One thing to me is fairly obvious: people who are introverts can be social, but only for limited amounts of time.
For example, I like talking a lot, but I can only do it for limited amounts of time. Maybe only a few hours a week. If I'm pushed past that point, I just don't want to chat any more. It's like I'm full of food, but with socialization. After that I find socialization immensely distasteful and irritating.
That's why a 9-5 workplace environment never worked for me. It was forced socialization past my limit. Maybe that's what happened to the guy in this article: they go into defensive mode because they are pushed past their limit.
Extroverts don't understand this concept of limited capacity for socialization.
Or not just limited amounts of time, but limited types of people.
I have some friends who I have no trouble talking with all day. But with the overwhelming majority of people I meet, even if we get along well, I feel exhausted after too much interaction.
Dealing with some types of "extroverts" is particularly tiring due to not caring about the weird formalities and talking around things that a lot do to seem "friendly". It's like dealing with an MBA--using pointlessly fluffy language to say pointless "pleasant" things and being so afraid to step on any toes that their statements are just boring and void of any substance. But there are also some extroverts who know how to gauge your personality in an instant and know whether you're the type who likes the fluffy stuff, or you want to jump right into talking about specific subjects.
Then there are fellow introverts, and unfortunately, it becomes obvious how bad my own personality and conversation skills are with them. Lots of super brief answers and not engaging in any discussion. But I guess when you're the one talking to an introvert, even as an introvert, it's easy to come across as one of the aforementioned annoying extroverts.
Even as an extrovert you get people who just ramble.
In a social setting you can just tune out or move on, but in a work setting... It's extremely tiring because you're trying to catch what's important and distinguish from the unnecessary fluff.
The difference between introversion and shyness is the difference between exhaustion and fear. They can influence each other (being afraid all the time is exhausting, for example), but they are ultimately separate emotions that need not coexist or have any relationship to each other.
My sister is fairly extrovert, she gets energy from being with others. I'm a fairly typical introvert.
Before kids she used to have parties with her ever-increasing circle of friends. She'd invite me, and I'd often say yes but as the day approached I had to force myself to go.
One day, after one of her parties, she told me "everyone really likes it when you come, you're so good at making people feel seen".
I hadn't thought about it before, but realized that I do tend to chat with most people. And I do ask perhaps non-typical "party questions", as I love to learn about new stuff so I like to find out what others are interested in and talk about that.
Almost always I enjoy these events. However after such an even I'm so exhausted, and need a day or three on my own. If I don't get that then things don't go well.
This is only true for shallow connections.
Introverts can talk for hours in deeply interesting and satisfying conversations. People they love and trust or people with whom they share a deep connection.
Your task is to define and identify your tribe and work to surround yourself with those people. (Check in on your emotions regularly, identify who you connect with, identify how to replicate that)
And then actively grow your tribe. One trick you will learn is that changing the way you perceive others changes your ability to connect with them.
> Extroverts don't understand this concept of limited capacity for socialization.
I think there's gotta be a middle ground where someverts are more tolerant of socializing for long periods of time. It still becomes draining, but they don't have some terrible allergic reaction. More like just mild sneezing!
The whole concept of *verts is an early 20th century psychological concept from an era which produced practices and ideas which are now mostly antiquated.
It has become pop psychology and never had much meaning.
It seems relatively true that some people gain energy from socializing, while others expend energy to do so; extrovert vs introvert; which is what I been told is the difference between extroverts and introverts. It's not that introverts _can't_ socialize, it's just that they have a limited capacity to do so (with the caveat that there are people who have social anxiety that cannot socialize, who _also_ fall into the category of introvert).
Given how obviously true it _appears_ to be when talking to people about their experiences, why do you say that?
> with the caveat that there are people who have social anxiety that cannot socialize, who _also_ fall into the category of introvert
Interestingly, I know people who say they are socially anxious extroverts—they need to be with people to draw energy but have high levels social anxiety. This usually means they need to spend a lot of time with people they know well and trust.
the five factor model suggests nothing about "gains energy/drains energy", it simply measures tendency toward extraversion and identifies it as a highly explanatory factor in personality. There are 5 factors because those 5 are the factors that when measured appear to be independent variables, and explanatory.
the goal is for them to be independent variables in the statistical sense. science is a process of refinement so there will undoubtedly be improvements, but they are as independent as they can be based on current knowledge, they can be measured separately, and people exist in every combination (the scales of each measure are not dependent on one another), and we can't describe what we know about personality without including all of them. Myers-Briggs comes to mind as a comparable metric which has more dependence among its variables, and essentially ignores neuroticism.
> the goal is for them to be independent variables in the statistical sense.
No, it isn't. The goal is for them to have high explanatory power. They aren't independent variables, and the fact that they aren't is a frequent criticism of them. But it's not relevant to whether they are useful descriptors or predictors.
> In many studies, the five factors are not fully orthogonal to one another; that is, the five factors are not independent. Orthogonality is viewed as desirable by some researchers because it minimizes redundancy between the dimensions.
It was developed by people fully aware of what orthogonality is, and understanding of why orthogonality is desirable. The fact that it is not perfect is indicative of the complexity of psychology and the bluntness of our tools. There is no system that is more orthogonal that explains near as much (I qualify it that way because dead vs alive is simple and pure but of little explanatory power).
We have nothing better than the Big Five (there are proposed refinements but they are not yet generally accepted), and it is better than what came before. The Big Five separates variables that used to be mixed, and can't yet explain the unexplained, but neither can any other system.
Considering we're talking about real people and the real conversations you have with them, definitely. The 5 people I talk to and the patterns I've come to expect from socializing with them, and the way that those patterns interact with my own behavior, don't really have a neat apples-to-apples comparison with your 5 people and their patterns and how you interact with those patterns, etc. We could both be calling ourselves introverts and extrapolating wildly different chains of observations and predictions about how those hypothetical conversations would be affecting the other one's energy levels, etc.
Introversion level is really just a measure of how much social stimulation you require on average. Everyone has some level above which they feel exhausted and below which they feel lonely/bored.
> Extroverts don't understand this concept of limited capacity for socialization.
Othering >50% of your audience isn’t the best way to make a point, and plenty of extroverts understand this concept perfectly well (myself as an example).
You are right, but it doesn't take many extroverts not understanding this concept to make it feel like it's everybody :)
My mother, for example, is a serious extrovert. When I explained to her that socializing seriously drains me and I need to, for example, spend time alone after attending a party, her response was to ask if I'd seen a therapist about it.
my own experience as someone who used to be very extroverted:
extroversion was meeting a social expectation. i had good social skills and people relied on me to carry social situations. i could entertain, organize and predict needs. i earned that expectation to feed my ego and then became trapped in a vicious cycle.
then i had a fresh start after moving to a new city for grad school and have done my best to avoid any vocal leadership for anything because i know what can happen. organizational, behind the scenes leadership is ok. i wonder how many extroverts would rather be introverts given the opportunity and some introspection
> Exactly how were you doing so? Were you able to predict these needs with "tells" or some other reference point? Did you get assessments wrong?
tells is a good way to put it. had a close friend from my hometown who lived for manipulating people and hanging out with him for 4 years taught me a lot. if he pulled some slick move or long setup on someone (including me) hed discuss the chain of tells and decisions if i asked him. boiled down mostly to confidence, conditioning, in group/out group. ugly stuff. the hook was his ability to manufacture novel, cheap thrills. this was enough to keep everyone interested in sticking around. he liked having cronies and i could do a b- version of him.
ive made many wrong assessments. i ignored the mistakes and focused on successes to keep feeding my ego. to abuse an analogy id burn a bridge without thinking of it because i was already making a new friend to fill that spot.
> What caused you to think it wasn't worth it anymore?
after leaving that environment i noticed how relaxing it was to hang out with my own thoughts. i realized how i was just playing part i had cast myself in for attention and no other real benefit. i happened to take an Excel VBA class my senior year and became obsessed with programming. became more interested in learning to code than anything else. i noticed the benefits of avoiding attention. introverts probably learn these lessons early but i learned them late.
I agree that making an absolute statement like that is not great. But surely, if you understand the concept, you also know that it's way too common for extroverts having zero understanding that some people need to be alone to recharge. They'll call you boring when you don't want to go out after being at the office for 8 hours already, for example. "Come on, it will be so much fun! What will you do when you get home? Play games lol? Come on get out in the world and meet some people!!"
It's also very common for extroverts to assume that just because you need to recharge by not being with people that introverts don't like being with people in the first place.
Social energy for me is a bit like physical energy. I love working out, but then I get tired and need to rest. In this analogy the extroverts somehow gets more energy while working out. That part is very hard for me to understand.
The pandemic was a total eye opener for me. I always thought that (ever since I started working) I didn't like to go to after works, nor parties in the weekend. What I realized was that I really love those things, but that my social battery drains completely at the office so I needed the evenings and most of the weekend to keep running. Hybrid work has complete changed my ability to socialize outside work.
It's a spectrum of multiple things here so I agree that this is too simplistic. You might even label some of these things as features, not bugs.
But the flip side is that the ability to mingle and talk to people is something that doesn't come equally naturally to everyone and some people feel uncertain of themselves when put in situations where they have to mingle with a lot of especially those type of people that are really good at that. Avoiding such situations is a natural response to such negative feelings. I've worked with an autistic colleague who explained to me the notion of these situations being mentally, emotionally, and physically draining. You'd think they'd be hermits! But the opposite is actually true. As it turns out this person had a rich online life that also spilled over into a personal life.
As it turns out, being autistic also means that these people are on the receiving end of a lot of care and training. And some of that stuff actually works. I'm not saying it's easy. But this was a hard working person that was one of the most coacheable people I worked with and in many ways a lot more senior and mature than other people I've worked with.
Socializing is a skill, that's actually something that you can work on and something that can be useful in professional situations. Or even in your personal life. Once you get better at it, you get to talk to nice people, meat new friends, etc. And once you build a relationship with such people you can meet them on your terms as well.
There's also the related trait that some people need to be talking to people all the time in order to feel comfortable. They become uncertain when having to spend time with themselves even. That's probably something that they could work on as well. A lot of these people might be equally unhappy as some lonely people are.
The best description I’ve heard is “introverts are recharged by being away from people, extroverts are recharged by being around people”. As an ambivert, I experience both… sometimes I really need to be in big groups and talking to lots of people, sometimes that exhausts me I need time away.
I also find that switching between introvert and extrovert mode takes effort. If you like being in an introvert mode, then in social environments you move a lot of times between both modes (because you fall back into introvert mode, until someone starts talking to you), and this can be tiring.
but yes, this is true. And it is not something you can build up like a muscle or long distance running. In fact I think trying to build up the amount of time you socialize actually diminishes it
I have (frequent) crippling social anxiety, am definitely an introvert, and I can be social -in the right circumstances-[0] (albeit for a limited period of time[1].)
[0] eg. small group of people I know well, familiar surroundings, ideally without a lot of external noise.
[1] 3-4 hours tends to be my limit even under the best circumstances.
Yes, extroverts do understand this limited capacity. It's like when you live an ultra sedentary lifestyle, and one day you realize you can't catch your breath after walking up four flights of stairs. Like any capacity, socializing requires exercise. We are all descended from a long line of people who lived extremely social lives. It's only in the last decade or two that it became possible to live a productive live by text, alone, without the intense realtime, full mind and full body experience of being with other people. Use it or lose it. And don't assume socialization is easy for some class of "extroverts" who are dominating "introverts" into being full members of the organizations which they work for. It's hard, worthwhile work for everyone. Socialization capacity is like any trait. You have to use it or you'll lose it. I say this because I think modern life is depopulating as people decide they have a condition that's some kind of innate disability. I wish y'all would accept that it's just hard, but worth it.
> We are all descended from a long line of people who lived extremely social lives. It's only in the last decade or two that it became possible to live a productive live by text, alone, without the intense realtime, full mind and full body experience of being with other people.
Most of us are descended from people who lived in small communities and rarely interacted with people who lived outside of them. It's only in the last 200 years (an instant on evolutionary timescales) that the majority of humanity ended up in a position where we have to constantly deal with more than ~30 people on a regular basis.
Sure, we spent a lot of time with those 30 people in the past, but calling that "extremely social" is pretty misleading in the modern context—today that kind of wording evokes a very different image than the small-scale village life that dominated our ancestors' lives.
I'm a hardcore introvert by modern standards, but for me that doesn't mean that I don't enjoy spending time with my small circle of friends and family, it means that when I branch out beyond that small circle socialization is actively draining. I'd have done just fine in village life, it's the completely unnatural modern world that is overwhelming to my social limits, and I get rather tired of extroverts telling me that it's just because I don't try hard enough to "exercise".
> Most of us are descended from people who lived in small communities and rarely interacted with people who lived outside of them. It's only in the last 200 years (an instant on evolutionary timescales) that the majority of humanity ended up in a position where we have to constantly deal with more than ~30 people on a regular basis.
I would be surprised if this is true. Ancient civilizations were complex. When Pompeii erupted the population was around 10k just there. Having the chance to walk around part of it. Everything was dense and close and there were large city centers and markets. I'm sure the rest of Rome is just as big and same for the other cities and empires going back thousands of years.
> When Pompeii erupted the population was around 10k just there.
And Rome (the city) had a population of 1 million or more, but that doesn't change the fact that demographers estimate at most a 10–20% urbanization rate in the Roman empire—meaning at least 80% of the population lived outside of cities in rural areas. And that's Rome, which had a notably high urbanization rate compared to periods before or after, not matched in Europe until the industrial revolution.
Compare that with an 80% urbanization rate in the US today and we're looking at almost exactly the inverse from where we were 2000 years ago in the Mediterranean. And it's even worse if we're just looking at the US, which had a 5% urbanization rate in the 1790 census and didn't even get to 20% until 1860. Where we're at now is simply unparalleled in history, and there's ample evidence that we're not well adapted as a species to this kind of density.
Rural doesn't mean your living secluded away from the world though with two other families to talk to. There was still a society and economy to be part of, governments that rule, wars being fought, religion etc
None of those things required social engagement with large numbers of people on an ongoing basis. Occasional contact with the broader world for business and religion is not the same thing as the intense, frequent, and large-scale social expectations that are a burden for most introverts.
There's a huge difference between going to church on occasion (or even weekly, which was not always the norm) and living in a city with a population density measured in the thousands per square mile.
I think this idea of villages of 30 people where you don't talk to anyone is just a fantasy. Even the Mayflower had 130 people to just set up their new town.
> idea of villages of 30 people where you don't talk to anyone is just a fantasy
I didn't say that—I said you'd regularly interact with only ~30 people (give or take). You'd probably be on good terms with a few dozen more, and it's been demonstrated that we really lose the ability to have relationships entirely by about 100-300.
The average city today has about 8x that number of people per square mile. That's entirely unlike anything that evolution equipped us for, which is why I object to OP's assertion that we all descend from extremely social people. By modern standards we absolutely do not.
todays world gives you so many opportunities to not talk to anyone. if you needed to get something done in the past you need to talk with other people, people were specializing in their abilities. today you can get food delivered to your door, look up repairs on youtube, buy anything you want or need online, do your job remotely, get directions from an app.
in what way do you feel like your expected to talk to anyone in our modern world? even here online, there's no expectation for you to respond to anything I said here
Socializing is a skill and requires exercise, but everyone has its own unique limitations and skill levels. Not everyone throughout history has led an exceptionally social life filled with constant conversation. There are plenty of references to quiet and seclusive people in the bible, for instance. In the Middle Ages, you could join a monastery or convent, which provided a community more suited for introverts. Right now, I wouldn’t be surprised if many introverts feel there is no escape from the extrovert modern life.
It's notable to me every time this topic comes up on HN that an extrovert invariably comes on and straight up tries to argue that introverts are just people who don't try hard enough. When that happens to people with other biological differences it's immediately and rightly decried—even other mental differences have become increasingly recognized and protected from that kind of condescending judgement—but the combination of the hidden-ness of the difference and the fact that those with this difference are less prone to speak up to defend themselves means that it's okay to tell a whole class of people that the difference between them and the average case is that average people try harder.
In my immediate circle alone - my sister is a strong extrovert and always has been. She thrives on large groups. If she's stressed and wants to relax she'll go to a party or downtown dance club or hang out with a dozen acquaintances. She's been that way since tween. I bring her up because she's very upfront, and I trust and believe her, that social engagements alone are NOT, and never have been, hard work or effort. They're natural to her, she gains energy from them, she enjoys them tremendously, and gets recharged through them. This is not my external observation but her convincing expression. I know others like that.
Then there's me :-). Lot of that, such as parties and dance clubs and even large groups of friends, sounds awful to me. Easy on assumptions though : As per my parallel comment, I've been a client-facing consultant for 20 years. I practice and teach soft skills and emotional intelligence at fairly high level at work. Having started as a hands-on techie for the first decade of my career, I haven't written a line of code since 2018 - ALL I do now is talk to and manage and coach and mentor people, meet with clients, etc. I spend about 7 hrs a day actively engaging people professionally.
And it's still as draining as it is rewarding and enjoyable. 20 years of active practice and daily high level socialization has not meaningfully moved the needle on whether I gain energy from people, like my sister always has, or drain energy even with people I enjoy doing activity I like.
Absolutely there's detail and granularity to this - I love teaching and have been a visiting professor for 3 years at local college. I love mentoring and coaching and do it daily. But at the end do the day I strongly crave alone time to recharge after social activities (which is what I call "being an introvert"), whereas I know people (I call them extrovert) who simply don't need that, at all. The notion that simply practice can change that, hasn't been the case for anybody I know.
You can gain skills and that's indeed worthwhile! But that does not automatically alter the energy management situation.
So my apologies, but your post is the most literal proof that some extroverts don't understand this, at all, and like Freud, make wild assumptions based on limited internal experience :-/. It's less of a capacity thing, which I'll agree may get expanded, and more of what does activity do and how does it draw on that capacity.
> We are all descended from a long line of people who lived extremely social lives
Do you think the hunters who were huntering kept chatting all the time? Or the gatherers looking for berries/mushrooms just talked and talked and talked and judged anyone who went by themselves?
Did the goat herder have people walk up the hill with them to prattle on about their family life or could they perhaps be alone in there? Or any craftsman for that matter. The cobbler could just spend time making shoes, they didn't need to talk to customers for 12 hours a day constantly.
> And don't assume socialization is easy for some class of "extroverts" who are dominating "introverts" into being full members of the organizations which they work for.
I don’t assume that - people tell me as much! I have close friends who assure me that socializing is not hard work for them, and they’d yap all day if they didn’t control themselves the same way that I would read or play games all day if I didn’t control myself.
So what you're saying is that extroversion is curable with a bit of a change of social behaviours and environment, and with a bit of practice, discipline and repetition we can turn them into mathematicians, farmers, hunters, philosophers, scientists, monks, priests and witch doctors and negate this artificial always networking and hustling environment that's only been created in the last 200 years with the industrial revolution, communication revolution and growth obsessed capitalism :)
This gives me hope: there's no silver bullet, but one day we can find a cure for our modern curse of excessive extroversion :)
FWIW, I'm "extroverted" in the terms used in this thread, but I'm also all of these: mathemetician, farmer, scientist. We can work on monk or priest but those might be mutually exclusive!
Is anyone else like me? A little socializing goes a really long way for me. I don't hate it, it's not exhausting, I can do it well, and I'm generally seen as a fun person to talk with.
I'm an introvert but not because my "social battery" is discharged by socializing, but instead because I need to discharge in solitude
I have unlimited social stamina and can do it forever, if by forever you mean that if I'm left in socializing without that necessary solitude I will spin off into mania and eventually get in serious trouble
That's definitely me. I'm generally not social, but I love clubbing, dancing and raves. Not just the music (top reason) or the physical aspect, but all the chatting with randoms too. I love the bullshit we talk, the temporary friendships and the places you find yourself at 5am. (and if anyone's wondering, nope, just alcohol)
But I can go once and be good for months. See friends a few times a year as well, and I'm sorted.
This is hard to explain, but I think it's about "who you are/how you see yourself". As if there's a tension in my head, "am I my thoughts, or am I how other people see me?" When I have been more social recently, I ruminate less and am generally happier, but I feel I lose a bit of "depth" in my psyche. I just feel kind of "thin", like a minor character in a TV show. Though writing that, maybe that's just depression trying to pull me back in.
So you seriously think that humans two, three decades ago were extroverted because they couldn't live a productive life by not being extremely sociable and introverted is an unnatural condition where you just need more social excercise? Is this the intellectual level of this community now?
Good counterpoint but I think there's definitely a variance in ease amongst the population. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I am the kind of person that will socialize because I know it's a good thing in general. But I do think some people can perform "socialization feats" just in the same way the best bodybuilders can get super jacked whereas there is no way I'm lookin' like Arnold. haha.
>We are all descended from a long line of people who lived extremely social lives.
Just because something was a necessity for a greater cause in ye olde days does not mean that it is also a good thing in itself. Now that it's not a strict necessity, a not insignificant number of people are admitting they don't like it.
Personally I consider myself more intro- than extrovert. I find people dishonest (even the most honest ones) and dealing with that reality is extremely tiring.
”I used to think I was introverted because I really liked being alone but it turns out I just like being at peace and I am very extroverted when I’m around people who bring me peace.”
Socializing is always draining. I enjoy being around other people and I enjoy socializing, I like going to parties and meeting people and whatever else, but it's extremely tiring for me. No matter how much I like the person it's with, I'll be exhausted afterwards and I'll need a lot of time in solitude and isolation to get all that energy back.
It has nothing to do with how much peace a person brings me. Being social to any degree takes energy and I need to be alone to get that energy back.
Socializing is always draining. It's a physical fact that it simply takes a huge amount of energy to engage with other people, no matter what you think your personality type is. Dealing with socialization is a big part of why we have these huge energy-intensive brains.
I think the discussion here suggests it's an issue of perspective. Is socialization a fact of life, or is it something you are allowed to opt out of?
It's okay to be tired. A day that leaves you exhausted should be celebrated and followed up with rest to prepare for the next day!
Having known plenty of extroverts, I don't see how this is true.
The discussion here is wrong and at odds with the science I've seen and my anecdotal experience. You can't just decide we're all the same and that some of us just have an attitude problem. That's asinine and irritating.
He is right, its a physical fact that talking and doing something takes more energy (not the emotional, but the Joules thing) than sitting around alone.
For example, I like talking a lot, but I can only do it for limited amounts of time. Maybe only a few hours a week. If I'm pushed past that point, I just don't want to chat any more. It's like I'm full of food, but with socialization. After that I find socialization immensely distasteful and irritating.
That's why a 9-5 workplace environment never worked for me. It was forced socialization past my limit. Maybe that's what happened to the guy in this article: they go into defensive mode because they are pushed past their limit.
Extroverts don't understand this concept of limited capacity for socialization.