This article is total overgeneralizing scientifically embarrassing bullshit. Not one single argument actually makes sense. Not even the spelling one. As a latin-cultivated person I can tell you: extrovert is THE correct spelling. Introvert, which is the opposite, comes from intra (inside) + versum (directed). It is intrOvert, as it is extrOvert. Second, there is no scientific evidence suggesting extroverts are less creative than introverts. All the other arguments are so ridicule and coming from gross scientific misinterpretations, that it is actually not even possible to bring them into consideration.
"This article is total overgeneralizing scientifically embarrassing bullshit."
Ex-freaking-zactly! It's complete and utter bullshit written by a socially-inept person who should be ashamed of this borderline racist-level propaganda against extroverts.
I'm happy to make some generalizations in return. Maybe the reason this person needs to blame extroverts is because nobody wants to work with them in the first place. Maybe they're actually not an introvert, but an introverted sociopath incapable of feeling empathy for others and thus unable to relate to them on any level whatsoever. Just maybe.
The latin thing really got me too; the author constantly comes across as inconsiderate and elitist. He knows best, and being introverted is best. Case closed. Everything else is just him showing off how smart he is, and how he can totally do things better than people who are succeeding, but he doesn't want to because it might involve interpersonal communication.
"It has consistently been found that people produce more ideas when working alone as compared to when working in a group. Yet, people generally believe that group brainstorming is more effective than individual brainstorming. Further, group members are more satisfied with their performance than individuals, whereas they have generated fewer ideas."
I've never judged the productivity of a group session by the number of ideas produced. I think that's a terrible measure. I judge it by the quality of the few that the group settles on by the end. And in my experience, group sessions produce ideas of a quality that I could not have produced by myself. When working with good people, we riff off each other and fill in the gaps in each other's ideas that we wouldn't have even realized were there if we were working on our own.
It's very hard to spot your own weaknesses. I'm convinced that feedback is great and that getting out of your own head is great, and a good meeting can deliver that. Not always, of course. I'm a programmer. I like my me time, and I'm definitely not arguing for group work all or even close to most of the time. But I'm definitely a better person for the trips I take away from my shell.
Group brainstorming is also about building a consensus about the ideas produced. People are more invested in ideas where they've put their mark. It may lead to bike-shedding, but sometimes that necessary if you want everyone to be invested and dedicated to the approach.
Whilst there are dangers, like group polarization, I completely agree that group activities, even meetings, are certainly as much about ensuring personal involvement and ownership of the outcomes, than just ideation alone.
I agree that really good ideas can come out of discussion and interaction with other people -- but I think this works best with 1-3 other people. With a small group, you can have a productive conversation that successfully identifies and solves the problems in an idea. But the least effective group brain-storming sessions are ones with a large number of people, and those are also the ones that are worst for introverts. With too large a group you end up with a reluctant high school English class socratic seminar.
"When working with good people, we riff off each other and fill in the gaps in each other's ideas that we wouldn't have even realized were there if we were working on our own."
The kind of synergy you describe may happen when a bunch of really smart people get together, assuming that their egos don't get in the way. But, on average, meetings are attended by average people. Which means that smart people will be outnumbered (and perhaps resented).
Interesting article. One of the biggest benefits I noticed, when I first started doing contract work remotely, was that I absolutely did not miss meetings. Previously, I had been working for a fairly large corporation and I switched to contracting to do my old job. Without the forced meetings, I was much more productive overall. 99% of the time, the outcome of a meeting was just as easily accomplished via a well thought out email or a quick chat session.
Even better, I noticed that meetings forced people to change their behaviour. They would "work to the meetings" meaning they would orient their efforts in order to be able to contribute in the meeting. Sometimes that meant holding back good ideas till the meeting and other times it meant working specifically on an area just to show it off in a meeting. I think this has a lot to do with the extrovert/introvert argument. The introverts in the office were already worried about the meeting itself so they had to over prepare in order to not be anxious about it. This was a totally foreign concept to the more extroverted in the office.
I personally think the majority of meetings helped management types feel more connected with what's going on, especially if they were mostly disconnected the rest of the time, and for the people involved they ended up being almost always just a waste of time.
"majority of meetings helped management types feel more connected" ... isn't that technically there job? it might not be a need to feel, but a need to get information out of people they are struggling to get otherwise...
Yeah it is, I meant it more like they could have been connecting a dozen different ways, but they choose to wait for meetings instead, which ultimately accomplished very little.
Sure is. Collaboration is the trait that made humanity advance to where we are today. And things are better today than they have ever been in the past for introverts: much more collaboration is done remotely.
> The problem with extraverts — not all of them, I grant you, but many, so many — is a lack of imagination.
This is "the" problem? I think it more accurate to say that the author's problem with extroverts (see below) is that they want to socialize with him. Socialization is mentally good for most people, including most introverts.
Honestly, the three paragraphs starting here make me wonder if he has something deeper than simple introversion. I mean, it's fine to prefer to be alone, but it's less fine to feel fear about standard social interactions. If he does the latter, that's kind of a problem to my mind.
(A problem, by the way, that I deal with. I force myself to go to get-togethers with more than about five people. I'll be upset about it as the get-together looms, but I almost always enjoy it once I'm there.)
> So, extraverts of the world, I invite you to make a New Year’s resolution: Refrain from organizing stuff.
Oof. He's asking the majority of the people of the world to change their (generally healthy) habits for his benefit.
Humans are built for socialization. Socialization is a mentally positive activity for most people, and most people crave it.
> extrovert is common but wrong, because extra- is the proper Latin prefix.
extra- being the proper Latin prefix does not imply "extrovert" is wrong. We're speaking English, not Latin.
I've never met an introvert as introverted as the author. I'm not sure if he's caricaturing his own thoughts, or is something way out of the ordinary.
I'm not sure whether I'm an introvert or an extravert. I identify as the latter these days when forced, but definitely identified as an introvert in grade school; I don't really like either term. In any case, I certainly quickly grow tired of parties, or social situations where I need to meet a lot of people.
But throwing a spelling bee just so I wouldn't have to meet more kids sounds like something qualitatively different from anything I've ever felt or known anyone to ever feel.
I've felt it, and have in fact thrown competitions to avoid having to deal with more strange people.
Usually my line of thought would go something like this: "Can I slip away without being too conspicuous? No? Then I'll find a way to avoid going in the first place."
In recent times I've tried forcing myself to attend situations that involve lots of people, but I can only take about 30 minutes (1 hour tops) of that before I start shutting down and have to leave. I can extend that a bit if I consume lots of alcohol, but I'd rather not do so if I can avoid it.
For me, the perfect social gathering involves no more than 4-5 people in a relatively quiet place.
I don't think the author is especially introverted.
He doesn't want to grab coffee or what not with random strangers. Well that's okay.
He doesn't want to go in meetings all the time. Sounds fine too.
Finally and probably most importantly, he doesn't want people who _just_ want to rule others (which is also a luxury of the extravert). That actually sounds ok too.
As usual and as with everything however, the most productive people and the best actual leaders will be the ones who can balance the two just right.
The author is propagating the stereotype that introverts are anti-social. This is not the case. We simply require more time to ourselves for mental wellness. This does not preclude socializing or going to larger events.
The author could politely decline these invitations, citing personal reasons, while asserting that he appreciates being invited, but rather seems to take a confrontational approach. Lack of social grace, rather than introversion, seems to be his problem.
The author is propagating the stereotype that introverts are anti-social. This is not the case. We simply require more time to ourselves for mental wellness. This does not preclude socializing or going to larger events.
Exactly what I was about to post. The author sounds like he has a serious social phobia. I can definitely relate to what he says, but those are not qualities specific to an introvert.
My sociopath meter is off the charts. Worked with one for 5 years and he shared almost this exact same worldview, including the stereotypes and phobias.
In any case, this generalized propaganda BS is to be disregarded in full.
This article, subtle culture-war subtext aside, traffics in the most vapid and disingenuous kind of generalizations. No craning of my neck will find an angle from which this adds value. Flagged.
It should be pointed out that the author is not a programmer but a college english professor so he is likely being invited to different sorts of meetings than the tech crowd may be used to.
Also, I happen to know the author to some small degree and I'm pretty sure his tongue is somewhat in cheek...
This article flies in the face of so much contradictory experience that I'm not sure what to make of it. Here on HN we regularly see articles espousing the concepts of pair programming and code reviews and SCRUMs and other techniques involving groups. In research settings we regularly get together for lab meetings and journal clubs and conferences and discuss ideas, and generate lots of new ideas. Heck, people regularly convene on sites like Stack Overflow, not to just get answers, but to discuss ideas. These are all meetings which are productive and generate ideas, not just the convening of pontificating idiots.
There was a TED talk linked here on HN a while back, called "where good ideas come from" [1]. It completely disagrees with this article, but with facts instead of generalizations.
I personally have a hard time designing without talking with team members, friends, or random bystanders about the work. I do make breakthroughs when I sit down for some good ideation by myself, but before moving forward, I have to talk to someone. At work, this is a meeting (although informal). Working by yourself it's easy to get spun out onto random tangents and think for hours about rabbitholes, that in reflection with someone else aren't that important.
So, I'm an introvert, and I'm not antisocial. I don't agree with the author's argument at all. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that his opinion doesn't end there, either, and it's to get people talking and thinking, so I'll do that :)
Some of my best friends are extroverts. What's important is they understand that I approach social situations (and, indeed, many things) differently than they do. As well as just being fun people, they really help me to navigate (and organize) social situations and to meet new people. Without them, I think I would be pretty boring, and I would be even less creative than I am. After all, a big part of creativity is making unexpected connections, and you can't do that if your own ideas have all developed in a vacuum.
Sure, I think it's puzzling that some people really do appear to benefit from those regular meetings in which they sit in a circle and think aloud (and slowly) for 45 minutes every week, but I've met enough conscientiousness extroverts to know that I need to appreciate what works for them, let them have their time, and (where it's appropriate) try to work with them on their terms. Really awesome people will return the favour, and there are more than enough really awesome people out there. Honest.
Do take into some account, however small the effect may be, that there will inevitably be more extr[o]verted opinion said/posted here than those supporting introversion, because no matter how much easier it is for introverts to type their answers here than to say it in real life, it is still easier to type nothing at all.
As an introvert, I sometimes wonder how much my introversion is due to (1) my public-social-self-sensitivity (i.e. how much i care what other people think) AND/OR (2) an exaggerated reaction to my disappointment with throwaway superficial extroversions (i.e. dumb obvious chatter).
This has NOTHING to do with being extro or intro verted.
Meeting suck because they have a diminishing return that is hard to see. Being on the same page is awesome, spitting out "ideas" and "visions" for the company are rarely productive. Save that for going out to drinks after work.
This article is itself complete hyperbole, and seems to just be glossing over a social disorder. Being a hermit and being an introvert are not the same, we have not come so far in society by ignoring one another, even animals work together and the ones that refuse are shunned. This is such a terrible generalization of something totally incorrect in the first place.
> I invite you to make a New Year’s resolution: Refrain from organizing stuff. Don’t plan parties or outings...
All in the name of productivity! If the author feels parties are taking too much of his time away from work, can't he just not attend? No need to try and ruin everyone else's fun just because he wants to be miserable.
That's just the point. He's miserable when people _force_ him into social situations that serve no purpose other than socializing. He's not miserable when he's alone.
I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp for a lot of people.
The only thing that would force you to go to a party is not wanting to disappoint/irritate people. If the author doesn't care about having anything to do with other people so much then that shouldn't bother him.
I've noticed two types of introverts: easy-going ones and curmudgeony ones. Likewise, I've noticed two types of extroverts: excited extroverts and unhappy ones. This is still a gross simplification, but it makes it easier to think about people's perspectives..
I think he misunderstands the purpose of meetings, or maybe I'm just cynical.
Meetings are about showing social status. It's a way of establishing your control over others' time. It's not "Let's get together and be awesome." It's usually a show of either dominance, or deference (to a higher-status entity; you are deferring by committing your reports' time). Obviously, a few meetings have a real purpose, but most don't. Most are on the calendar to confirm authority and status relationships.
I once heard it said that status meetings (as in project status) are actually not about reporting status, but confirming the (social) status of the boss.
I think you work for the wrong company. This may be true at MegaCorp, Inc. but in my experience working with small groups of programmers & engineers, when a meeting is called everyone makes damn sure that the purpose is to get together and be awesome.
