Instant Messaging for Introverts

Excellent article. I found myself nodding my head in agreement with almost every point. As someone who rarely uses IM (a deliberate choice) I've had trouble explaining to others why I do not wish to be available for chat 24/7. It's becoming increasingly difficult to avoid as my colleagues at work are using chat more and more as a tool for collaboration. Much like you describe I find there aren't enough gradients between Away and Idle. Normally if I am at the computer I'm working and only wish to be disturbed if it's urgent - how do I communicate that as status?

How do you feel about social networking sites, such as Facebook? Something about this whole social networking trend rubs me the wrong way and I suspect it arises from the same sort of issues I have with IM. I haven't tried Twitter but my gut reaction is that it's yet another encroachment on my privacy and peace of mind. As an introvert it feels more and more like we're all being expected to be extroverts and share every thought that pops into our heads the minute it does. Where is the time for thoughtful reflection? I fear if this trend continues I'll never again be able to get any work done at all.

Thanks again for the insightful article.

This quotation says a great deal:

This is why I love email as a mode of communication. I get many dozens of messages every day, but I can answer them whenever I want. I don't have to look at them right in the middle of this paragraph; I can wait five or ten minutes - it doesn't matter (though in practice, I usually answer email very quickly).

While introversion may be a natural trait, I believe it can be learned by too much exposure to Chatty extroverts that think out loud and expect constant affirmation.

To put it bluntly my cynical view has become: The extrovert is basically a self centered child, demanding attention and constant "strokes" to overcome their inadequacies, self doubt, and insecurity.

As a software developer, I refuse to be "on-line" by any other method than email and - occasionally phone. I simply can not be at the beck and call of every user who finds it easier to send me an IM (or worse call me day or night) about any little issue that 2 minutes browsing the manual (or googling) would answer.

I can't afford it. The more successful my software becomes, the less I can afford it.

Email forces them to at least think their question through. In the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases they solve the problem without needing to call me.

Any question I get more than ONCE gets answered in the FAQ, the Help, AND in the appropriate section of the manual.

So for me, introverted or not, I enjoy chatting in person, this rejection of always being in a position to have my chain yanked is just a programmers version of self preservation.

Punch a hole thru your firewall specifically for the skype port and you will be amazed at the speed and reliability of file transfer.

Using the default skype setup from behind a firewall causes your skype to become a parasite and rely on the good graces of the skype user community to relay your transfers (always encrypted or course) via other user's bandwidth.

On Apr 7, 2008, at 2:21 PM, icebike wrote:
> Punch a hole thru your firewall specifically for the skype port and
> you will be amazed at the speed and reliability of file transfer.

Note that the Skype client picks a port when you first use it, so no
one can tell what "the Skype port" is for you. In the Mac client,
it's read from Preferences-->Advanced (in the cleverly named "Incoming
connection port" box at the bottom).

   --John

Good article? It might have been but at almost 5000 words I found it too tedious to finish. You don't like IM. I get it. I don't really do it either. I just don't find it a great way to communicate.

Signed,

A fellow introvert.

Holy cow! I always knew I was an introvert (I definitely do not like crowds), but had no idea why I shun IM. Although I have accounts with most services, I tend not to use them. Now I know why! And I can definitely see the easily distracted part. Fortunately, I also have a very good memory, so I can usually get back to what I was doing.

I tend not to respond or post about things, but this really hit home. Thanks!

Craig, TidBITS reader since 1990 (Yeah, I think I got some Hypercard archives somewhere, I am a packrat as well as an introvert, maybe they'll open on this SE/30?)

I am fairly surprised to see this article, primarily because I see IM as a safe-middle ground between the two attitudes you presented.

To me, IM is a non-preemptive tool. I'm happy to do my own stuff, working, surfing or reading, while IM tells me I have a message awaiting my attention, or while someone is putting in a reply to what I sent back. In fact, its a mandatory tool at a particular Fortune 500 company I worked at, and its been a great productive tool. (someone is saying ya right - chatting a productive tool?)

Think about it, if someone needs to converse with you, which is less disruptive to your immediate activity - walking over to your cubicle, calling you on the phone, or leaving a IM flashing on your screen that you can read in the next 5 minutes or so? In your article you've equated IM to something disruptive like phone, but there's a big difference, a phone call requires your immediate action to pick up and exchange pleasantries, an IM message just gets left there until you read it. If you want, disable the sound notification (usually first to go for me).

Of course they could send you an email, but the roundabout time is much longer and people have a tendency (to me) to just say their point in IM, while I've read some of the most verbose emails around. In fact we do our IM discussions at time and then usually send a summary email to all involved stating the outcome.

I think in this case IM isn't at fault, what's at fault is your current assumption that an incoming IM needs an immediate response. Once you start taking your time to respond, most of those compulsive conversationists tend to leave u alone, and use it only for "valid correspondence". And personally, I save email for heavy/important stuff. Wouldn't want to use a chain of emails over something like "So where should the group have lunch?".

I meet a lot of the same introvert characteristics as Joe. Since I met the
characteristics so well I couldn't figure out why I like mult-tasking until
I realized my multi-tasking and what Joe was talking about were different.

Joe is talking about distruptive multi-tasking where working on one task
something occurs to force you switch gears. IM messages, tweet
notifications from Twitterific, etc.... these disruptions force themselves
in front of you and make you switch gears.

I multi-task by having a set of projects I switch between. I usually know
what the projects are and can switch at useful times (I believe Joe does
this as well as he makes frequent comments about flipping to e-mail at set
intervals). In other words I believe extroverts use preemptive style
multi-tasking while introverts use coopertive style multi-tasking.

I come from a computer support world so it might seem weird that I'm not
good a preemptive style multi-tasking. This is mainly because I've adopted
coopertive multi-tasking to seem like preemptive style to end users. It
falls apart with Instant Messaging (yes I tried it for about a week. When
people started IMing me at 10pm because I was online on another project and
they saw I was "available" they started pinging me with stuff that could
wait), but works really well with e-mail.

I've made "support" one of my projects. So I work on something, switch
gears mentally to "support" mode and go to e-mail. I can then fire off 4
or 5 e-mails that have come in, asking for more info, giving recommended
solutions, etc... then switch gears again and back to another project while
I wait for responses to those suggestions to come back.

It's also helpful that I seem to be able to skim something of short
length/duration without switching gears. so when an e-mail notification
pops-up and disappears (the disappearing is important) I can glance at it
to see if it's important and then continue on without a full context
switch. Additionally it's not unusual for me to hyper-focus to the point I
don't even see the pop-up notifications (co-workers occasionally have to
tap me to get my attention during these times as well.)

Dual monitors work well for this too as I can put distracting stuff on one
monitor and focus on the other.

As an introvert, I almost didn't respond, but thanks for the article, you've helped me to learn some new things about my own personality that I didn't realize were there. Cheers, Gord Wait

On 7-Apr-2008, at 15:21, michael776 wrote:
> I wonder, though, about the age factor. What do those who don't yet
> have gray hair feel about spending so much time sharing their lives?
> How does the fact that we grew up without constant connection and
> have learned it as adults factor into the situation? My friend's
> kids can't imagine life without texting and consider email totally
> old fashioned.

I use IM differently than most people, I guess. I keep iChat open
most of the time, and I have a few dozen people in my buddy list, but
I use it more as a monitoring app (who's online, when). Conversations
on iChat, with one exception, tend to be very short with 4 or 5
exchanges, or a simple link pasted I thought that specific person
would find interesting.

It is not uncommon for several days to pass between a question and a
response, and in this respect, IM is actually usually slower than
email, but is still used as a conversational tool where email is more
or a letter-writing tool.

I do have one friend who I use IM as a phone proxy, more in the
classic IM model of a long rapid exchange back and forth, but that's
unique among all my contacts. Here's the outline of a conversation
with that friend:

31-Mar-08
16:00 Sarah *poke* I'm in california
Lewis Auto-reply: Away
17:10 Lewis woot!
Lewis I think it is properly referred to a "Lotus Land"
19:25 Lewis "All Day Long I Dream About Sex 6:05 JC Chasez
Schizophrenic"
19:31 Sarah hehe
Sarah I love blasting that on my ipod in inappropriate places
Sarah the more wildly inappropriate the better
Lewis Planned Parenthood?
Sarah yes, I frequently spend my days there
Lewis heh
Sarah :P
19:58 Lewis how's Lotusland?
22:10 Sarah well my stuff finally arrived today

<conversation finally begins in ernest and goes for about an hour with
maybe 100 exchanges back and forth. It is almost like everything
leading up to this is a long series of ACK/NACK handshakes going back
and forth before the connection actually gets started.>

So I guess not only am I a bit of an Introvert, but so is everyone I
know. No one I know expects immediate replies to IMs, and
conversational gambits begin with *poke* or "are you there?" or
something similar because the assumption is, even though my computer
THINKS I am available, that doesn't mean I am.

And I don't think it's an age thing, either. Sure, most the people
that I IM with are in there 30's or 40, but some are in their early
twenties and one was in her 60's...

I've only ever had one person get annoyed with me for not replying to
an IM right away, but then I've never used it in a collaborative sort
of environment or for any sort of business use.

Nice article, I agree with most of it. However, I think there is more to it than only being about the interruptive style of IMs.

Simply put, IMs, blogs and the like are tools and methods of socializing, networking, etc. However, the more introvert you are, the less interested you are in exactly socializing, networking, etc. I think this as much is the reason why messengers, blogs and other products of the 'always online' paradigm rubs introverts the wrong way.

I consider myself an introvert (at least according to Joe's
definition), but I find IMing very practical. Since I work out of my
home, it means I can be in contact with clients and colleagues more
easily than on the phone, and it gives me more "human" contact during
the day while working. I can understand not wanting to be bothered at
times, and, when I'm that busy, I just turn iChat off. But I find it a
valuable addition to the tools I use to do my job.


Kirk

Interesting article Joe, it shows the value of writing something from a biographical point of view, rather than rely on statistics about IM use alone (which would blur the distinction between extraverts and introverts if you were not to explicitly make that distinction up front).

Parenthetically, it is not the extravert/introvert pair that is idiosyncratic, it is the extrovert/introvert pair that is. Linguistically, the terms stem from Latin, which uses the prepositions intro (as in introspection) and extra (as in extravagant). So the extro is the result of a, no doubt, unconscious effort to make the terms more symmetric.

[FWIW, the New Oxford American Dictionary (the one built into Leopard!) lists "extrovert" as the currently preferred spelling and "extravert" as a variant. It further states: "USAGE The original spelling extravert is now rare in general use but is found in technical use in psychology." -Joe]

Great article, had me nodding in agreement throughout. I'd always wondered why I didn't really feel the need to use IM, and this helps explain why. But while I'm in the "IM isn't really for me" camp, I'm a dedicated and devoted IM user at certain times.

Part of my job (mid-grade military officer on a flag officer staff) involves spending a few hours a day on watch in our command center. We're there to monitor what's going on with our forces, and IM is one of several ways to do it. It has, in fact, mostly replaced voice radio communications as our preferred way to communicate and pass reports and orders quickly up and down the chain of command. All watch officers have to monitor several chat rooms at once, staying abreast of several different topics and communicating with different audiences.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to learning to use the right tool to get the job done. For many of us who don't normally feel the need to use IM, when we need the capability, we don't have to be young or computer literate to successfully use it.

As an aside, I've found that when on watch, extroverts aren't better than introverts at monitoring IM--they often get into non-work related conversations with other watch personnel and stop focusing on their computer screens. However, they can be better at quickly reporting incoming information than an introvert, who might try to spend a few extra seconds or minutes trying to sort the situation out or gather more information than initially reported (yes, this would be me).

Tedley

Right on! Thanks for clarifying the feelings and practical realities facing us introverts. And, for including those useful links.

Note the number of comments that are Posts 1 or 2. Did your subject resonate with a normally silent constituency?

(True to form, I also almost did not respond and even these few words did require evaluation before posting.)

Amongst many introverted TidBits readers we have a mixture of (great)
abilities which offset any possible disabilities; more than likely
are greater. Anybody who "Foolishly takes any of the standard
cures" for this kind of disability may end up with the old abilities
still in place and an enhanced personality. Eg. still able to read
or type at the speed of light but less aloof about it...

However, it is all on a continuum with the genuine disabilities that
more children suffer each year. Some of it perfectly natural and
probably treatable: like pathogenic infections that inflame and
disrupt gut, then brain: leaving a condition of synchronicity where
one part of the brain suddenly drops the mutual foxtrot and breaks
off into a waltz or tango. After a few missteps it comes back, but
not necessarily to the same partner, and gets lost. And a lot of
other things we still don't know yet.

More seems to be due to vaccination injury or to a hundred or two
pollutants that can be measured in newborn kids' blood; leading to
skewed IQ's, high in some areas, low in others; hundreds of other
symptoms. Mostly preventable and treatable AND compulsively
ignored by our society; though that is very slowly changing. All
the references are off TidBits main topics while being perfectly
relevant to this one of "Introverts using IM." I can give them to
anybody who mails me, posting them here would be disruptive.

(Joe, handle this post how you see best. Some of this thread's
readers will want the references, most will probably not.)

George

On 4/8/2008 4:26 AM, "CWH" wrote:
> Think about it, if someone needs to converse with you, which is less
> disruptive to your immediate activity - walking over to your cubicle, calling
> you on the phone, or leaving a IM flashing on your screen that you can read in
> the next 5 minutes or so? In your article you've equated IM to something
> disruptive like phone, but there's a big difference, a phone call requires
> your immediate action to pick up and exchange pleasantries, an IM message just
> gets left there until you read it.
...
> I think in this case IM isn't at fault, what's at fault is your current
> assumption that an incoming IM needs an immediate response.

I think what we have here are different contexts for using IM. To me, what
you've described -- leaving something until you decide to get to it --
applies to email, not IM. Most of the people with whom I communicate view IM
as being similar to a phone call: an attempt at approximately-immediate
communication. (It's called *instant* messaging, after all ;-) ) In both
cases, IM and phone, I can choose to ignore it if I'm busy (or set IM to
"Away" and the phone to go directly to voicemail), but there's usually an
expectation from the person trying to contact me that if I'm going to reply,
it will be quickly. Otherwise, why not just send email?

Of course, a significant factor here is that I work remotely (as do a good
number of other people in my company), so walking to the next cubicle isn't
an option. I'd guess that 95% of my IM use is work-related.

One of our teenagers recently had a wreck due to texting while driving. I believe that younger people may multi-task better than older people, and that extroverts may multi-task better than introverts. But no one multi-tasks better than he single-tasks. Interruptive technologies have a place in social contexts, and in scheduled virtual meetings. But the widespread use of them in other professional and educational contexts degrades productivity and quality. That they are popular and that teenagers consider email old-school doesn't change this fact.

Great article. I really share these views though I have some more observation as to why us introverts shun these connections.

One thing I thought was missing was not necessarily the distraction of having to answer( opinions vary as to instant or delayed...you decide) but the sheer need to be connected. My wife and I both feel that today's society has been forced by technology to be in constant connection and IM is just one more way (Twitter, SMS et al) to manage our existence. As both of us are introverts, we feel we need definite down time and this doesn't seem possible or to the people using these technologies for constant connection, very polite. I work in the IT field, so I adopt the mantra of use what tools you need to do your job and make it work to my advantage. I then shut it off at home. I worry for the future of my kids and all kids for that matter (introverts OR extroverts arguement aside) that they won't be able to adapt to connection/information shut off and this will lead to long term psychological issues. I guess time will tell.

Joe, thanks for taking the time to research and write this article. I'm retired now, but toward the end of my employment we were supposed to be using instant messaging at work. I never participated and have resisted using it in my personal life. Like you, I thought this was a contradiction since I am otherwise very involved with technical things.

Your tie-in with introversion and the information and links about it was extremely useful and interesting to me. I am definitely an introvert, yet have (unconsciously) felt that it was as you mentioned to some extent a "preference" and therefore a failing or result of some neurosis. I am looking forward to following your links and thinking more about this subject.