next »

[kitvonsnookerz]

has any of them ever talked to a girl though

Whats a girl...Is that like my sock? 

[litHermit]

Now I must say that introversion doesn't necessarily mean that you're anti-social, or asocial as Schoq said. It just means that you're a lot less comfortable with social interactions.

Some introverts (myself included) are highly social, we're just also highly selective about our social circle.  I can (and often do) spend most of my time around people I choose, who will not drain me of energy.
While my partner falls into the somewhat-asocial extrovert camp though. He can go for weeks without any social interaction, but is not picky about it in the slightest when it happens.

[Schoq]

Introverted doesn't imply shy even though people use them synonymously

[michaelplzno]

I find the introvert/extrovert split is important to dull people who are interested in suming up an entire person in one word. You can find out more about a person's personality by seeing the kinds of things they are carying than if they identify as extrovert or introvert. The people who are worth spending time with don't have a one word personality, but then you have to think about what to say and you might have to actually converse to share ideas and worst of all you might even disagree on things.... oh no! Once you get that one word summary then you don't have to think anymore, you've met hundreds of people with the same "personality type" and it saves you from having to say anything interesting. One of the reasons I don't like socalizing is because of this desire to focus on inane bullshit instead of anything that requires critical independent thought.

[Torchkas]

mmh, sounds like you're disagreeable my friend

[michaelplzno]

I can get that printed on my forhead to save people from having to even say one word to me. In truth I'm a lot of things. I'm a joker, I'm a toker, I'm a midnight smoker... I'm many things. I'm a showman, a shaman, a madman, a sad man...

[gimymblert]

Has anyone addressed the fact that this thread's topic is rooted in the presumption that Computer Scientists and Software Engineers are, in fact, antisocial, and that this may very well not be the case?

In my experience as a game dev student, social interactions are abundant among fellow programmers, even when the topic revolves around programming. So, to me, the very premise of this discussion is flawed because it stems from an unverified assumption, and all anyone's done so far is propose theoretical reason to a theoretical scenario.

tl;dr: Computer people are not necessarily predisposed to being less social than anyone else in the world, and working with the assumption that they are will lead you to false conclusions.

https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/portal/en/publications/personality-and-field-of-study-choice(0689ef9e-3468-4dd2-a272-becbc885098b).html

A one standard deviation increase of extraversion decreases the probability of choosing STEM fields by 7.8 percentage points for men and 2.5 percentage points for women. While the absolute effect is larger for men, the relative effect is larger for women. Given that STEM field enrolment rates in our sample are 30.8% for men and only 7.5% for women, men with a one standard deviation higher score on extraversion are 25% less likely to enrol in a STEM field, whereas women with a similarly higher score on extraversion are 33% less likely to enrol in a STEM field. With regard to choosing Law in university, a one standard deviation increase in extraversion increases the probability of choosing this field of study by 46% (3.6 percentage points) for women and 42% (1.8 percentage points) for men. The multinomial logit model further implies that extraversion is associated with choosing Business, Economics and Medical Studies for men; for women, it associates with Social Sciences and Humanities. Men who score one standard deviation higher on extraversion are 10% (2.9 percentage points) more likely to choose Business and Economics and 20% (2.2 percentage points) more likely to choose Medical Studies. In contrast, women who score one standard deviation higher on extraversion are 7% (2.5 percentage points, marginally significant) more likely to choose Social Sciences and 14% (2.7 percentage points) less likely to choose Humanities. Increasing levels of extraversion seem to shift young men’s field of study choice from STEM to Law, Business, Economics and Medical Sciences. For women, increasing levels of extraversion seems to shift field of study choice from STEM and Humanities to Social Sciences and Law. All other things being equal, Social Sciences, Business, Economics, Law and Medical Studies seem to fit extroverts better in terms of the opportunity for social interaction, for persuading others, and for being the focus of attention. In the words of Sherwin Rosen: “Musicians cannot be tone-deaf; football players tend to be large; while lawyers, and many economists, have a propensity to talk” (Rosen, 2002:9).

Now I must say that introversion doesn't necessarily mean that you're anti-social, or asocial as Schoq said. It just means that you're a lot less comfortable with social interactions. Communication is still very important for big teams, so the notion that everyone in STEM is a complete shut-in is of course completely untrue.

But is it correlation or causation?

[s0]

maybe actually read the study before asking banal questions?

[michaelplzno]

I actually find that many Computer Scientists and Software Engineers are Cancers, Leos, and Sagittarius, whereas humanities are Virgo, Pisces, and Capricorn. Also the Year of the Tiger in the Chinese zodiac is a great year for STEM research.

[s0]

I'm in a humanities field, yet I run a forum frequented by tech nerds. what does that say about me?

[Schoq]

king in the land of the blind

[DireLogomachist]

I'm in a humanities field, yet I run a forum frequented by tech nerds. what does that say about me?

Probably masochism

[Schoq]

wait shit is has this all been an anthropological experiment

[litHermit]

I find the introvert/extrovert split is important to dull people who are interested in suming up an entire person in one word. You can find out more about a person's personality by seeing the kinds of things they are carying than if they identify as extrovert or introvert. The people who are worth spending time with don't have a one word personality, but then you have to think about what to say and you might have to actually converse to share ideas and worst of all you might even disagree on things.... oh no! Once you get that one word summary then you don't have to think anymore, you've met hundreds of people with the same "personality type" and it saves you from having to say anything interesting. One of the reasons I don't like socalizing is because of this desire to focus on inane bullshit instead of anything that requires critical independent thought.

I can understand where you're coming from, still most of us humans like labeling things to understand them better. So while one human may boil down an entire person to a single word (their loss really), the other will view that word as just one tiny layer of insight.

[Superb Joe]

I'm in a humanities field, yet I run a forum frequented by tech nerds. what does that say about me?

in 2 weeks im going to be a cancer researcher and i still post on this web site lol

[michaelplzno]

I find the introvert/extrovert split is important to dull people who are interested in suming up an entire person in one word. You can find out more about a person's personality by seeing the kinds of things they are carying than if they identify as extrovert or introvert. The people who are worth spending time with don't have a one word personality, but then you have to think about what to say and you might have to actually converse to share ideas and worst of all you might even disagree on things.... oh no! Once you get that one word summary then you don't have to think anymore, you've met hundreds of people with the same "personality type" and it saves you from having to say anything interesting. One of the reasons I don't like socalizing is because of this desire to focus on inane bullshit instead of anything that requires critical independent thought.

I can understand where you're coming from, still most of us humans like labeling things to understand them better. So while one human may boil down an entire person to a single word (their loss really), the other will view that word as just one tiny layer of insight.

I guess thats a better way of looking at it, kind of like putting blinders on so you stay focused. I guess thats a step up from people who only care about their own stuff or devs who only care about people who are famous.... people are the worst.

[Josh Bossie]

its like asking why art majors are open to experiences or why athletes are aggressive

our personalities often dictate our skills, or at the very least the type of thing we want to do

The type of person who loves math and logic and computers is, typically, not very social

[Superb Joe]

why are so many people chinese

[Schoq]

an early and major focus on expanding agricultural output

[gimymblert]

its like asking why art majors are open to experiences or why athletes are aggressive

our personalities often dictate our skills, or at the very least the type of thing we want to do

The type of person who loves math and logic and computers is, typically, not very social

I wish we could lock the thread now