
Attending Conferences as an Introvert - mooreds
https://sourcediving.com/attending-conferences-as-an-introvert-7f85fa422b03
======
no_protocol
I've never been to a conference.

I was interested in an upcoming conference related to some technology I have
been working with, so I decided to calculate what it would cost to attend. The
fee to attend the conference was not outrageous, but I would have to fly to
the location and find lodging for 3 nights.

I decided I could probably do it for about $1,000 if everything went well.

Then I realized that I would probably be able to just watch the videos on
youtube afterward. Since I wouldn't know any of the people in attendance and
my knowledge of this technology would barely let me converse with experts, it
seems like a simple choice.

So if you're hosting a conference, how do you convince people to spend a
significant portion of their yearly salary and miss several days of work
instead of staying at home?

~~~
mooreds
I'm at a conference right now. The serendipitous side conversations, the
ability to get face to face with vendors and experts (even if it is just you
listening to others ask questions) and the ability to sit and focus on
learning (as opposed to being distracted by other work) are the primary
reasons to attend in meatspace.

------
draw_down
I just went to a conference in Seattle last week (Deconstruct conf) and
literally did not have one conversation the entire time I was at the
conference. Between the talks I read a book. Recommended!

~~~
GordonS
I don't think this is uncommon. I have attended 1 or 2 conferences every year
for the past 15 years or so, and there are always lots of people who want to
keep to themselves, spending time between talks reading or working on their
laptops.

------
zzalpha
Here's a wild idea: Why don't we all agree that the "introvert/extrovert"
dichotomy is a false one, and that while we all have tendencies, it's also
good to step outside our comfort zone a bit.

For those with introverted tendencies, that might mean working on being a bit
more outgoing and trying to engage in social settings.

For those with extroverted tendencies, that might mean listening more and
talking less, and spending more time alone and becoming comfortable with
oneself.

Or, I suppose we could all just label and pigeonhole ourselves so we don't
find ourselves uncomfortable and can avoid growing and changing. I guess
that's okay, too...

~~~
lj3
> Why don't we all agree that the "introvert/extrovert" dichotomy is a false
> one

Because there's scientific evidence strongly suggesting otherwise. That said,
the author is using the wrong term. He's talking about social anxiety, not
introversion. Introverts at conferences tend to take more of a hit and run
approach, like a sprinter, whereas extroverts can socialize for hours, like
those damned cross country runners. :)

~~~
zzalpha
_Because there 's scientific evidence strongly suggesting otherwise._

About this you are mistaken:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion)

 _Despite these differences, a meta-analysis of 15 experience sampling studies
has suggested that there is a great deal of overlap in the way that extraverts
and introverts behave.[33] In these studies, participants used mobile devices
to report how extraverted (e.g., bold, talkative, assertive, outgoing) they
were acting at multiple times during their daily lives. Fleeson and Gallagher
(2009) found that extraverts regularly behave in an introverted way, and
introverts regularly behave in an extraverted way. Indeed, there was more
within-person variability than between-person variability in extraverted
behaviours. The key feature that distinguishes extraverts and introverts was
that extraverts tend to act moderately extraverted about 5-10% more often than
introverts. From this perspective, extraverts and introverts are not
"fundamentally different". Rather, an "extravert" is just someone who acts
more extraverted more often, suggesting that extraversion is more about what
one "does" than what one "has"._

That article goes on to say:

 _Humans are complex and unique, and because introversion-extraversion varies
along a continuum, individuals may have a mixture of both orientations. A
person who acts introverted in one situation may act extraverted in another,
and people can learn to act in "counterdispositional" ways in certain
situations. For example, Brian Little's Free Trait Theory [35][36] suggests
that people can take on "Free Traits", behaving in ways that may not be their
"first nature", but can strategically advance projects that are important to
them. Together, this presents an optimistic view of what extraversion is.
Rather than being fixed and stable, individuals vary in their extraverted
behaviours across different moments, and can choose to act extraverted to
advance important personal projects or even increase their happiness, as
mentioned above._

In short: The dichotomy is a false one. To imply anything else is just pop
psychological BS, albeit fashionable BS right now.

 _He 's talking about social anxiety, not introversion._

That's a _whole_ other problem, and is considered an anxiety disorder. If it's
resulting in career limiting behaviour, it's probably worth therapy, such as
CBT, to try and resolve:

[http://socialphobia.org/social-anxiety-disorder-
definition-s...](http://socialphobia.org/social-anxiety-disorder-definition-
symptoms-treatment-therapy-medications-insight-prognosis)

~~~
lj3
I mean actual scientific evidence, not self-reporting studies which are not in
any way scientific or psychological studies, which are almost universally
bogus.

Take a look at this article. It goes into specifics about neurochemical
pathways and the D4DR gene:
[https://musingsonmormonism.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/easily-t...](https://musingsonmormonism.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/easily-
the-most-fascintaing-and-illuminating-comparison-of-introversion-and-
extroversion-ive-ever-seen/)

> If it's resulting in career limiting behaviour, it's probably worth therapy

Once again, we disagree. I've only seen anxiety disorders get worse through so
called "therapy". There are ways to deal with it on your own, which is pretty
much your only option anyway, unless you want to take benzos, which will
irrevocably screw up your brain chemistry.

~~~
zzalpha
Hmm, funny, because a little googling on that gene turned up this:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine_receptor_D4](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine_receptor_D4)

 _Despite early findings of an association between the DRD4 48bp VNTR and
novelty seeking (a normal characteristic of exploratory and excitable
people),[24][25] a 2008 meta-analysis compared 36 published studies of novelty
seeking and the polymorphism and found no effect._

and goes on to say:

 _Novelty-seeking behavior is probably mediated by several genes, and the
variance attributable to DRD4 by itself is not particularly large._

All that does is prove my point. If novelty-seeking, which let's all assume is
a proxy for extraversion for the moment, is mediated by multiple genes, then
of course there will be a spectrum of variation depending on the combination a
particular person possesses.

Care to try cherrypicking again? :)

~~~
lj3
You picked the first thing you could find in wikipedia and claim that refutes
an article you haven't bothered to read? Who's cherry picking again?
Introversion/Extroversion has _nothing_ to do with novelty seeking. Read the
article I linked.

~~~
zzalpha
Sure, but the argumentation in that blog post is that novelty seeking is a
proxy for dopamine sensitivity, and dopamine sensitivity may be linked to
extraverted/introverted tendencies, hence why that gene study is relevant.

But, as I noted, since multiple genes likely regulate for dopamine sensitivity
(not to mention things like sleep, diet, etc), there are many factors which
regulate those tendencies, and it's false to claim there's a dichotomy and
that people are fixed to one tendency or the other.

