In either the day-to-day or 'team-building' events, does anyone have office cultures with a consciously positive attitude to 'shy' people?
I think the whole subtext and title of this article shows the ignorant extrovert's problem. The article is judging whether the extroverts should bestow their social acceptance on the introvert.
Just because you are the only one talking does not mean there's nothing more to be said. And just because you are talking does not mean there is anything to be said.
On the flipside, are there cultures that have disdain for unbridled extroversion and gossip? North America seems to revel in both those things but the biggest hits to company morale I've seen have always been from the 'outgoing' spreading their negativity through multiple separate conversations or steering meetings on downward spiral narratives.
I've yet to encounter an office culture that makes accommodations for shy people. I think that in the absence of conscious effort to elicit or 'make space' for less extroverted people to express opinions and make observations, then traditional office workplaces are biased against against 'shy' people by default.
I think that's rather unfortunate. It means that your company/division/whatever is missing out on roughly half the good insight and ideas collectively held by their workforce. I don't see it changing any time soon either. Every big change that I've seen in 'the way we work' always seems to favour the preferences of extroverts (bullpens, open-plan offices, hot-desking etc.).
It seems that the world is run by extroverts, for extroverts.
I hear what you're saying, although I think I do make this effort. But after the 5th of 6th time I'm interrupted halfway through a sentence, usually by the same person who's been essentially thinking out loud for 80% of the meeting, I run out of steam and just give up.
This is what I mean by 'making room'. I'm not expecting people to ask me what I think, or for everyone to take turns or something silly like that. But I do think that if other participants are incapable of 'playing nice' then the senior person in the room, who's essentially 'chairing' the meeting, should jump in at some point. Or maybe my contributions aren't as valuable as I think. Who knows.
I really don't know how to deal with this kind of situation on my own. I've tried everything. The only thing that has ever really worked is the hyper-aggressive "excuse me, I wasn't finished", spoken at a volume slightly louder than the person interrupting (so basically shouting).
I don't want to do that sort of thing. Sure, it works, but it also makes the rest of the meeting very uncomfortable and unpleasant for all involved. And I suspect if done more than a few times I'll end up with a pretty bad reputation (not to mention an enemy or two, for little gain). Believe me, I'm not a timid person and I'm not afraid to speak my mind. If I have to make an enemy to get something important done, I will. But, if given the choice, I'd strongly prefer that adults speak to one another in a civilised manner.
> I really don't know how to deal with this kind of situation on my own. I've tried everything. The only thing that has ever really worked is the hyper-aggressive "excuse me, I wasn't finished", spoken at a volume slightly louder than the person interrupting (so basically shouting).
I have the same problem and likewise, this is the only thing that I've found that works.
When someone talks over you, you stop, right? And they probably ramble on, oblivious? Each time this happens and you don't act on it, you're training them to talk over you. After a while, they won't think twice about interrupting you, and at that point, you have to be quite aggressive to turn things around.
It's really hard, but the best way to avoid this is train yourself out of stopping instantly when someone talks over you. Instead, keep talking and make eye contact with them. This is a pretty strong social cue to show you're not finished. If they keep talking regardless, then directly comment (and it only needs to be mildly, since we're behaving as if it's accidental) on the fact that you weren't finished. If they're still going after that then either they have a better point than you and they have the authority to interrupt you, or they're being a prat and everyone will be noting this behaviour, not just you.
I'm still pretty bad at this, but I'm getting better, and it does get easier with practice.
Thanks! That is really helpful, practical advice. I definitely get tripped up by the stopping thing; it's like this weird politeness reflex or something. Your point about 'training' others to talk over me is quite insightful.
Although it probably doesn't come across this way from my previous post, I'm actually pretty relaxed if someone innocently/accidentally interrupts me. I'll usually do the whole 'no please, after you' thing. But I can see how I might be creating a rod for my own back if I do this in the wrong situation...
So thanks again for the advice: I need to stop conditioning others to interrupt me. I'm assuming I'm not allowed to go in the complete opposite direction with this though: immediately applying aversive stimuli when it happens. It might be a little unprofessional :)
I wouldn't call that aggressive, certainly not hyper aggressive. To me aggressive means attacking, this I would consider defending. Do be polite however, and act as though it was an accident.
"I'm assuming I'm not allowed to go in the complete opposite direction with this though"
I really, really wouldn't :) Some people are just passionate about their ideas, and extroverts seem to have even more energy for social interaction. They might just be having a hard time staying quiet, treat it as a mistake rather than maliciousness.
Believe me, I am sympathetic. I am naturally quite introverted, and although I do not have difficulty talking with people, doing so wears me out, even if it's with people I care about. It's just how I'm wired.
I think the best advice I can give is to listen to how genuinely empathetic speakers hold the rooms' attention. Try not to think of it as a zero-sum game. If the way you are conveying your ideas is in a way that captivates, you will not be spoken over. Conversely, if the way you're relaying information is combative or confrontational, people will talk over you, even if you have the empirically best ideas in the room.
It sounds like we have nearly identical personalities. Long lost brothers maybe :)
Yeah I figured out the confrontational thing a couple of years ago... after not realising it was an issue for about the first three years of my career. When I'm discussing an idea or an opinion, I tend to view it as totally separate from myself. So I really don't mind if someone attacks 'my' idea or opinion, and I'm generally pretty happy to jettison it if it becomes clear that it's wrong.
For those first three years I just assumed other people saw things the same way. Nope. Was pretty mortified when I realised that I'd probably been upsetting or offending people when I thought was we were just having a really interesting and vigorous discussion.
Have you ever taken a Myers-Briggs test? INTx? At any rate, thanks for the advice. It's a timely reminder that I need to put more conscious effort into improving here. It's all too easy to just lapse into misanthropy...
Of course. Some people just need some encouragement, and it makes pretty good business sense to provide it, at least in an industry like software development which will probably attract a disproportionate share of shy people.
I used to be very shy. My first boss out of college recognized this and went out of his way a few times to help me out. He more or less changed my life. I ended up going into management of all things in that company, so it paid off for the company too. Even if he was just being altruistic, his company profited from it.
I fully agree. Mentorship matters. It has had a positive impact in my life, too. But to expect it in lieu of internal motivations is to deny one's own internal agency. One needs both.
Some people are paid to be heard, instead of spending their own effort on it.
This depends on how valuable one's opinion is in the eyes of the people around. If you think that the high-class people you hired after a lot of sifting for the best-fitting candidates are really valuable, and may harbor interesting thoughts, maybe an effort should be exerted to get these opinions from them, in the way comfortable for them.
Everyone does better with a support system, for the reasons you state and more.
Other people's attention is a limited resource, and the more someone can do on their own to engage everyone else, the better off they and everyone else will be.
The problem with the extroverts is that they don't produce much useful work, unless their work is really tied to extroversion, such as in sales. Otherwise they mostly just run around being extroverted in my experience.
The problem for the introverts is that their contributions may go unrecognized because they don't "sell" themselves. This is of course is a problem for the company as well since incentives are skewed -- from actually doing real work that benefits the company to selling your own person inside the organization (which provides zero value to customers).
What an incredibly arrogant introverted opinion.
Being introverted isn't a super power, and I've met quite a few introverted workers who produced sub-par work because they didn't like to actually talk to the clients or their manager before the fire started.
In Germany I've encountered that as simply "quiet". As long as you get the job done and can communicate enough to make the work efficient, no on the job socialising required, unless you want to quickly rise Through the ranks
To me bringing someone from they shell does not sound positive. Snails, tortoises and similar creatures would not be happy about that, why should humans be?
I think in this case we refer to the turtle (or a snail) reaching outside of the shell with their appendages, not completely abandoning the shell. This usually happens after the moment of danger (the one which prompted the retreat inside the shell) has passed and the animal feels safe again.
As someone who has been shy his whole life, I'm becoming wary of these type of "shyness is a positive" and "introvert advantage" type articles (although to be clear, shyness and introversion are absolutely not the same thing).
Being shy sucks, and I'm sick of attempts to sugar coat it. No matter how many ideas I may come up with in deep episodes of thought on my own, if I'm unable or unwilling to share them and convince others of their merits, they're lost in the loneliness of my own mind.
As a "recovering" shy person, what helped me was the following Frame: we care. We really really care to get things right and we expect that others will have the same standards. This can apply to everything, be it professional, artistic, social, political
The key for me to overcome that was:
* Desensitizing myself. Fake it till you make it works
* Take note and log how much people actually care if you put yourself out there and make a mistake. Hint: not a lot
* Work on finding where exactly ego is too large and fragile. This is often for brainy people the "i can't just say anything, it needs to be perfect" trap
Viewing these things as a process which can be practiced word immensely well for me. But it is very hard to get started, not gonna lie. I got a kick towards it through emotional trauma
Most people don't realize there's a difference between shyness and introversion.
Shyness implies you want to interact with people but some sort of anxiety is blocking you. I'd say the majority of "introverts" are just extroverts with social anxiety or lack of self-esteem.
> Most people don't realize there's a difference between shyness and introversion.
This is clear from a lot of the comments here. A person can prefer solitude (i.e. be introverted) and still carry on just fine in social situations without anxiety (i.e. shyness).
In writing about his own introversion, I think Thoreau summarized it well:
"To be in company, even with the best, is soon wearisome and dissipating. I love to be alone. I never found the companion that was so companionable as solitude."
I agree to a degree, I too am a fairly shy person and it does suck, especially when you're trying to find a significant other. However, I also hate being told that I'm shy or quiet, it's almost humiliating, especially if I'm told that when I've opened up a bit. I do think there are some positive aspects to being shy, but, at least in American society I would argue those advantages are less than others.
Being shy myself I know there are positive articles about shyness or introversion in general. They are quite easy to find because there aren't many about them so they easily become fairly popular through HN and the like.
On the contrary implicit negativity about shyness is something I experience on a regular base and I'm rather getting wary of that. At work people take it as an excuse to not listen and only think about their own opinion. I mean many people don't listen no matter if you say something or not. (By the way, the book 'Just Listen' is a great read about that) So in the workplace it's very convenient to promote extroverted and openly aggressive people to management and let them manage 'shy people' who are not whining so much.
One thing I have realized is that it depends who you meet or work with whether they understand you or not. When something is wrong, some people see that in my face without me having to tell lengthy monologues. Also I don't get how an extroverted person is going to say that he or she is not getting any air. On the other hand since recently I'm seriously starting to wonder if extroverted people can ever do any programming tasks.
So do extroverted people have to stop talking if they want to become excellent programmers? Probably the answer is no but the way we work as developers would have to change.
While I see somewhat where you are coming from, I'm not sure I agree. I think there are a lot of people who would be very interested to know more about me and get information about my ideas and feelings, but my social anxiety is preventing them from getting to know me. I'm not really blaming myself that I have social anxiety, but at the same time I don't think that "society" is beating me down to keep me shy.
Imho we need more shy people. Too many express every little detail of their lives. When a shy person speaks up you know they have put thought into what they are about to say. You take the shy person far more seriously than the twitter fanatic, every word more vapid than the last. If being shy makes you more careful with your words, that isn't a fault.
I think you are confusing shyness and introversion. Introversion is when you don't feel the urge to talk, to act unless it's important or valuable. Shyness is when you want to talk, you want to act, you want to introduce yourself to that person, but you are unable to do it because anxiety kicks in. Actually the more thought you have put into what you want to say, the more it's important to you and the more emotionally involved you are, the more you are afraid to be misunderstood or rejected and the more you are likely to shut up. So a lot of shy people, when they get to talk, will often stay at the level of useless small talk because it feels safer.
Western culture certainly values too much extroversion, it should certainly be more kind to shy people, but in my opinion shyness is not something to celebrate, it's really handicapping in a lot of matters important in life and it doesn't bring anything to anyone.
Not necessarily. If a shy person does speak up, you know that they've put a lot of effort into doing so. Therefore what they have to say is important, at least to them.
Although shyness and introversion are not the same thing, I think they are closely linked. I am introverted and shy. Because I am introverted, I do not often seek out the company of others, and conversation does not come naturally to me. I am painfully aware that I am not good at conversation, and that becomes foremost in my mind when I anticipate engaging in one. It's like joining a hockey game when you are not a good skater. You just know that all the other players are going to notice how good you are not, and that you being there is making it less fun for everybody else. This anxiety causes you to avoid playing hockey, which just makes the situation worse because you never practice.
What you're saying sounds more like social anxiety than shyness. There's a difference between the two and shyness is more about being bit overwhelmed of new social situations than to be afraid of them.
That's alright for the other people but it's no use for the shy person themselves. They still won't get ahead like the extrovert who says a lot of crap and people like them for it.
In some ways it does but it's just a character trait. People who are not shy have their problems too.
On a recent flight I noticed a guy who was being Mr Popular, talking to just about everyone on the plane. When I got off I saw him outside doing the same thing at the bus stop. I got the impression he was a very lonely person who was overcompensating and desperate to make friends with anyone.
I have been called shy but I'm comfortable with that and happy in my own company. I like to talk to people but not just anyone for the sake of it.
The people I get to know tend to like and trust me while accepting that I'll never be the life and soul of the party.
That's a false dichotomy; the above example, which opposes narcissism (or similar) to shyness, is a very typical rationalization of the disadvantages of shyness.
In a way, shyness can be interpreted as lacking capacities to handle certain acts/contexts (eg. to communicate to another person if one would like to, and in the way one would like to); having such capacities though, is a necessary condition for their abuse, not a sufficient one.
In my perspective, the opposite of being shy is being socially confident: talking to other people/strangers without fear[s], if one wants. This is different from being a chat machine; abstractly, it's a capacity.
The problem of framing confidence (instead to narcissism and similar) as opposite of shyness, is that it's difficult to accept; nobody would say "I'd rather be me than a confident person".
> In my perspective, the opposite of being shy is being
> socially confident. That is, if one wants, for example,
> talk to a stranger without fear, he/she can do it, if
> he/she wants - which is different from being a chat
> machine. Abstractly, it's a capacity.
Yes and you have to choose wisely who you talk to or maybe even want to become friends with. Evaluating people quickly is crucial to not get mugged, fooled or just to keep a happy mood. So the confidence requires developing some skills in understanding people and also learning in which ways other people read you.
At some point I very boldly neglected a lot of anxieties I have or had myself, for instance being more direct with women or talking openly about "inconvenient truths", especially at work. This worked for me pretty well for some time but at some point not any more. Being someone that really thinks things through, it may be overwhelming for someone else hearing the results of a long thinking process without context. If you do that too often the other person may choose stop listening to you or just get angry. Also on several occasions I ended up being angry myself, ignoring the fact that there are people who just might be interested in using you. It's important to understand why shyness or anxiety is there.
On the other hand, when you are not shy at all, talk about every little thing, it may get very difficult to become proficient in an engineering discipline. Memorizing things is tough, the best known methods to do that involve being on your own. Asking questions all the time may distract or even annoy your colleagues that work concentrated by themselves.
> That's a false dichotomy; the above example, which opposes narcissism (or similar) to shyness,
> is a very typical rationalization of the disadvantages of shyness.
I knew a guy who basically had this engineering background and I bet when he was younger, he was likely quite shy. So he was super open, talking to literally everyone and often making jokes. When I met him the first time he seemed really charismatic, fun and basically also someone I could learn something from. But at some point I realized that he virtually had no friends and also failed to truly listen and understand other people and their perspective. It was quite sad because he is an alcoholic. He might lead a happier life being more shy.
I think the topic is more than "shyness is good/problematic/bad" or "extroversion is great/not so important". It's basically a rabbit hole to the inner workings of society and work places.
> (although to be clear, shyness and introversion are absolutely not the same thing)
Yes! I am a bit time introvert, I can appear shy due to anxiety and my introversion but I'm not shy. I talk to strangers all the time without trouble. I am perfectly willing to stand in front of people and act a fool (do tech talks). I'm not all that shy, but I need my me time, like 70% of my waking hours needs to be alone time.
Oh, I never knew that shy people bottle up so much repressed animosity towards the 'extroverts'. Whole thread is filled with wild generalizations about vapid, hollow, loud 'normies'. This is a bit ridiculous, come on - we should strive for a level of discourse that goes beyond 4chan-like lamentation about alpha-males taking all the good things for themselves.
Nah, I don't have any animosity towards extroverts. 4chan-ers generally want to crush social norms so that they can live a little. It sucks being unhappy because you are constantly being told you're at the bottom of the food chain and that would be an excuse for not deserving to have a soul mate, at least that what a community of losers would conclude.
Personally, I just want women to forget their whole social prince charming hero and forget the whole father figure for a moment. There are many dating sites that empowers women and it's a good dynamic, many women try it and it gives them more room to breathe and pick. Maybe it's just targeted at new-age feminists.
I just value female freedom. I just sense the world is so anti-social because money and status empowers men more that it empowers women. To me it's a coin with 2 sides, money and male influence in society. Women have to submit because they are not competitive by nature, and even if they have the right to vote and live an independent life, in a relationship, to me they don't really seem free because most of them want the prince charming. Women could make society a little more social and less compartmentalized if they would be given more room to have an influence on how society works. I could not really describe exactly why, but to me women are still very dependent on a relationship to have a fulfilling life. Men don't seem to really care about being in a relationship.
Shy men can be quite attractive for women who want to take initiative in dating. Or for the ones who want to test short relationships.
I used to believe only men could do that kind of stuff, felt surprised, also felt some decent amount of hypocrisy and rejection from her part.
In my view, women still have a lot to learn when it comes to taking initiative in dating. I've managed several times to be outgoing enough, to fake a sufficient amount of extroversion, but still be authentic.
I don't know what I wanted to write next, but I just finish posting this comment.
> But shyness can also be, Moran argues, a great gift, its impulse toward introversion allowing for the inventive thinking and creative genius that might elude the more talkatively inclined.
Bullshit false dichotomy. Introversion has nothing to do with creativity. This is just a passive-aggressive jab towards healthy people that some introverts use to excuse not taking care of their depression.
I think you're right, but for the wrong reasons. Introversion does not mean that people have depression nor are unhealthy. Even if you were to exclude people who suffered from mental illness, the world would still include multitudes of personalities. This isn't to say that introversion and depression aren't correlated or confused for one another. They can share similarities. Some people value alone time, and some people like being in a place where they have more control over the situation.
I lived with a guy who was as healthy as a horse. He was very physically fit, mentally sharp, ate well, and as far I know (we were pretty close) he was not mentally ill. We could watch movies, play games, and do whatever to the wee hours of the morning. We'd go get food and occasionally drinks, shoot ball, and we got into distance running for a while - things tough to get into while suffering depression. . Towards the end of the day, he just needed to crawl back into his cave. We could game together online, but that was the limit to his contact once he was spent.
Introversion is not depression. It's a personality trait.
> Shyness is a mental disorder and a severe disadvantage.
No, and not always.
E.g. from my experience, many intelligent and beautiful women prefer the shy type over the boastful sales person becuase it signals you are a thinker and that you take nothing for granted. In that context, is shyness really a disadvantange?
Many employers also think like that.
But can shyness be a sign of a certain degree of imaturity? I think so, more than I subscribe to the idea it's a disorder.
Do you suffer from it and beat yourself up because of your shyness? Then it's a problem, perhaps a small issue with your self-esteem. It can be fixed though. Just like almost anyone can learn math, almost all mental hickups can be fixed, if you have an interest in fixing them.
I don't think it really matters what you call it, and I accept that you may feel differently about it. But in my own personal experience there's absolutely nothing good about shyness. It's crippling and it will make you, well... shy away from many good things in life. It is an emotional inadequacy and it will have a negative effect on your life.
I'm sorry if someone was offended by my previous comment, that was not my intent.
Woman don't prefer the shy types. Even if they claim they do. Masculinity is defined by assertiveness, aggression and confidence and it works like a nature's built-in override switch in women, even if they claim it doesn't.
"Masculinity is defined by..."
Masculinity is not always prefered, at least not as the stongest trait in a person.
Shyness to me signals curiosity, a person with a healthy dose of undecisiveness, someone still learning. It's attractive to be in a learning or growing phase.
Me, personally, when it comes to women, I like them medium-shy.
You can be shy and be confident and aggressive in how you think and live your life.
Some women will be attracted to shy men because they are just less of a hurdle to flirt with.
There are trends those days, maybe due to feminism, where women are taking more initiative in dating. Women are selectors by definition, so if we let them choose, it might be simpler and just better.
Also women can end up hurt and bored by alpha males, and they will end up seeking simpler relationships.
But we should give most alpha males a break, I think. They're as insecure as you are, probably. Most alpha males I know are quite fun to be around. You get to stand in line outside of clubs less.
> But we should give most alpha males a break, I think.
I don't have anything against alphas, I'm just saying some women might prefer a relationship that is less traditional and not oriented towards some masculine ideal. We are not hunter gatherer anymore.
> They're as insecure as you are, probably.
I don't really give a damn. They are millions ways to be dominant.
> You get to stand in line outside of clubs less.
Many women don't like to go to clubs or don't really care to enjoy those kind of privileges.
> Always try to know at least an alpha male.
Actually as a woman, being around an alpha male might actually prevent you from being approached by potential male partners. Unless you are determined to get your alpha male.
I don't really buy into the whole alpha male thing anyway, which revolves around the winner/loser pragma, which is too cliched for modern times. Women yell about the whole patriarchy thing, I don't really believe in it, but I've heard a lot about groups of women who just settle for beta people because they are happy with it. So again, generalities.
Shyness is estimated to be a 40%-60% heritable trait. If it was an inherent massive disadvantage that women abhorred as you seem to suggest, then shy men simply would swiftly cease to exist.
Yet they do exist, which suggests that actually it isn't some huge disadvantage, or that it has compensating advantages.
You forgot one factor - you don't have to directly participate in reproduction to have your genes passed through. Otherwise, homosexuals would cease to exist as well. It's a bit more complex than that.
I think the whole subtext and title of this article shows the ignorant extrovert's problem. The article is judging whether the extroverts should bestow their social acceptance on the introvert.
Just because you are the only one talking does not mean there's nothing more to be said. And just because you are talking does not mean there is anything to be said.
On the flipside, are there cultures that have disdain for unbridled extroversion and gossip? North America seems to revel in both those things but the biggest hits to company morale I've seen have always been from the 'outgoing' spreading their negativity through multiple separate conversations or steering meetings on downward spiral narratives.