Don't want to awaken any sleeping dogs here, but what the author describes reminds me more of social anxiety and/or self-esteem issues than introversion.
I'm an introvert. I can sit still and not speak to anyone for weeks and be fine. Happier even. Having no-one around recharges me like nothing else. The reverse is true as well which makes me incredibly popular at parties /s.
When I was young(er), a networking event (or social event of any kind tbh) would have scared me to no end and have me act akward. I'm older now and through the grace of aging I give substantially less fucks. Suddenly these things are no longer the problem they once were. My introversion hasn't changed, in fact I think it got worse.
I have somewhat of a test for this. I think about or even just approach a random person and try to strike a conversation as authentically as I'm able. If even the thought gets me nervous, that's anxiety, not introversion. In my experience a bout of introversion-hunger will feel like "I need to space out now". Like I can't even be bothered with anxiety anymore.
Getting rid of anxiety has a massive ROI. Getting rid of introversion won't work and will probably backfire. At least, that's my experience.
I think there's at least 3 different dimensions here:
1. Comfort vs. Anxiety: how anxious does a particular interaction make you feel.
2. Introversion vs. Extroversion: are you more recharged or more drained by social interaction in general. (anxiety probably causes people to be more drained than they would otherwise - anxious people probably consider themselves more introverted than they actually are)
3. Awkward vs. Fluid: is handling a social situation correctly hard or automatic? (the expectation of being awkward increases anxiety; anxiety may increase awkwardness)
Some extra dimensions:
- Experience level in a given kind of social interaction
- How much social interaction someone "needs" (e.g. they might get recharged by being social, but not need much charging)
How about getting extremely drained in loud and chaotic environments where even conversation abilities break down due to noise? Im getting older and give a lot less fucks as well but some things that were extremely unpleasant that I used to have a hard dime with are no longer on my calendar. Why go through the pain when there is zero gain? Why even bother? If I really have to, in such environments, in order to tolerate it I blast white noise on my headphones, kindof pointless in the end if you ask me. Whereas small settings, with less than a dozen people around are a lot more productive. Not hiding this fact makes it even more tolerable, I just excuse myself from these envs.
I have heard from a psychologist that folks often confuse introversion with social anxiety. Introversion is having your default focus tending to be inwards, whereas social anxiety can make situations like you are describing unbearable.
Obviously there are other reasons for this too like overstimulation from sensory input. But I think there is truth to this statement.
I have a very similar experience. However I gently disagree with the language of introversion getting "worse". To me it's not a negative at all. In lockdowns in 2020 as an extreme example, it showed up as a major strength, a resilience to the loneliness that my extrovert friends struggled badly with.
Oh, I didn’t mean it like that. I meant it “increased”. You are right. I agree, it’s nothing negative and it can be a superpower.
The lockdowns - while societally a major disaster - where something of a personal net positive for me (which I cannot talk about because folks become angry with me).
I agree that social anxiety and introversion often get conflated. Another component of introversion I have found for myself seems to be physiological. I have always considered myself fairly introverted and have also had a fair amount of social anxiety. In my younger years I largely isolated myself for large periods of time. At one point I started taking a vitamin B supplement to attempt to treat some RSI nerve issues. It didn't seem to impact what I was trying to treat, but I began to crave social interaction which was challenging for me because nothing in my life was structured to provide me with social interaction and I still had enough social anxiety that I did not even consider seeking out interaction more directly (like going to a bar and chatting with people). The craving of social interaction went away after I stopped taking the vitamin B supplement. I experimented on and off with the vitamin B, but it eventually led to me having severe insomnia when taking it so I had to stop. I have noticed a similar but milder response to supplementing vitamin D (both feeling more social as well as insomnia).
I have something to add to this. As for me during the years I’ve mentioned that that anxiety is highly tied with a purpose of a given conservation.
Like, things go more smoothly when I do them for work compared to other purposes. It's like when I'm doing something for work, it's easier, as if I have a real reason to communicate with someone, unlike other times. Although it doesn’t annoy me much, I’m interested to know how widespread this is?
This for sure; it's a kind of anxiety that can be alleviated with self-confidence and exposure over time, or in other words, practice. Loads of people have trouble with small talk because they don't know how it works, but it can be learned and practiced.
I absolutely think they are heavily correlated, not least because being an introvert makes it both harder to build up enough experience to get past social anxieties, and easier to make up excuses (to yourself) to avoid trying to, but my social anxieties in most cases have largely gone (some after putting in a lot of effort to expose myself to situations I found both horrifying and draining; now they're just draining), and in other scenarios were never there, while my introversion is as strong as ever.
I don't see anything in here that I would call a "How-To Guide." This reads mostly like an ad for LinkedIn and then they threw in a very poor ChatGPT reference at the end to hit the keywords.
I think extroversion and introversion are just orthogonal skill sets. The solution can simply be “get better at extroversion.”
For instance, small talk. You may style yourself as someone too intellectual to be entertained by small talk, and profess to be terrible at making small talk. This is to misunderstand the value proposition of small talk, which is to establish trust and rapport with strangers before you commit to sharing any high value information. To be fair the value of social customs are often not grokked even where they are followed and are effective. But if you need a reason for everything, figure it out.
Also, confidence. This is simply a function of how positively you expect others to receive your presence/engagement. People
who are quiet and taciturn in one setting will often be charismatic and open in another setting where they know the audience. Realistically appraise why others might react positively to you, and work on being able to deliver that value. The confidence will flow naturally from there.
What you describe has nothing to do with introversion or extroversion. Those are social skills and, yes, they're learnable. My favorite book on the subject is superhuman social skills by Tynan. He's an introvert.
If you're curious, Introversion and Extroversion are characterized by different brain chemistry. Introverts make more heavy use of the acetylcholine pathways in the brain and Extroverts make more heavy use of the dopamine/adrenaline pathways in the brain. A more detailed analysis can be found here: https://musingsonmormonism.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/easily-t...
When you exercise different skills, your brain activity changes, yes. Doesn’t mean these are real categories. Brain activity of a tennis player will be different from the brain activity of a concert pianist.
> I think extroversion and introversion are just orthogonal skill sets. The solution can simply be “get better at extroversion.”
No. Introversion and extroversion aren't skills, they're things that you are. You might as well say that the solution to being short is to just 'get better at being tall'. It doesn't work that way.
Introversion is not shyness. Introversion is not social anxiety. Introversion means that you expend energy when you deal with other people, and extroverts gain energy when dealing with other people.
I'm introverted by nature. I function perfectly well in social situations. I can do small talk, I can give presentations, the whole bit. But doing those things mentally wears me out. The bigger the group I'm dealing with is, the faster I get drained, and once my energy is drained I have to get some time away from the group to recharge.
Extroverts are the opposite. Their mental batteries get drained by being alone, and they get charged up via social interactions.
“Energy”, “mental batteries” - these are entirely made up concepts.
Any sort of activity is tiring - it is especially tiring if you aren’t very good at it, if you have to make a conscious effort rather than being so competent that it’s “second nature.”
> The solution can simply be “get better at extroversion.”
I agree completely as a former shut-in. I just forced myself to be as extroverted as possible for a while until it came more naturally. I still prefer to be an introvert and have a 'social battery' limit but now I actually understand socialization and can start/direct conversations for my own goals/enjoyment.
It was difficult in the beginning but I just thought a lot about the words I and others used: how they were delivered, and the underlying motivation behind them (even if it was trivial small talk).
No this has nothing to do with introversion. It has nothing to do with social skills or confidence. Most introverts are actually quite charming one on one.
For introverts social contact is simply EXHAUSTING. So there is a high cost to every social interaction. Hence why they avoid parties, or responding to your messages or any of the other things that extorverts seem to think are so "fun". I wish extroverts would understand this...
Yes, I am aware of the pop psychology ideas. I just don’t see why I should believe them.
Doing things that you aren’t good at, that you haven’t effectively practiced, is tiring. If you aren’t an experienced driver, for instance, a lengthy, unfamiliar journey will feel exhausting. Once you get good, it’s second nature, and you don’t bat an eyelid.
It’s pretty simple. You don’t need to invent this concept about special types of people who are “tired” by social contact.
Right there’s nothing preventing introverts from being among the most sociable people. Obama is considered an introvert and so is Gandhi. Both were able to build enormous energy and lead others through their personalities and speech.
I don’t however think it needs to be a goal that leads to being good at small talk. That really comes from agreeableness which is high among some introverts but absent in others. It’s another big 5 personality trait. The idea that small talk is a means to an end is needed if the person is lower on agreeableness and is more critical.
Nah, the mirror image of this would probably be a meetup for management type folks, with talks praising the efficacy of NOT interrupting your team when doing work requiring deep attention, let them only come to the office when it is really useful, stop doing meetings, etc.
More that it doesn't need to have a big emphasis on social skills or the people you know, but on merit and skills. Most software development jobs are already like that though, with both face to face interviews and take-home assignments.
Some do whiteboard interviews, but I don't really get those because they're not representative of the job you will be expected to do - unless it's for a teaching position.
The entire concept of career networking is rooted in expanding access to nepotism and is a poor substitute for an objective evaluation of merits.
With that being said, it obviously has value since nepotism won't be going away anytime soon.
What OP likely isn't aware of is the works published over the past 30+ years for managers/owners on how to relate to their probably-introverted programmer employees.
Nevertheless we live in a world where sometimes it’s people’s networking ability that allows them to be successful far more so than their skill alone would achieve.
It may not be “fair”, but if we want to succeed in what is arguably the extroverts world, we unfortunately need to play the game too (at least to an extent) or we may find ourselves overlooked.
It's also not fair to completely dismiss networking as just "something extroverts do" which carries no signal about skills.
Most jobs benefit from having good people skills, communication skills, and being proactive. If you hit it off with someone at a networking event, they've more or less already checked off those boxes.
> The researchers randomly changed the “People You May Know” recommendations algorithm that LinkedIn shows its users, so that the prevalence of weaker and stronger connections varied among people on the site. The experiment showed that weaker ties (where a pair of users had only one mutual friend, say) were more likely to lead to job applications and job moves than those where people had 25 mutual friends or more.
Was this research experiment with people's careers and livelihoods done with informed consent of human subjects?
> “The findings suggest that some users had better access to job opportunities or a meaningful difference in access to job opportunities,” said Michael Zimmer, an associate professor of computer science and the director of the Center for Data, Ethics and Society at Marquette University. “These are the kind of long-term consequences that need to be contemplated when we think of the ethics of engaging in this kind of big data research.”
However I strongly agree with a sibling comment that these platforms are constantly varying this kind of thing without any producing any kind of systematic learning, and it's not clear why this particular manipulation should come under more scrutiny than any other. At least this manipulation produced published research.
This sounds like a fair question, and it might be (including from a legal standpoint - IANAL), but the way I figure it LinkedIn will be constantly experimenting with their recommendations anyway, whether those results are shared for research purposes or not, and they're not going to ask your permission to do that. It's what you sign up for when you join the site.
And it's the same with other social media. Perhaps it seems more seriously because it's LinkedIn and it's a "professional" network. I'm not really defending them: it's more that I've always taken the view that I am responsible for my career and, whilst LinkedIn's tools and recommendations might be helpful, they're also not definitive, and I'm not going to hold them responsible for either opportunities that don't work out or for failing to show me all possible opportunities that might be a good fit.
On top of that, I'm not convinced it means what they think it means.
To me, having used LinkedIn quite heavily, the people I have 25 mutual "friends" or more with are almost all "super connectors" that spam huge numbers of connection requests (and I, like many others on LinkedIn, accept a lot of connections from people I don't know, "just in case" it leads somewhere).
And so they are frequently the weakest ties of all.
I'm not convinced you can measure "weak" vs "strong" ties on LinkedIn by number of connections, because so much tends to depend on circumstances. E.g. is there a culture for using LinkedIn in your job, or does your boss look at it with fear? (I had a manager once who kept an eye on which recruiters people connected to...) Was there an exodus that triggered people to connect to huddle together? Are the people you care about actually active on LinkedIn?
Was your previous company big? E.g. I have many connections from big past employers that I've never spoken to. They're not strong ties, and certainly not stronger than the persons I have only a couple of shared connections to because they're far away and the company we worked together at was tiny, but whom I've hired twice and spoken to many times over many years.
If I write a blog post about how I recommend people use PostgreSQL instead of MySQL, and it so happens that I am a PostgreSQL consultant, do I need to require informed consent from every reader before displaying the recommendation?
At first I was surprised the economist would talk about the networking stack, but this is about social networking. The introverts bit makes much more sense.
Regarding the article it says "because they bring you new information, more infrequent and distant relationships (or “weak ties”) are more useful than close contacts." Mark Granovetter studied that in 1973 in The Strength of Weak Ties.
I read the article and remembered why I cancelled my sub to The Economist. This was written by an intern who had half read the research paper with 15 minutes to filing deadline. LI/virtual and physical networking aren't the same, and, per comments, the author had not taken the trouble to understand what an introvert is. Poor stuff.
I think it was funny. Not much meat to it but entertaining. If every article was written like this, it would be tiresome, but a few per issue I don't mind.
Readit News
I'm an introvert. I can sit still and not speak to anyone for weeks and be fine. Happier even. Having no-one around recharges me like nothing else. The reverse is true as well which makes me incredibly popular at parties /s.
When I was young(er), a networking event (or social event of any kind tbh) would have scared me to no end and have me act akward. I'm older now and through the grace of aging I give substantially less fucks. Suddenly these things are no longer the problem they once were. My introversion hasn't changed, in fact I think it got worse.
I have somewhat of a test for this. I think about or even just approach a random person and try to strike a conversation as authentically as I'm able. If even the thought gets me nervous, that's anxiety, not introversion. In my experience a bout of introversion-hunger will feel like "I need to space out now". Like I can't even be bothered with anxiety anymore.
Getting rid of anxiety has a massive ROI. Getting rid of introversion won't work and will probably backfire. At least, that's my experience.
1. Comfort vs. Anxiety: how anxious does a particular interaction make you feel.
2. Introversion vs. Extroversion: are you more recharged or more drained by social interaction in general. (anxiety probably causes people to be more drained than they would otherwise - anxious people probably consider themselves more introverted than they actually are)
3. Awkward vs. Fluid: is handling a social situation correctly hard or automatic? (the expectation of being awkward increases anxiety; anxiety may increase awkwardness)
Some extra dimensions:
- Experience level in a given kind of social interaction
- How much social interaction someone "needs" (e.g. they might get recharged by being social, but not need much charging)
Obviously there are other reasons for this too like overstimulation from sensory input. But I think there is truth to this statement.
The lockdowns - while societally a major disaster - where something of a personal net positive for me (which I cannot talk about because folks become angry with me).
Like, things go more smoothly when I do them for work compared to other purposes. It's like when I'm doing something for work, it's easier, as if I have a real reason to communicate with someone, unlike other times. Although it doesn’t annoy me much, I’m interested to know how widespread this is?
I absolutely think they are heavily correlated, not least because being an introvert makes it both harder to build up enough experience to get past social anxieties, and easier to make up excuses (to yourself) to avoid trying to, but my social anxieties in most cases have largely gone (some after putting in a lot of effort to expose myself to situations I found both horrifying and draining; now they're just draining), and in other scenarios were never there, while my introversion is as strong as ever.
For instance, small talk. You may style yourself as someone too intellectual to be entertained by small talk, and profess to be terrible at making small talk. This is to misunderstand the value proposition of small talk, which is to establish trust and rapport with strangers before you commit to sharing any high value information. To be fair the value of social customs are often not grokked even where they are followed and are effective. But if you need a reason for everything, figure it out.
Also, confidence. This is simply a function of how positively you expect others to receive your presence/engagement. People who are quiet and taciturn in one setting will often be charismatic and open in another setting where they know the audience. Realistically appraise why others might react positively to you, and work on being able to deliver that value. The confidence will flow naturally from there.
If you're curious, Introversion and Extroversion are characterized by different brain chemistry. Introverts make more heavy use of the acetylcholine pathways in the brain and Extroverts make more heavy use of the dopamine/adrenaline pathways in the brain. A more detailed analysis can be found here: https://musingsonmormonism.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/easily-t...
"Alcohol also acts on at least some of these receptors, enhancing the function of some nAChR subtypes and inhibiting the activity of others"
No. Introversion and extroversion aren't skills, they're things that you are. You might as well say that the solution to being short is to just 'get better at being tall'. It doesn't work that way.
Introversion is not shyness. Introversion is not social anxiety. Introversion means that you expend energy when you deal with other people, and extroverts gain energy when dealing with other people.
I'm introverted by nature. I function perfectly well in social situations. I can do small talk, I can give presentations, the whole bit. But doing those things mentally wears me out. The bigger the group I'm dealing with is, the faster I get drained, and once my energy is drained I have to get some time away from the group to recharge.
Extroverts are the opposite. Their mental batteries get drained by being alone, and they get charged up via social interactions.
Any sort of activity is tiring - it is especially tiring if you aren’t very good at it, if you have to make a conscious effort rather than being so competent that it’s “second nature.”
I agree completely as a former shut-in. I just forced myself to be as extroverted as possible for a while until it came more naturally. I still prefer to be an introvert and have a 'social battery' limit but now I actually understand socialization and can start/direct conversations for my own goals/enjoyment.
It was difficult in the beginning but I just thought a lot about the words I and others used: how they were delivered, and the underlying motivation behind them (even if it was trivial small talk).
For introverts social contact is simply EXHAUSTING. So there is a high cost to every social interaction. Hence why they avoid parties, or responding to your messages or any of the other things that extorverts seem to think are so "fun". I wish extroverts would understand this...
Doing things that you aren’t good at, that you haven’t effectively practiced, is tiring. If you aren’t an experienced driver, for instance, a lengthy, unfamiliar journey will feel exhausting. Once you get good, it’s second nature, and you don’t bat an eyelid.
It’s pretty simple. You don’t need to invent this concept about special types of people who are “tired” by social contact.
I don’t however think it needs to be a goal that leads to being good at small talk. That really comes from agreeableness which is high among some introverts but absent in others. It’s another big 5 personality trait. The idea that small talk is a means to an end is needed if the person is lower on agreeableness and is more critical.
Deleted Comment
I'm fine as I am as an introvert, thank you very much. Maybe we're not the only ones who need to be more accommodating of the world?
Some do whiteboard interviews, but I don't really get those because they're not representative of the job you will be expected to do - unless it's for a teaching position.
With that being said, it obviously has value since nepotism won't be going away anytime soon.
What OP likely isn't aware of is the works published over the past 30+ years for managers/owners on how to relate to their probably-introverted programmer employees.
Deleted Comment
It may not be “fair”, but if we want to succeed in what is arguably the extroverts world, we unfortunately need to play the game too (at least to an extent) or we may find ourselves overlooked.
Most jobs benefit from having good people skills, communication skills, and being proactive. If you hit it off with someone at a networking event, they've more or less already checked off those boxes.
Was this research experiment with people's careers and livelihoods done with informed consent of human subjects?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/24/business/linkedin-social-...
> “The findings suggest that some users had better access to job opportunities or a meaningful difference in access to job opportunities,” said Michael Zimmer, an associate professor of computer science and the director of the Center for Data, Ethics and Society at Marquette University. “These are the kind of long-term consequences that need to be contemplated when we think of the ethics of engaging in this kind of big data research.”
However I strongly agree with a sibling comment that these platforms are constantly varying this kind of thing without any producing any kind of systematic learning, and it's not clear why this particular manipulation should come under more scrutiny than any other. At least this manipulation produced published research.
And it's the same with other social media. Perhaps it seems more seriously because it's LinkedIn and it's a "professional" network. I'm not really defending them: it's more that I've always taken the view that I am responsible for my career and, whilst LinkedIn's tools and recommendations might be helpful, they're also not definitive, and I'm not going to hold them responsible for either opportunities that don't work out or for failing to show me all possible opportunities that might be a good fit.
To me, having used LinkedIn quite heavily, the people I have 25 mutual "friends" or more with are almost all "super connectors" that spam huge numbers of connection requests (and I, like many others on LinkedIn, accept a lot of connections from people I don't know, "just in case" it leads somewhere).
And so they are frequently the weakest ties of all.
I'm not convinced you can measure "weak" vs "strong" ties on LinkedIn by number of connections, because so much tends to depend on circumstances. E.g. is there a culture for using LinkedIn in your job, or does your boss look at it with fear? (I had a manager once who kept an eye on which recruiters people connected to...) Was there an exodus that triggered people to connect to huddle together? Are the people you care about actually active on LinkedIn?
Was your previous company big? E.g. I have many connections from big past employers that I've never spoken to. They're not strong ties, and certainly not stronger than the persons I have only a couple of shared connections to because they're far away and the company we worked together at was tiny, but whom I've hired twice and spoken to many times over many years.
Regarding the article it says "because they bring you new information, more infrequent and distant relationships (or “weak ties”) are more useful than close contacts." Mark Granovetter studied that in 1973 in The Strength of Weak Ties.