| ▲ | bonoboTP 2 hours ago |
| It varies a lot depending on people and personality type. What's energizing to you is very exhausting and unfun to others. Extraversion / introversion basically. I don't like having many people over. 3 or 4 people who I know well is optimal for me. Making a large party could be "type 2 fun" sometimes, ie exhausting and not very fun at the time, but satisfying to look back on as a kind of hard challenge I managed to accomplish, like climbing a cold mountain or so. But few are enough of those. |
|
| ▲ | ddek 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I wonder if the cultural existence of the 'introvert vs extrovert' idea has reinforced this to a degree. I'm too young to know, but I doubt this was a discussion in the 80s. I'm also not too sure it's a good thing. I've seen introversion used as an excuse to hermit; extroversion as the sole reason to use drugs. We put limits on ourselves psychologically in all sorts of ways, and we follow the ones we believe. There's a study that showed people who believe willpower is finite have finite willpower. I thought "well obviously, if you had finite willpower you'd know because you'd run out". Maybe we do just think too much? If I don't feel like running and I go running, about two thirds of the time I feel like running after a few K. It's the same socially. The goal of introspection shouldn't be to freeze in a minute now. |
| |
| ▲ | bonoboTP 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It seems pretty obvious to me that this also existed in older times. It's a pretty well established and reproducible big five trait. There were always people who were lone wolf types, not necessarily hermits but people who like to be alone. Ask your parents, it was certainly a thing in the 80s too. Even if I think about my grandparents, they didn't constantly have others over. My grandfather was a chill village guy who liked to spend time alone, working in the garden, working in his shed etc. But there were more regular externally forced events, like big weddings, gathering for a pig slaughter, coming together to renovate the house etc. What changes is the tradeoff threshold. Now, being alone is more attractive to more people than before. Some liked being alone even in the times when it just meant books or doing some loner hobby like gardening or woodworking or whatnot. But with Netflix and YouTube the tradeoff shifts. Also as people get more flaky, socialization is even mharder, making people more flaky. So introverts existed before but today mild introverts may act more introvert-like, who earlier would have preferred to err more on the extravert side. | | |
| ▲ | etrautmann 34 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I personally find that I’m often extroverted and sometimes introverted. I think it’s less helpful to think of this as a static character attribute and more of a mood. I think the parent is pointing to the idea that by labeling something this may reinforce it such that introverts become more introverted by finding validation in books like Quiet, for better or worse. It’s a part of an interesting discussion that doesn’t seem to get talked about much at the very least. | | |
| ▲ | jasode 7 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | >I personally find that I’m often extroverted and sometimes introverted. I think it’s less helpful to think of this as a static character attribute and more of a mood. I defined introversion as stable underlying trait that doesn't change regardless of how many social activities one participates in. I described it as similar to "right-handedness" being a stable trait regardless of new skills acquired with the left hand: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27794484 However, if some people want to define "introvert" differently as only a temporary mood, I can't argue with that but I wish society came up with a different label that describes introversion-the-unchangeable-stable-trait. | |
| ▲ | sersi 22 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I like the definition of extrovert and introvert that says that extroverts are regain their energy by being in group whereas introverts regains there by being alone. According to that, I'm an introvert, I need my alone time so that I can recenter myself and recover my energy. I do feel drained when being in events with a lot of people. But, that doesn't stop the fact that I do like people, I like organizing parties (or rather I don't particularly like the organizing but I like the result of having organized parties and having close friends) at my place and regularly invite friends. It's just that after that I'm exhausted and I need some alone time to recover. So being an introvert doesn't imply that you shouldn't make effort to reach out to people or that you won't enjoy being with others. It just means that having some alone time is necessary to recover. | |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 9 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm an introvert. I occasionally love going to a big conference/event, including regularly speaking at them. I find it incredibly fun, and incredibly exhausting. It's fun and rewarding enough to do anyway despite being exhausting. I know other people who find it energizing. There are people whose feelings about it vary, but there are also people whose feelings about it are consistent but they do it anyway, and that sometimes gets mistaken for variability. | |
| ▲ | bonoboTP 14 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sure, but it all depends on whether it's causing you problems or not. There are different ways to life to one's satisfaction. If you're having problems, you should change things up and push through discomfort and friction or just try things. But if you found a balance that works, then it's fine if that involves being alone a lot and just occasionally meeting people. Depends also on phase of life. In college freshman year you probably want to force yourself to go out regardless of how you feel, to establish some contacts and friends. Once you have a circle, it's fine to just live the way you enjoy it actually. |
|
| |
| ▲ | thlr an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is such a clear headed comment, so many people use this introvert trait as an excuse for not making any effort to reach out even to dear friends, to not step out of their own comfort, and to not take any risk. I believe that all we have in the world are our relationships, maybe hermits are content in their way of life because they never could truly socialize but I don't know about them being fully happy. What we call shyness to me could be understood as a lack of social intelligence mixed with little self-confidence, both of which you can gain by being out-reaching and taking risks. Not to put the blame on anyone of course because it does take real hard work for "introverts". But again, it is to big a deal to be an oversight and not try to be better in your own way. | | |
| ▲ | kekcnekcnecje 21 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It might be clear headed in tone but the argument is fundamentally absurd. People are different. People have different preferences. Everyone’s mind works in different ways. Any argument that can be summed up as “you’re just no trying hard enough” is fundamentally unsound, unhealthy, unhelpful and entirely disrespectful. | | |
| ▲ | nicolas_t 5 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I'm not sure, I think there is value in pushing through friction regardless of if you are introverted or not. One thing that is common to all humans is that loneliness correlates strongly with lack of satisfaction in life and being less healthy. Before we talked as much about introversion and extroversion, people felt more obligated to do certain social events that they can more easily reject nowadays. That does mean it was uncomfortable and they had to push through friction because it's draining for introverts to do social events but being there also helped with making group of friends and staving loneliness. I do think this change in mores is one of the factors that contributes to the so called loneliness epidemics nowadays. |
|
| |
| ▲ | solenoid0937 36 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Once I realized my introversion was psychological and mutable, not some fixed aspect of my personality, it changed my life. We tend to anchor ourselves to labels. Lots of introverts I meet limit themselves in life needlessly because "I'm an introvert!" I see my old self in them. | | |
| ▲ | kekcnekcnecje 16 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Good on you. But this doesn’t apply to everyone. Hell, I’d even be willing to bet that your case is extremely niche. Introversion can be a byproduct of so many different things that saying “it’s just a label” is not only absurd by itself, but utterly disrespectful too. It can be a choice too, sure, but that’s not the case for quite a lot of people. |
| |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 12 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I wonder if the cultural existence of the 'introvert vs extrovert' idea has reinforced this to a degree. I'm too young to know, but I doubt this was a discussion in the 80s. That doesn't mean it didn't exist then, it means it wasn't socially acceptable then. See also the graphs of left-handedness over time, which were basically flat at the actual level of left-handedness except for a big dip during the century or so when left-handed people were commonly forced to hide it and use their right hands. | |
| ▲ | BirAdam an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As an introvert who grew up in a radically extroverted household, forcing oneself to be an extrovert all the time can be psychologically damaging over time. It's also a source of chronic fatigue. | | |
| ▲ | davsti4 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Introversion is a learned behavior of comfort. Extroversion is a learned behavior of comfort. "Damage" is going outside your comfort zone. Everyone can damage their comfort zone. The brain and body is a chemical soup refined from a combination of your DNA and your environment (what you feed it and are exposed to). The question is, in a society of freedom and free will, if your environment forces you into a behavior you're unhappy with, is that truly damaging? | | |
| ▲ | kekcnekcnecje 24 minutes ago | parent [-] | | This is such an arrogant thing to say and completely untrue. > The question is, in a society of freedom and free will, if your environment forces you into a behavior you're unhappy with, is that truly damaging? Being forced to conform to a set pattern of social behaviour/enjoyment is thoroughly damaging to your psychological health. It baffles me that anyone would think not. |
|
| |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | kekcnekcnecje 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > but I doubt this was a discussion in the 80s Honestly if this doesn’t sound a “the fuck am I saying?” alarm in your head I don’t know what to tell ya. This isn’t a recent phenomenon. People have different social tendencies. People have always had different social tendencies. And this is way before you even factor in things like neurodivergence possibly tilting one towards preferring isolation or more intimate/lone activities. It boggles the mind that anyone would think the introversion/extraversion dichotomy a product of modern times. | | |
| ▲ | brandon272 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It’s a little odd how everyone is misreading this comment. They are not saying that introverted and extroverted characteristics did not exist in people, they are saying that people did not run around proclaiming their introverted or extroverted status in the same way they do today and they didn’t use it to rationalize behaviour to the same extent. |
| |
| ▲ | Aurornis 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think the concept has some value, but like most behavioral labels they’ve become so loosely defined and abused that they barely mean anything any more. I can’t count how many people have chatted my ear off and bounced around the office, engaging other people in spontaneous enthusiastic conversation every day, only later to have them claim they’re introverted. The colloquial usage has expanded to encompass anyone who some times feels like staying home and watching Netflix instead of going out on Friday night. In other words, everyone. I agree that it also becomes an excuse. I’ve had friends who really enjoy socializing and going to social events and also lament social isolation and loneliness, but being an “introvert” becomes the driving factor in their decision making about what to do on weekends or after work. You can see how much they enjoy social events when they’re basically obligated to attend (weddings, special event parties, immense peer pressure from friends trying to get them out of the house) but when left to their own decisions they’ll decide to stay home and be lazy 10 out of 10 times with “I’m an introvert” as the excuse. I’m excluding people with conditions like social anxiety disorder from this description, before anyone comments with whatabouts. It gets really bad when they reach their 30s and 40s and they wonder why their friends have stopped sending invites to things (because they never accept) and they complain that dating is impossibly difficult (because they only leave the house for work) | |
| ▲ | boredtofears 6 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is never a popular take but I think you completely nailed it. Anytime I see someone who has frames their world through the extrovert/introvert lens it's always done as justification for antisocial behavior. Lots of buzz phrases like "needing to recharge your batteries" while never admitting that socializing itself is a skill that needs practice to improve at so it doesn't feel like as much work. | |
| ▲ | wat10000 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Imagine if you didn’t feel like running, and you made yourself do it, and after a few K you were like “this sucks, I wish I’d stayed home” and you finish your run and you didn’t enjoy it at all. But people keep telling you how great it is so you keep doing it and you keep hating it and after a while you eventually decide that running is not for you. Would that be a reasonable conclusion? Or should we conclude that this is a psychological limit and we just need to stop thinking so much? | | |
| ▲ | davsti4 an hour ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | devilbunny an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Not everyone gets that. I have exercised very hard at times in my life (American football in high school), and while I feel better in general when I’m active, and playing sports can be quite fun and rewarding, I have never gotten anything from running or other pure exertion other than tired and hungry. | |
| ▲ | wat10000 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | The impossible challenge of getting HN commenters to understand that other people may be different. | | |
| ▲ | davsti4 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | That's right - its "impossible" to teach others about DOSE; how the chemical soup of the body works differently for everyone, including how environmental factors and behaviors of social interactions can affect it, and how someone may want to see an endocrinologist if they want a different outcome to their life. ;P | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 5 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You might want to elaborate a bit, because I have no idea what DOSE is besides an all-caps spelling of a word which means how much medicine you're given. While you're at it, rolling in an understanding that people are different and not everybody enjoys any particular thing would not go amiss. |
| |
| ▲ | kekcnekcnecje 13 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | For a forum that very often likes to pride itself on how “enlightened” discussions are, people are so arrogantly oblivious of one of the simplest and most well-understood facts that people are different. It’s just utterly depressing to see people arguing that “introversion is a choice, you just have to try harder”. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | orthoxerox 18 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think you're spot on about it being type 1/type 2: people have stopped doing a lot of type 2 fun activities, because they have many more type 1 fun activities and because it's no longer socially obligatory to have type 2 fun. If you do type 2 fun often enough, the level of anxiety drops. Imagine hosting a game night once: you have to ensure all your friends can attend, you agonize over the snacks, over picking the right games to play. But if you power through and establish a tradition or join an existing one, it becomes simple, e.g.: every Thursday at 7pm you meet for a game of whatever you've been playing last week and a new game the host picked, the host brews tea, the guests bring whatever snacks they want. At the end of the session, you choose which game to play next week: the old one or the new one. |
|
| ▲ | bryanlarsen an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Introversion means "finding company tiring". It doesn't mean you don't enjoy company. Most (but not all) introverts find company to be pleasurable for a limited period of time. > 3 or 4 people who I know well is optimal for me. Then invite 3 or 4 people over. That's much more than what most people do. Sounds like the optimal party size to me. |
|
| ▲ | Neuronaut 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You're right. Since I'm an introvert myself, I enjoy organizing events and inviting people over, because as the host, I always have a reason to change locations and get some “space” when the socializing becomes too much for me. |
| |
| ▲ | bonoboTP 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is true as well. If you are otherwise not very social, being the organizer gives you a clear role and clearer expectations and tasks and reasons for people to start talking to you and vice versa. I find this helpful, as unstructured social environments are harder for me. |
|
|
| ▲ | jimberlage 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Even introverts need social connection (perhaps more so) - research here [1]. Introverts are people who feel they have used energy when interacting socially, rather than gaining energy from social interaction. It's not shyness or anti-social traits. It will feel like more of a chore for introverts, but it's like a chore you need to do even if it feels bad in the moment, like doing laundry or exercising. And worse for introverts - people who never invite other people eventually stop getting invited themselves, so to maintain social connection requires introverts to sometimes be the driver of the event. [1]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10328046/ |
|
| ▲ | weatherlite 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > 3 or 4 people who I know well is optimal for me. Even that is a challenge of finding the mental energy to pick the date , see that everyone can come, picking some activity (or if you're hosting - make sure with your wife that the date is fine. What about your kids - you wanna put them in bed before?) etc etc. Some of it is probably no big deal but my brain is making it look big, perhaps because I lean introvert as well. It's so much easier to just think about the idea and say 'naaa fuck it' and open Youtube instead. |
| |
| ▲ | bonoboTP 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Helps if your friends are uncomplicated. We just chat, drink beer, make or order pizza, cook or bake something else, talk about work and family, sit in the sun, maybe play cards or just listen to music, talk about stories at recent events like concerts, rehash old stories, or updates about other friends, etc. There is no need to make a big deal about any of this. But this is not a networking or new-friend-making style of party of course. Not even really a party, but fits "inviting people over for dinner". I think a big problem is that people see this also as a thing where efficiency and productivity is important and they plan complicated activities etc. Similarly to how kids don't get much free time to just play and relax, adults also try to organize activities for themselves when just being together is often enough and the rest follows naturally. | |
| ▲ | mcphage 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > It's so much easier to just think about the idea and say 'naaa fuck it' and open Youtube instead. I think this gets at the heart of the concern—it’s always easier to find something else distracting to do, but what’s the real cost? I don’t really know how to measure that, other than to say that American society and culture are doing particularly poorly right now. | | |
| ▲ | bonoboTP 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is something that has been going for generations and centuries. We are less and less dependent on people near us and more dependent on father-away large-scale systems. Same with extended families, neighborhood communities, etc. | | |
| ▲ | grazzie24 10 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You're right. But I think it's more than just about being an introvert or extrovert.
In the past, boredome created a reason for most people to visit someone, play cards, host friends, or go somewhere.
At present, more and more people (introverts and extroverts) are already turning to social media, streaming, gaming, YouTube, and any other online platforms as these offer modern, instant, unlimited entertainment with almost no coordination or planning. |
|
| |
| ▲ | dncornholio 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > but my brain is making it look big 100% You can say naaa fuck it and open Youtube when your friends are over, as well as putting your kids to bed when they're there. It's fine! |
|
|
| ▲ | ctolsen an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Depends what you do. I enjoyn hosting big parties because I spend a lot of time cooking for them, which I love doing and everyone appreciates. Then I have the opportunity to interact as much as I want. |
|
| ▲ | tedggh 36 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think of my wife and myself as extroverts and we do have a very large social circle. Still we don’t host as often as we wanted, maybe once every two months. One of the reasons is it can get very expensive. The last party we threw was a Sunday brunch for about 15 adults and a handful of kids, and we spent over $500 just in pastries. People still bring stuff but we don’t expect them to. Dinner can get even more expensive particularly if you cook meat dishes these days. Then all the time it takes which also translates into money. To host a dinner party it takes me part of the week shopping and the entire weekend cooking and organizing. So most times is better just to call a couple of friends and go out to a restaurant. |
|
| ▲ | armedgorilla 14 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I wonder if intro/extra-version is less explanatory than the people-who-enjoy-doing-things-on-vacation vs people-who-enjoy-doing-nothing-on-vacation divide. I'm an introvert who loves throwing parties because I can perform hosting chores if I feel awkward (prep food, do dishes, refill drinks, introduce people). That said, hiking up a mountain sounds like a great vacation to me, in a type 1 and 2 way. Active recreation is my gratifying form of recreation (balanced of course with some down time after), but I know this sounds like hell to a lot of people. I'm not sure we have a word for this divide as a culture. |
|
| ▲ | Tycho 31 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Introversion is a skill issue. People who aren’t extroverts are just not as good at socialising, so they find it difficult and tiring, but they could get better and then it would be easy. |
|
| ▲ | lxgr 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That certainly makes sense at an individual level, but it seems implausible as an explanation of the dramatic shift over the past decades from TFA, unless basic character traits have shifted dramatically over the past decades as well. |
| |
| ▲ | itsalwaysgood an hour ago | parent [-] | | Character traits, technology, leisure time, have all changed. It's not either or, it's all of the above: individuals do what feels good and if you're a great party thrower because it energizes you, you'll probably spread that influence some. And then possibly, the group reinforces itself by continuing to throw and attend parties. At the same time, leisure time has changed: women work more, dads spend more time with kids, and the home offers a lot more easy entertainment that fits in with modern schedules. There seems to be less opportunities for parties with newer generations. But of course, society seems to shun the party thrower because we're all busy. And so if nobody shows and the party thrower burns out, there's no influence spread. People dislike parties more and the idea reinforces again. A mix of any of the above goes into our decisions about how to spend time. |
|
|
| ▲ | dominotw 16 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I used to believe in this dichotomy but not anymore. I've seen ppl go from shutin to extroverts after they have kids. So called introverts never learn how to enjoy socialization so it drains them. I dont know where it started but we've turned this whole introvert/extrovert stuff into some sort of immutable characteristic. |
|
| ▲ | bewareofscams an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |