Time spent with Friends/Family

[tonyedgecombe]

I thought all that stuff about growth mindsets had been debunked, or at least hasn't been replicated in any published paper.

[Ego]

I thought all that stuff about growth mindsets had been debunked, or at least hasn't been replicated in any published paper.

Nope, both Dweck's Mindset and Duckworth's Grit were replicated after the original controversy in general psychological research. In fact, they found that those most in need of a changed mindset where those who benefited the most....

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginal ... cates.html

[7Wannabe5]

@Ego:

I would like to agree with you, because I am an ambivert, but I balk at the general theory when I consider applying it to the realms where I am more outlier, such as N and A. It's very difficult for me to perceive how I could make myself less absent-minded or more likely to throw a temper tantrum, or what benefit I might derive from the attempt.

[jacob]

As such, I would encourage any introvert interested in mastering social skills to keep going, the benefits are huge.

Huge compared to what?

It was mentioned earlier that socializing is somewhat of a trade off between that and something else. Another factor with socialization is that it comes with a larger maintenance/upkeep component. You'll have to keep socializing to maintain it, that is, attend/create social functions in order to keep the social ball rolling.

So which other ability in particular should introverts develop less in order to focus more on socializing? Independence? Creativity? Intrinsic motivation? Wisdom? Just being rhetorical here...

Ultimately, it's an exercise in load-balancing and where to focus one's finite reserves. For example, had I been more interested in social appearances/connections/rewards than pushing boundaries and finding the edge, ERE would not have been ERE as we know it now. It would have been sat at a lower Wheaton level because I would have been more interested in how it looked and fit in with other people than how the system worked and how far it could be taken. If measured in terms of income or mainstream popularity, it could be argued that the benefits would be bigger than they have been (same as my career trajectories), but OTOH, the upper levels would still be unknown (as far as I can tell).

Another way of saying it is that I'm unlikely to find what I want out of my life in socializing. This is because most other people are not interested in what I'm interested in. Hence, the ROI of spending my reserve on talking to other people is low. Sorry humans, I just don't find most of you all that interesting (<- This attitude is of course a huge handicap when trying to socialize )

I return to: http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html

[daylen]

It is actually quite easy for me to make friends (as hard as that is to believe ). I did it in high school and still do at random events. I have a bit more dopamine than jacob. I am also much less agreeable which allows me to play devil's advocate in a way that others typically find humorous (works better in person). Now, I have a moderate handful of friends/family that satisfy my social itch. Most other humans are data points I use to train my models. This is no secret and people still find me a good conversationalist.

As time goes on, trying to understand and develop frames into the mind just keeps getting more fun. Not engaging with this puzzle is the cost I have to overcome in order to meet new humans that will probably just become data points.

[jacob]

Maybe you guys (cL, Ego, ...) should make a Socialization Wheaton scale?

[tonyedgecombe]

Nope, both Dweck's Mindset and Duckworth's Grit were replicated after the original controversy in general psychological research. In fact, they found that those most in need of a changed mindset where those who benefited the most....

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginal ... cates.html

the average treatment effect was 0.03 grade points

It was so small it was probably the Hawthorne effect. I'm not convinced.

[daylen]

Socialization Wheaton Scale (v0)

Level 0:
No social instincts. Other members of species are either competition or mise well not exist. Tigers, bears, reptiles, etc.

Level 1:
Some social instincts regulated by anxiety and dopamine. Can interpret signals for social engagement or disengagement. Capable of sharing. Most animals that live in groups.

Level 2:
Trust or distrust can be built up overtime. At this stage, friends or enemies can be made. Dogs, elephants, most primates?, lions?, ..

Level 3:
Second order relations are monitored. Friends of friends are treated with respect in order to maintain first-order friendships. Enemies of friends are typically avoided unless provoked. Most teenagers.

Level 4:
Internalization of small world networking. An understanding that any disruption of the social web can lead to cascading distrust. All social interaction is accordingly monitored for potential disruptions. Reputation is tracked at this stage. Most adults?

Level 5:
Behavior is altered based on network clustering estimations. Utilization of various specialized languages according to context. Reputation is understood to be non-uniformly distributed.

Not sure what is beyond this or if this is even the right way to go about it. Feel free to tear it apart!

[jacob]

Sounds like Kegan's levels in terms of social understanding which is a good framework. But I was more interested in the practical implications of those behaviors. Understanding something is not the same as practicing it.

To give an example, on this forum, I like to think I operate/moderate at 4/5 ... but IRL, I don't really bother to go beyond 2/3 depending on how close the person is. Based on that, I have an idea of what 4 looks like in the real world when it comes to careers for example. Indeed, the whole discussion about employability (at least at the corporate level) is about maintaining a level 4 reputation. I just never practiced it.

Also what would those levels look like with friends and family?

To do list:
a) A column for work
b) A column for friends
c) A column for family

[jennypenny]

maybe more practical stages?

unwillingness to engage
willingness to engage/acknowledgement of usefulness
capable of general friendliness
can maintain acquaintances and navigate social circles
capable of reciprocity (and ability to recognize its usefulness in a situation)
can maintain friendships within defined social circles, can improve station within them
can maintain friendships outside of predetermined social circles
capable of trust and putting others' needs before oneself
capable of disregarding one's needs for the benefit of everyone (transforming others' needs into your own)

[Ego]

Maybe you guys (cL, Ego, ...) should make a Socialization Wheaton scale?

Hah! I think I'll pass. We all know how well that worked out last time.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=8103&start=40#p126054

[jennypenny]

Ha, I failed too in that thread. [insert sound of someone tapping out ...]

[daylen]

This is a very crude attempt, but I tried to incorporate some of the suggestions above along with some associations. Not that orderly or aesthetically pleasing. Maybe something better well emerge from it.

[jennypenny]

I know Human connection is important but how much?
Should I be spending more time with others even though im satisfied?
How much time do other INTJ's spend with friends or family?

I think this isn't one problem with one solution. Maybe look at it from a permaculture standpoint. First, consider your own needs (as others have suggested). You might find that you're completely satisfied with very little interaction like now. As long as you're confident that you are truly satisfied, you're good. Second, though, you need to consider those around you and what their needs are. You don't have to completely meet their needs but you also don't want to completely discount them. They are your closest support group and you should try to find a compromise. Third is your acquaintance-level group. Again, you want to find a compromise where you do enough that it conveys to those people that you care about their own needs. This group often includes acquaintances in various groups that have some social expectations placed on all members (work, school, neighborhood, etc). Remind yourself that everyone has expectations placed on them, not just you.

As far as the social interactions themselves, there are two ways to deal with them. First, try to identify the must-do activities. This might mean telling the person that you don't have the time to make all of the commitments and asking which are most important to them. With an extended group, it might mean figuring out which events everyone attends (like the company retreat or neighborhood block party) or figuring out how often people attend events like a weekly happy hour where they still get credit even though they don't come every time.

Second, learn how to control the interaction. If you don't like certain types of events, plan other ones instead. I'm not into shopping just for the sake of shopping, but I love watching sporting events with people and try to schedule those to avoid requests to go shopping. I've also learned to make myself useful in the kitchen during parties so I get credit for attending but avoid some of the socializing. I know a guy who also dislikes parties so he's always the one to set up the tent, coolers, grill, etc, so he gets credit for being there and helping out without having to talk to many people. Another trick is to learn a bit about wine (or whatever) and always bring an unusual bottle to events and know a little about it so you have something to talk about. What I mean is figure out a role to play at gatherings to make it easier to navigate.

The other trick to controlling the interaction is to admit to being clueless/uncomfortable. When you get to the baby shower, say in a somewhat joking manner that you're clueless about the secret rituals of baby showers and ask what people do at them. Or call your host before a dinner party or event and say something like "I try to avoid these things but I'm flattered you asked and want to come ... what should I wear and what should I bring? Tell me what's appropriate." If you don't want to 'waste' the whole day on an event, call the host of whatever, say you're busy but are flattered to be invited so you want to get there for an hour or so -- what time would be best or what time is dinner or whatever. You get the idea.

I understand the 'I' thing. Unfortunately, it doesn't get you out of all socializing. You might be satisfied with the level of interaction you've chosen but if other people aren't, you'll slowly lose social capital which will affect you in other aspects of your life. Everyone needs a buffer of people around them to deal with the uncertainties in life. I know seeing people just so they are on the hook to reciprocate is a cold way to look at it. Still, it's no different than feeling obliged to network at work or say hi to neighbors -- you don't want to become known as 'that guy'. It's self-preservation, which is worth being uncomfortable occasionally.

The last trick is to figure out another way to make things special for people without actually seeing them. Like be the person who always sends a great card to people for birthdays, pick me ups, etc. Personally, I send flowers or books. It doesn't really matter. The point of all this blabbering is that you want to appear thoughtful -- that you take other people's feelings into account and sincerely want them to be happy, too. Just learn how to do it on your own terms.

[take2]

Ego: going by your criteria, I could label deficient the extroverts who can't go two days without talking to someone else or who can't learn programming because they are so in need of socializing all the time that they have no time for extended focus alone.

Not to stir the pot but I do think that would be a deficiency.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding but I don’t think Ego’s point is that far off from what I think is the best thing that Jacob has shared (very much in the ERE mindset)

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
—Robert A. Heinlein


Roughly half of the above requires quite a robust level of social ability.

EDIT - I should clarify that I don’t actually disagree with bigato on the inherent differences between people, nor that there are extremes on both sides of the spectrum. Just saying that to maximise one’s ability to be a “generalist” or “renaissance person” (or whatever the best definition is) it requires the ability to socialise at a [moderately] high level

[classical_Liberal]

I'm gonna stay out of the "deficiency" realm. Mainly because everyone has strengths and weakness and I don't necessarily think all weakness should be defined as deficient. Although if a weakness is holding someone back from something they would otherwise like/want to accomplish, then I think it's fair to define it as deficient. However, this is very much a self diagnosis, so I leave that to the individual.

Huge compared to what?

I think this is important, so I'm going to address it using an analogy most will understand. The best description I can use for the advantages of strong social skills; it's similar to the type of advantages very physically attractive people seem to hold on the opposite sex. An extremely physically attractive person tends to hold peoples attention by simply being present. Most people tend to want to please them. They can literally hold a room captive. They are given more opportunities because people like to be in their presence. The advantage is small, but tangible and ever-present in interpersonal interactions. We've all noticed this at some point, no?

Now, high level social skills are not as immediate (people have to be given the chance to experience it from you), nor as quite as impactful. However, they are sort-of a low level of the same concept. I would guess this is because sex drive is a more base level phenomenon than social drive in our minds. Yet I think social, emotional, limbic, whatever, tends to trump the intellectual.

I think I may rile up some folks using this analogy. So, I'll quickly concede that extreme physical attractiveness also has drawbacks and takes a ton of work to achieve and maintain. So I'm not saying these people have the world on a platter. Just that they have an advantage in human interactions and that advantage is similar to folks who have very strong social skills. You almost have to experience it to understand it.

As far as what someone has to give up to focus on social skills... I can't answer that. I'm sure it takes much more energy from introverts. I tended to develop it naturally over time and actually made a career switch, partially to work on the parts I had neglected, see my comment to ego below. I do disagree that it requires regular maintenance/upkeep. Human relationships require this upkeep, although probably not as much as you may think, depending on the relationship. I have a ton of old friends I rarely see, but when we are together, it's like we were never apart. The social skills themselves are turned on at will once learned to a level unconscious competence, like any other skill.

wrt to a Wheaton scale, I could try my hand at it if it doesn't develop on it's own from @daylen and others. At the moment I'm pretty busy wrapping up this whole full time work thing, so I may not have much time for the next week. I will say they type of person an introvert would normally label as annoyingly extroverted is not an example of someone with high social skills. This is likely an extrovert with less than adequate social skills. Although I will admit to sometimes enjoying being the "life of the party", I also acknowledge/understand that overly boisterous behavior irritates many and try to avoid taking the stage for too long. A high Wheaton level person is the type of person most people would describe as having "an instant connection with".

@Ego
Thanks for the compliment, it actually means alot you view me as kind. As an ENTJ, being empathetic, particulalry with certain types of people, was not an easy task to accomplish. I would say 25% of the reason I became a nurse was to work on this part of my personality.

[Ego]

Well maybe this is a cultural difference but around here, saying that someone is deficient is a somewhat loaded word, not to be used when not literal.

I apologize if it came across as offensive. I knew there was that risk so I probably should have spelled out what I meant....

I was thinking of deficiency as in, "vegans are more prone to B12 deficiency." Since we don't get it in our diet we have to make an effort to supplement or we will suffer serious consequences.

While B12 supplementation is benign, if people must supplement with neuropharmaceuticals, alcohol or drugs to get through social events then perhaps it is worth looking into another path. There are options beyond the three most obvious, (drug it / avoid it / suffer through it).

We become what we practice. Slowly, with practice, the human brain can be rewired.

Also, to reiterate what I said above, even extroverts feel nervous at these events. I believe their success is largely due to the story they tell themselves about the nervousness. They see it as the nervous energy they need to be 'on'.

Today we head to our starting point on the Camino de Santiago de Compostela. We'll be living in large open hostels for the next 3-4 weeks. I suspect the experience will challenge my social skills. I am feeling quite a bit of nervous energy. That's a good thing.

[7Wannabe5]

The best description I can use for the advantages of strong social skills; it's similar to the type of advantages very physically attractive people seem to hold on the opposite sex. An extremely physically attractive person tends to hold peoples attention by simply being present. Most people tend to want to please them. They can literally hold a room captive. They are given more opportunities because people like to be in their presence.

I am glad you brought this up, because I believe that it is more than an analogy. Humans are hugely influenced by appearance and behavior. Sometimes humans who experienced a formative phase in which they were less than physically attractive retain the negative effects of this early experience well into adulthood. For instance, one of my sisters was like Urkel until the summer after 8th grade when she suddenly became very attractive. Humans who are always "attractive enough" are less likely to become cynical about the benefits of social interaction.

[jacob]

@cL - I posit that social skills are somewhat situational and that the benefits described above are somewhat entangled with charisma. A few years ago, we played around with a D&D test and here's the scale:

Charisma

• 1 (–5): Barely conscious, incredibly tactless and non-empathetic
• 2-3 (–4): Minimal independent thought, relies heavily on others to think instead ($)
• 4-5 (–3): Has trouble thinking of others as people
• 6-7 (–2): Terribly reticent, uninteresting, or rude
• 8-9 (–1): Something of a bore or makes people mildly uncomfortable
• 10-11 (0): Capable of polite conversation
• 12-13 (1): Mildly interesting, knows what to say to the right people
• 14-15 (2): Interesting, knows what to say to most people
• 16-17 (3): Popular, receives greetings and conversations on the street
• 18-19 (4): Immediately likeable by many people, subject of favorable talk
• 20-21 (5): Life of the party, able to keep people entertained for hours
• 22-23 (6): Immediately likeable by almost everybody
• 24-25 (7): Renowned for wit, personality, and/or looks

($) This descriptor seems off. I'd replace it with "Insensitive, disrespectful and churlish".

I scored 7.4 in the CHA department (remember to use the translation equation) but also 21.8 in WIS. I read social situations better than most people. This makes for a strange combination.

Effectively, charisma varies by the situation. 7 is my default mode and reticent is the right descriptor. I just don't seek to connect with random people which in turn makes me as uninteresting to them as they are to me. In a work situation, I'll do 10. At ERE meetups or similar, I turn into a 14 and could probably be mistaken for an extrovert. So I have some idea of what charisma feels like.

My best example for explaining why I think charisma is situational is a college friend from the coed dorm and proverbial ESFP party girl scoring around 21. In many ways my complete opposite. A few months after some of us had started the chess club (3 founding members) that quickly turned into the beer and trivial pursuit club (now with 1/4 of the dorm present), she finally showed up. What was interesting was that her otherwise brilliant social skills didn't work at all when seated around the TP table where the social interaction was more structured (and also required trivia knowledge she didn't have much of).

That's my argument for why situational subject-matter is a confounding variable. Another way of suggesting it is Eleanor Roosevelt's comment about "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." Well, I'd rather note that only a few minds are interested in ideas, whereas many minds are interested in events such as the weather, sports results, stuff they buy, things they eat, and vacations they've been on; and most people are interested in other people and their [own] children.

In Paul Graham's essay, it's recognized that focus takes energy. Popular people focus on popularity. Nerds focus on nerd stuff. If a nerd wants to be popular, they have to focus more on popularity and less on nerd stuff. They might not consider that trade off worthwhile. To spend less time thinking about, say, trivial pursuit factoids and more time learning the names of football players and developing opinions on restaurants or children's activities or how a coworker behaved so that when the random conversation inevitably falls on that and stays there, they have something to say about it.

This repository of "social information" is not something that can be learned once. It's something that needs to be maintained and something that those who are charismatic spend a lot more time and energy on than those who aren't. IOW, charisma is a perishable skill.

In my case, after trying a few times, I've just not found it worthwhile to learn and maintain the "social information" needed to make a lot of random human connections. Instead I maintain the information relevant to connect to select humans... such as this forum. It would obviously be different if I was in the business of having to connect with a lot of different persons on a regular basis, like sales, or nursing, or traveling, but I'm not, so I don't. I think as long as one has the social skills to remain above 4 on the charisma scale in a given situation (we've seen some failures on the forum from time to time) and doesn't feel a need for more humans in one's life, then it's okay to be more interested in other things than how to be more social/friendly/popular.

TL;DR - Social skill is not the same as charisma. Charisma benefits from shared interests. Most people happen to share common interests (events, people) which makes socializing easier but some do not.

[daylen]

@jacob On that thread you said, "@jacob - Note to self. Look up charm-school on Coursera or Open MIT again".

Did you ever get around to it?