18 ms·

Beyond introvert vs. extrovert

219 points by vipshek 3y ago

msoad 3y ago
I wonder if it's even worth trying to define a person's personality? I've been following this research for a while now. Almost all the studies I've seen have substantial flaws in their scientific methodology, such as small sample sizes and selection bias, among other issues. Don't even get me started on the replication crisis in this field. Regarding theories like Jung's introversion and extraversion or the subsequent personality models like the MBTI and the Big Five, while they have been widely used and studied, there's ongoing debate about their reliability and validity. There's substantial evidence for the general reliability of the Big Five, but it, too, has faced criticism.
- soco 3y ago
  The only help I can imagine is for self discovery: it maybe gives one a handle on where to search for ideas, solutions, plans. At least that's how personality tests work for me - I enjoyed for instance the Sparketype.
- dosman33 3y ago
  I got a sigh of relief when I finally discovered that Myers-Briggs is partly broken. It's designed to not offend anyone by avoiding measuring neuroticism so it's "work-safe". I had been struggling to understand how people were able to understand personality defects of out of the Myers-Briggs system and then eventually it became clear that it doesn't do this, it avoids measuring neuroticism, and worse than that it's on shaky ground because it does a poor job of typing people anyway because a persons personality can "shift" around over time. I'm still new to the Big Five though, I've only skimmed the surface of it, but at least it measures neuroticism and should plausibly give you better insight.
  - analog31 3y ago
    You can also game the Myers-Briggs to avoid the introvert classification.
  - kmmlng 3y ago
    A big problem with Myers-Briggs is also that it expresses everything in terms of binary categories. That makes it easy to communicate your type, but also comes with less precision. Big Five avoids this, but it's also difficult to communicate your Big Five results concisely.
  - MrDresden 3y ago
    > "Despite its popularity, it has been widely regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator
- analog31 3y ago
  Imagine a relationship in which one person can read the other's mind. This is the power of gods: They know our thoughts, but we don't know theirs. The only rational conclusion is total submission to their will, or to the will of their representatives. The offer of such a power, even to a severely limited extent, is appealing enough for people to part ways with their money and natural skepticism. Can it be beneficial? A list of categories that seems authoritative and scientific but is open to interpretation can give some people a sense of comfort that they belong in their "place" within the organization, that there are other people facing similar experiences, or that they are not personally at fault. It can give a beginning manager the confidence to interact with colleagues and subordinates by means of a formula. Can it be harmful? Sure, it opens people to manipulation and bias, or persuades them to give up their agency.
wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
I didn’t know Jung came up with this concept. The power of ideas is amazing. Hardly anyone knows Jung, but everyone knows introvert vs extravert. The same goes for Freud, more have heard of him but still mostly under educated people, but everyone knows what is meant by subconscious, which was a concept he came up with. Even though they both had many weird, good and bad ideas. Their reputation as great thinkers iOS valid just by these 2 contributions they made to human thoughts. Ages from now kids will speak of their subconscious and being an introvert while Jung & Freuds names will only be known to a few niche historians.
- kgwxd 3y ago
  It doesn't seem Jung really did the world any favors with this concept. He introduced highly inadequate terms that are mostly used to pigeonhole people into a simple box that supposedly sums up all their behavior. Turning it into a linear scale doesn't make it any better. Don't like big crowds? Learn how to like big crowds. Don't know how to be with your own thoughts for a long time? Learn to do it. Don't say it can't be done, I've done it, and I've been told I have a learning disability. No one should lock themselves, or others, into a "personality" box, and all this nonsense should be entirely disregarded.
norir 3y ago
To be fair to Jung, he did not believe that anyone was a pure introvert or extrovert but he needed to use caricatures to illustrate the concepts. He also explicitly warns in Psychological Types not to use his ideas to create a personality classification system.
- WastingMyTime89 3y ago
  To be fair to Jung, most of what he wrote is barely coherent garbage with zero experimental backing and an attitude towards intellectual honesty and scientific integrity which I would politely qualify as problematic. Sorry, I think it had to be said.
  - norir 3y ago
    Do you fear Jung's ideas? If they are incoherent garbage with no merit, shouldn't they just collapse under their own weight?
    - analog31 3y ago
      History doesn't support this. Bad ideas can be remarkably persistent. Yes I fear Jung's ideas if they give rise to beliefs that are harmful to me, or to society. An example would be biased stereotypes surrounding the introvert / extravert dichotomy. Disclosure: I'd probably test as an extravert, but would advise against identifying as an introvert in a business setting due to the bias against introverts.
      - kmmlng 3y ago
        Interesting, I would have considered the idea of pretending to be someone I'm not for extended periods of time to be far more harmful than any potential disadvantages I might experience in a busieness setting for being an introvert. I don't think any undue stereotypes around the introversion / extraversion dimension come from Jung, but have simply been attached to the concept by ill-informed society. It's hard to fault Jung for this. Introversion / Extraversion is also part of the Big 5 and has more substantial scientific backing than the foundations laid by Jung.
sublinear 3y ago
I don't think the dichotomy is a bad rule of thumb to help understand someone, but it's certainly not their identity. I've come to find that it's down to the person's experience with and resulting preference for crowds and individuals. It's nurture, not nature. I used to be very introverted until I started living on my own as an adult and had shit to do and wanted things in life. I've also seen extroverts that mellowed out with age. There's no mystery. Raise your kids and yourself accordingly.
- kstrauser 3y ago
  Despite claiming to have been one, you don't seem to understand what an introvert is. I'm a functional adult. I have a wife and kids, friends, and a good job. I can speak in public if needed, although I'd prefer not to. I don't have trouble meeting new people, talking to them, and getting to know them. I'm not shy, but I am an introvert. Being in crowds of people I'm expected to interact with on a personal level drains my energy. Baseball games, concerts, and the like? No problem! Crowds of strangers don't bother me a bit. But if there's a hell, my corner of it looks like a cocktail party where I'm expected to mingle with everyone and never get a moment to myself. Being an introvert is nothing I was raised to be. My mom's one. My dad was a natural salesman: put him in a room with 50 strangers, and 10 minutes later he was on a first name basis with them all and had plans to vacation together. They both raised me, and they both stressed the importance of good social graces. The difference is that after my dad's social butterfly antics, he was happy and fully of energy, while my mom was ready to go home and recharge for a while. I'm definitely my mom's kid on that one. I have stuff to do. There are things I want in life. I'm doing all that successfully. But when I'm done doing them, I just want a little time to myself to exhale and relax, OK?
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    Yea there are many dimensions: Friends vs. family vs. strangers, individuals vs. groups vs. crowds, work context vs. fun context vs. shopping/errands context. Probably many more. After COVID I think there's probably an indoor vs. outdoor setting dimension! Different people respond differently across these dimensions. I particularly have trouble with: strangers + crowds + fun context. I think my nightmare is a crowded shoulder-to-shoulder concert in a stadium. I'd panic before I even got through the front gate. On the other hand, meeting with friends and family or work gatherings are no problem. Everyone has their weirdness.
revskill 3y ago
From my experience, i don't care if i'm introvert or extrovert. WHat i do really care, is, how much i understand myself. What do i really need ? How do i say no ? How do i stay motivated ?.... Those are real matters.
- Given_47 3y ago
  Definitely feel like this isn’t nearly as common as it should be (possibly cuz it can be uncomfortable for some). Additionally to what u mentioned, I regularly ask myself why I just did something and try to examine if I truly had all the right motivations. Now this would probably be detrimental if you couldn’t trust yourself to be honest and risk rationalization taking over. Building up trust in yourself is an entirely different topic so won’t go there but anyway I’ve found these sort of exercises imperative to keeping myself in check and on the path of improving as a person, not stagnating or regressing
breakingrules 3y ago
[dead]
akhayam 3y ago
Introvert and extrovert is the most widely misunderstood thing I have seen at work and in personal life. This article also doesn’t do justice to the nuance that introverts find interactions with other “draining” … but it’s not necessary that they suck at it. I feel this way: having led teams of hundreds of people, I know I can have deep, meaningful and long conversations… but I don’t find them a source of joy. I encourage reading this recent opinion post in Washington Post that delves into this nuance with a unique perspective: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/12/rebecca-makkai-post-pandemic-covid-introvert-extrovert/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/12/rebecca-m...
- BeetleB 3y ago
  > I know I can have deep, meaningful and long conversations… but I don’t find them a source of joy. Sorry to add to the flames, but many (most?) introverts generally do find joy in deep, meaningful long conversations. It's the small talk they tend to dislike. The problem is trying to shoehorn everything into introvert vs extrovert. The reality is it's a vector. Small talk vs meaningful conversations is an axis different from enjoying crowds vs alone time.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    AFAICT whether you find a conversation a source of joy is relatively orthogonal to being an introvert. It's whether it's draining or not. A conversation can be both a source of joy and draining.
  - coffeebeqn 3y ago
    It’s also who you’re interacting with that’s a big input. A party where you know no one but have to be at VS talking to your best friend or kids or spouse for example.
  - mklarmann 3y ago
    I would even argue, that it is depending on the context (on how you feel) that makes you introvert or extrovert in the situation. Not just a vector. I found it funny doing some tests, but once with the mindset of being a CEO, and in the other situation on the dancefloor, etc.
JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago
Could be that introverts have one or both of the following characteristics: 1) They don't like politics as a mean to reach one's goals. Maybe for moral reasons or because they consider it cheating or because they deem it 'not close enough to the action'. 2) Social time spent with other people is like any other activity, maybe introverts need or want more time to feel satisfied, much like some people are satisfied riding a jetski while others need to be able to do tricks and acrobatics in order to be happy about the whole experience. Maybe introverts hold out in order to reach a higher level of experience?
elliottinvent 3y ago
It was recently explained to me: Introverts charge their battery in solitude and discharge it socialising. Extroverts the opposite.
- 0xfae 3y ago
  The author talks about how he dislikes this characterization exactly because it's so binary and doesn't seem to be accurate for most people who fall into the "ambivert" center of the bell curve. The whole article is a beautiful breakdown of how social interaction is much more multi-faceted than this. You should read it.
  - elliottinvent 3y ago
    Admittedly I didn’t get that [1] far, thanks for pointing it out. I read the first half but he lost me at conversational dynamics (I mainly come here for the comments). The battery analogy was a good way for me to understand my own experience and seemed like progress from the traditional definitions of introvert and extrovert. 1. “Balance not batteries” https://www.vipshek.com/blog/interaction#balance-not-batteries https://www.vipshek.com/blog/interaction#balance-not-batteri...
PaulHoule 3y ago
People have different reasons for being reclusive. The social phobic, the agorapohbic, the autist, and the common but complete obscure schizotype (maybe you if you are self-diagnosed "autistic") are all examples.
indus 3y ago
Great writeup and love your articulation of ambiverts. I am an introvert--but now trained my mind to be a normal person and not fear people around me. I forced it earlier. If you meet me, you'll not find me an introvert, anymore. 10 years ago, people would politely ask me to talk or share. It has been years of journey achieving that change. I don't feel the introvert/extrovert quagmire anymore. However, if I'm in public meetings--presenting, chatting for more than a few hours--then I need to come back and take a hot shower--and fade away the people and conversations. My wife calls that shower: "Removing the theater from the head."
- coredev_ 3y ago
  I am quite the same, we call this "social hangover".
rqtwteye 3y ago
I never understand why people (especially in the US) have a desire to split everything into two opposing sides. Liberal/conservative, introvert/extrovert and many others. I think it's pretty obvious that most (all?) people are on a spectrum of many dimensions and can't be categorized that easily. These labels can give useful hints but there is way more detail to look at.
- quacked 3y ago
  Two sides is the most stable form of competition, it's why there are very few sports that have more than two teams. (Card games, maybe.) A few years ago I saw a great essay/blog post/paper/something that made this point really elegantly, about how conflicts seem to naturally resolve into two sides, but I haven't managed to find it again.
  - 0xfae 3y ago
    It's pretty standard game theory. If there are 3 teams, and one team starts to gain an advantage, the other two are highly incentivized to join forces to defeat the larger one. Unless you design systems to allow smaller teams/parties/groups to flourish, most competitions will devolve into two sides. In voting this would be things like ranked choice or approval voting, rather than single vote "first past the post".
    - mikhailfranco 3y ago
      The board game Diplomacy is the classic example of multiplayer competition, where there is explicit negotiation of alliances and the possibility of trust and betrayal at every turn. P.S. Recent success with AI for Diplomacy at DeepMind: https://www.deepmind.com/blog/ai-for-the-board-game-diplomacy https://www.deepmind.com/blog/ai-for-the-board-game-diplomac...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- costanzaDynasty 3y ago
  Because it's lazy, and most people don't care enough about any issue to have nuisanced thoughts about a topic. And If they ever did any conversation would break down to A or B. Plus its easier to sell to and manipulate money from both sides. I try to have conversation about complex issues all the time and those conversations never advance past basic talking points that any person who spent time actually looking into any topic would not reduce down to a binary answer. Half the people I talk with think I'm super liberal and the other half think Im super conservative and it stems usually from the first interaction Ive had with people where Ive tried to advance a topic to beyond repeating the same lame talking points, but it really never gets past first base.
jmyeet 3y ago
I see a fundamental misunderstanding, even among so-called profesionals, about what introvert vs extrovert actually means. I am an introvert but struggled with the traditional definitions. This article builds on and complicates these incorrect foundations. Here's the simplest explanation that I have found: social interactions cost introverts energy. Extroverts gain energy from social interactions. When I heard this, it was liike a light bulb going off. It's not that I, as an introvert, didn't like people or exclusively preferred being alone. It's that too much social interaction is, quite literally, exhausting. That doesn't mean it's avoided at all cost or that social interaction can't be or isn't enjoyed. If you've met a true extrovert you'll know this. For such people, social interaction really can resemble a high. It can be something they crave and they can crash from. Larger groups are just more social interaction. It can be easier with known people (eg family gatherings) because the processing cost of the social interactions is less and there are fewer unknowns.
- em-bee 3y ago
  what you are describing looks like the classical definition of introverts vs extroverts to. so where is the difference or the misunderstanding?
hx8 3y ago
The introvert/extrovert spectrum is an aspect of personality that seems to hold true across all cultures. Everywhere we've looked, there are some people that prefer to be by themselves more, and some people that prefer to be with other people more. The distribution of these people follow a standard bell curve. This is probably the single most well supported concept in the scientific literature on the topic of Personality Psychology. I'm dismayed that the author only made one reference in his blogpost -- a century old quote. It's absolutely crazy that this exists across cultures and implies that the disposition is biological in nature. The term has its flaws, and its pop-psychology understanding is limiting. I do think the concept is pointing towards something universal about human psychology.
- watwut 3y ago
  But thatvis the thing - in that bell curve, majority of the people are in the middle. They are neither extroverts nor introverts, they are literally in between. They get tired from too much interaction and they are also refreshed by interactions. Meanwhile, people talk about it as if there were two different species. But, very few are on the extremes.
- squirtlebonflow 3y ago
  ...why is it crazy? Pick any aspect of personality, and you'll be able to map it to two extremes.
DerekBickerton 3y ago
> Introverts, extroverts... ambiverts?? I consider myself an ambivert, swinging between introvert and extrovert all the time. The thing is: you are going to have to attend social events often against your will if you're introvert-leaning (weddings, funerals, christenings, bar mitzvahs, etc). What I've learned over the years is the more you know how the world works, the less you want to be engaged in it (Big Pharma, Big Tech, Big Military, Big Anything). It's all so tiresome. One of the things all mature adults need to learn ASAP is how to retain good friendships over time. It's a whole art-form. Anyone that can give me a 'belly laugh' and I can retain friendship over more than five years is worth keeping.
dosman33 3y ago
The author tries to better understand introversion but focuses on slicing the pie in the wrong dimensions. There are underlying issues that cause people to swing between introversion and extroversion. When those underlying conditions change that can shift a person's place on the spectrum. If you are some flavor of neuro-divergent with any awareness of yourself then you realize that you need to moderate some of your own annoying behaviors to fit in better with those you are currently in the presence of. Doing this is draining when you are around "normies", even if you like these peoples company. It's also likely that you only moderate certain behaviors around certain people and again, the degree with which you have to moderate yourself can affect how drained you are over time changing the duration you can withstand others company. When you detect that you are around similar neuro-divergents a person can relax and just be themselves. The lack of drain on a person in this condition can swing an introvert into a full-on extrovert. Anyone who spends time at a makerspace or hackerspace probably understands this. It can be fun watching new people show up who usually are introverts and then they slowly shift their personality since they can safely be themselves and come out of their shells. Again, it's the underlying reasons driving a persons introversion or extroversion. When those reasons shift then the personality shifts as well. This is not directly correlated to crowd size, but it's a given that the larger the crowd the less safe it is for someone to be themselves if they are neuro-divergent in any dimension. Only people who are "naturally normal" can safely be themselves 100% of the time in large crowds and not be worn down by the experience.
coldtea 3y ago
>This entire introvert/extrovert/ambivert thing just amounts to "most people like to be alone sometimes and around people some other times"?? What's the point? The point is that we shouldn't be particularly concerned about that group, and it's the people in the extremes that might need special accomondations. Breaking it down too much can muddle the distinctions, as opposed to illuminating them.
nuancebydefault 3y ago
Usually I feel very comfortable with 1-on-1s, but a lot of times at a point I start either to talk too much about myself, or start asking too many questions and people start to feel a bit uncomfortable or overwhelmed, while I just want to interact and learn. Anybody else recognizes this?
- rochak 3y ago
  You just described me. I actively try to not do this but I end up doing it every single time. I think there may be something wrong with me.
  - nuancebydefault 3y ago
    Maybe you would be someone I could easily interact with, without them feeling uncomfortable soon ?
gardenhedge 3y ago
The older I get the more I realize it's being around people I don't like that I feel draining.
tidbittyz 3y ago
There are 5 labels I am aware of since I have been on this earth. extrovert - dominant outside introvert - dominant inside ambivert - switches outside and inside inextrovert - dominant introvert and in certain situations extrovert exintrovert - dominant extrovert and in certain situations introvert Anyone aware of any other categories we can put people into?
munificent 3y ago
I very much agree with the author's take that introvert/extrovert is a stupidly reductionist categorization for human social behavior. I like their approach to looking at different kinds of social interaction, but I think just focusing on group size misses other important differences: * How close or long-term the relationship with the others is. Do you like meeting new people or prefer the company of old friends and family? Do you want to be able to let down your guard and be your true self without worry, or do the higher stakes of the long term consequences stress you out? * How balanced the power is and where you are on it. Do you like rousing a team of minions, give and take with peers, or being inspired to follow a visionary? * How cooperative versus adversarial the relationship is. Do you want to make sacrifices for the greater good so that we all win, or do you want to defeat your opponent? Do you want to give people the benefit of the doubt and show compassion, or protect others from dangerous bad actors? Also, not limited to social interaction, I think many people often fail to distinguish: 1. I don't like this thing. 2. I feel anxiety about this thing. If social interaction stresses you out but you're always glad after you did it, you're not an introvert, you have social anxiety. If you don't want to go to a social function, but you go anyway and it goes perfectly fine, but then afterwards you still wish you hadn't gone, that's more likely to be actual introversion. I strongly suspect that most self-described introverts (including myself for many years) are actually people with a normal or even high level of extroversion but high social anxiety.
carabiner 3y ago
Can we explain why everyone calls themselves an extroverted introvert today?
thomasfromcdnjs 3y ago
I'm not convinced that ones identity can be described as an introvert or extrovert. Regardless of what I read or what people I trust tell me. I think you can _feel_ "introverted" or "extroverted" sometimes. Not a topic that overly bother me, I personally find it hilarious watching people describe themselves with so much confidence. As if they know how the human mind works, and are so capable at it they can perform some meta-analysis looking from outside in. (If you haven't figured I also think Meyers, Big Five etc etc is all garbage too, "I'm cynical" </joke>)
- TrispusAttucks 3y ago
  That's pretty much the premise of the article.
  - thomasfromcdnjs 3y ago
    Thanks, one of those HN moments where I didn't read the original.
michaelteter 3y ago
One dimension often missing from these (intro/extro-vert) discussions is the matter of what kind of people and what circumstance the interactions involve. Put me in a large group of people I have little in common with or with whom I have no interest in -- but am forced to socialize with -- and I'm used up in minutes. But with people I can somewhat identify with, and in a situation which offers something for me, and I can go for hours and leave with equal or higher energy than I started. There's also the matter of the depth of communication. In larger groups, it's difficult to reach any depth since many people may be involved in the discussion (and many people may behave differently or maintain more defensive walls); but 1:1 or in very small groups it's easier to develop trust quickly and have some very meaningful conversations. I find many larger group interactions incredibly shallow and boring... just an endless stream of small talk with some attention-seeking, posturing, or peacocking here and there.
- snthpy 3y ago
  Great point. I'm similar.
- GuB-42 3y ago
  I would put that in the introvert spectrum. Complaining about "shallow" interactions is, I think, a big telltale sign of introversion. I wouldn't call deep conversations a form of socializing, like being alone, this is a bubble, except this time, there are several people in the bubble. Extroverts don't like bubbles, and I am sure deep conversations are draining to them (I am not one, so it is just a guess), and they may want to break free of them, for example, by bringing in other people. On the contrary, in social situations, introverts will want to form the bubble as soon as they can, keeping the small talk and all that to a minimum.
  - karpierz 3y ago
    To add to this, I'd say that when people say "deep conversation", they generally mean "comfortable conversation". A lot of conversations that I've heard described as "deep" are superficial discussions of philosophy/politics (see most of HN) or jargon-filled discussions of specific nerddoms that people are interested in.
thenoblesunfish 3y ago
The article doesn't mention it, but for me a good refinement of the idea is that being an introvert or extrovert is about whether social activity is something that costs energy or replenishes it. Not whether you enjoy it - in my own case I love talking and large crowds and so on, when I'm rested. When I'm tired, be quiet and stop looking at me.
matricaria 3y ago
I thought about this a lot too after being asked which one I was. My answer was neither and the other person labeled me as extrovert. I think many introverts become more introverted as they label themself in that way. Often they feel uncomfortable in large and small groups, but with the label they have an excuse to avoid those situations as much as possible. Kind of like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
alex-moon 3y ago
"I actually do enjoy crowds and 'enthusiastic get-togethers.' Yes, I feel drained by them eventually" - in other words, the author is an introvert.
tigerlily 3y ago
Introverted... introverted what? Are you introverted thinking, introverted feeling, introverted sensing? Likewise extroverted what? Extroverted thinking means thinking out loud in the crowd. My wife does this even at home. I have to be careful as an introverted thinker, I can't hear myself think when she's thinking out loud, so I defer deep thoughts for work time and stay present. That can be draining after a while and so I take it out on the cryptic crossword. To me introvert/extrovert is dimensionless unless you use it in conjunction with some faculty. On their own these terms are quite meaningless.
raverbashing 3y ago
> the easy way out of this critique is to present the model as a spectrum—there's a continuous line from introverts on one end to extroverts on the other, and people can belong anywhere along this spectrum Yes, this applies to most things Yes, taking MTBI to be binomial into every dimension and every person fitting neatly into any of the X boxes is stupid, thinking about a 4 variable measure which is centered at zero (that is, resting in the middle between each letter) is a more realistic outtake
Geee 3y ago
I find it draining to be around idiots and listening to their boring life stories. I guess that makes me an introvert.
jwmoz 3y ago
A really nice post, thanks.
k__ 3y ago
My theory: Most people aren't introverts, they're just lacking the skills to socialize with strangers.

219 points by vipshek 3y ago

I wonder if it's even worth trying to define a person's personality? I've been following this research for a while now. Almost all the studies I've seen have substantial flaws in their scientific methodology, such as small sample sizes and selection bias, among other issues. Don't even get me started on the replication crisis in this field. Regarding theories like Jung's introversion and extraversion or the subsequent personality models like the MBTI and the Big Five, while they have been widely used and studied, there's ongoing debate about their reliability and validity. There's substantial evidence for the general reliability of the Big Five, but it, too, has faced criticism.

soco 3y ago
The only help I can imagine is for self discovery: it maybe gives one a handle on where to search for ideas, solutions, plans. At least that's how personality tests work for me - I enjoyed for instance the Sparketype.
dosman33 3y ago
I got a sigh of relief when I finally discovered that Myers-Briggs is partly broken. It's designed to not offend anyone by avoiding measuring neuroticism so it's "work-safe". I had been struggling to understand how people were able to understand personality defects of out of the Myers-Briggs system and then eventually it became clear that it doesn't do this, it avoids measuring neuroticism, and worse than that it's on shaky ground because it does a poor job of typing people anyway because a persons personality can "shift" around over time. I'm still new to the Big Five though, I've only skimmed the surface of it, but at least it measures neuroticism and should plausibly give you better insight.
- analog31 3y ago
  You can also game the Myers-Briggs to avoid the introvert classification.
- kmmlng 3y ago
  A big problem with Myers-Briggs is also that it expresses everything in terms of binary categories. That makes it easy to communicate your type, but also comes with less precision. Big Five avoids this, but it's also difficult to communicate your Big Five results concisely.
- MrDresden 3y ago
  > "Despite its popularity, it has been widely regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator
analog31 3y ago
Imagine a relationship in which one person can read the other's mind. This is the power of gods: They know our thoughts, but we don't know theirs. The only rational conclusion is total submission to their will, or to the will of their representatives. The offer of such a power, even to a severely limited extent, is appealing enough for people to part ways with their money and natural skepticism. Can it be beneficial? A list of categories that seems authoritative and scientific but is open to interpretation can give some people a sense of comfort that they belong in their "place" within the organization, that there are other people facing similar experiences, or that they are not personally at fault. It can give a beginning manager the confidence to interact with colleagues and subordinates by means of a formula. Can it be harmful? Sure, it opens people to manipulation and bias, or persuades them to give up their agency.

wouldbecouldbe 3y ago

I didn’t know Jung came up with this concept. The power of ideas is amazing. Hardly anyone knows Jung, but everyone knows introvert vs extravert. The same goes for Freud, more have heard of him but still mostly under educated people, but everyone knows what is meant by subconscious, which was a concept he came up with. Even though they both had many weird, good and bad ideas. Their reputation as great thinkers iOS valid just by these 2 contributions they made to human thoughts. Ages from now kids will speak of their subconscious and being an introvert while Jung & Freuds names will only be known to a few niche historians.

kgwxd 3y ago
It doesn't seem Jung really did the world any favors with this concept. He introduced highly inadequate terms that are mostly used to pigeonhole people into a simple box that supposedly sums up all their behavior. Turning it into a linear scale doesn't make it any better. Don't like big crowds? Learn how to like big crowds. Don't know how to be with your own thoughts for a long time? Learn to do it. Don't say it can't be done, I've done it, and I've been told I have a learning disability. No one should lock themselves, or others, into a "personality" box, and all this nonsense should be entirely disregarded.

norir 3y ago

To be fair to Jung, he did not believe that anyone was a pure introvert or extrovert but he needed to use caricatures to illustrate the concepts. He also explicitly warns in Psychological Types not to use his ideas to create a personality classification system.

WastingMyTime89 3y ago
To be fair to Jung, most of what he wrote is barely coherent garbage with zero experimental backing and an attitude towards intellectual honesty and scientific integrity which I would politely qualify as problematic. Sorry, I think it had to be said.
- norir 3y ago
  Do you fear Jung's ideas? If they are incoherent garbage with no merit, shouldn't they just collapse under their own weight?
  - analog31 3y ago
    History doesn't support this. Bad ideas can be remarkably persistent. Yes I fear Jung's ideas if they give rise to beliefs that are harmful to me, or to society. An example would be biased stereotypes surrounding the introvert / extravert dichotomy. Disclosure: I'd probably test as an extravert, but would advise against identifying as an introvert in a business setting due to the bias against introverts.
    - kmmlng 3y ago
      Interesting, I would have considered the idea of pretending to be someone I'm not for extended periods of time to be far more harmful than any potential disadvantages I might experience in a busieness setting for being an introvert. I don't think any undue stereotypes around the introversion / extraversion dimension come from Jung, but have simply been attached to the concept by ill-informed society. It's hard to fault Jung for this. Introversion / Extraversion is also part of the Big 5 and has more substantial scientific backing than the foundations laid by Jung.

sublinear 3y ago

I don't think the dichotomy is a bad rule of thumb to help understand someone, but it's certainly not their identity. I've come to find that it's down to the person's experience with and resulting preference for crowds and individuals. It's nurture, not nature. I used to be very introverted until I started living on my own as an adult and had shit to do and wanted things in life. I've also seen extroverts that mellowed out with age. There's no mystery. Raise your kids and yourself accordingly.

kstrauser 3y ago
Despite claiming to have been one, you don't seem to understand what an introvert is. I'm a functional adult. I have a wife and kids, friends, and a good job. I can speak in public if needed, although I'd prefer not to. I don't have trouble meeting new people, talking to them, and getting to know them. I'm not shy, but I am an introvert. Being in crowds of people I'm expected to interact with on a personal level drains my energy. Baseball games, concerts, and the like? No problem! Crowds of strangers don't bother me a bit. But if there's a hell, my corner of it looks like a cocktail party where I'm expected to mingle with everyone and never get a moment to myself. Being an introvert is nothing I was raised to be. My mom's one. My dad was a natural salesman: put him in a room with 50 strangers, and 10 minutes later he was on a first name basis with them all and had plans to vacation together. They both raised me, and they both stressed the importance of good social graces. The difference is that after my dad's social butterfly antics, he was happy and fully of energy, while my mom was ready to go home and recharge for a while. I'm definitely my mom's kid on that one. I have stuff to do. There are things I want in life. I'm doing all that successfully. But when I'm done doing them, I just want a little time to myself to exhale and relax, OK?
- ryandrake 3y ago
  Yea there are many dimensions: Friends vs. family vs. strangers, individuals vs. groups vs. crowds, work context vs. fun context vs. shopping/errands context. Probably many more. After COVID I think there's probably an indoor vs. outdoor setting dimension! Different people respond differently across these dimensions. I particularly have trouble with: strangers + crowds + fun context. I think my nightmare is a crowded shoulder-to-shoulder concert in a stadium. I'd panic before I even got through the front gate. On the other hand, meeting with friends and family or work gatherings are no problem. Everyone has their weirdness.

revskill 3y ago

From my experience, i don't care if i'm introvert or extrovert. WHat i do really care, is, how much i understand myself. What do i really need ? How do i say no ? How do i stay motivated ?.... Those are real matters.

Given_47 3y ago
Definitely feel like this isn’t nearly as common as it should be (possibly cuz it can be uncomfortable for some). Additionally to what u mentioned, I regularly ask myself why I just did something and try to examine if I truly had all the right motivations. Now this would probably be detrimental if you couldn’t trust yourself to be honest and risk rationalization taking over. Building up trust in yourself is an entirely different topic so won’t go there but anyway I’ve found these sort of exercises imperative to keeping myself in check and on the path of improving as a person, not stagnating or regressing

breakingrules 3y ago

[dead]

akhayam 3y ago

Introvert and extrovert is the most widely misunderstood thing I have seen at work and in personal life. This article also doesn’t do justice to the nuance that introverts find interactions with other “draining” … but it’s not necessary that they suck at it. I feel this way: having led teams of hundreds of people, I know I can have deep, meaningful and long conversations… but I don’t find them a source of joy. I encourage reading this recent opinion post in Washington Post that delves into this nuance with a unique perspective: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/12/rebecca-makkai-post-pandemic-covid-introvert-extrovert/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/12/rebecca-m...

BeetleB 3y ago
> I know I can have deep, meaningful and long conversations… but I don’t find them a source of joy. Sorry to add to the flames, but many (most?) introverts generally do find joy in deep, meaningful long conversations. It's the small talk they tend to dislike. The problem is trying to shoehorn everything into introvert vs extrovert. The reality is it's a vector. Small talk vs meaningful conversations is an axis different from enjoying crowds vs alone time.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  AFAICT whether you find a conversation a source of joy is relatively orthogonal to being an introvert. It's whether it's draining or not. A conversation can be both a source of joy and draining.
- coffeebeqn 3y ago
  It’s also who you’re interacting with that’s a big input. A party where you know no one but have to be at VS talking to your best friend or kids or spouse for example.
- mklarmann 3y ago
  I would even argue, that it is depending on the context (on how you feel) that makes you introvert or extrovert in the situation. Not just a vector. I found it funny doing some tests, but once with the mindset of being a CEO, and in the other situation on the dancefloor, etc.

JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago

Could be that introverts have one or both of the following characteristics: 1) They don't like politics as a mean to reach one's goals. Maybe for moral reasons or because they consider it cheating or because they deem it 'not close enough to the action'. 2) Social time spent with other people is like any other activity, maybe introverts need or want more time to feel satisfied, much like some people are satisfied riding a jetski while others need to be able to do tricks and acrobatics in order to be happy about the whole experience. Maybe introverts hold out in order to reach a higher level of experience?

elliottinvent 3y ago

It was recently explained to me: Introverts charge their battery in solitude and discharge it socialising. Extroverts the opposite.

0xfae 3y ago
The author talks about how he dislikes this characterization exactly because it's so binary and doesn't seem to be accurate for most people who fall into the "ambivert" center of the bell curve. The whole article is a beautiful breakdown of how social interaction is much more multi-faceted than this. You should read it.
- elliottinvent 3y ago
  Admittedly I didn’t get that [1] far, thanks for pointing it out. I read the first half but he lost me at conversational dynamics (I mainly come here for the comments). The battery analogy was a good way for me to understand my own experience and seemed like progress from the traditional definitions of introvert and extrovert. 1. “Balance not batteries” https://www.vipshek.com/blog/interaction#balance-not-batteries https://www.vipshek.com/blog/interaction#balance-not-batteri...

PaulHoule 3y ago

People have different reasons for being reclusive. The social phobic, the agorapohbic, the autist, and the common but complete obscure schizotype (maybe you if you are self-diagnosed "autistic") are all examples.

indus 3y ago

Great writeup and love your articulation of ambiverts. I am an introvert--but now trained my mind to be a normal person and not fear people around me. I forced it earlier. If you meet me, you'll not find me an introvert, anymore. 10 years ago, people would politely ask me to talk or share. It has been years of journey achieving that change. I don't feel the introvert/extrovert quagmire anymore. However, if I'm in public meetings--presenting, chatting for more than a few hours--then I need to come back and take a hot shower--and fade away the people and conversations. My wife calls that shower: "Removing the theater from the head."

coredev_ 3y ago
I am quite the same, we call this "social hangover".

rqtwteye 3y ago

I never understand why people (especially in the US) have a desire to split everything into two opposing sides. Liberal/conservative, introvert/extrovert and many others. I think it's pretty obvious that most (all?) people are on a spectrum of many dimensions and can't be categorized that easily. These labels can give useful hints but there is way more detail to look at.

quacked 3y ago
Two sides is the most stable form of competition, it's why there are very few sports that have more than two teams. (Card games, maybe.) A few years ago I saw a great essay/blog post/paper/something that made this point really elegantly, about how conflicts seem to naturally resolve into two sides, but I haven't managed to find it again.
- 0xfae 3y ago
  It's pretty standard game theory. If there are 3 teams, and one team starts to gain an advantage, the other two are highly incentivized to join forces to defeat the larger one. Unless you design systems to allow smaller teams/parties/groups to flourish, most competitions will devolve into two sides. In voting this would be things like ranked choice or approval voting, rather than single vote "first past the post".
  - mikhailfranco 3y ago
    The board game Diplomacy is the classic example of multiplayer competition, where there is explicit negotiation of alliances and the possibility of trust and betrayal at every turn. P.S. Recent success with AI for Diplomacy at DeepMind: https://www.deepmind.com/blog/ai-for-the-board-game-diplomacy https://www.deepmind.com/blog/ai-for-the-board-game-diplomac...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
costanzaDynasty 3y ago
Because it's lazy, and most people don't care enough about any issue to have nuisanced thoughts about a topic. And If they ever did any conversation would break down to A or B. Plus its easier to sell to and manipulate money from both sides. I try to have conversation about complex issues all the time and those conversations never advance past basic talking points that any person who spent time actually looking into any topic would not reduce down to a binary answer. Half the people I talk with think I'm super liberal and the other half think Im super conservative and it stems usually from the first interaction Ive had with people where Ive tried to advance a topic to beyond repeating the same lame talking points, but it really never gets past first base.

jmyeet 3y ago

I see a fundamental misunderstanding, even among so-called profesionals, about what introvert vs extrovert actually means. I am an introvert but struggled with the traditional definitions. This article builds on and complicates these incorrect foundations. Here's the simplest explanation that I have found: social interactions cost introverts energy. Extroverts gain energy from social interactions. When I heard this, it was liike a light bulb going off. It's not that I, as an introvert, didn't like people or exclusively preferred being alone. It's that too much social interaction is, quite literally, exhausting. That doesn't mean it's avoided at all cost or that social interaction can't be or isn't enjoyed. If you've met a true extrovert you'll know this. For such people, social interaction really can resemble a high. It can be something they crave and they can crash from. Larger groups are just more social interaction. It can be easier with known people (eg family gatherings) because the processing cost of the social interactions is less and there are fewer unknowns.

em-bee 3y ago
what you are describing looks like the classical definition of introverts vs extroverts to. so where is the difference or the misunderstanding?

hx8 3y ago

The introvert/extrovert spectrum is an aspect of personality that seems to hold true across all cultures. Everywhere we've looked, there are some people that prefer to be by themselves more, and some people that prefer to be with other people more. The distribution of these people follow a standard bell curve. This is probably the single most well supported concept in the scientific literature on the topic of Personality Psychology. I'm dismayed that the author only made one reference in his blogpost -- a century old quote. It's absolutely crazy that this exists across cultures and implies that the disposition is biological in nature. The term has its flaws, and its pop-psychology understanding is limiting. I do think the concept is pointing towards something universal about human psychology.

watwut 3y ago
But thatvis the thing - in that bell curve, majority of the people are in the middle. They are neither extroverts nor introverts, they are literally in between. They get tired from too much interaction and they are also refreshed by interactions. Meanwhile, people talk about it as if there were two different species. But, very few are on the extremes.
squirtlebonflow 3y ago
...why is it crazy? Pick any aspect of personality, and you'll be able to map it to two extremes.

DerekBickerton 3y ago

> Introverts, extroverts... ambiverts?? I consider myself an ambivert, swinging between introvert and extrovert all the time. The thing is: you are going to have to attend social events often against your will if you're introvert-leaning (weddings, funerals, christenings, bar mitzvahs, etc). What I've learned over the years is the more you know how the world works, the less you want to be engaged in it (Big Pharma, Big Tech, Big Military, Big Anything). It's all so tiresome. One of the things all mature adults need to learn ASAP is how to retain good friendships over time. It's a whole art-form. Anyone that can give me a 'belly laugh' and I can retain friendship over more than five years is worth keeping.

dosman33 3y ago

The author tries to better understand introversion but focuses on slicing the pie in the wrong dimensions. There are underlying issues that cause people to swing between introversion and extroversion. When those underlying conditions change that can shift a person's place on the spectrum. If you are some flavor of neuro-divergent with any awareness of yourself then you realize that you need to moderate some of your own annoying behaviors to fit in better with those you are currently in the presence of. Doing this is draining when you are around "normies", even if you like these peoples company. It's also likely that you only moderate certain behaviors around certain people and again, the degree with which you have to moderate yourself can affect how drained you are over time changing the duration you can withstand others company. When you detect that you are around similar neuro-divergents a person can relax and just be themselves. The lack of drain on a person in this condition can swing an introvert into a full-on extrovert. Anyone who spends time at a makerspace or hackerspace probably understands this. It can be fun watching new people show up who usually are introverts and then they slowly shift their personality since they can safely be themselves and come out of their shells. Again, it's the underlying reasons driving a persons introversion or extroversion. When those reasons shift then the personality shifts as well. This is not directly correlated to crowd size, but it's a given that the larger the crowd the less safe it is for someone to be themselves if they are neuro-divergent in any dimension. Only people who are "naturally normal" can safely be themselves 100% of the time in large crowds and not be worn down by the experience.

coldtea 3y ago

>This entire introvert/extrovert/ambivert thing just amounts to "most people like to be alone sometimes and around people some other times"?? What's the point? The point is that we shouldn't be particularly concerned about that group, and it's the people in the extremes that might need special accomondations. Breaking it down too much can muddle the distinctions, as opposed to illuminating them.

nuancebydefault 3y ago

Usually I feel very comfortable with 1-on-1s, but a lot of times at a point I start either to talk too much about myself, or start asking too many questions and people start to feel a bit uncomfortable or overwhelmed, while I just want to interact and learn. Anybody else recognizes this?

rochak 3y ago
You just described me. I actively try to not do this but I end up doing it every single time. I think there may be something wrong with me.
- nuancebydefault 3y ago
  Maybe you would be someone I could easily interact with, without them feeling uncomfortable soon ?

gardenhedge 3y ago

The older I get the more I realize it's being around people I don't like that I feel draining.

tidbittyz 3y ago

There are 5 labels I am aware of since I have been on this earth. extrovert - dominant outside introvert - dominant inside ambivert - switches outside and inside inextrovert - dominant introvert and in certain situations extrovert exintrovert - dominant extrovert and in certain situations introvert Anyone aware of any other categories we can put people into?

munificent 3y ago

I very much agree with the author's take that introvert/extrovert is a stupidly reductionist categorization for human social behavior. I like their approach to looking at different kinds of social interaction, but I think just focusing on group size misses other important differences: * How close or long-term the relationship with the others is. Do you like meeting new people or prefer the company of old friends and family? Do you want to be able to let down your guard and be your true self without worry, or do the higher stakes of the long term consequences stress you out? * How balanced the power is and where you are on it. Do you like rousing a team of minions, give and take with peers, or being inspired to follow a visionary? * How cooperative versus adversarial the relationship is. Do you want to make sacrifices for the greater good so that we all win, or do you want to defeat your opponent? Do you want to give people the benefit of the doubt and show compassion, or protect others from dangerous bad actors? Also, not limited to social interaction, I think many people often fail to distinguish: 1. I don't like this thing. 2. I feel anxiety about this thing. If social interaction stresses you out but you're always glad after you did it, you're not an introvert, you have social anxiety. If you don't want to go to a social function, but you go anyway and it goes perfectly fine, but then afterwards you still wish you hadn't gone, that's more likely to be actual introversion. I strongly suspect that most self-described introverts (including myself for many years) are actually people with a normal or even high level of extroversion but high social anxiety.

carabiner 3y ago

Can we explain why everyone calls themselves an extroverted introvert today?

thomasfromcdnjs 3y ago

I'm not convinced that ones identity can be described as an introvert or extrovert. Regardless of what I read or what people I trust tell me. I think you can _feel_ "introverted" or "extroverted" sometimes. Not a topic that overly bother me, I personally find it hilarious watching people describe themselves with so much confidence. As if they know how the human mind works, and are so capable at it they can perform some meta-analysis looking from outside in. (If you haven't figured I also think Meyers, Big Five etc etc is all garbage too, "I'm cynical" </joke>)

TrispusAttucks 3y ago
That's pretty much the premise of the article.
- thomasfromcdnjs 3y ago
  Thanks, one of those HN moments where I didn't read the original.

michaelteter 3y ago

One dimension often missing from these (intro/extro-vert) discussions is the matter of what kind of people and what circumstance the interactions involve. Put me in a large group of people I have little in common with or with whom I have no interest in -- but am forced to socialize with -- and I'm used up in minutes. But with people I can somewhat identify with, and in a situation which offers something for me, and I can go for hours and leave with equal or higher energy than I started. There's also the matter of the depth of communication. In larger groups, it's difficult to reach any depth since many people may be involved in the discussion (and many people may behave differently or maintain more defensive walls); but 1:1 or in very small groups it's easier to develop trust quickly and have some very meaningful conversations. I find many larger group interactions incredibly shallow and boring... just an endless stream of small talk with some attention-seeking, posturing, or peacocking here and there.

snthpy 3y ago
Great point. I'm similar.
GuB-42 3y ago
I would put that in the introvert spectrum. Complaining about "shallow" interactions is, I think, a big telltale sign of introversion. I wouldn't call deep conversations a form of socializing, like being alone, this is a bubble, except this time, there are several people in the bubble. Extroverts don't like bubbles, and I am sure deep conversations are draining to them (I am not one, so it is just a guess), and they may want to break free of them, for example, by bringing in other people. On the contrary, in social situations, introverts will want to form the bubble as soon as they can, keeping the small talk and all that to a minimum.
- karpierz 3y ago
  To add to this, I'd say that when people say "deep conversation", they generally mean "comfortable conversation". A lot of conversations that I've heard described as "deep" are superficial discussions of philosophy/politics (see most of HN) or jargon-filled discussions of specific nerddoms that people are interested in.

thenoblesunfish 3y ago

The article doesn't mention it, but for me a good refinement of the idea is that being an introvert or extrovert is about whether social activity is something that costs energy or replenishes it. Not whether you enjoy it - in my own case I love talking and large crowds and so on, when I'm rested. When I'm tired, be quiet and stop looking at me.

matricaria 3y ago

I thought about this a lot too after being asked which one I was. My answer was neither and the other person labeled me as extrovert. I think many introverts become more introverted as they label themself in that way. Often they feel uncomfortable in large and small groups, but with the label they have an excuse to avoid those situations as much as possible. Kind of like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

alex-moon 3y ago

"I actually do enjoy crowds and 'enthusiastic get-togethers.' Yes, I feel drained by them eventually" - in other words, the author is an introvert.

tigerlily 3y ago

Introverted... introverted what? Are you introverted thinking, introverted feeling, introverted sensing? Likewise extroverted what? Extroverted thinking means thinking out loud in the crowd. My wife does this even at home. I have to be careful as an introverted thinker, I can't hear myself think when she's thinking out loud, so I defer deep thoughts for work time and stay present. That can be draining after a while and so I take it out on the cryptic crossword. To me introvert/extrovert is dimensionless unless you use it in conjunction with some faculty. On their own these terms are quite meaningless.

raverbashing 3y ago

> the easy way out of this critique is to present the model as a spectrum—there's a continuous line from introverts on one end to extroverts on the other, and people can belong anywhere along this spectrum Yes, this applies to most things Yes, taking MTBI to be binomial into every dimension and every person fitting neatly into any of the X boxes is stupid, thinking about a 4 variable measure which is centered at zero (that is, resting in the middle between each letter) is a more realistic outtake

Geee 3y ago

I find it draining to be around idiots and listening to their boring life stories. I guess that makes me an introvert.

jwmoz 3y ago

A really nice post, thanks.

k__ 3y ago

My theory: Most people aren't introverts, they're just lacking the skills to socialize with strangers.