert pop theory. They're all too frequently reduced to meaningless buzzwords.
My general rule of thumb is that any thing which talks about a Big Five personality trait (like Extraversion, in this case) but does not cite any studies is not worth reading.
If someone is looking for a more detailed set of "labels" then check out Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Take a test here: http://similarminds.com/personality_tests.html and searching for your "type", judge for yourself if the advice given could advance you.
As discussed before on HN, the readership here is skewed towards INTP/INTJ compared to a general population (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1675197).
As discussed before on HN, the readership here is skewed towards INTP/INTJ compared to a general population (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1675197).
I really dislike that whole idea of an intro/extrovert dualism. I don't consider myself one or the other. Most people who know me would probably describe me as introverted, but I don't have any problem letting myself be heard or taking leadership of a situation if it's needed. So I just plain find that those labels don't fit me very well and I somehow find it implausible that I should be a unique snowflake, a statistical outlier.
There are 2 phases in your life, and a third one if you are really lucky. During the first phase you will care what others think of you (and you will be a puppet); most people were born and will die here. Extroverts live there. During the second phase, you will ask yourself "what is the fucking point", then you won't give a fuck what most people think. Some introverts make it there. I'll skip the third phase.
Gotta disagree with your statement that extroverts all care about what people think of them. Just because someone is outgoing and energized by interpersonal interactions, it doesn't automatically mean they're a mindless slave to other people's opinions and social conventions. It's just a negative stereotype, and comes across as a bit bitter and "Us vs. Them"
The implied positive stereotype about introverts isn't necessarily true either, that they're all independent thinkers and unshackled from social trivialities.
The implied positive stereotype about introverts isn't necessarily true either, that they're all independent thinkers and unshackled from social trivialities.
Some introverts make it there. Some, not most. As for extroverts, I stand by my statement. They just need others too much in order to keep up. With that kind of mind set, it is hard to get near emotional independence.
A lot of introverts do care what others think and tell themselves they don't care in order rationalize their social failures and unwillingness to expose their vulnerabilities. Some might be able to fake it 'til they make it, but all too many just keep faking it and dying on the inside.
I agree entirely. I mostly introverted(maybe 85-15). I used to care what others think, it still do, but way way....... way way less, nearing zero. Extroverts by definition need/want others around them, and it's kind of hard to say "I like to be the center of attention" and "I do not care how others, or most people around me, perceive me" together.
Author should consider writing "how to get traffic by posting your blog to social news sites" article.
http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/user/v1/viewprofilepage/user-id...
http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/user/v1/viewprofilepage/user-id...
Joshu,
I'm not sure what exactly you're complaining about. The person who posted the link is not the same person who wrote it. They just happen to work at the same site with oh 50 or 60 other writers. But even if the author had promoted her own story, so what? I can tell you that as a writer, I promote my own work on social sites because being read is a goal of mine and also because page views make my editors happy and keep me working. I make no apologies for that. It's actually part of what any good writer should be doing. After I publish a post I usually spend a good 20-30 minutes promoting it on social sites--so people know it's there and actually read it.
I didn't think this was the consensus on Hacker News (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1401332).
It seems more honest to me to visibly self-promote than to create a sockpuppet account to make it seem like the community likes it.
Update: Meant to reply to grandfather post.
It seems more honest to me to visibly self-promote than to create a sockpuppet account to make it seem like the community likes it.
Update: Meant to reply to grandfather post.
self-promoters have awfully mixed reasons for promoting their own stuff. this leads to problems.
- they are free-riding, not helping the community. notice that OP doesn't really post things they are not involved with. i notice you do the same.
- they do not disclose it is self-authored.
- the behavior is often looked down-upon by communities. i certainly feel bad about doing it.
- when authors are chasing pageviews and not reputation they are often submitting everything rather than attempting to curate good stuff.
- there's an incredibly fine line between this and spam.
when someone submits something that they found, they are saying "this is good."
when someome submits something that they wrote, they are saying something subtly different: "please look at this"
it's forgivable when they are part of the community, because at least they know what the community is about. i notice that your first comment on this site is about self-posting.
you are unapologetic about submitting your stuff but the vast majority gets zero upvotes. wrong audience, probably.
- they are free-riding, not helping the community. notice that OP doesn't really post things they are not involved with. i notice you do the same.
- they do not disclose it is self-authored.
- the behavior is often looked down-upon by communities. i certainly feel bad about doing it.
- when authors are chasing pageviews and not reputation they are often submitting everything rather than attempting to curate good stuff.
- there's an incredibly fine line between this and spam.
when someone submits something that they found, they are saying "this is good."
when someome submits something that they wrote, they are saying something subtly different: "please look at this"
it's forgivable when they are part of the community, because at least they know what the community is about. i notice that your first comment on this site is about self-posting.
you are unapologetic about submitting your stuff but the vast majority gets zero upvotes. wrong audience, probably.
joshu, The fact is that the writer of this post and the person who posted were two different people, so regardless of what you think of self-promotion, it simply wasn't relevant in this instance.
the submitter works for the submitted blog, thus it is not completely irrelevant.
I'm the submitter. I'll write a little of what I know.
joshu, you wrote, "notice that OP doesn't really post things they are not involved with". In this case, I think you intend me when you write, "OP". At this point, http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=hn12 seems to tally sixteen items I've submitted to HN. The first fifteen were to pieces I'd written: the tiny minority of all I'd written in the past couple of years that I thought would particularly interest HN, but certainly related to me. The sixteenth, and most recent item, was the one which spawned this thread. In my mind, I had nothing to do with the piece on introversion, and know nothing about the author, but it's true that I write sporadically for the same site.
I submit rarely to HN in part because I don't understand it. While I scan it, I don't feel familiar enough with its ethos even to qualify myself as a lurker. I frequently post--mostly pieces I have not written--to Reddit, DZone, Stackoverflow, and so on, because I am far more comfortable with what "works" there.
My main personal conclusion from my submission is that I'm surprised--astounded, even--and pleased with the quality of the comments that have followed. I've found them more meaningful, in aggregate, than those for any other submission I've read in HN. This encourages me to believe that there must be much more to HN than I've found, and I simply need to approach it some different way.
joshu, in a nearby comment you suggested I "disclose". Please provide detail: how do you recommend I have submitted the article on introversion?
joshu, in a nearby comment you write about "chasing pageviews and not reputation". When I posted the piece on introversion, I was "chasing" neither pageviews NOR reputation; as I've suggested above, I understand the latter only dimly. I thought the article would interest HN readers.
I underline: rsmiller, hn12, and the author of the introversion piece are three different people. I suspect the three of us have never met each other, although of course I'm in no position to be certain of the other two.
I'm unsure what you mean, joshu, by "the submittor works for the submitted blog". I occasionally write for the HPIO site. It's possible I'll never do so again; I certainly am not an employee or otherwise related to HPIO with a duty to submit articles from the site to HN.
joshu, you wrote, "notice that OP doesn't really post things they are not involved with". In this case, I think you intend me when you write, "OP". At this point, http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=hn12 seems to tally sixteen items I've submitted to HN. The first fifteen were to pieces I'd written: the tiny minority of all I'd written in the past couple of years that I thought would particularly interest HN, but certainly related to me. The sixteenth, and most recent item, was the one which spawned this thread. In my mind, I had nothing to do with the piece on introversion, and know nothing about the author, but it's true that I write sporadically for the same site.
I submit rarely to HN in part because I don't understand it. While I scan it, I don't feel familiar enough with its ethos even to qualify myself as a lurker. I frequently post--mostly pieces I have not written--to Reddit, DZone, Stackoverflow, and so on, because I am far more comfortable with what "works" there.
My main personal conclusion from my submission is that I'm surprised--astounded, even--and pleased with the quality of the comments that have followed. I've found them more meaningful, in aggregate, than those for any other submission I've read in HN. This encourages me to believe that there must be much more to HN than I've found, and I simply need to approach it some different way.
joshu, in a nearby comment you suggested I "disclose". Please provide detail: how do you recommend I have submitted the article on introversion?
joshu, in a nearby comment you write about "chasing pageviews and not reputation". When I posted the piece on introversion, I was "chasing" neither pageviews NOR reputation; as I've suggested above, I understand the latter only dimly. I thought the article would interest HN readers.
I underline: rsmiller, hn12, and the author of the introversion piece are three different people. I suspect the three of us have never met each other, although of course I'm in no position to be certain of the other two.
I'm unsure what you mean, joshu, by "the submittor works for the submitted blog". I occasionally write for the HPIO site. It's possible I'll never do so again; I certainly am not an employee or otherwise related to HPIO with a duty to submit articles from the site to HN.
[deleted]
Extrovery & Introverts compliment each other extremely well. Imagine if Steve Jobs & Steve Wozniak where both introverts.... or if they were both extroverts. That tandem would have never played out as well.
The truth....Extroverts are consistently chosen as leaders.
There is no way around it, from the numbers. That doesn't make them better or worse.
We all have our part to play.
There is no way around it, from the numbers. That doesn't make them better or worse.
We all have our part to play.
Dear me, how patronizing.
The reason, by the way, that leadership is often correlated with extroversion is more to do with American ideals of the perfect citizen since about the time of Dale Carnegie than due to any actual results.
In fact many successful CEOs are introverts, because deep critical thinking and mediation tend to be useful qualities, surprisingly enough.
Not in finance though. And the world of finance has had a smooth ride, alright.
The reason, by the way, that leadership is often correlated with extroversion is more to do with American ideals of the perfect citizen since about the time of Dale Carnegie than due to any actual results.
In fact many successful CEOs are introverts, because deep critical thinking and mediation tend to be useful qualities, surprisingly enough.
Not in finance though. And the world of finance has had a smooth ride, alright.
Actually think it has more to do with the fact that extroverted people are more persuasive and generally voice their opinions more. Some of it is just in the numbers...if you know more people you have a strategic advantage of more opportunities.
Oh yeah....It's not an American concept????
Oh yeah....It's not an American concept????
Where is the evidence for this? I think it's simply not true.
I don't understand these articles. Introvert does NOT mean that you're incapable of communicating well or being friendly. I pride myself on communication skills, yet I can go weeks at a time without any human interaction and prefer to work in conditions that are mocked by others as a "cave". These things have not prevented me from having good relationships with clients and/or colleagues.
As for jonnathanson's comment, frankly it doesn't sound like an introvert issue, it sounds like a basic communication issue. If no one knows what you're doing and you don't take the time to let others understand your accomplishments (even just an email to the team "Hey, I got X,Y,Z done and a proposal for W", what are they supposed to do exactly?
As for jonnathanson's comment, frankly it doesn't sound like an introvert issue, it sounds like a basic communication issue. If no one knows what you're doing and you don't take the time to let others understand your accomplishments (even just an email to the team "Hey, I got X,Y,Z done and a proposal for W", what are they supposed to do exactly?
I'm with you on the communication issue. After all, no one is 100% introverted. That term has also become misunderstood and misused.
Additionally, there tend to be other negative qualities associated with introverts. Just as there are negative qualities for extroverts.
One thing I did recently that's helped me deal with being an 'introvert' was to take improv comedy classes. It's helped me significantly to overcome shyness and communicating with people.
Communicating is a like a muscle, you need to step out of your comfort zone and just do it. Staying in the 'cave' too much at a time isn't good. It's sorta like atrophy. Just go out once a week and socialize or go to lunch with a co-worker.
Additionally, there tend to be other negative qualities associated with introverts. Just as there are negative qualities for extroverts.
One thing I did recently that's helped me deal with being an 'introvert' was to take improv comedy classes. It's helped me significantly to overcome shyness and communicating with people.
Communicating is a like a muscle, you need to step out of your comfort zone and just do it. Staying in the 'cave' too much at a time isn't good. It's sorta like atrophy. Just go out once a week and socialize or go to lunch with a co-worker.
"I'm with you on the communication issue. After all, no one is 100% introverted. That term has also become misunderstood and misused."
Yet you still seem to think that introversion and communication skills have something to do with each other ('after all ---'). I don't think this is true. The fundamental difference between introversion and extraversion appears to be how people 'spend' energy and how they 'gain' energy.
For example, I'm probably as introverted as they come. Yet in social situations I seem like an 'extraverted' person, because when I'm with people, I like to talk quite a bit, have some social chatter, all that stuff. But this can tire me. And then there are months when I don't go out and socialize, simply because I'm tired and like to be alone with my thoughts. None of this has much to do with skills of any kind.
Yet you still seem to think that introversion and communication skills have something to do with each other ('after all ---'). I don't think this is true. The fundamental difference between introversion and extraversion appears to be how people 'spend' energy and how they 'gain' energy.
For example, I'm probably as introverted as they come. Yet in social situations I seem like an 'extraverted' person, because when I'm with people, I like to talk quite a bit, have some social chatter, all that stuff. But this can tire me. And then there are months when I don't go out and socialize, simply because I'm tired and like to be alone with my thoughts. None of this has much to do with skills of any kind.
[deleted]
That day never came. What came, instead, was an eye-opening reversal. I had a very candid conversation with my boss about why I wasn't on track for promotion, despite a long string of big wins, and a consistent track record well above the expectations of my pay grade. And he told me that "Nobody outside of our group knows what you're working on." Note that he didn't tell me that I wasn't bullshitting or schmoozing hard enough. Rather, he told me that I was basically invisible to a large portion of the company. Maybe it's just the way I'm wired, but this was a nonobvious and nontrivial revelation to me. I suspect it may be for a lot of introverts.
To overcome this barrier, I adopted the "win a few key allies" strategy, as loosely advocated in the interview. I knew I wasn't going to be a world-class bullshitter. So, rather than try to bullshit clumsily and more frequently, I opted to find people in positions of power who were known to have similarly low tolerances for bullshit. And I volunteered to help these people. I made it my mission to knock it out of the park for them -- and, in so doing, to become known as the "no bullshit" guy who really delivered.
To this day, it's not all blue skies and roses. Even as a known commodity at your firm, you're still going to get lapped by the extroverts. But as an introvert, you really do have to step outside of your comfort zone if you want to advance your career. You don't have to out-BS the BSers, but you have to consciously devote time to getting noticed and staying noticed. Never assume that good work will get noticed on its own. If a tree falls in the woods, and no one's around to hear it, it doesn't matter if it makes a sound.