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.
This is what I tend to believe (as a very high scoring introvert on various types of tests). Introversion in a physiological sense is high sensitivity to external stimulation. Fill up the bar too fast, it can cause an anxiety response.
Some people then struggle with dealing with overstimulation, leading to anxiety disorders and a learned aversion to high stimulation situations/environments which often social situations are.
The nuance, I think, is that what constitutes stimulation isn't objective and will vary from person to person.
It very much is not what autism is. At a superficial level you can describe some of the characteristics this way, but autism is vastly more complicated then a simple sensitivity to stimuli.
Like I said, I'm not a psych, but I was diagnosed with inattentive ADHD as a kid and had to get medical waivers approved to join the military and fly. Channelized attention and having to force myself to focus on mundane, boring tasks (with varying levels of success) are a thing I have dealt with my whole life. Oversensitivity to stimuli is not.
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.
Someone posted and deleted in response to this on how we lose neural plasticity as we age. I tried to comment in response, but it was deleted already. Since I have this written up, I'll share it here.
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Yes, you can lean on the skills you have acquired and be successful. Plasticity is no longer required. But look at the many examples of people who have suffered brain damage, and yet, the brain was able to route around it, form new pathways, and reattain functionality in seemingly impossible circumstances.
Why would we expect that people are unable to form new neural pathways on their own, even if most people tend not to? Furthermore, what good does it do to repeat this truism, thereby discouraging the very behaviors that are most needed to engender neural plasticity?
> 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.”
> “Energy”, “mental batteries” - these are entirely made up concepts.
Close. They're abstractions that I used to describe my experiences. I used them because I'm not trained in psychology and the analogies are close enough.
> 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.”
Correct. That has nothing to do with introversion, however. Being socially awkward doesn't (necessarily) mean that you're introverted.
Introversion isn't something that can be changed with practice. Introversion can't be changed at all. Extroverts usually don't believe this.
Note: I'm not using words 'improved' or 'overcome' here. Those words would imply that introversion is a problem that needs fixing or mitigating. It is not. It's a part of the rich tapestry of human existence.
> 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.
Introverts are generally analytical and try to take in everything and understand it. Extroverts not so much, they just kind of often do this stream of consciousness thing.
So introverts don't really get tired because they lack social skills and are trying -- but because that it takes alot of mental effort to continuously integrate all this new information.
If what you were saying is true then introverts would be less introverted over time as they practiced social skills but the opposite is often true.
Also if people tell you they are "tired" by social contact -- there isn't much you can do about it. Whether you believe it or not makes absolutely no difference to introverts. :)
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.
Extroverted developers suffer from interrupts just as much as introverted developers, and I've been interrupted numerous times by very introverted managers. This is a matter of understanding developer workflows and uniquely severe context switching penalty-- not a difference between introverts and extroverts.
I just switched jobs from an extroverted manager to an introverted one, and the difference is night and day. My new manager doesn't feel the need to talk to me except for at scheduled times or if I reach out to him. Outside of those windows, I'm free to focus 100%. I don't think he is doing it on purpose, it's just the most natural way for him to act.
My previous manager couldn't stay in his seat for more than two hours at a time without coming over and talking to me—sometimes about work, but often about politics or whatever else was on his mind. He could have used a training session along the lines of what OP proposes.
I worked with several extroverted managers (attorneys) who understood that uninterrupted dev time was important without me needing to prompt them, and had several others, both introverted and extroverted, that just insisted on my attention whenever it was most convenient for them. While it's quite likely that among two people who lack boundaries, an extroverted manager (also not the same as not being able to sit still, which is more likely something akin to ADHD Impulsive) would be more likely to be annoying about it, but the problem is lacking boundaries and self-control in the workplace, not their social compulsions.
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.
First, I'd draw a sharp distinction between social skills and extroversion. Even if you're not compelled to interact with people and guard the energy you expend on socializing, that doesn't mean you aren't good at it. Some of the most charming people I've met have been serious introverts. I hate grinding through DS&A stuff and will avoid doing so at all costs, but I can still do it.
Just like some developers have to put in more effort than others when encountering complex DS&A and other 'hard' skills, some have to put in extra effort with the 'soft' skills-- but both are important parts of a complete professional skill set, and directly contribute to your overall merit. People understand that useful employees can be quiet and many even tolerate having to work a bit to get information out of them at meetings/code reviews/etc. But interacting with coworkers is part of our jobs, and if we always come across as aloof/arrogant/insecure/impatient/put-upon/avoidant/imperious or any other irritating way when interacting with coworkers, we're bad at that part of our jobs.
Edit: To hammer the point home, a couple I'm friends with are IG/TikTok lifestyle influencers. They're both affable and engaging on-camera and in public social engagements, and incredibly naturally attractive. One has even appeared on national television. They have social skills far beyond what most particularly social people have. In their personal lives, they are still quite lovely, but are two of the most reserved, quiet, withdrawn, introverted, cerebral people I've ever encountered. They've cultivated fantastic social skills that they utilize as a professional tool even though it's anathema to their natural tendencies and how they comfortably live their off-camera lives.
It's a performance just like any other, so just like any other self-taught performer learns their art-- some combination of training, research, practice, and seeking critique. I've known a handful of people that found their local Toastmasters International clubs to be a great start. I've known about as many people who dramatically improved their off-the-cuff social fluidity by taking improv comedy classes-- which is pretty admirable but I think I'd rather repeatedly whack myself in the kneecap with a ball peen hammer than take an improv comedy class. (though maybe that means I should take one? I dunno.)
> More that it doesn't need to have a big emphasis on social skills
> Most software development jobs are already like that though
A tiny fraction of software engineers have jobs where they don't need to interact with anyone. Beyond a certain level of seniority, you are expected to lead or influence teams, mentor junior colleagues or work with cross-functional teams like product or sales. Even when you are junior, you need to work with rest of the senior members to learn from them and earn their trust.
The practical slot on the interview schedule is typically all there is to stop hopeless and BSing people from getting programming jobs and then being a hugely expensive mistake. If you sail through it and think there’s no point in the tech whiteboard section then that’s because it’s not aimed at filtering you out?
That might have been the initial purpose of whiteboard challenges, but I don't think it usually works out like that.
I can't speak for the person you're replying to, but most people I see who object to whiteboard interviews are upper-level developers that haven't needed to know any of the common whiteboard challenges off the top of their head-- like coding an efficient merge sort in C with proper memory management-- because it's rarely a useful skill in day-to-day work unless you're working with that stuff directly. The people who know that stuff are usually recent grads and people who grind leetcode-- all people who've worked to memorize whiteboard type trivia rather than honing more real-world-applicable coding skills.
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.
This is an overly cynical take. It’s not either/or. Meeting more people just means being exposed to more first hand information in both directions. It gives more surface area for serendipity to strike.
It’s nice to imagine that all information about the job market would be available online for convenient index and search, but that’s just not the case. When it comes to understanding the culture in a company, theres no substitute for talking to someone on the inside. Similarly when you are a hiring manager, not every great candidate is going to apply or even have a LinkedIn profile.
Now, I tend to agree that most things explicitly labeled “networking” feel tiresome and a bit forced, but there’s nothing about meeting people that means bypassing objective evaluation for hiring.
Sure if I meet an executive at a golf course and after a few drinks at the clubhouse, he decides I should get a job he just opened, that's nepotism. But I've been an utter outsider in every industry I've come across, and did not have any family or social connections in any relevant professional or academic circle. If I'm at a conference and jibe with someone in between panels over a common professional perspective, and they later forward me a job opening to apply to within their organization, it's a pretty big stretch to call that nepotism. It's not like you just get dropped in that job without proving your merit. It seems to me that nepotism happens within or through relationships or social/class structures that already exist-- not among people who develop professional relationships outside of their workplaces. It's a pretty huge stretch to say that conferences or any other kind of bona fide career networking facilitates nepotism more than they facilitate genuine professional relationships.
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?
> Trying to find people more job opportunities is very different from trying to make people depressed.
Yeah, but having suffered with depression myself, having had a friend with depression commit suicide, and having seen my dad's life utterly ruined by it, I'll take LinkedIn fucking around with potential job opportunities every day of the week and twice on Sundays. And, to be absolutely clear: no, I am not joking. Facebook manipulating peoples' mood and thinking is a far worse and more pernicious problem. A person's career is serious business, but it's not the most serious business.
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.
> They are the people who are actually reading the conference blurb. They look at email on their phones with greater intensity than ever happens at the office. They endlessly circulate the room, like bits of plastic in the ocean waiting to be snagged on something. They take a seat in the main hall while the sound engineers are still testing the microphones.
What is this article even about? And what does this even mean:
>In the offline world, a tool like Chatgpt should make it easier to find useful prospects in a list of event attendees.
So, should you feed a list of conference attendees to chatgpt and ask who to talk to? And how?
I personally go to conferences quite often, I'm terrible at networking but force myself to talk to people and I do have some results but I can't shake the feeling that cranking out some more features and better marketing would bring in more revenue...
I think the idea is "figure out a list of people who appear to have shared interests whom you might enjoy talking to", but the chatgpt reference does appear odd indeed
Oh yeah that sounds like a nice idea. Good luck trying to find them among 5000 delegates based on an outdated linkedin photo if they don't respond to your connect request though.
Just talk to people with UDP, that way you don't have to do handshake, just speak without waiting for your turn. When they say "I'm sorry, I didn't quite get that, can you repeat?", you'd just go back to your little corner and drop all incoming packets, and wait until the party ends.
The Bartleby column is the one thing in the Economist I skip week after week without feeling I miss out on something. I am sure the woman who writes it has a tattoo of a cubicle somewhere and a RTO T-shirt.
I'll have you know I've been networking for a VERY long time.
Token Ring, IPX, SMB, and then most recently TCP/IP.
=)
Seriously though, I describe myself as a gregarious introvert.
I'm an only child so I also love being the center of attention.
And, (no surprise) I was also the class clown.
I can mask really well, so none of it shows.
I dislike being in crowds/groups where I haven't known people for many years. That wouldn't stop me from getting on stage during an open-mic comedy night though.
I can only assume the fake conversation in this article is an attempt at humour, but it's not very funny. For a better starter question at an event than "Juicing up for the big keynote?" try making an anecdote about the day, such as, "that last talk was interesting, did you see it?" or going personal, like "that's a cool sticker on your laptop, where did you get it?"
Ignore this, my bias is that I am in fact an introvert....
1. Figure out what subjects you are passionate about.
2. Now, figure out what medium you can express that in
3. given those two choices the SM platforms to use would be
Instagram
LinkedIN
X
Youtube
Medium
4. Now the money part....the value is knowledge+access
That means in your chain of SM output you want to
eventually pivot to something like one day of
streaming on Youtube
*Important! Medium just changed their revenue algos...you get paid more for reads at Medium now, I will clear just under $1k this month and will be under 25k views...and yet I am busy building code for some textbooks I am writing....
I found Matthew Pollard's "The Introvert's Edge to Networking" to be an outstanding resource. (Don't be fooled by the awful branding around it: I listened on Audible and never saw all the Over-the-Top marketing until just now.)
Most of the article appears to be about what does not work. Here is the relevant part from the bottom of the page-
> The real secret is to save your energy for the people who are most likely to be interesting to you.
> The sweet spot in networking on LinkedIn is someone with moderately weak ties to you: connecting with a person with ten mutual friends markedly increases the probability of changing jobs compared with someone with just one shared friend.
> In other words, networking pays off if you can identify people who can bring you new information but are close enough to your world that this information is useful. In the offline world, a tool like ChatGPT should make it easier to find useful prospects in a list of event attendees. But you still need to overcome all your instincts and approach them.
But you care about friends? If yes, then don't forget that there has been a time when they were strangers too.
I don't imply you have to care about strangers, but there are tangible benefits to maintaining a balanced approach (and that, for introverts like us can mean doing more than we would if we just follow our guts).
After all even if you don't care about strangers, being on good terms with them, or even making the occasional friend will have a positive impact on literally everything else that you actually care for, be it your own well being, your projects, etc.
I am not an expert in modern NLP SOTA but from what I see these models do not work that well.
You didn't summarize the article but took some of the most important points and shared what really mattered. It may not be perfect but required a real life experience. I am afraid there will always be a chance of getting "techno-babble" from our models, at least until they we get to some sort of AGI.
Look at your first line:
> Most of the article appears to be about what does not work.
No model will decide to include that info and it is vital for me to understand why you chose just a few lines out of it. We are still long way out from trusting in reliable LLMs.
I asked chatgpt to pick the most important 2 or 3 lines of text from the article. It returned:
1. "Fortunately, there is advice out there on how to break the ice with strangers. Unfortunately, it’s abysmal."
2. "Making contacts on a site like LinkedIn is a lot less stressful."
3. "The real secret is to save your energy for the people who are most likely to be interesting to you."
It got 2 out of 3 wrong basically. I'm not sure how to objectively measure/improve that in an automated way. I suppose some prompt might do better though?
I guess a second pass of the results through another LLM could potentially help like you suggest?
Because AI is going to give me a summary of what the article said. I don't want that. I want a summary of the relevant parts of what the article said. And if it's appropriate, I want a cynical, "this is baloney/marketing/clickbait/propaganda" summary.
> Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
I've seen it mostly in finance websites, where they often have keynotes at the top for a quick glance. I think the last time I've seen in this in a different context was probably an article in The Verge.
Thanks for summarizing! These points resonate with me bc I used to be an introvert, but found the extrovert inside of me a couple years ago (ironically, during pandemic).
A few additional points to make these macro data-based observations practical:
1. Saving your energy means ironically fewer convos.
2. A good proxy for "people who are most likely to be interesting" is the idea of reading their "energy". People whose energies are more similar to you are likely to resonate with you.
3. The article doesn't touch on follow-ups bc LinkedIn doesn't have that dataset. But follow-ups contain a wealth of information. For me currently they are the "breaking point" - most of my potential weak ties that could be strong ties remain at weak ties bc they descend into scheduling hell or lack of proactiveness (i usually follow up, and it's hard when i don't have time already as a founder).
4. This "sweet spot" is just in terms of LinkedIn mutual connections, which is weak bc LinkedIn connections are noisy. The real number is probably <10. Some say it's 6. I suspect it's actually 4 based on empirical evidence, where 3 of the 4 aren't captured on LinkedIn.
5. Try asking for their Instagram before LinkedIn next time. This might not be for the HackerNews crowd, but Instagram contains 2/4 or 3/4 of the missing signals that LinkedIn doesn't capture - what you do outside of work, where you are in your life journey / hero narrative, and what your life direction is.
6. Overcoming all your instincts in real world is tough. This takes a string of positive, warm, open interactions. Going to a few small, closed group events may help. Check out Saturday, Supermomos, or go to events at a private social club to "warm up" before going to larger tech events. Hopefully they cultivate a sense of "intimacy" in you, which is the energy you want to lead with from first interaction.
Hope this helps whoever bothered to read this from top down. If any of these points resonates, email me at [email protected]
How come such an article ends up with 30+ points? There's literally no meaningful information. I'd look into what accounts upvoted this link, something seems off.
There are supposedly many introverts frequenting HN and longing for any help they could get in building their network. Some of them probably reflexively upvoted the article without looking at it first. Since it's impossible to un-vote a story, those upvotes remained even as they came back here to complain about lack of meaningful content in the article.
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.