Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | rasper's commentslogin

What is this 'energy' is that people are extracting from their social environment? And why are we holding off judging extroversion against introversion?

I'm going to state for the record that introversion is best. Anybody who isn't introverted has no kind of mental life.


Every extrovert is an introvert in some way. I have seen introverts become extroverts in their comfort zones and have seen extroverts become introverts in a new and unfamiliar environment or situation.


That sums it up in my experience. The entire 'idea' of 'personality' is likely much more dynamic than static, despite the concerted efforts of 'social 'scientists'' attempting to justify their existence (as meaningful) - despite nearly a century of data (facts) to the contrary.


Your identity is a work in progress....


I always thought I was an introvert, but I never had this energy problem people are talking about after being social for a long period of time.

My problem was that I just couldn't get outside my comfort zone. After years of forcing myself outside my comfort zone (which many people don't or can't do), I don't really have a problem anymore.

One of the problems with being introverted is that you will probably get passed up for promotions at most companies. you need to be social to move up the ladder, even if you are a developer.


I remember reading a study done a few years back to figure out why many Asian Americans were being passed up for promotions in their work place, despite that they went to better schools and had many honors when they graduated compared to their white co-workers. Initially people thought discrimination was the biggest and only factor but the study showed that they tend to be more introverted and would not ask for a salary raise or a promotion as much as their white counterparts would. Success will not be handed to you in a silver platter in the corporate world, sometimes you just have to go out there and stake your claim.


The article assumes it is wrong for the restroom user to discard his paper towel onto the floor. But why? A complete moral analysis would take into account the fact that he is a valuable employee and he doesn't want to pick up germs and thereby risk becoming ill.

Just because his action imposes a small cost on somebody else _who is payed to tidy up_ that doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

(Besides, picking up the towels takes a few seconds. Not much more time than picking up one towel, and far less time than cleaning the rest of the restroom.)

It's a false christian morality which says that actions taken on behalf of oneself are always wrong and that actions taken on behalf of others are always right. There's a right use for a paper towel and there are right uses for various people's time. Morality is practical.


This really doesn't seem like he was saying at all. If you read the article, he actually doesn't have a problem with people throwing things on the ground, and is quite antagonistic towards the posted messages telling people to do otherwise. The only thing the article assumes is that it is desirable to have a bathroom that isn't persistently littered with paper towel on the floor. Is that something you disagree with?

The solution provided was to adapt to what users were already doing, suggesting that the management, who implied the action of discarding paper towels on the ground was bad, was wrong, and that it was the management which had to change. He was not suggesting that the behavior of the paper towel litter-ers had to change.

Especially the part about "false christian morality" is kind of weird. It's like you scanned through until you found one thing you think some philosophy you have applies to, so that you can comment on it, but you didn't understand or follow through with the rest of the article.


He thinks that throwing the towels on the floor is OK and that better still would be to install a new waste bin by the door. I agree with him. But he wants to reject moral language and label his approach 'pragmatic'.

In reality he merely has a different opinion as to what is right in the first place.

My concern is that if people do what they judge to be right but call it 'wrong' or 'pragmatic' or whatever then this can cause harmful confusion and guilt. And I think that the idea that 'Selfish == wrong; selfless == right' is the hangover of a puritanical strain of Christian thinking.


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: