For an extrovert, being alone expends energy and socializing replenishes it.

For an introvert, socializing expends energy and being alone replenishes it.

It's not about social skills, or whether you enjoy the company of others. It's just that if socializing feels like it requires effort and makes you tired, you are probably an introvert. By this standard, I am most definitely an introvert. I like socializing, hanging out with friends, and going to parties, but they make me feel tired and I need time alone to "recharge" afterward. It's especially draining to meet new people. Among people I already know well, there's less "friction" so it uses up less of my social energy.

I also think (anecdotally, I don't have any statistics to back this up) that introverts are the majority, while extroverts are a highly visible minority. They tend to connect people and provide "social glue."

http://the-pastry-box-project.net/chris-coyier/2013-april-3/

> The truth about the difference between introverts and extroverts lies in how personal energy is used and gained. Introverts need a lot of recharging time to gain energy. Being out-and-about, especially in social situations, is draining. Alone time is the only way to get that energy back. For me, it’s a lot of alone time. Not sitting in a dark cave staring at the wall, but somewhere comfortable where I can do other activities I enjoy. Laying on a hotel bed catching up on the internet totally counts. At home cooking dinner totally counts. Even reading a book at a coffee shop counts.

This sounds like a Forer statement to me, to be honest. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect) Just about everyone needs time to relax by themselves sometimes. Wanting to be left alone once in a while doesn't make you an introvert.

While this sort of grouping is certainly a huge oversimplification it does hold a great deal of truth in my experience and observation. I personally am naturally introverted and the whole "alone time to recharge" thing has always been true for me. Even if I'm having the time of my life hanging out with my close friends it's still the case that once I get back home I will typically crave alone time, often even in preference to sleep even if it's super late at night. I also used to have a roommate who was a pretty classic extrovert and his behavior fit into the "recharge by interacting with people" model perfectly. There's certainly a lot more complexity to social interaction than just introversion and extroversion but to a first order approximation it is astoundingly accurate.

I think it's more of a spectrum than a binary thing. I agree, everyone needs to be alone sometimes, but I guess it differs on how much time they need to relax by themselves, and how much or how often they want to be left alone.

I'm okay with meeting new people if it's a relatively small setting of 4-5 people. Otherwise it's usually a waste of time.

Now I don't know how to define myself.

I get energized by doing energizing activities and being around energizing people, and I get drained in the opposite. I used to play in a rock band and I enjoyed entertaining crowds- and that was simultaneously energizing and draining, in separate spheres.

I suppose it can be useful initially to identify as one or the other, but as you really begin to feast on your life you start to realize that life is far too complex to be binary.

Perhaps you're a person, rather than a label.

Or maybe labels are ok until some singularity style computer can know exactly what each individual is and how to exactly optimise their happiness maybe the approximations labels give us make us better off.

When used correctly they can allow us to better know ourselves and also be more understanding of those around us.

Introvert and extrovert are fine as loose labels, but they're really not suitable to be used as actionable terms.

From Susan Cain talk linked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion#A...

But while labels are handy as a shortcut to talk about or research something easily, at the end of the day everyone is different.

I think it's the same as the Night Owl vs Early Bird thing, where I don't think there is a real distinction either. I've experienced a complete shift from staying up until 1am to getting at 5am and now I don't think there's a real personality type associated with either schedule. I can do both fluidly, so I see it just as a lifestyle difference.

People are social beings, so both introverts and extroverts need friendships. The difference lies in the quantity and quality.

There's a myth that people are "introverts" or "extroverts". It's a continuous unimodal attribute, not a bimodal one. There's people who are more "introverted", just as some people are really tall, but most people are just average. The "normal" person quite enjoys hanging out with friends, for a few hours a day.

I think there's another issue here - people always have double standards. It has little to do with introversion and extroversion. Try interrupting an extroverted person when they are busy, and they'll be just as pissed off.

It's probably true that highly introverted will tend to shy away from interrupting people (it's called forethought, which can be one of the things that makes them introverted). It's probably also true that extroverted people will be more direct when they want to shoo someone away. I think the main point is, people need to have the social intelligence to respect other people's personal space, and to defend their own space.

It's fashionable to think personality is a zero-sum game - introverts are smart, but lack social intelligence. That's not really true. Most people have pretty good social intelligence, but only use it when it suits them.

With an introvert you can only assume their level of incompetence. An extrovert will gladly extol the level of his ignorance.

Just because something starts from intuition, does not make it non-science. (Although, I suppose that's usually the case... there's plenty of pseudo-science to go around.) I've heard that Maxwell was motivated by "elegance" when he came up with Maxwell's equations.

The question is: does it stand the test of scientific rigor?

You said that Jung's theory "happened to be mostly incorrect". Do you have links to research on this? I am genuinely curious.

I think that the Myers-Briggs temperament sorter can and should be subjected to scientific scrutiny.

Let me propose a hypothetical personality test: "Do you prefer Pepsi or Coke?" From here, we can do simple statistical correlations. Suppose we dug a little deeper and discovered that: 62% of the people who prefer Coke prefer going to movies over sports games on Friday night. 71% of the people who prefer Pepsi prefer going to sports games over going to the movies on Saturdays. (This is a hypothetical example that I just invented in my head.)

There might be a deeper reason for this... Coke advertises at movie theaters like crazy, and Pepsi advertises at sporting events like crazy. Or whatever.

So... if you are oblivious to the underlying science of the questionnaire, and if you answer honestly, then I can use basic statistics to guess something about your personality, at above chance levels.

(BTW, these are just preferences. Just because you prefer Pepsi doesn't mean that you don't occasionally enjoy a Coke, etc.)

Likewise, there could be a study of the Myers-Briggs temperament sorter. (For those who don't know, the Myers-Briggs temperament sorter has four dimensions: Extrovert-vs-Introvert, iNtuitive-vs-Sensing, Feeling-vs-Thinking, Perceptive-vs-Judging.) We can do plain-old statistical correlations between people's answers on the test and their life choices. Are "SJ"s more likely to become police officers or school teachers? Are "NT"s more likely to become programmers or scientists? (And/or, if they don't become those things, do they wish that they did?)

It's a straight-forward question to put this onto rigorous scientific grounding. I'm curious if this has been done yet... (you said that it "happened to be mostly incorrect"... do you have links to research papers?)

Myers-Briggs tends to emphasise classification, which implies bimodal distributions. In reality, the traits it measures are more normally distributed.

Also, every attribute but introversion seems pretty meaningless. If it were a scientific model, the traits would be open to debate. But people treat it like an astrology chart that's been handed down through the ages. It's not the initial attempt at creating a framework which I'm critical of, but the way it's so uncritically accepted.

Sorry to nitpick, but:

> every attribute but introversion seems pretty meaningless

Every attribute is defined. In fact, every question on the test assigns one point to one attribute. Therefore, implicitly, every question is an example of one attribute and a rejection of the supposed opposite attribute.

But you're right -- too often it's treated like astrology. Too often, people are more concerned with assigning categories than with understanding people and what makes them tick.

aw, come on. Seriously? It's a sad world when the only way we can get our points heard is to make grandiose claims like these.

It's the equivalent of saying, say, "If you want life to persist, treat women with respect." Yes, women should be treated with respect no matter what, but this sort of bombast just strikes me as... petty, really.

I could be being butthurt or something, but please don't make grand claims in your arguments just to get people to listen to you, even if what you're saying is true.

Because then all signal is noise and you can't trust anything you read and it's just a sad life to lead, in my eyes. :(

It's especially poignant in relationships. I feel compelled to provide a justification for why I want to be alone, because people assume that "because I need time alone" needs further translation. Sometimes it does, but for me it is how my mind settles. For a long time, I tried to change that part of myself -- I was told it is a maladaptation. Now, I think it's just how I am, and I don't feel a justification is required.

I like quiet.

The article implies that everything gets "done" by introverts, to which I call "bullshit"(unless the point was to show that being an arrogant prick isn't a function of being introverted or extroverted). Studies have show that for leadership at least, extreme intro/extro-version is a bad thing while being more moderate (i.e. knowing when to speak up and when to listen) is an asset.

Constantly having to hear the annoying voices of other people, interruptions, etc. I'd must rather be in a little corner office with the door closed. I really have no problem going entire days without interacting with another human being and I'm way more productive that way. Music is also not an option really. I don't want or need any further "stimulation" to concentrate. Just the thoughts in my head are enough.

(I know this from experience as I worked for more or less 1 year on my own from 9-5 with no human interaction doing development).

When taken together you end up in a situation where open plan offices become the de facto choice and where fighting against them is a huge uphill battle.

I like hanging out with close friends; but I prefer hanging out with one or two friend at a time (as opposed to a group of friends). That makes me an introvert?

I don't usually go to clubs because loud music makes it impossible to talk (but this means, I have a 'need' to talk, so does that make me an extrovert?)

I have very awkward speaking skills - like if I were to tell you a joke, it'd sound monotonous and you'd miss the punch line. But I often fantasisze of having such awesome speaking skills that I'd walk in a room of very large audience and just own the room with my amazing stand-up comedy or some other entrainment act. But I am neither skilled at telling jokes, nor writing jokes. I have less-than-averagish sense of humor, in fact. So, that makes me WANNA be extrovert!?

I guess I am just a socially awkard person.

And I've worked with introverts who are kind, thoughtful, humane and design great products with little or no complaint.

I find that the former are paid well and are constantly getting raises by discovering that complaining can be a temporary form of leverage and the latter are taken advantage of and underpaid.

It shouldn't be hard stuff, people are not generally embarrassed about the topic so any one should be able to pop out a study. It involves work productivity so it should be a popular. There should be some sort of biomodal graph showing percentages.

Even more than arbitrarily defining human beings into categories that don't necessarily have a scientific basis in reality, the "introvert/extravert" paradigm is one of several that negates the concept of free will, that we, as humans, ultimately have control over our own actions.

[At least for me, Twitter is a way-of-the-limit too extraverted, short attention-span and distraction-full tool. I'm not saying it's bad, just well... just not too much introvert-friendly.]

Beware of mixed marriages.

On the other side, she often says, "I'm going out for a few hours, I'm taking the kids, can you do x, y, z," and it all gets done.

It's when people expect the conversation to be equal (we each take turns asking and answering the same boring questions about "so what do you do?" and that sort of thing) that I get exhausted.

(Actually, though... I guess either way it depends largely on the "intelligent and funny" aspect. Boring people are boring people...)

At work? Please don't interrupt me... I'm working. (or... heh, posting to HN, as the case may be... :-)

that alone.