Slashdot Mirror


Introverts Have More Brain Activity?

* * Beatles-Beatles writes to tell us Yahoo News is reporting that introverted individuals tend to have more brain activity in general, specifically in the frontal lobe. From the article: "The attitude that there's something wrong with introverted people is widely shared in society, where fast talk and snap decisions are often valued over listening, deliberation and careful planning. Extroverts seem to rule the world or, at least, the USA, which hasn't elected an introverted president for three decades, since Jimmy Carter."

757 comments

  1. Two things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A. Stop posting stories submitted by this Beatles link spammer. He's using Slashdot to boost his Google pagerank.

    B. The first President Bush was an ISTJ and thus an introvert.

    1. Re:Two things by Bananatree3 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      A. Stop posting stories submitted by this Beatles link spammer. He's using Slashdot to boost his Google pagerank.

      Even though I am against spamming, I beg to differ on your request to ban someone from submitting articles. I know many users (examples: top ten submitters) who submit articles that are cohesive, thought out and in general good that also use their article author link to promote a site.

      It seems to me that as long as the flow of the articles is coherent, insightful and fresh, this is what is important. Now yes, if every 1 out of 7 articles ever posted on slashdot was from this submitter than I would worry, but that is not the case here. The issue is on the quality of the articles, and not just based on who submits them. This is what it is about, correct? As Martin Luther King said

      "a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character".

      In this case, the submitters should be judged by quality of the articles they submit, not by what kind of author-link they have.

    2. Re:Two things by operagost · · Score: 0, Troll

      C. Anything linked to Jimmy Carter is unlikely to be considered positive.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:Two things by Gothic_Walrus · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I could be in a minority, but I almost never look at author links. I didn't notice this one until I saw your post.

      Maybe this isn't as much of an issue as you think it is.

      --
      Goo goo g'joob.
    4. Re:Two things by caudron · · Score: 4, Funny

      B. The first President Bush was an ISTJ and thus an introvert.

      And here I thought he was EVIL. Oh well, live and learn. (it's a joke...laugh dammit!)

      --
      -Tom
    5. Re:Two things by jadavis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anything linked to Jimmy Carter is unlikely to be considered positive.

      That comment is as valid as it is contoversial.

      Don't blame the parent for "flamebait" when the submitter is the one who brought American presidents in general, and Jimmy Carter in particular, into this thread.

      --
      Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
    6. Re:Two things by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 5, Informative

      I could be in a minority, but I almost never look at author links. I didn't notice this one until I saw your post. Maybe this isn't as much of an issue as you think it is.

      It's not you the message is intended for, it's Google. Google ranks sites at least partially (and primarily) by a method designed to determine the usefullness of a site based on links. Links from some sites count for more than others. Because /. is so huge, we can have a major Google impact. Having your site linked to from /. helps it, esp. if it is linked with a relevant keyword, and being linked to in an article is a huge deal.

    7. Re:Two things by aaronl · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Looks like the unpopular opinion is struck down as flamebait/troll yet again...

      If Pres. Carter had done nothing other than messing with the IRS, he would still have been a one of the more terrible presidents in the last 100 years. But no, we also endured the Iran hostage crisis, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the horrid handling of the oil shortages, the terrible economic conditions, the absolute failure to accomplish any of his campaign promises, the continuation/reinstatment of the draft programs, and the policy to consider Taiwan as a part of China.

    8. Re:Two things by saskboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My experience from a front page posting, is that the author link brings as little as 80 hits, not the flood that some might expect Slashdot to bring. Then again, my username has been around for years now and nearly everyone who would have visited it will have seen it by now...

      I sure got a chuckle at the thought that the USA hasn't elected a president with higher brain activity since Carter :-D

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    9. Re:Two things by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's hard for me to believe that -any- politician is an introvert.

      Just because they're not a giant media whore doesn't mean they're introverted.

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    10. Re:Two things by qaz20 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If we had followed Carter's incentive programs for alternative energy and conservation, maybe we wouldn't be so concerned with oil in the Middle East.

    11. Re:Two things by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      I could be in a minority, but I almost never look at author links.

      And I never look at miserable failure links. That's miserable failure links. The links that say miserable failure. I skip right over them.

    12. Re:Two things by DeadPrez · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it is the extroverts who we come to love and hate. But its the introverts who are well respected within the institution and you may not know them unless they represent you. I'd guess Pennsylvania Representative John Murtha is one of those guys.

    13. Re:Two things by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      He is a great man. Just had some bad luck as a president...

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    14. Re:Two things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      woah, I skipped around while reading that and I thought you were talking about Bush for a second there...

    15. Re:Two things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! King shooting his own nation in the foot, then, now, and for the future!!! Wow! Now, worry, truck drivers. For Christmas gift, I would like the current U.S. president Bush to _understand_ (as in "comprehend") the irony here.

    16. Re:Two things by Eriky · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So.. do we all have to adapt to Google now? Think about how crazy this is! Let someone who contributes post his link, it's the least slashdot can do back.

    17. Re:Two things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the parent poster meant that it is an issue with someone spamming thier link (such as Wicked I.T. the best tech support in the Boston area!) but the fact that they do it for a better Google pagerank. Which sucks, yet works (yes, shameless plug, I know). But having a link on ./ a couple times definately would increase pagerank on Google. Props for the thought on that though.

    18. Re:Two things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you don't really understand all introverts, do you? I'm an ISTJ, and I am drawn to political service. Not because I love campaigning, but because I like serving my community and helping others.

    19. Re:Two things by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

      When I consider the parade of personages that have occupied the White House in my lifetime, Carter is the most principled and honorable of the lot.

      --
      "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    20. Re:Two things by Cigarra · · Score: 1

      Ok ok, (most of) we already knew that.

      So what? I still can't see what is wrong about it...

      --
      I don't have a sig.
    21. Re:Two things by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 1

      Google ranks sites at least partially (and primarily) by a method designed to determine the usefullness of a site based on links.

      Sorry, but that's not the whole story.

      If the guy had a link in his profile it would have more impact than the link in the article submission. And before someone says that spiders aren't logged as users so they don't see sigs or profiles, explain these results to me. Also, there is a qualifier for those links. The anchor text needs to be represented on not only the destination page, but the initial page also. I don't see beetles repeated anywhere other than his author tag. Now, if the article contained the word 'beetles' ten times you would have a point.

      This is just people mouthing off about things they know nothing about, it's FUD. This guy isn't a spammer, in fact looking at these results, most of his links come from places OTHER than slashdot. Yeah, what a spammer.

      Plus, this guy is ranks high for George Harrison in Google. Oh the humanity! Its not like this is what his website IS ACTUALLY ABOUT OR ANYTHING!

      The content he submitted to slashdot is decent. The link he employed is accurate. The content on the page he linked to correlates with the link he provided. All in all, it's done correctly. What is the problem?

    22. Re:Two things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh boohoohoo. Whaaawhaa.

    23. Re:Two things by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 1

      That shit is hilarious. But google has been onto railing for a while now. Plus I think you'd have quite a fight for derailing the current rankings for miserable failure.

    24. Re:Two things by budgenator · · Score: 1

      John Murtha, isn't he the guy that is being called an ex-marine in the media all over the place as opposed to being called a former-marine. The saying goes "The only ex-marine is a dead Marine", so being called an ex-marine is more like being disowned by your family, shunned by your community, exiled by your nation and excommunicated by your church. This is a sign of disrespect, even in our left leaning press, there has to be somebody, maybe a camera-man or a grip that understands and has explain the insult to the writers and talkin-heads.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    25. Re:Two things by BarryNorton · · Score: 1
      And before someone says that spiders aren't logged as users so they don't see sigs or profiles, explain these results to me.
      True, the 'homepage' link is still visible (though your sig isn't).
      If the guy had a link in his profile it would have more impact than the link in the article submission.
      Now I'm no expert on search engine spamming, but is it not possible he's capitalising on this?

      http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=beatles+%22mit+ wireless+campus+tracking+users%22

      This guy isn't a spammer
      Not true - he is a professional spammer...
    26. Re:Two things by Locke03 · · Score: 1

      To bad principle and honor gets you absolutly zip in life except maybe the occasional pat on the back....or maybe it's just me being cynical. When in recent memory has principle and honor really gotten anyone anything? It sounds good in theory and I'll stick by it until it kills me but it seems that every time I check whoever lies the best gets the most.

      --
      I don't care what youre doing so much as the idiotic way you're doing it.
    27. Re:Two things by budgenator · · Score: 1

      While I'll agree that Carter has been among the worst presidents we've had, we also have to give him his due as one of the best former presidents. Other than Kenedy and Reagan, its been a while sense we've had a good president

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    28. Re:Two things by saskboy · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is why some people think it's a huge deal in the sense that it creates a problem for the rest of us. It's a link, and the only "payment" an author receives for writing for Slashdot. If it were a link to something illegal or disgusting I can see how people would be upset, but links are easily ignored if they hold no interest, and I don't begrudge authors their 15 clicks of fame.

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    29. Re:Two things by aaronl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are a lot of things that if it had worked out we would've been better. That might be one of them, but we'll never know. Pres. Carter managed to get Congress so upset with him that he accomplished nothing. The most telling part of how bad that was is that Congress was completely Democrat controlled, and yet he still was at odds with it on just about everything he pushed.

      If we were more concerned with pushing for alternative energy R&D instead of lowest possible cost and maintaining status quo, we wouldn't need something like Carter's energy programs. It's important to remember that conservation is only a temporary stop-gap measure. You still have the same problems, they're just shifted a little into the future. (I'm not saying that we shouldn't conserve, of course.)

    30. Re:Two things by aaronl · · Score: 1

      Never said he wasn't either of those things, just that he wasn't a good president. You know the saying "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions."? Pres. Carter is not a bad person by any means, but he ended up doing, supporting, or causing a lot of bad things, and I'm sure he didn't intend for them to be that way. He's just too trusting and too honest for his own good.

    31. Re:Two things by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 1

      Now I'm no expert on search engine spamming, but is it not possible he's capitalising on this?

      Your search is keyed on the term beatles and then qualifying with "mit wireless campus tracking users". The term in parenthesis is what's actually grabbing those search results, not the beatles guy. If you do a search for all the links to the site in his author tag, it only has one from slashdot. Now, he may be using slashdot to gain PR, but so is everyone who has a homepage in their profile. This guy isn't doing anything new.

      In the search you posted, all you found was that guys author name. The link didn't pass with the aggregation on the results I sampled. This would result in NO gain for the site he was promoting.

      Not true - he is a professional spammer

      This I have to see proof of. I also think that the term spam needs a little clarification. If this guy goes to every message board on the planet and posts "I have the best beatles site in the world!" as the linking text to his website, and that is the ONLY thing he contributes - he is a spammer. If he contributes to the discussion at hand, helps answer a question, or submits decent content and then add's a link to his own site - he's not a spammer.

      If his beatles website showed up for searches like "cure for cancer" or "AIDS vaccines" then he would be a spammer. But I haven't seen it. So far I have found that this site in particular shows up for George Harrison on the first page of google. Considering that's what the site is about, it seems ok.

    32. Re:Two things by aaronl · · Score: 1

      You aren't going to get my agreement on you there. I hate Pres. Kennedy with a passion, and think we're lucky to be alive after his presidency. He played things loose and fast, and that caused a lot of problems. He didn't really understand consequences.

      Pres. Reagan had some good ideas, and maybe they worked, or maybe we got lucky. I don't know enough about all the economic factors to make an informed statement about it. He did do a number of things that were rather nasty, though, and have been mentioned repeatedly by others in this thread.

      They were, however, both very likeable people. To that end, they tended to both get their way, good or bad.

      I honestly don't consider us to have had a good president for over 100 years.

    33. Re:Two things by BarryNorton · · Score: 1
      The link didn't pass with the aggregation on the results I sampled.
      About this you're right. Something's driving him to submit all these Slashdot stories though, and if you're right about it being more than just backlinks, I'm guessing it's something to do with this duplication (after all the aggregated stories do link back to the originals and each mention the Beatles at least twice)...
      [That "he is a professional spammer"] I have to see proof of.
      hxxp://www.webmasterzine.com/newsletters/article39 .html
      If this guy goes to every message board on the planet and posts "I have the best beatles site in the world!" as the linking text to his website, and that is the ONLY thing he contributes - he is a spammer
      Oh wait, so within the Google results you quoted, he's been making a positive (and Beatles-related) contribution to the Web? Did you even look at what you quoted?

      Apart from his 'profession', what makes me suspicious of this person (which I can't believe you don't see) is that his entire George Harrison site is screen-scraped from other sources. There's nothing original there, and I could have made it in a couple of hours...

    34. Re:Two things by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 1

      I agree that this guy shady, what I don't agree with is the use of the term spammer. This guy is just using links to raise his sites popularity, which every single person in here is doing with either their sig or their homesite link.

      The article you linked to is nothing more than an article showing you how to quickly find your rankings in the search engine. This could just as easily be applied to searching for competitors in a business sense. The article really doesn't have anything to do with spamming.

      About this you're right. Something's driving him to submit all these Slashdot stories though, and if you're right about it being more than just backlinks, I'm guessing it's something to do with this duplication (after all the aggregated stories do link back to the originals and each mention the Beatles at least twice)...

      These are RSS feeds from Slashdot, and this dude has no control over them. He gets a boost from the indexing of the slashdot front page by google and the PR boost from having it on the front page. These are things I will not deny. This is just basic SEO principles at work. That doesn't necessarily make it spamming.

      Oh wait, so within the Google results you quoted, he's been making a positive (and Beatles-related) contribution to the Web? Did you even look at what you quoted?

      Maybe I didn't communicate what I was saying clearly. If "I have the best beatles site in the world!" is the ONLY thing he posted and it was a link to the website, it would be spamming. I'm not saying the site isn't crap, it is, and I'm not saying the guy isn't shady. He's not spamming though. The link is unobtrusive to the content he posted here on slashdot, it's in his submitter tag. You actually have to go out of your way to find it. The effect it has on the google rankings only relates to the subject matter he applied it to, George Harrison. Because he screen scraped it doesn't make it any less relevant to someone who runs across it and may or may not find it informative. It is relative to the subject of the link, it is applied correctly.

      Now, is the guy a scumbucket for screen scraping content? I don't know. He give links to the locations he took it from. The only difference from RSS feeds is that the content creator may not have wanted their content copied. Now, that is a big difference and one not to be trivialized. Yet, in the aspect of unoriginal content - RSS does the same thing. If I employ RSS feeds on my website, I am showing unoriginal content.

      The problem as I see it is that search results are subjective. I may be looking for bit of information, and you may be looking for another related piece of information. There exists a decent probability that we may use the same query to find these two related, but different, bits of info. The end result is that one of us is going to percieve that the search results were incorrect. The reality of the matter is that one of our queries was inaccurate.

    35. Re:Two things by BarryNorton · · Score: 1
      The article you linked to is nothing more than an article showing you how to quickly find your rankings in the search engine.
      The article is just the most clearly attributed piece I could find - as several other posters have pointed out, manipulating search engine rankings is one of the services his business offers.
      Now, is the guy a scumbucket for screen scraping content? I don't know. He give links to the locations he took it from. The only difference from RSS feeds is that the content creator may not have wanted their content copied.
      Were I a smaller man, I might ask AP and the BBC what they thought to his style duplication of content... he's certainly not using their RSS feeds, or observing their terms.
      If "I have the best beatles site in the world!" is the ONLY thing he posted and it was a link to the website, it would be spamming. I'm not saying the site isn't crap, it is, and I'm not saying the guy isn't shady. He's not spamming though.
      I do see your point. Link/Blog spam is a well-accepted term, though, and I maintain this is what he's busy with...
    36. Re:Two things by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1

      "and the policy to consider Taiwan as a part of China."

      Yeah, and Hawaii isn't part of the US either. It IS a province of China you idiot.

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    37. Re:Two things by aaronl · · Score: 1

      Taiwan was *not* a province of China at the time. Carters decision made sure it became one, as far as the world was concerned.

      Around 1900 Taiwan was actually ruled by Japan, after China lost a war with them. After WWII, Japan was forced to relinquish control of it to the Republic of China. The ROC is different from the PRC (People's Republic of China) that rules China today. Around 1950, the ROC government lost a civil war with the what became the PRC for control of mainland China, and retreated to Taiwan. At this point, the PRC simply decided that they ruled Taiwan, even though the ROC was in control of Taiwan and Mongolia. Now, the ROC government was *also* dealing with possible rebellion and much unrest of the people that actually *lived* in Taiwan, but they were officially in charge.

      During the Korean war, the US actually sent troops to help maintain Taiwan's independance from the mainland China communist PRC. The view of Taiwan as independant continued until Pres. Carter changed everything, by making actions and statements that also led many other governments to view the PRC as the governemnt of Taiwan.

      Pres. Carter made legitimate the unsupported claim that the RPC made, rather than supporting the government that was actually in control of Taiwan.

  2. Submitter is a link spammer, does /. care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm recycling a comment from another AC in another Scuttlemonkey/**Beatles-Beatles post. This guy's getting worse than Roland Picklepail:

    Am I the only person who has noticed the numerous stories that get posted by *--Beatles-Beatles? Am I also the only person who has noticed that the link used in is name is a constantly changing URL (depending on the story) with pointers to various scammy sites? Is it not obvious what he's doing? He's using the awesome PageRank of slashdot do promote his sites based on searches that have the word Beatles in them.

    It's a small price to pay for free advertising. Find a story, summarize it in 5 minutes, post to slashdot, and get a pagerank boost that advertisers would pay hundreds (or maybe thousands) for. (Text links on high-ranking sites is big business - just ask oreilly).

    Slashdot should at least put a ref=nofollow in the links to submitters (or better yet, only link the submitter's name to his/her user page).


    In closing, a quick bit of WHOIS shows that all the sites linked by **B-B are registered to Carl Fogle. Carl, cut this crap out.

    1. Re:Submitter is a link spammer, does /. care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's a small price to pay for free advertising. Find a story, summarize it in 5 minutes, post to slashdot, and get a pagerank boost that advertisers would pay hundreds (or maybe thousands) for.

      From the point of view of Slashdot, giving a pagerank boost is a small price to pay to get submissions that got at least 5 min of work into them.

    2. Re:Submitter is a link spammer, does /. care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you care so much why don't you give Carl a call @ (718) 996-7672. Or if you are in New York feel free to visit him at 4120 Manhattan Ave, Brooklyn, NY, 11224.

    3. Re:Submitter is a link spammer, does /. care? by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can't. I'm an introvert. I'd never do something so rash as to cold call someone. I'll let you extroverts take care of it.

    4. Re:Submitter is a link spammer, does /. care? by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1
      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    5. Re:Submitter is a link spammer, does /. care? by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 1
      You're just jealous cause I throught up and IMPLEMENTED what you couldn't. Maybe if you got off your lazy ass for once, you could make something of yourself.

      i cant. im an introvert. all i can do is sit here and think about it.

    6. Re:Submitter is a link spammer, does /. care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize this is his business right? A1 Search Engine Optmization Ranking Submission. http://search-engines-web.com/ He's probably making more money than most of you.

    7. Re:Submitter is a link spammer, does /. care? by toetagger1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      5 minutes of googeling, and I find this:

      "web design development graphic design & search engines placement
      web design development graphic design flash powerpoint dhtml examples & search engines placement
      http://5url.com/
      Contact: carl fogle developer 5url.com 4120 manhattan ave nyc, ny 11224 Tel: 718 996 7672 Fax: 718 996 7672"

      source

      Google says he lives here

      carl fogle
      web graphic design
      4120 manhattan ave
      brooklyn ny 11224

      Phone: 1.7189967672

      Fax: 718 996 7672

      and more:

      Listed as a web designer

      --
      who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
    8. Re:Submitter is a link spammer, does /. care? by grazzy · · Score: 1

      I doubt it helps much, it's only on the front page for a couple of hours, the archived pages doesnt have that much of pr. I've tried it myself, I'm not rich yet :)

    9. Re:Submitter is a link spammer, does /. care? by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Interesting
      you care so much why don't you give Carl a call @ (718) 996-7672.
      If you have a GSM phone, dial #31# before the number and it'll show up as "private" or "protected" on the recipient's caller ID.

      "Hello, please leave a message after the tone"
      BEEP

      Googling for his phone number brings up a lot of information. Apparently he's in the search engine optimization business and has been spamming for a long time. And is a jerk about it too.

      His website: hxxp://search-engines-web.com
      Another website: hxxp://5url.com/
      Google Phonebook: C Aab
      stwnewspress.com: Contact Name = A. Seo
      5url.subportal.com: Contact Name = A. Aab

      Feel free to send him e-mail url55@hotmail.com
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    10. Re:Submitter is a link spammer, does /. care? by FuturePastNow · · Score: 1

      5url.com

      I would never pay the designer of that site a dime for his expertise. Gah. Zee goggles, ze do nothing.

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    11. Re:Submitter is a link spammer, does /. care? by InvalidError · · Score: 1

      As a fellow introvert, I'll only add this: exactly.

    12. Re:Submitter is a link spammer, does /. care? by chrnb · · Score: 1
      --
      MikMik Baby Organics Mikkaworks
    13. Re:Submitter is a link spammer, does /. care? by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a true Duh-merican. Whether or not you're the original poster, I think you deserve death by mohi mohi with a whale. I don't hate America. I hate Duh-merica (translates to neocon capitalist pig fuckers).

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    14. Re:Submitter is a link spammer, does /. care? by infolation · · Score: 1

      It's precisely this kind of life-dissection that demonstrates why you should never p*** off a geek

    15. Re:Submitter is a link spammer, does /. care? by ras_b · · Score: 1

      on my motorola verizon phone (and i think most local, non-cell phones), dialing *67 before a call blocks my number.

    16. Re:Submitter is a link spammer, does /. care? by Cigarra · · Score: 1

      OMG, did he hire YOU to advertise for him!! Man he is resourceful!


      Seriously buddy, shouldn't you spend your 5 minutes in something else? Like in, for example, getting a life? Yep, a real one.

      --
      I don't have a sig.
    17. Re:Submitter is a link spammer, does /. care? by The+Metahacker · · Score: 1

      Both of those are decent solutions. Alternatively, Google could rework their algorithms to take this into account. /. is a popular enough site for them to notice and to merit some action. Heck, I'm reasonably sure *someone* there has read this comment thread.

    18. Re:Submitter is a link spammer, does /. care? by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      What are you, jealous? Who cares if he's getting a pagerank boost by getting stories posted on Slashdot? If he's able to make a little bit of extra cash by contributing to Slashdot, then good for him.

    19. Re:Submitter is a link spammer, does /. care? by Orkie · · Score: 1

      The parent can't help it. It's in his DNA after all!

  3. Fast talker by vik · · Score: 5, Informative

    "...fast talk and snap decisions are often valued over listening, deliberation and careful planning..."

    Maybe on your side of the pond, mate.

    Vik :v)

    1. Re:Fast talker by ChilyWily · · Score: 1

      Well said! Introvert/Extrovert...bah! Either case, careful people chose their words carefully. What may be perceived as 'fast talk' may in fact be exactly what is required to get a so-called 'snap decision', as one of my friends puts it, 'an old Jedi mind-trick'.

      It varies on the situation as well, most people clam up when faced with superior authority (perceived or otherwise). Others will cut conversations, speaker in a louder voice, thicker accent, incorrect vocabulary, etc. all in an attempt to get their goal accomplished.

      Much more to be said here, but that is the basic gist...

      ChilyWily
    2. Re:Fast talker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's interesting is that we got neither fast talk nor careful planning from our current president.

      I don't know what country in Europe you are from, but Tony Blair strikes me as as much of a slick talker as Clinton, and the same could be said for ol' Gerhardt (when he was there).

    3. Re:Fast talker by PsychicX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obviously introverts are smarter. We don't waste all our brain power talking about who hooked up with who, we actually go and do shit.

    4. Re:Fast talker by Golias · · Score: 1

      Actually, the ones who go out and do shit are extroverts, by definition.

      Introverts have higher brainwave activity due to constant daydreaming and naval-gazing. It doesn't mean they are smarter nor does it mean they are more deliberate. In many cases, it could just mean they have attention deficit disorder.

      Nothing more sad than seeing people trying to rationalize their dysfunctional behavior by pretending there's something better about it. Introverts are deviants just like extroverts are. If they weren't, we wouldn't have a word for it.

      Not that there's anything wrong with that...

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    5. Re:Fast talker by anotherzeb · · Score: 1

      Introverts are deviants just like extroverts are. If they weren't, we wouldn't have a word for it.

      In what way does having a word to describe a form of behaviour make someone who behaves that way a deviant? If you think of sexual behaviour, you could classify it into homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual behaviour. Which of these is deviant?

      --
      Good luck sometimes arrives disguised as bad
    6. Re:Fast talker by Golias · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you think of sexual behaviour, you could classify it into homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual behaviour. Which of these is deviant?

      In excess? All of the above.

      In moderation? None of the above.

      Just like with introverts/extroverts.

      As long as you're not making your life and the lives of those around you miserable with your behavior, there's not problem. Many introverts ruin their own lives with shyness. I'd hardly call that a "smart" way to live. Likewise, many extroverts find themselves shunned as they are socially uncomfortable to be around. Either way, it's a costly mal-adjustment of behavior, and such people could probably gain from a little therapy or religion or whatever it takes to rattle their cages and see their own dysfunction for what it is.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    7. Re:Fast talker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Either case, careful people chose their words carefully."

      Actually, they *choose* them carefully. Maybe you should, too.

    8. Re:Fast talker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excess heterosexuality is deviant? Uh-huh.

    9. Re:Fast talker by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Many introverts ruin their own lives with shyness. I'd hardly call that a "smart" way to live. Likewise, many extroverts find themselves shunned as they are socially uncomfortable to be around. Either way, it's a costly mal-adjustment of behavior, and such people could probably gain from a little therapy or religion or whatever it takes to rattle their cages and see their own dysfunction for what it is.

      I am confused. Are you saying that both introverts and extroverts have dysfunctions?

      Perhaps becoming the hypothetical "well-rounded person" (as typified by HR department evaluations and other similar organizations) is the best solution for those who feel like they don't quite fit in.

    10. Re:Fast talker by Golias · · Score: 1

      I am confused. Are you saying that both introverts and extroverts have dysfunctions?

      You don't seem very confused at all; just lacking confidence in your reading comprehension skills.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    11. Re:Fast talker by Al+Dimond · · Score: 1

      Well, it's not exactly too healthy to spend an excessive amount of your energy on sex, regardless of what your particular tastes are. Deviant is almost certainly the wrong word, because "excess heterosexuality" in the form of frequent, random, casual sexual encounters, is accepted and even celebrated by large parts of the population, even those that don't participate in it (in my particular location, at least, which is a large USian college campus). But if not deviant, certainly unhealthy.

    12. Re:Fast talker by LegendLength · · Score: 1

      Perhaps becoming the hypothetical "well-rounded person" (as typified by HR department evaluations and other similar organizations) is the best solution for those who feel like they don't quite fit in.
      Which is virtually what the parent post said (strive towards being more rounded if you are not). Implying that he wanted everyone to become a very narrowly defined "hypothetical 'well rounded person'" seems to be malicious for no reason.

      From parent:
      "As long as you're not making your life and the lives of those around you miserable with your behavior, there's not problem."

    13. Re:Fast talker by PitaBred · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that extroverts score much higher with people that they only have a passing acquaintance of than introverts. This gives them power in a larger society because they're more notorious and visible. They're seen as powerful go-getters and so on even if they are annoying to those near them or, quite often, self-serving scum.

    14. Re:Fast talker by thirdrock · · Score: 0, Troll


      Shit! Where have I been? Someone promoted you to GOD while I wasn't looking ....

      No ..?

      Then go fuck yourself cunt.

      --
      >>
      I am the director, and this is my movie ...
    15. Re:Fast talker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In excess? All of the above.

      In moderation? None of the above.

      Just like with introverts/extroverts.


      I love the "when used in moderation" argument. You haven't really said much here.

      The definition of deviant is, "Differing from the norm." The definition of excess is, "Beyond the normal amount."

      So to rephrase the grandparent's question, "What is different from the norm?" Your reply is, "All of the above when used beyond the normal amount." Excellent. I'm sure most people will agree with you on that.

      The problem comes when you start quantifying things. I bet John Ashcroft has a different quantity of sex in mind when he hears the word "excess" when compared to, say, Tommy Lee.
    16. Re:Fast talker by smashin234 · · Score: 1

      Being well-known and liked with a close group of friends could be useful in larger society if those around you are extroverts. Think introvert who is the leader of a bunch of extroverts...

    17. Re:Fast talker by Elad+Alon · · Score: 1

      Forget that! Think unicorns!

      --
      News for merdes. Shit that matters.
      Ask me about my sig.
    18. Re:Fast talker by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Many times what is percieved as fast talk and snap decisions are in reality the results of months of carefull consideration and rehersal. The ability to ignore extranious information and careful select pertainant information makes a lot of snap decisions "no-brainers" as well.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    19. Re:Fast talker by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      "Introverts are deviants just like extroverts are."

      If we are one or the other then what you are saying is that we are all deviants. But if a "deviant" is defined as one who deviates from the norm then what is the norm?

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  4. Jimmy Carter !?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    He's history's greatest monster !!!

    1. Re:Jimmy Carter !?! by bobbuck · · Score: 1
      "He's history's greatest monster !!!"

      According to Jimmy, it was the rabbit! And who would say he's introvered?? He's buddies with Hugo Chavez, Fidel, and pretty much anybody that swears to destroy America.

  5. This is a surprise? by Mirkon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Extroverts try to convince everyone how smart they are. Introverts assume everyone already knows it.

    --
    Glog!
    1. Re:This is a surprise? by xenoandroid · · Score: 1

      And some don't care how smart everyone thinks they are.

    2. Re:This is a surprise? by HardCase · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And neither realizes that they're about as smart as the next guy.

    3. Re:This is a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Being an introvert myself it's not surprising that I think that introverts are smarter in intellectual pursuits simply because they are constantly thinking instead of speaking. However, whether this higher intellect has much benefit for the world is questionable, as most intraverts keep it all to themselves. It is also likely that most intraverts easily form incorrect opinions and hold onto them because they don't test them in debate with other people as extraverts do. But what do I know, I've probably been thinking about this too much already.

    4. Re:This is a surprise? by mollymoo · · Score: 1
      And some don't care how smart everyone thinks they are.

      Not everyone thinks you're stupid.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    5. Re:This is a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I seriously doubt this, at least not for slashdot readers. According to a 15 page intelligence and personality report I paid for, I am smarter than 98 percent of the populous. I expect most slashdot readers(except the Apple users (I would expect them to have much, much lower scores)) to have similar levels of intelligence.

    6. Re:This is a surprise? by eosp · · Score: 5, Funny

      And yet you still can't spell populace right. I'd get a refund.

    7. Re:This is a surprise? by negative3 · · Score: 1

      What's the difference between an introverted and an extroverted engineer?

      The extrovert will look at your shoes when he talks to you.

      --
      "Physics is to math what sex is to masturbation." - Richard Feynman
    8. Re:This is a surprise? by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Taking this comment as a serious post for purposes of discussion.

      Unlikely.

      Speaking as an introvert (INTP), I don't assume that people think that I'm smart. I don't even necessarily think that I'm that smart.

      What I do, and just about everyone that I know that is like me, is let my work speak for itself.

      If people think I'm smart, super. If not, ok. I'll get the feedback and try to improve.

      But, then again, define smart. What criteria are we using? Are we talking book smarts, street smarts, ...

    9. Re:This is a surprise? by Golias · · Score: 5, Funny

      I seriously doubt this, at least not for slashdot readers. According to a 15 page intelligence and personality report I paid for, I am smarter than 98 percent of the populous.

      If you ever paid hard-earned cash for a "15 page intelligence and personality report" about yourself, you are probably far dumber than most people.

      Well-educated, perhaps, but dumb as a sack of hammers.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    10. Re:This is a surprise? by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 1
      "Physics is to math what sex is to masturbation." - Richard Feynman
      I think that this quote just shows how far Feynman's head was up his...
    11. Re:This is a surprise? by xenoandroid · · Score: 1

      I take pride in my stupidity.

    12. Re:This is a surprise? by MoosePhysh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've actually never heard of introverts being regarded as slow. On the contrary, I tend to think them more intelligent. I believe it's because I don't hear a constant stream of stupidity flowing from their mouths (not to say that all extroverts are stupid, I just happen to meet more of them, which I believe is society induced). It seems the general trend is: don't hear uncensorted stupid thoughts, therefore smart (regardless of actual intelligence).

    13. Re:This is a surprise? by God+of+Lemmings · · Score: 1

      What? You actually paid for that report? If you had searched Google and reference texts on the subject you would have been able to find the same information in that report for free.

      --
      Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
    14. Re:This is a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      WHOOOOOOSH

    15. Re:This is a surprise? by anotherzeb · · Score: 1

      I take pride in my stupidity.

      So do I - I worked hard and underwent some painful therapy to achieve my stupidity

      --
      Good luck sometimes arrives disguised as bad
    16. Re:This is a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well obviously. The extrovert wants to size you up, and shoes are the dead give-away. You can pretty much tell anybody's socio-economic class by their shoes.

    17. Re:This is a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try, but we know you were not being sarcastic. You really did pay for that test, didn't you, dumbass?

    18. Re:This is a surprise? by Jambon · · Score: 1
      Extroverts try to convince everyone how smart they are. Introverts assume everyone already knows it.

      It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt. (Mark Twain)
    19. Re:This is a surprise? by Nephilium · · Score: 3, Funny

      So...

      You got an MCSE? :)

      Nephilium

      An armed society is a polite society. -- Monroe-Alpha in Beyond This Horizon

    20. Re:This is a surprise? by MasterPi · · Score: 1

      What engineer in his right mind wants to look at shoes? The carpet pattern is much more interesting!

      --
      ( I
    21. Re:This is a surprise? by jrockway · · Score: 1

      > Well-educated, perhaps, but dumb as a sack of hammers.

      <connery>You wouldn't know that if you weren't reading from a card.</connery>

      --
      My other car is first.
    22. Re:This is a surprise? by MikeFM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I beg to differ. Introverts just don't care if everyone knows how smart they are. Most of them don't really realize how smart they are. Introverts tend to spend more time thinking about actual interesting things and not just what people think of them. Which is probably why they seem antisocial - they really don't give a flying fuck what everyone else thinks. It's not that they don't care. It's more that they really don't stop to think about it.

      I think it's why a lot of people who are intelligent and whom we think of as extroverts will admit to being introverts that have learned to fake extroversion in order to do what they want. A lot of actors, musicians, business men, etc that seem very public faces were introverts as children and return to introversion when they aren't working. Sort of an interesting twist on the whole thing I think.

      Ahhhhh I like stories like this that tell me I'm smarter than everbody else!

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    23. Re:This is a surprise? by Tuqui · · Score: 1

      More Brain activity != Clever.

      It could be more confused.

    24. Re:This is a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why the hell would have hammers in a sack? and most people are very dumb and very uneducated compared to the potential of the human brain, so even if he did pay for the test(it sounded like a joke to me, otherwise he wouldn't have revealed he paid for it) he's not dumber that most people.

    25. Re:This is a surprise? by nate+nice · · Score: 1

      "If you ever paid hard-earned cash for a..."

      So if I didn't spend hard-earned cash, it's alright, right?

      --
      "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
    26. Re:This is a surprise? by X · · Score: 1

      Ahhhhh I like stories like this that tell me I'm smarter than everbody else!

      I'm not sure, but it seems like you may have misinterpreted the findings. Keep in mind that more intelligent people tend to demonstrate less brain activity when problem solving. The belief is that their brains are simply more efficient, rather than "working harder". So, if the findings suggest anything about intelligence (the article is so vague it's really hard to tell one way or the other), its that introverts are on average less intelligent.

      --
      sigs are a waste of space
    27. Re:This is a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Extroverts try to convince everyone how smart they are. Introverts assume everyone already knows it.

      Wrong, introverts don't care what other people think. They don't necessarily think of themselves as smarter or better than other people. When other people can't figure it out, whatever it is, introverts just view them as stupid.

    28. Re:This is a surprise? by X · · Score: 1

      More Brain activity != Clever.

      Indeed, it generally means you aren't too clever. The smarter brains tend to demonstrate less activity due to increased efficiency (or at least that's the theory).

      --
      sigs are a waste of space
    29. Re:This is a surprise? by Dr.+Cam · · Score: 1

      Hey! I write those reports! Quit screwing up my livelihood!

      Seriously, they should not be 15 pages. You probably paid (too much) for computer-generated bumf.

    30. Re:This is a surprise? by temojen · · Score: 1

      Maybe he was refering to being smarter than the AI in an early 90's simulation game?

    31. Re:This is a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      As an ENTP, basically at the top of the food chain, I can tell you that faking extroversion is impossible. In my line of work I see the occasional introvert socializing, talking to points, making very safe dry jokes, it's quite obvious they're not in their element. They stick to a plan like they'd already gone over the entire conversation in their head before opening their mouth. You can throw them off easily with offtopic remarks or clever jokes which they're usually slow to respond or they akwardly get back to what they were saying.

      Charisma is not something you learn. Charm is not something you do. When you step outside your element you're not fooling anyone. I prefer the introverts I work with to just shoot me an email. It's weird to talk to someone that's staring at my feet, seriously.

      Introversion and extroversion is more than a social trait. It's how you think. E's think outside the box, high-level, big-picture etc. I's think inside the box, detail-level, fine-tuning and so on.

      When two extroverts are talking they may as well be mind-melding, references are acknowledged, cleverness is equaled, points are made, acknowledged, accepted, countered, rejected etc. For an E talking is as natural as thinking.

      When two introverts are talking it is like some sort of clunky extract and load operation as each one must take the data in its proprietary format and convert it to spoken language which is then interpreted by the other person and converted to their own proprietary format. The conversions are lossy at both ends and very inefficient.

      Of course the introvert's native thought format is much more efficient than spoken language for mowing over thoughts inside their head. That's why I's are so much better than E's at the inside-the-box stuff.

      Two methods of thinking for two different purposes.

    32. Re:This is a surprise? by lightknight · · Score: 1

      "Indeed, it generally means you aren't too clever."

      Mr. Gates, as an introvert, would disagree. As would the DOJ (in conversation of the cleverness of Mr. Gates), and many, many /.ers.

      "The smarter brains tend to demonstrate less activity due to increased efficiency (or at least that's the theory)."

      What theory? Introverts are not Intel processors (P4), and Extraverts are not AMD processors (A64)! Your conjecture seems to claim that while introverts may "clock higher" than extraverts, they in fact do less work with each cycle, and therefore must do more work to be the equivalent of an extravert.

      I must be replying to an extravert. Any introvert already knows that there is no comparison between extravert brain power, and that of an introvert.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    33. Re:This is a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No offense, AC, but only a closet extrovert would brag about being in the 98th percentile. If you were an introvert, you'd understand that it means six million people in the US are smarter than you are, and that many of them will be socializing with your boss.

    34. Re:This is a surprise? by Vincman · · Score: 1

      Hmm that's strange coward, I'm an 'I' as you call it and frequently think outside the box. I have learned to be extroverted in public through giving a ton of presentations at uni and whatnot. I hate fine-tuning, and leave that for those that enjoy it... accountant-types I call them. I know plenty of extroverted women in accountancy, incidentally, but I assume that some will be good at this fine-tuning as you call it. As an introvert, I find it offensive to be put inside a box like the one you described. If you are the true "extrovert". which I doubt, you have just disproven your point that extroverts think outside the box as well. I personally also prefer to look at people through their starsigns, if you know what I mean. There are four elements, water (e.g. pisces), fire (e.g. leo), earth (e.g. virgo), and air (e.g. gemini). I am fire, explaining my temper and drive, air people are chatty, water people are artistic, and earth people are down to earth. The latter I have experienced like the fine-tuning a lot more... however with ascendants coming into play it is not a clearcut science.

    35. Re:This is a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Speak for yourself. I, for one, debate with myself, which is more efficient to dismiss incorrect opinions than discussing with other people, as they are more eager to prove themselves to have the biggest **** instead of finding out what is true.

    36. Re:This is a surprise? by DataCannibal · · Score: 1

      I bet flashing your paid-for 15 page intelligence and personality report around really impresses those hot chicks:

      " Look I'm interesting, it says so in this 15 page ...er....where are you going...."

      --
      No but, yeah but, no but...
    37. Re:This is a surprise? by Gorbag · · Score: 1

      Since we Apple users wrote that personality report you loved so much, keep thinking that. We've got a few other things to sell you besides personality upgrades and appeal to classy females. Oh and one more thing... Apple has a new version of the iPod that replaces a tooth. It's only $3499., and requires a dentist to install, but it is PC compatible.

      --
      -- I speak only for myself
    38. Re:This is a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you nailed it - all truely smart people are introverted, simply because they spend so much time in their own mind thinking. Now the very smartest of the introverts can learn to fake the whole extrovesion thing - like you said. Its really just a matter of studying, understanding and applying the various protocols for interacting that "extroverts" use.

      I'll be the first to admit that while I can see the patterns of extroverts and occassionally copy them - I never feel comfortable when acting extroverted.

    39. Re:This is a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it was sarcasm ... all you extroverted types jump right on it without pausing to "deliberate" ;).

    40. Re:This is a surprise? by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      It seems the general trend is: don't hear uncensorted stupid thoughts, therefore smart (regardless of actual intelligence).

      It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. - Mark Twain

    41. Re:This is a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (Mark Twain)

      Also frequently attributed to Abraham Lincoln, though it does sound more like Twain to me.

    42. Re:This is a surprise? by JoeZeppy · · Score: 1
      And yet you still can't spell populace right. I'd get a refund.

      Maybe he's the populous of love?

    43. Re:This is a surprise? by Servants · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure, but it seems like you may have misinterpreted the findings. Keep in mind that more intelligent people tend to demonstrate less brain activity when problem solving. The belief is that their brains are simply more efficient, rather than "working harder". So, if the findings suggest anything about intelligence (the article is so vague it's really hard to tell one way or the other), its that introverts are on average less intelligent.

      Excellent post. I'm glad somebody realizes this. The one- or two-sentence finding quoted in the article was certainly filtered through enough reporters and editors that it won't bear any predictable relation to whatever scientific finding it might have come from, though. Journalists are notorious for completely misunderstanding things like this.

    44. Re:This is a surprise? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2, Informative
      A lot of actors, musicians, business men, etc that seem very public faces were introverts as children and return to introversion when they aren't working.

      I'm glad you brought this up. Johnny Carson was such a person. If you ever heard Ed McMahon or any of the handful of people who knew Johnny well, they would all say that Johnny was a very private, introverted person. He had a very small (5 or so?) group of very close friends.

      However, if one only knew of The Tonight Show one would think that Johnny was an extrovert. He wasn't.

      For a bit of insight where he talks about his shyness, you can read this interview he gave to Mike Wallace of Sixty Minutes back in 1979.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    45. Re:This is a surprise? by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ. As an introvert, and knowing many introverts, what people think of me matters greatly. I may not seek to attain and hold attention, but this does not mean that I don't care. If someone hates me, or thinks I'm an idiot, I'd rather find out why and perhaps try to clear the air in a civil manner.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    46. Re:This is a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot. You can learn to fake anything, get over it.

    47. Re:This is a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a nominal charge I can send you a 15 page intelligence and personality report which says that you are smarter than 99.9% of the populace. I'll even spell check it before I send it to you.

    48. Re:This is a surprise? by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Introverts just don't care if everyone knows how smart they are. Most of them don't really realize how smart they are. Introverts tend to spend more time thinking about actual interesting things and not just what people think of them.

      That's incorrect. Introverts spend most of their time worrying about what people think of them. Because they never actually talk to people or do anything, they spend most of their time day-dreaming and navel-gazing.

    49. Re:This is a surprise? by corvenus · · Score: 1

      Good line of reasoning, it would mean something if extroverts actually did problem solving. You see, extroverts don't solve problems so much as they create them.

    50. Re:This is a surprise? by Garabito · · Score: 1

      Don't assume that every introvert is constantly thinking, those who do would have a Myers-Briggs type indicator (MBTI) of INTx. But there are also other introvert personality types that for instance could be quietly perceiving their enviroment (ISxP) or other people's feelings (INFx).

    51. Re:This is a surprise? by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that the introverts are only solving one problem at a time. My experience is that most introverts juggle many thoughts at the same time. I'll watch tv, listen to music, read a couple books, surf the web, check my email, and work on 5 or 6 things all at once without problem. Less brain activity on a single problem means you can spend the rest on other problems or work on harder problems.

      Less brain activity altogether means your dead, a rock, really stupid, or simply lacking in curiosity and ambition. As it I find it difficult to ever be bored or idle because I'm always thinking of new interesting things.

      I expect other introverts are probably the same although I'm not opposed to a group decision that I'm special. ;)

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    52. Re:This is a surprise? by X · · Score: 1

      Mr. Gates, as an introvert, would disagree. As would the DOJ (in conversation of the cleverness of Mr. Gates), and many, many /.ers.

      Huh? Did someone do brain scans of Mr. Gates and a bunch of /.ers?

      I'm not making a statement about introverts at all. All I'm saying is that more brain activity is not an indication of more intelligence, and can actually be an indication of less intelligence. The article bears all the hallmarks of a piece of journalism based on a complete misunderstanding of a perfectly good study.

      What theory? Introverts are not Intel processors (P4), and Extraverts are not AMD processors (A64)! Your conjecture seems to claim that while introverts may "clock higher" than extraverts, they in fact do less work with each cycle, and therefore must do more work to be the equivalent of an extravert.

      It's not my conjecture, and it's not about extroverts vs. introverts. Studies have been done comparing brain activity of people with differing levels of intelligence show that the less intelligent ones have significantly more activity when problem solving. This (and a lot of other stuff) has lead to the theory that the brains in smarter folks are more efficient and actually don't have to work as hard to reach their conclusions.

      Now maybe differences in the way extroverts and introverts function means that an introvert of equivalent problem solving skill will have more brain activity. Maybe introverts are just inherently smarter than extroverts. I'm not making any claims in this regard (and really, nor should anyone else unless there is some kind of work to back this up). All I'm suggesting is that the reasoning that this article and a lot of the posts about it have made is completely broken. Specifically, indications that introverts have more brain activity than extroverts are not in any way an indiciation that introverts are more intelligent, and absent anything other data they actually suggest less intelligence.

      I must be replying to an extravert. Any introvert already knows that there is no comparison between extravert brain power, and that of an introvert.

      Sigh... and I must be replying to someone who tends to generate a lot of brain activity when problem solving.... ;-)

      --
      sigs are a waste of space
    53. Re:This is a surprise? by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      It often seems the people that seem the most outgoing and/or wild are actually introverts. In forcing ourselves to seem outgoing it's often easier to overdo things. Also by being some sort of an actor we can hide inside our roles which gives us something to prompt us to act out.

      I'm pretty quiet and dull most of the time but I enjoy torturing people with my own little role playing so I think it's probably similar but on a smaller scale. I go up to people in the grocery store and start making potatos talk to them and things like that. Doubly strange since most people assume, wrongly, that I'm shy because I'm an introvert. But being introverted I have time to see funny things to say and do that other people would probably miss so it allows me to act these things out or say the right lines at the right time to be funny. It's sort of like being a Jedi because you see things before other people have had time to think about them. ;) Probably someone like Johnny would experience things that way too. I'd expect most comedians that are good at improv comedy are introverts.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    54. Re:This is a surprise? by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      But do you spend a lot of time worrying about what people think of you and when you find out someone doesn't like you do you spend a lot of effort trying to win them over? Most introverts don't which is a large part of the reason that we suffer as social outcasts in highschool. We might care but we don't think about it that much and don't act on it that much.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    55. Re:This is a surprise? by psylew · · Score: 1

      Just the quote I was thinking to post. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside to know I'm not all alone in thinking of these things. :)

    56. Re:This is a surprise? by MikeFM · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe there are stupid introverts and smart introverts then? The stupid ones spend all day worrying about stupid stuff while the smart ones are day dreaming and designing new code, writing novels, planning new projects, etc in their head.

      I don't think it's fair to say that introverts never do anything though. They just don't spend a lot of time doing stupid crap like clubbing and watching football games in a pub full of pals. I enjoy things like hiking, travel, building, exploring, studying, etc. More intellectual doing of things I guess. Being with average extroverts feels like being put in charge of babysitting young children.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    57. Re:This is a surprise? by Golthur · · Score: 1

      As an INTJ, I'd say your comments on "low-level detail" and "high-level out-of-the-box" thinking are more differences along the S/N scale than the E/I scale. My thought processes are mercilessly high-level - in fact, I tend to be a "systems guy", seeing the overall high-level patterns of everything I'm forced to interact with (including people). I can do detail work, but I tend to approach it from the top-down. I rarely think inside the box, and often find everyone else who does so (and doesn't see the simple, logical solutions that I do) very frustrating.

      However, I'll add that, at least for me, my social functions are purely emulated. I have little-to-no perception of body language, nuance, or other people's emotional states. All of these functions, for me, are performed by glorified pattern matching - I have to semi-consciously match what-I-observe with what-I-see, and compare it to patterns I've seen before. Fortunately, I have pretty good pattern matching skills, so I'm not a complete social retard. My wife (INFJ), on the other hand, is almost an telepath/empath. It's almost scary, and I don't dare lie to her.

      --
      Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.
    58. Re:This is a surprise? by Golthur · · Score: 1

      Bah, I should preview before I post.

      s/what-I-observe/what-I've-observed-before/g

      s/an telepath/a telepath/g

      --
      Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.
    59. Re:This is a surprise? by deep_zeus · · Score: 1

      It seems a lot of people have gotten emotionally invested in this introvert vs. extrovert label. I'm usually not one to shoe-horn someone into a particular title because of generalized observations. But from what I've gathered, if provoked, introverts are more likely to send you a nasty email or court summons and extroverts will send you to a hospital.

      --
      To quote Walter Neff, the evil hero in "Double Indemnity", "Do I laugh now, or wait 'til it gets funny?"
    60. Re:This is a surprise? by torokun · · Score: 1

      As the famous classical chinese saying goes,

      Zhizhe bu yan, yanzhe bu zhi.

      Those with knowledge don't speak; those who speak don't know.

    61. Re:This is a surprise? by martyros · · Score: 2, Funny
      Those with knowledge don't speak; those who speak don't know.

      Too bad, according to himself, the guy who said this didn't know what he was talking about.

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    62. Re:This is a surprise? by X · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that the introverts are only solving one problem at a time. My experience is that most introverts juggle many thoughts at the same time. I'll watch tv, listen to music, read a couple books, surf the web, check my email, and work on 5 or 6 things all at once without problem.

      Nope. I'm assuming no such thing. Whether one focuses single mindedly on a problem or thinks about several ideas at once is independent of whether one is an introvert or an extrovert (and fairly independent of one's intelligence).

      It's also worth noting that the "all at once without a problem" is a matter of your own perceptions rather than reality. While people tend not to perceive a problem with such scenarios (and indeed often feel like they get more done this way), they actually do perform better when focused on a single task.

      Less brain activity altogether means your dead, a rock, really stupid, or simply lacking in curiosity and ambition.

      You might think that, but all evidence is to the contrary. Indeed, people who are mentally retarded tend to have a flurry of mental activity. Similarly, type A's personalities, who tend to have all kinds of curiosity and ambition, don't have any observable increased mental activity than folks we'd tend to classify as dullards (the dullards are probably just thinking about things that we'd describe as boring or unimportant).

      As it I find it difficult to ever be bored or idle because I'm always thinking of new interesting things.

      Anyone who things that finding their own thoughts interesting is an indication of intelligence clearly hasn't spent much time getting to know someone who is demonstrably less intelligent than they are. ;-)

      --
      sigs are a waste of space
    63. Re:This is a surprise? by KGB+is+My+Name · · Score: 1

      ...hmmm? What'd you say? I'm sorry, I must have missed that, I was preoccupied.

      --
      The beginning of wisdom is to realize that you know nothing.
    64. Re:This is a surprise? by CFTM · · Score: 1

      Actually learning to read body language and human beings is something that one can learn, some exceptionals may be born with the innate ability to do so but it's a skill, that much I garentee. Recently I decided to take an acting class for my own edification (besides I live in Los Angeles so I might as well take advantage of the things that my area has to offer). The class focuses on a technique known as Meisner. The drills and exercises force you to establish an intimiate connection with another living-breathing human being and slowly begin to learn reading what bubbles to the surface "in the moment". It sounds like nonsensical bullshit but I assure you it is not; if you've played team sports at some point in your life you've probably been "in the moment" with people without even knowing. I am finding it manifests particularly well in soccer/basketball but that's besides the point.

      Very very interesting stuff....

    65. Re:This is a surprise? by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      This statement (the one I'm making, not yours) is false.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    66. Re:This is a surprise? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      if you've played team sports at some point in your life you've probably been "in the moment" with people without even knowing

      Team sports? Team sports?!? Chuckle. He said he was an INTJ.
      We INT's generally the ones that get targeted first in dodgeball, picked last for pretty much any team sport, and mostly avoid team sports whenever possible. Heh. Picture college faculty baseball games between the various departments. In particular one team is made up completely of computer geeks from the computer science department (INTPs) and another team made up completely of lab geeks from the chem/physics department (INTJs). We'd both get slaughtered by the fat old ladies that run the cafeteria. The only question is whether the INTPs or INTJs would come in last out of the whole thing :D

      On the otherhand we it's not unusual for an INT to display surprising aptitude and be "in the zone" in individual sports like skiing or martial arts.

      As for your acting class suggestion, it does sound interesting and potentially very usefull for INT's and we'd probably pick up on a couple of specific points extrodinarily well, but we really really REALLY are not going to pick up on the people reading the way you think. We're weird that way. You know how there are some people who simply do not and cannot 'get' math? The people who are still surprised the fifth time you tell them that 90 seconds is a minute and a half? The people who can be trained to preform uncomplicated math by rote, but who are mysteriously number blind and never grasp the idea why 90 seconds is a minute and a half? The ones who memorize the 90 seconds = minute and a half and still don't realize that 90 minutes is an hour and a half? We know these people exist and we just accept that some people just don't 'get' math. Well, INTs are the exact opposite. We can just think in algebra and see trig relationships and just 'get' what a calculous equation means, but we're bizzarely people-blind. With work we may be able to get enough of it down by rote to get by, maybe even well enough to forget most of the time that we're pretty much faking it, but put us in an unfamiliar social situation and we just won't make the obvious connections. We'll do the social equivalant of walking up to a microwave and typing in 50 seconds when trying to get half a minute. (And yes, I've seen a math-blind person do the 50 seconds = half minute bit on a microwave.)

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    67. Re:This is a surprise? by ben4242 · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that thinking about what other people think about you -- and what other people think about, in general -- could bring about more information and intelligence. So I'm not completely buying your argument, although I will agree that many extroverts do just discuss nothing and remember nothing as well.

    68. Re:This is a surprise? by newpath4comVersion2 · · Score: 0

      I've written you a rather lengthy reply but have to leave out, take my son for a doctor's appointment. I'll post it here in entirety later. It was too long for one post so I have to break it up & am out of time. Til then you may want to view this page: http://tinyurl.com/awz9x where I've adapted an old idea for a new use. I appreciated your Comment & you will receive a complete answer to the issues you raised.

    69. Re:This is a surprise? by CFTM · · Score: 1

      Every phsycological profile that I've ever taken has labeled me as an introvert of some sort or another; I look people in the eye when I talk, I am able to pick women up at bars to bring them home and have sex with me, I've played competative sports my entire life and I too once thought I was completely incapable of learning how to read other people. I had myself believe that I was just not a "people person"; in reality I lacked the confidence to be a people person. When I stopped making excuses for why I didn't function like other people, I started functioning in normal social settings properly (I'm not trying to call anyone out or to say that my way is the only way, merely saying this is what I experienced).

    70. Re:This is a surprise? by newpath4comVersion2 · · Score: 0

      My reply turned out to be too long for SlashDot. I'd have to separate it into 5 sections, which SlashDot probably would not appreciate much. Write me at rileyreply@newpath4.com and I'll send you the full answers, the difference between introverts & extroverts as relates to my experiences over the last 20 years of being ignored & censored. Sorry to take so long. We spent 4+ hours at the clinic yesterday, got back late, too late to address your reply. I may make my repsonse as a webpage, haven't decided that one yet. I have to decided whether I want to thoroughly reveal some of the actions taken against me... Briefly what I've seen between introverts & extroverts is similar to that same natural animosity, distrust, fear, censorship & control that exists between mesomorphs & engomorphs, which seems to have added to my issues since I'm a mesomorph sized person and body shape that antagonizes an endomorph. So hahaha I have achieved the ultimate introvert/mesomorph and the animosity that goes with each. To overcome those whowould have stood in my way & tried for many years to stop me, I did an "end run" around them all by shooting my stuff onto the worldwide stage, Internet, as my "Publishing Vehicle". As far as changing the world that remains to be seen but if you look around SlashDot, it's happening anyway. Introverts are coming out of the woodwork. In fact, it's much easier for a smart introvert to assume the posture and actions of an extrovert, which further threatens the extrovert's control of the world. Introverts changing of the physical world is a threat to the "box" the extroverts have learned to control. They are the master controllers who run us, tax us, make us work hard for them. Well, they're about to lose that control now. As the dollar loses so much value, so do they lose their control. As the dollar loses more value, introverts come to realize they are now free to do without the extroverts. Extroverts have constructed this world's systems like it's their "box", so those of us who constantly "think outside the box" have been helping them build their box really strong. But now out of box thinkers are building a box that is greater than the one we're being forced to service. A greater expanded box that threatens to expose -as I'm exposing now- the puny-small extrovert box. Perhaps this sounds strange and maybe I can reword it better on the response I'm writing, but it isn't strange at all. Introverts are a threat to the extrovert's turf.

    71. Re:This is a surprise? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I didn't say INT's couldn't function. By odd happenstance at around age 20 and for a few years after I stumbled into the position of hosting parties almost every week for a diverse and very wild group. I was in the defacto position of "alpha male", and can well attest that even geeks receive the powerful "alpha male" effect with the ladies.

      And while it was a great experience and I learned a lot, I was never completely at ease socializing beyond a very small core of very close friends, and I know I was and still am simply blind to a lot of things that most people consider obvious, that they consider just some sort of inhertent aspect of normal social humans. I just never 'got' things like the social pecking order, and I still don't. I am blind to the various signals for establishing and advertizing a social pecking order, and as a geek I've never really given a damn about something as rediculous as that. A whole range of things that no one could ever fully define in english.

      Every phsycological profile that I've ever taken has labeled me as an introvert of some sort or another

      It's more than just introverted for the full effect I'm reffering to. People who are on the F side of the Thinking-Feeling axis can be extremely comforatable and skilled at people, even if they are introverted. And while IST's can be about as "socially distant" as INT's, I think the Sensing aspect makes them more aware of body language and other social cues.

      The P-J axis is a bit different. I'm going to stretch a little and say I think it's a bit more of an issue for P's. J's are a bit more inclined towards being "proper" and fiting in with order and rules - including social order and rules. P's tend to be more fiercely individualistic, or even socially contrary when social norms appear irrational and pressured. So I'd say that the cliche abscent-minded / awkward INTJ science professor probably ranks a step above the cliche INTP computer geek on the social adeptness scale. Heh.

      Each personality type has it's strengths and weaknesses, but INT is a very distinctive combination. It provides an incredible fit precisely tuned for all aspects of math and science and logical structures and programming, but it is exactly anti-tuned to all aspects interpersonal relations.

      I've played competative sports my entire life

      I'd guess that you're probably on the Sensing side of the S-N scale. If you were to classify your self as some sort of geek, would you say you're more of a physical/mechanical geek (working on cars or building stuff in some sort of tool shop), or more of an abstract mathematical/programming geek? The physical/mechanical geek would be the S-N Sensing inclination.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    72. Re:This is a surprise? by cobras2 · · Score: 1

      Chaucer couldn't spell either, but he's famous. Still.

      The purpose of language is to communicate, so if the reader knows what you're talking about a spelling mistake or ten doesn't really matter...

      --
      Early bird may get the worm.. but the second mouse gets the cheese.
  6. As Lewis once opined... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "All jocks ever think about is sports - all nerds ever think about is sex."

    1. Re:As Lewis once opined... by Golias · · Score: 5, Funny

      "All jocks ever think about is sports - all nerds ever think about is sex."

      The difference being that jocks get invited to sports.

      I keed! I keed! I joke-a with yooooooou!

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  7. Great subject.... by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...presented badly. Why of WHY did you have politicizing this subject?

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Great subject.... by Rahga · · Score: 1

      Maybe he just wanted to draw attention to the great work that Jimmy Carter is doing for organizations like habitat for humanity... I'm sure you've read articles about it in the news. They typically go about two or three paragraphs before saying something like...
      "Though Jimmy Carter is a respected humanitarian these days, he still keeps his pulse on American politics. During our meeting, he occasionally brought up she subject of the war in Iraq, off the record, calling it a ' quaqmire within a box within a portabello mushroom within a gulag ', which we assume is a bad thing."

    2. Re:Great subject.... by jo7hs2 · · Score: 1

      Thank you! Thas was an interesting article marred by overt political tones, and a distinct air of anti-American sentiments. Why do people feel the need to politicize every freaking thing in the world? Why does every other post on Slashdot (or Fark, or any other site) have to include something about Americans being stupid or inferior or misguided, or the even more reflex-driven attacks on George W. Bush? I would be willing to be that you folks could politicize an article on cheese. Leave your politics out of my non-political reading, and maybe, just maybe, I might respect you. Shouting on the top of your lungs doesn't make you right, it just gives you a sore throat. "Scientists say cheese is good for you" Slashdot response: Except American cheese, which will PATRIOT act that, George Bush this, Kyoto treaty that until you are left with a pile of rubble and they take your oil, the jingoistic bastards.

    3. Re:Great subject.... by visgoth · · Score: 1
      quaqmire within a box

      Quagmire- I like where this is going, giggidy-giggidy-giggidy!

      --
      My patience is infinite, my time is not.
    4. Re:Great subject.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would be willing to be that you folks could politicize an article on cheese
      Does it upset you, as an American, that individually wrapped processed cheese singles -- an item so revolting unrelated to actual cheese that is it often spelled cheeze -- is called American Cheese?

      How was that?

    5. Re:Great subject.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would be willing to be that you folks could politicize an article on cheese.

      A bloody American like you would say something like that, as you yanks clearly have no appreciation for the value of really good cheese! It's barbaric. Just like your PATRIOT Act.

      Not to mention the way you ask captive terrorists questions about their plans by speaking with a really stern voice, just like they did in the gulags. Savages.

    6. Re:Great subject.... by dfjunior · · Score: 5, Funny

      Non-political...BAH!

      Even you know very well that "American Cheese" isn't really cheese. It's mostly oil, and foreign oil at that.

    7. Re:Great subject.... by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      Great, he builds things and has opinions on current events. What does that have to do with the fact that he is an introvert?

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    8. Re:Great subject.... by ClamIAm · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is how a comment is rated +4 when it is completely incomprehensible.

    9. Re:Great subject.... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      You are correct. I do apologize for my hasty post. Had I proofread BEFORE I submitted, I wouldn't look like an utter jackass. DOh!!! Where's the edit button when you need it? *sigh*

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    10. Re:Great subject.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only person who politicized the article is you. All the crap you just said was stuff that was bottled up inside you. A simple comment that Jimmy Carter was the last introvert president was not politicizing. You are one paranoid mofo if you took that comment as an attack on Bush. If Slashdot is too filled with "liberals" and "hippie commies" Why do you read it? I read Slashdot all the time. Every other post is not anti-American. Being a patriot does mean blind support. Sounds like you have a personal problem.

    11. Re:Great subject.... by TTK+Ciar · · Score: 1

      There should be an IQ requirement to hold office.

      I'm not so sure that's a good idea.

      A democratic republic is a government by the people, for the people, and the people understandably want (and deserve) representatives who accurately represent their attitudes, their values, and their perspectives.

      The average joe's IQ is, by definition, 100 .. but how can a politician with an IQ of, say, 140 possibly share the same perspectives and values as that average joe? The more intelligent mind finds more patterns, makes different connections, perceives different meanings in the world around them. People who are significantly more intelligent effectively live in a different world from everyone else.

      People in a democratic republic aren't supposed to be governed by politicians who live in a different world. The whole idea is that the politicians are drawn from the same world, same country, and in some cases, same state, same county, or even same city. This results in an approximation of a government run by the same people that it governs, just with a lot fewer hands to count when a vote comes up. The people need to relate to their representatives. They need to identify with them. They need to feel a kinship.

      Now, maybe they only feel that kinship because they're too dumb to realize that the rich, pampered, millionaire aristocrats from which we pull our candidates have as little in common with the average joe as java does with javascript, but that's a different problem, and not one which can be solved by electing intelligent rich, pampered, millionaire aristocrats.

      High intelligence makes for better doctors, engineers, and scientists .. but, just in my opinion, not representatives. It's a problem that requires different ingredients to solve.

      -- TTK

    12. Re:Great subject.... by jo7hs2 · · Score: 1

      Didn't have the nerve to reply in person, hiding behind the Anonymous Coward, eh?

    13. Re:Great subject.... by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 1

      No blood for cheese! Unless its really good cheese, with some of those gourmet crackers and maybe a little bit of wine.

      --
      "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
    14. Re:Great subject.... by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 1

      ...maybe if you had been a little more introverted and thought about it more...

      --
      "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
    15. Re:Great subject.... by crumley · · Score: 1

      I am not sure that it is even true. GHWB wasn't much of an extrovert, if he was one at all.

      --
      Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
    16. Re:Great subject.... by TTK+Ciar · · Score: 1

      In some ways I agree with you.

      I agree with your assessment of our representatives. I agree also that the average joe has dubious tastes and marginal intelligence. Having either of these doofs anywhere near my tax money is totally unfair to me, too.

      If one accepts the tenets of democratic government, however, then having average joes in charge (or, perhaps more perfectly, having a population of politicians in charge in which intelligence is represented in the same proportion as it exists in the governed population) is completely fair to the average joe majority. At least in theory, the resulting government is similar to what we'd get if every citizen had the opportunity to examine and vote on every aspect of governance.

      Now, it's unfair even so to the average joes of the country because his representatives are pampered, privileged playboys, and therefore unlike him. But making them highly intelligent pampered, privileged playboys would only make those representatives even less like him.

      If you are wanting to ditch the notion of representative government (which is what it sounds like; correct me if I'm wrong), then getting intelligent, competent, and benign people to run the country starts to sound like a better idea. The main problem I have with it is that such systems seem to always degenerate into governments as bad as (or worse than) what we have now. At least by voting in new people every four years we keep things from getting too bad .. which is a damn scary thought, considering how bad things have already gotten.

      In short, yes, representative government sucks, and by your own arguments direct democratic government also sucks, but do you have a better system to propose? I'm personally a proponent of self-government -- social and financial organization in the absence of centralized authorities (ie, anarchy), but it's terribly unpopular. Most citizens desire a government that will take care of things for them and give them "free" goods and services. The democratic republic government seems to be better for that than the alternatives we've seen tried.

      All I'm saying is that if we're determined to stick with representative government, then making the representatives much smarter than the people they're obstensibly representing is a step in the wrong direction.

      -- TTK

  8. a fast.. by cacoe · · Score: 0

    A fast talking presedent isn't always an accurate one ;)

  9. Reminds Me... by Llywelyn · · Score: 5, Informative

    A while back I read an article in The Atlantic titled "Caring for Your Introvert" by Jonathan Rauch. Absolutely great piece.

    --
    Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    1. Re:Reminds Me... by squidinkcalligraphy · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of first-year psych about 10 years ago when we were told exactly the same thing. This hardly qualifies as news.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
    2. Re:Reminds Me... by rsadelle · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link. As an introvert who hates meetings with our training staff where we try to design or plan something, I found this particularly useful: "We tend to think before talking, whereas extroverts tend to think by talking, which is why their meetings never last less than six hours." It's a good reminder to me that other people have a different style, and that it might actually be necessary for them to go through the process that way.

  10. Internal Conversations...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm introverted and constantly coversing with myself in my head, could that have anything to do with this increased activity?

    1. Re:Internal Conversations...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that's usually attributed to borderline personality disorder or schizaphrenia. Ok, bad joke. Yeah, I'd imagine self talk has a lot to do with it. Sometimes it pays off as helping you figure something out that many people may have given up on, but mostly I reckon they are wasted cycles. I do far more of this than I'm happy about. My partner is an extravert and she accuses me of giving her the silent treatment when we argue, and I think it comes across as just deliberately not wanting to talk, but in reality my brain is swamped with so much stuff and is going crazy trying to make sense of it all. I think some Bayesian filtering would help tremendously if only the interfaces were documented. I would guess that intraverts are smarter than extraverts but overall I doubt the output of each is really too different. Extraverts may talk too much without thinking which may reduce the quality of their output, but overall may contribute more often. Intraverts may think about things too much and output nothing while procrastinating or chewing it over, but on rare occasions contribute things quite insightful.

  11. Proof! by toetagger1 · · Score: 1

    This is evindence that all those poeple that do those "fp" posts aren't as active in their brains as those who read the stories!

    Finally!

    --
    who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
  12. What about perverts? by dotslashdot · · Score: 5, Funny

    What about perverts?

    1. Re:What about perverts? by uujjj · · Score: 1

      you can argue perverts rule the world. bill clinton, arnold the governator, heck even GWB back in the day.

    2. Re:What about perverts? by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 2, Funny

      So you're saying you want to see my frontal lobe?

    3. Re:What about perverts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      they've got a lot of activity in their "frontal lobes" too

    4. Re:What about perverts? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      we're right here... brb porn

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    5. Re:What about perverts? by SoulRider · · Score: 1

      By pervert you mean someone who falls directly in the middle between introvert and extrovert? The perfect vert or pervert for short.

  13. Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. YES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Introverted as I am I won't be able to express this but I do have FAR more brain activity than others. I don't think it has to do with my introverted but it's more of a symptom.

    For example; today I had an awful day. I'll think about it until tomorrow morning. My extroverted friends will shrug it off as "bad day, tomorrow is another". If in fact I do "think" more, I'll spend less time socializing as it'll cut into my thinking time.

    Yesterday at a church event I attempted to be even more extroverted than normal. I was insulted in the course of the evening, a minor misunderstanding of my position, and of course it distracted me the rest of the evening as I thought about how to restate and rectify my position.

    So yes, we think more but why would the thinking want to associate with the brain-dead? We don't. We fall back into our shells and think about why the world is as it is.

  14. Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    A book, "The Introvert Advantage", delves with great detail into the differences between introverts and extroverts.

    More information here: http://www.theintrovertadvantage.com/

    Here's a quick bit from the site:
    Are You One?
    We all use both our introverted and extroverted skills, but we are hard wired to be more one than the other. Look at the lists below and determine which one feels more like YOU!

    Not every aspect will fit exactly for you because we are all unique. If you don't feel like you fit one side more than the other, even by 51% to 49%, then ask yourself this question: If there is an emergency do you tend to stand still and feel somewhat shutdown or in slow motion? If you have a standstill reaction to stress more often, then you are probably an introvert. In a crisis do you tend to move your body immediately and feel like taking action, maybe without pausing to think? Then you are probably an extrovert if you react with movement. Under stress we can experience our innate temperament. Look over the two lists and think about how you ARE, not as you'd like to be. If your still uncertain, as a last ditch effort, ask someone you trust and who is honest to read these and suggest which one sounds more like you.

    Introverts:
    • Enjoy time alone
    • Consider only deep relationships as friends
    • Feel drained after outside activities, even if they were fun
    • Good listener
    • Appear calm and self-contained
    • Think then speak or act


    Extroverts:
    • Like to be in the thick of things
    • Relish variety
    • Know lots of people, considers lots of people friends
    • Enjoy chit-chatting, even to strangers
    • Feel stoked after activity
    • Speak or act then think OR think while speaking


    I recommend this book if you think you are or know somebody that you think is indeed an introvert, as this book says alot about what an introvert is and what the article briefly describes.
    1. Re:Perhaps by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You brought out the important determining factors. The thing that people often misunderstand is that people who are "good" at "being social" are not necessarily extroverts. Often those people who are the life of the party really prefer alone time and are incredibly drained after the party.

      On the other hand, many "nerds" who really struggle at small talk still crave opportunities to meet lots of people and on those rare occasions when they are on top of their game they feel energized and love it.

      Being a nerd (or a geek for that matter) does not necessarily mean being an introvert.

    2. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Nerds" struggle with most small-talk because they're not familiar with most small-talk topics, but have you ever noticed that when those nerds have a conversation they are both familiar with, their mouths just never stop? If nerds paid as much attention to social pleasanties and dramatic relationships, one could assume that they'd be very involved in "most small-talk".

      That's very true though, although most nerds and geeks have characteristics of introverts, this is why it's applied to the unsocialables of society, i.e. nerds, geeks, and the like.

    3. Re:Perhaps by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      An interesting list of qualities, mostly because they many of them don't contradict each other. You can: Enjoy time alone, be a good listener, appear calm and self contained, think, then speak or act, think while speaking, like to the in the thick of things, relish variety, and enjoy chit-chatting without being self contradictory.

      So.. if these two qualities "introversion and extroversion" aren't really mutually exclusive, then is this categorization even real and not just bad taxonomy? I can take 15 random qualities, divide them up into two seperate categories and decide that my labels are important distinctions between people. The question I have is, why is introvert/extrovert any better than my random qualities distinction?

      --
      AccountKiller
    4. Re:Perhaps by gweihir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If there is an emergency do you tend to stand still and feel somewhat shutdown or in slow motion?

      Well, I am certainly an introvert, but in an emergency I have this tendency to act fast and usually correct without really thinking about it. I think emergency behaviour and normal situation behaviour are not necessarily correlated, at least for introverts. Or maybe introverts tend to panic into inactivity while extroverts panic into (useless, dangerous) hyperactivity, while those that keep their heads act pretty similar, regardless of type?

      Anyways, I think the best situation is a mix of both types with strong mutual respect.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok... I enjoy time alone, but I certainly like doing things with other people. I have very few friends, but I'm friendly with almost everyone. After running 15 miles, I feel drained but three hours later, I feel relax and I want to go out to see a movie or something. I like to listen to people but, most of the time, I'm the one talking. I do appear calm and self contained most of the time, most people say that they never saw me angry, but, strangely enough, most people also say that sometimes it's better to leave me alone. I love to think a lot before doing things (we can say that I have a lot of imagination) but there are times when I need to do crazy things...

      Obviously, your list is pretty stupid !

    6. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Introverts:

              * Enjoy time alone
              * Consider only deep relationships as friends
              * Feel drained after outside activities, even if they were fun
              * Good listener
              * Appear calm and self-contained
              * Think then speak or act

      Extroverts:

              * Like to be in the thick of things
              * Relish variety
              * Know lots of people, considers lots of people friends
              * Enjoy chit-chatting, even to strangers
              * Feel stoked after activity
              * Speak or act then think OR think while speaking


      Great list, but I'm a recovering introvert, over the last years I've learned that I have a great deal of extravertedness in my personality, and that much of my "looking down at my shoes" has to deal with overwhelming insecurities about who I am and what others think of me. Many other self proclaimed "introverts" have this problem. Ask yourself such questions like "do you find yourself over critical of other's thoughts or ideas, are you often cynical, or negative towards others, or do you cut down others? The catalyst for most of these behaviors is often simply insecurity with one's self. This is usually very deeply rooted and takes much introspection (often cases counseling) to come to grips with. Most geeks never get there sadly.

    7. Re:Perhaps by NunyoBidnez · · Score: 1
      I wonder which definition of "introverted" this article is using.

      The pop pyshology definition relies heavily upon whether a person is outgoing or seems more inward, while the classic psychology-academe concept is used to describe from where a person's motivations derive. Someone who is self-motivated (and self-constrained) is an introvert while an extrovert is typically more easily set in action by direction from another and will rely more on societal constraints in determining acceptable behavior. Knowing the academic philosophy of the researchers would help me to interpret their findings much more accurately.

    8. Re:Perhaps by Neoncow · · Score: 1

      But why should I pay more attention to things like secial pleasantries and dramatic relationships? I can read about that stuff in a book or something!

    9. Re:Perhaps by duckpoopy · · Score: 1

      I recommend avoiding any book using the word 'stoked'. Is the author 15 years old?

      --
      word.
    10. Re:Perhaps by EvilNTUser · · Score: 1

      "Or maybe introverts tend to panic into inactivity while extroverts panic into (useless, dangerous) hyperactivity, while those that keep their heads act pretty similar, regardless of type?"

      This is probably correct. Usually if I'm in an emergency* my brain will have formulated a recovery plan so quickly that I can react virtually instantaneously. In fact, it will usually feel like the rest of the world, including my body, slows down significantly. I attribute this to my introversion.

      *Never been in any extreme emergency, though. Here I assume it refers to any situation that requires quick actions.

      --
      My Sig: SEGV
    11. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, once in the great educational game that is dating I was seeing a girl who was extroverted. A huge fight rose out of the misunderstanding of the word "friend". It seems like a dumb thing to fight about, but these things happen between boys and girls.

      I have, at the moment, one friend and that was also the case back when this fight occured. Everyone else are acquaintances. I've had up to 7 friends, but I think that was the most and it was at my most extroverted phase in my life. The girl had lots of friends. She'd see someone on the street once every couple of months and consider them a good, close friend. This amazed and frightened me. I couldn't wrap my head around it and so decided it was stupid.

      Guys, NEVER EVER question a girl's bond with her "friends". Ever.

      Haha, who's the stupid one?

    12. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you'd do well with investing in a good dictionary.

    13. Re:Perhaps by dajak · · Score: 1

      You brought out the important determining factors. The thing that people often misunderstand is that people who are "good" at "being social" are not necessarily extroverts. Often those people who are the life of the party really prefer alone time and are incredibly drained after the party.

      One of the most effective salespeople I know, has almost no social life. The most brilliant public speaker I know usually spends the two hours before a lecture taking a long walk to avoid being confused by contact with anyone. A colleague of mine who spends a large part of the working day chatting to people, even while working on the computer, is a nuisance at meetings and a hopelessly nervous public speaker. Etc.

      The common misunderstanding of introversion-extraversion seems to be caused by the tendency of people to impose a preference relation good-bad on any pair of complementary concepts. Extraversion is not the same as narcissism, does not necessarily mean that you have social skills or are more interesting, does not make you a good public speaker or leader, etc. Introversion does not mean you are shy, cannot get laid, have no social skills, and it also does not mean you are more intelligent, think better about your decisions, etc.

      Maybe introverts are less common in politics, but that is most likely a choice since a "public life" will be stressful and therefore be less appealing to them.

      The direction the preference relation points to is of course mostly decided by what kind of person you are. Part of it also seems to be culture-specific. Experiments in cognitive psychology and management science show for instance that Americans tend to like the open and interactive style of extravert decision makers (and also consider people who make decisions immediately good leaders), while East-Asians, and parts of Europe, tend to prefer introvert decision makers that do not immediately jump to conclusions in their presence. This accounts for a notable difference in how business meetings are conducted: Americans want an immediate resolution to the issues on the agenda, instead of patiently waiting a few days for the decision maker to make up his mind in private.

    14. Re:Perhaps by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      All people have some introvert and extrovert qualities. It is a matter of degrees. Go google for a Myers-Briggs test and check it out.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    15. Re:Perhaps by Listen+Up · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I call this entire article and study complete bullshit. Another bad example of a bad study correlating unrelated or vaguely related data to draw a completely meaningless conclusion. Sure, buddy, all 5+ billion people in the world fall into two categories and only the introverts are the mentally superior ones. Give me a break.

      There are hundreds, if not more, factors involved in someone's intellectual being. What about the brilliant mind who is an introvert when alone but loves to share and teach and enjoys interacting socially with people who share their common interests? Is this person worse off intellectually than someone who sits by themselves and shares with no one or has trouble sharing at all? What about people who are naturally born speakers or great with dealing with people in general but are also exceptional thinkers? What does the study have to say about those people? What about people who are brilliant but simply enjoy the company of others and feel good after physical activity?

      I could go on, but the study is terminally flawed and once again draws false conclusions from bad data. It would be nice to have the link to send the authors of the study a note about their research, because all TOO often research is published and there is no way to say "Hey, that is a complete bunch of bullshit. Who peer reviewed this information?" Too often people take these kinds of studies as the truth without even thinking critically and analytically about the data and the conclusions. Which really makes you wonder about the introverts on Slashdot, since I have only seen a handful of people even question this data. Everyone else just seems to like it because it strokes their ego somehow.

  15. USA != The world by Bonobo_Unknown · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Another case of the assumption that the USA = The World.

    --
    We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
    1. Re:USA != The world by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Funny
      Another case of the assumption that the USA = The World.

      What is this "World" that you speak of? Is "World" one of the Middle States? Like between Kansas and Ohio? I never could remember those.

    2. Re:USA != The world by Vicissidude · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Let's see... This is an American website, run by Americans, for Americans, with a predominant American audience. Hmmm... seems that grousing about Americans and their worldview would be better done in another forum.

    3. Re:USA != The world by Bonobo_Unknown · · Score: 1

      If you let me marry your sister I can get a greencard! Then I can contribute as if I were a real person.

      --
      We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
    4. Re:USA != The world by infinite9 · · Score: 1

      What is this "World" that you speak of?

      You've seen it before. You know, the World Series?

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    5. Re:USA != The world by Vicissidude · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I don't have a sister. You'll have to stay whereever the hell you are!

  16. Also seen in the brain scan ... by Mad_Rain · · Score: 4, Funny

    For introverts, there was also lot of activity in the area of the brain that relates to the visual processing and the desire of red staplers... but that's probably just a coincidence. ;)

    --
    "What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
  17. Bush Sr. was an Introvert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least, according to this.

  18. You do realize... by gerf · · Score: 1

    The US has only had one bachelor as a President? And if you've been here on /. very long...

    1. Re:You do realize... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And many theorize that he was one of two gay Presidents (Lincoln being the other, supposedly).

    2. Re:You do realize... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wait a minute. I saw those photos of Lincoln on Family Guy. He wasn't gay; he had jungle fever.

  19. Well, duh... by Burning1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Introverted people tend to seriously overanalize situations and have difficulty relaxing in social enviornments. The result is conversation that feels forced, somthing that most people don't find attractive.

    Ever wondered why meeting people is easier when tipsy? It makes your brain shut up.

    1. Re:Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You mean "overanalyze." Someone's been watching too much porn...

    2. Re:Well, duh... by xenoandroid · · Score: 1

      Overly extroverted people tend to yap too much and say stupid things and think everyone can relate to them. The result is conversation that feels forced in the other direction because the introvert doesn't want to be rude to them by telling them to shut up.

      I bet the people you meet when tipsy aren't quality friends. Besides, some people become less attractive when drunk.

    3. Re:Well, duh... by Jerf · · Score: 5, Funny

      Introverted people tend to seriously overanalize

      Oh, no, I bet Mr. Goatse is quite extroverted.

      He certainly seems to be aggressively interested in sharing his innermost feelings to all and sundry.

      Quite practiced at it, too.

      I would think introverts would tend to avoid analizing at nearly all costs.

    4. Re:Well, duh... by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ever wondered why meeting people is easier when tipsy? It makes your brain shut up.

      Typical extrovert thinking... "hey why don't you get drunk then you'd have fun just like me". I don't blame you for thinking that, an extrovert can't help it, they have no chance of understanding what makes an introvert tick because not only do we not care to spend the time to tell you, but you won't sit still long enough to hear it.

      Here's the thing. Introverts don't want your kind of fun, we're quite happy doing our own thing, sitting down, talking quietly and thinking about stuff - that is what is fun for us, not mindless verbal diahhorea (sp?), getting drunk and hitting on anything with legs.

      --
      NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
    5. Re:Well, duh... by uspsguy · · Score: 1

      Ever wonder why you make so many stupid mistakes when you're tipsy? Alcohol makes your brain shut up - and that is not necessairly a good thing.
      As for social conversation,I suspect a lot of us dislike wasting time in absolutely pointless interchange.

      --
      Profanity - The sign of a small mind trying to express itself.
    6. Re:Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! I don't drink, I don't "party", I really do nothing "fun" in the eyes of most people. But hey, I don't care! And I refuse to sit around and talk about silly nonsense. When I do have conversations I like to talk about science, history, computers, etc... I don't gossip and I don't talk about nonsense!

    7. Re:Well, duh... by adrianmonk · · Score: 1
      Ever wondered why meeting people is easier when tipsy? It makes your brain shut up.

      If you can make that statement, it's apparent your brain and mine don't work exactly alike. When I drink enough to get tipsy, all it does is make me less aware of my surroundings. My brain is still racing at 90 miles an hour. In fact, to get it to "shut up", usually I need to have quite a lot of alcohol. It's hard to meet people when you're so drunk you can't stand up.

    8. Re:Well, duh... by absurdist · · Score: 1

      As for social conversation,I suspect a lot of us dislike wasting time in absolutely pointless interchange. Pointless? Humans are social animals. Conversation is one of the ways of expressing and reinforcing that sociability and thus acceptance in a given community. Or in other words, it can make the difference in perception of your fellow humans between "Hey, he's an OK Joe" and "Burn him, he's a witch!"

    9. Re:Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans are social animals.

      I think the existence of a distinction between introverts and extroverts proves this statement wrong. Not all humans are social animals. Some of us enjoy it when all the loudmouthed assholes find something to chew on and quit emitting random, meaningless, yet somehow lingual, noise.

      Have you ever listened to some of the things marketing monkeys talk about at lunch? It's pure mindless drivel about their idiotically-led lives, portrayed as Daytime-Emmy-winning drama. Some call it noise pollution. Others call it diarrhea of the mouth. Still others just tune it out and somehow offend these assholes by ignoring them. Fuck them. Fuck them all. Fuck them in the ass. Or maybe in the mouth. Stuffing something in there might keep the noise from leaking out.

    10. Re:Well, duh... by BewireNomali · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't necessarily think its typical extrovert thinking at all.

      I'm rather introverted, and for me it goes like this. Most of the time when I'm thinking about something I have an internal conversation with one of three distinct voices in my head. They often come to different conclusions. I mediate and come to a consensus. the short of this is that it's a lot of fucking talking going on in my head.

      The other thing is that I tend to be obtuse - in social situations and be very analytical in public. This causes problems.... many people dont like to interact with someone they perceive might be smarter than they - it causes them to feel insecure. Also, many people tend to base their whole worldview on their opinions. So in what I might perceive as casual conversation ends up altering someone's world view unnecessarily... this tends to create uncomfortable conditions.

      One or two drinks for me does the exact thing poster mentioned. When I drink... the other voices are quiet. They don't speak, and it's a very serene vacation from the pinball match that is my psyche. It also allows me to focus intently on more pertinent and prudent pursuits: getting laid. And getting laid is about listening and being what that chick wants right at that time.

      Interestingly enough - an analogy. Marijuana is banned by the Olympic committee, even though it doesn't really give athletes an advantage. I ran track - and knew some athletes who smoked weed before meets. The reason: it takes the edge off. Being nervous and jumpy throws their rhythm off; and rhythm is everything when wins and losses are measured in the blink of an eye.

      Alcohol works like that for me in a social environment. I usually get something mild or watered down - or get something strong and nurse it. Athletes call it being too keyed-up; I can imagine the equivalent exists for those who have strong cognitive faculties.

      And while like you, I enjoy doing my own thing for the most part; I far more enjoy getting laid on a regular basis. You have to join the world to do this.

      --
      un burrito me trampeó.
    11. Re:Well, duh... by Eideewt · · Score: 0, Troll

      Same here. Maybe some people have less spare brainpower than us so their brains run out of it before they pass out.

    12. Re:Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      >Ever wondered why meeting people is easier when tipsy? It makes your brain shut up.

      And the person you're talking to looks more attractive :)

    13. Re:Well, duh... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's not incredibly arrogant at all! Did you ever think that perhaps extroverts have already sat down, thought about "stuff," and now want to discuss it with others, to see what their thoughts on the matter are? Being an extrovert at a party doesn't mean "talks all the time." It means "converses easily." That takes two or more people, both talking and listening. Sounds to me like somebody's a bit jealous the extrovert gets all the girls while he sits in a corner mumbling about Star Trek...

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    14. Re:Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "shut up brain... or I'll stab you with a q-tip!"
      - Homer Simpson

    15. Re:Well, duh... by xilmaril · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think they (grandparent poster, other posters) are just describing the sensation badly. When I'm drunk, my mind continues to run at normal speed, but gets much less insistent. For example, I'll think things like "No, that's an awful idea... but it looks like fun", then I'll go do it, fully aware of the consequences and fully aware that I can just blame it all on being drunk the next morning.

    16. Re:Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      You're not introverted, you have schizophrenia.

    17. Re:Well, duh... by xilmaril · · Score: 1

      Less attractive when they're becoming drunk, and you're not? Who doesn't?

      Some people get sluttier when drunk, but I'm yet to meet a person who looks sexier with glazed eyes and a lack of balance.

    18. Re:Well, duh... by Raffaello · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not directed just at you, though I am replying to you, but I think the definitions of introvert and extravert as used in psychology need to be clarified here.

      First put forward by Freud and greatly elaborated by Jung neither introvert nor extravert necessarily determines skills at either thinking or socializing. Both have to do with which mode of behavior a person finds energizing and which s/he finds draining. Because of this energizing/draining aspect it is likely, though by no means guaranteed that introverts will be drawn more to reflection and therefore become more skilled thinkers, planners, visualizers, etc than they are socializers. Conversely it is more likely, though not assured, that extraverts will become more skilled socializers than they are thinkers, visualizers, etc.

      An introvert finds that directing attention inwardly (hence the term into (inward) vert (to turn)) comes easily and is energizing, while directing attention outward (for example, in social gatherings) is draining. This does not mean that introverts cannot be good at socializing. It is just that doing so is an effort. They then need alone time to recover from the socializing.

      An extrovert finds that directing attention outward (hence the term extro (outward) vert (to turn)) comes easily and is energizing, but directing attention inwardly (for example reflecting on feelings or past experiences) is draining. The extrovert can become quite skilled at this interior focus but s/he will need some social time to recover from it, just as the introvert will need alone time to recover from the perceived drain of socializing.

      So both types can behave in both ways. Their behavior is not what defines them as introverts or extroverts. What defines them as one type or the other is how they respond to these two spheres of activity - inward looking and outward looking - by finding one energizing, one draining, one coming easily and one requiring an effort.

    19. Re:Well, duh... by aaronl · · Score: 1

      I actually find that it doesn't make my brain shut up at all. It just makes me focus more on whatever is in front of me. Sometimes that means I get a whole lot of work done, and sometimes it means I've gone on about physics, history or politics, and sometimes it means I had an hours long meandering conversation with one person.

      A bunch of people mentioned having multiple concurrent lines of thought... is that the common way? I have a hard time telling someone what I'm thinking, because I never feel like there is anything bouncing around. It's always like whatever it is, it's just suddenly there! As in, when I stop and consider it, my mind feels blank. Seems odd.

    20. Re:Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, getting drunk and introversion are not mutually exclusive. I'm the most introverted of anybody I know and my friends and acquaintances think likewise, have taken the Myers-Briggs many times and never received less than 95% on the I-modality, but I love a drink and some nice slow, relaxed conversation with a friend. I think among the Greeks there was an introvert or two (of the big three, Plato strikes me as introverted, but not Socrates or Aristotle), and they certainly were not averse to imbibing a jug of wine and discussing the nature of the good or beauty or intelligence or mathematics long into the night.

      Also, as a matter of fact, you'll be very hard pressed to find somebody who finds it difficult to meet people and engage in initial talk, and who doesn't have some aversion to alcohol or a control issue about drugs in general, who doesn't find it easier to meet somebody after 1 drink than before.

    21. Re:Well, duh... by Rutulian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's not confuse being introverted with being anti-social. The difference lies in the reason for being a quieter and more withdrawn person. If you hate people and are bitter towards all humanity, which leads to feelings of discomfort/awkwardness in social situations, and causes you to have a general attitude of "I don't want to talk to you, leave me alone with my computer," I would brand you anti-social. If you simply tend to be more pondering or analytical, a person who is comfortable in a social setting, but doesn't need/want to be the center of attention, then I would brand you introverted. You can also be a little of both, but I wouldn't equate "introverted person" with "shy person who doesn't like to be around people."

    22. Re:Well, duh... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      So what if you find them both energizing? I have no problem socializing, and really enjoy it, but I also enjoy long, drawn out inner dialogues, and don't have any problem spending lenghty periods of time alone. I just assumed I was an extrovert because everybody tells me I am, and one of those Jung tests said I was ENTJ. Actually, I seem to recall the test calling me extremely extroverted.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    23. Re:Well, duh... by xenoandroid · · Score: 1

      That's exactly the point, I never said I was attractive when drunk even if I would be, I wouldn't know because I don't drink. The only thing 'attractive' about drunk people is that they might do something hilarious.

    24. Re:Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical extrovert thinking... "hey why don't you get drunk then you'd have fun just like me". I don't blame you for thinking that, an extrovert can't help it, they have no chance of understanding what makes an introvert tick because not only do we not care to spend the time to tell you, but you won't sit still long enough to hear it.

      Here's the thing. Introverts don't want your kind of fun, we're quite happy doing our own thing, sitting down, talking quietly and thinking about stuff - that is what is fun for us, not mindless verbal diahhorea (sp?), getting drunk and hitting on anything with legs.


      You are one sad little man

    25. Re:Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And I refuse to sit around and talk about silly nonsense.

      WTF are you doing posting here and now, then?! Or did I miss the joke?

    26. Re:Well, duh... by MicroBerto · · Score: 1

      You're definitely right. In all seriousness, I find alcohol to be a nice solution to this problem on the weekends too, and don't feel one bit bad about it.

      --
      Berto
    27. Re:Well, duh... by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Introverted people tend to seriously overanalize situations and have difficulty relaxing in social enviornments. The result is conversation that feels forced, somthing that most people don't find attractive.

      There, in a nutshell, you've identified most of my youth. As an adult, I've spent alot of time and effort practicing interpsonal communication skills, so that I could "interface" with other people comfortably.

      It's probably been one of the best things I've ever done. Although I've since concluded that the organization is mostly a crock of sh17, the Scientology "Training Routines" or "TRs" helped me out tremendously. It's basically practice on how to talk and listen in a relaxed, comfortable fashion, even when you're dealing with a tense or unpleasant situation. I've since read numerous books on salesmanship, small-talk, and the like, and practice them, too.

      I will always tend to over-analyze everything. But, I've learned to come off naturally, and not to put too much weight into single events like I used to. I've even gotten to the point where, although still tiring, social events and parties are lots of fun, and I'm even remodeling my home so it's a better place to throw social events!

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    28. Re:Well, duh... by pherthyl · · Score: 2, Funny

      So what if you find them both energizing?

      Then you are a god amongst men! We worship you, oh double ended personality!

    29. Re:Well, duh... by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      +1 Nazi with a sense of humor.

    30. Re:Well, duh... by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      As long as the mistake doesn't involve dipers you might as well enjoy it.

    31. Re:Well, duh... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Well that's just swell! Thanks so much! I really think you're just great, too.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    32. Re:Well, duh... by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      Depends on the extrovert. I'm actually fairly introverted, but I'm working to change that. Honestly, it's fun to talk and to share. What I say may be BS, but it moves the conversation along. If you have an experience, I'm going to relate it to an experience of my own. That's how we connect. I know how you feel because I've been there. Overly anything is always bad, though. I agree that it's not cool do dominate the conversation.

    33. Re:Well, duh... by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      There's a huge difference between having a drink, and being drunk. The only cool thing about drunk people is that they can be the ass end of a joke without getting offended.

    34. Re:Well, duh... by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      The best conversations to me are the deep ones with personal meaning. IMO being extroverted isn't about shooting the shit, it's about being able to forge those connections.

    35. Re:Well, duh... by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      Same diff. With all those voices in his head, he does not need friends.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    36. Re:Well, duh... by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm nautrally introverted. I'm working past that because I've found that being able to relate to people makes me feel more complete.

      If you enjoy life without social interaction, power to you. But honestly, you don't come off as a particularly happy person.

    37. Re:Well, duh... by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      Hey, as an extrovert I don't need porn for that kind of thing. *grin*

    38. Re:Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (inward) vert (to turn)) (hence the term extro (outward) vert (to turn)) (for example reflecting on feelings or past experiences)

      Dude, I extracted the above statements from your post. Is this some kind of Introverted Lisp? If so I think you should study the manual a little closer.

      - Moomin

    39. Re:Well, duh... by dr.badass · · Score: 1

      Typical extrovert thinking... "hey why don't you get drunk then you'd have fun just like me". I don't blame you for thinking that, an extrovert can't help it, they have no chance of understanding what makes an introvert tick because not only do we not care to spend the time to tell you, but you won't sit still long enough to hear it.

      Wow, what an asshole. I say that as someone who is introverted as all hell.

      It's one thing to know what you enjoy and what you don't enjoy; it's another to assume that what other people do is especially different from what you do, and therefore inferior. I don't understand how you can take one person's suggestion that alcohol can make socializing easier (as has been known for centuries) to accusing them of "mindless verbal diahhorea" and "hitting on anything with legs", as if that encompassed all social activity available to people other than you.

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
    40. Re:Well, duh... by Spire · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Marijuana is banned by the Olympic committee, even though it doesn't really give athletes an advantage. I ran track - and knew some athletes who smoked weed before meets. The reason: it takes the edge off. Being nervous and jumpy throws their rhythm off; and rhythm is everything when wins and losses are measured in the blink of an eye.
      Is that not an advantage?
      --
      begin 644 .sig22&%I;"P@9F5L;&]W(&=E96 LA`end
    41. Re:Well, duh... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Introverted people tend to seriously overanalize situations and have difficulty relaxing in social enviornments. The result is conversation that feels forced, somthing that most people don't find attractive. Ever wondered why meeting people is easier when tipsy? It makes your brain shut up.

      Can't say that I have that experience. My brain seems to be its analytical self right up to the point of passing out. I've seen introverts that do become extroverts when drinking, but I'm not one of them. I know other analytical people who manage to funnel all that into their work, but that doesn't do it for me. Mind you, on some occasions having your wits about you is a good thing, but on the whole analysis is the biggst mood killer of them all. There's a great Calvin and Hobbes strip where the punchline is basicly to quit thinking while you're ahead.

      Imagine you're falling in love with a girl. The easiest way to kill that feeling is to start analyzing why you're falling in love, to break it down to a series of physical characteristics and psychological traits. For one the analysis completely misses the point since love doesn't break down to parameter scores, secondly it turns a wonderful feeling into a science experiment which kills the whole sensation. But that seems to be a background process that simple won't cease to run.

      Of course, I've pulled this a bit to the extreme here, but there's a core of truth to it. Knowledge, intelligence and rationality does not necessarily equate to happiness. Clueless and thoughtless people are ofte happier, despite it being irrational. But if you're happy from your own perspective, who am I to argue. I'm certainly not going to spell things out to them just to put them down for no reason.

      Kjella

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    42. Re:Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alcohol... all my extroverted friends from a few years ago (they'll NEVER find the bodies! mwahahaha) used to bitch at me constantly to drink etc. For a while, I did. They thought I was "coming out of my shell" and all that BS, but what I was actually doing was getting drunk and focusing really hard on my thoughts, so that I could almost reach the same level as when I wasn't drunk. I took this to its natural extreme by writing myself a long written test and and getting severely drunk on cheap vodka all on my own. The results were interesting. I wrote a story in four different languages, and as for the accuracy... I put "Ireland City" as the capital of Ireland.

    43. Re:Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I wouldn't equate "introverted person" with "shy person who doesn't like to be around people."
      Well that's fine, but I think that common usage, and most dictionaries would disagree with you. Taking dictionary.com for convenience sake:
      marked by or suggesting introversion <an uncommunicative and introverted person given to odd moods>; broadly : being a reserved or shy person
      It seems to fit almost exactly your definition of what introversion isn't. The rest of the definition has nothing about being thoughtful or analytical, only a focus on oneself.
    44. Re:Well, duh... by vorpal22 · · Score: 1

      I just wanted to point out that people who are antisocial aren't necessarily hateful and bitter towards the human race; for example, I'm pretty antisocial, but not because I'm bitter. I really don't like people all that much and would almost always rather not be around them, but it's not because I harbour any particular grudge towards them. It's comparable to, say, donkeys: I feel no particular inclination to spend any of my time with donkeys, but I certainly hold no hatred of donkeys.

    45. Re:Well, duh... by xenoandroid · · Score: 1

      Have fun changing your identity or, at least, putting on a show.

      "Honestly, it's fun to talk and to share. "
      Just remember that introversion doesn't mean quiet or not willing to talk or share, that's called being shy. Introverts simply tend not to talk pointlessly. Most people have both sides in the first place, it's just that one is dominant.

    46. Re:Well, duh... by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      Marijuana is banned by the Olympic committee, even though it doesn't really give athletes an advantage. I ran track - and knew some athletes who smoked weed before meets. The reason: it takes the edge off. Being nervous and jumpy throws their rhythm off; and rhythm is everything when wins and losses are measured in the blink of an eye.

      Am I the only one that sees a contradiction here?

    47. Re:Well, duh... by BewireNomali · · Score: 1

      It also slows reaction time, reflexes, and impairs visual and audio perception. In addition, it causes pulmonary inflammation. In short, it doesn't confer physical advantage - it is a detriment, both in the short term and long to athletes. The psychological advantage is difficult to measure; athletes often perform poorly after marijuana usage, and as thus it does not meet the typical criteria for performance enhancement. There are some athletes who seem to do as well with it, so data is contradictory and incomplete.

      green tea extract is a strong anxiolytic and performance enhancer and increases the rate of muscle lipid oxidation. It has none of the detriments, yet it is not banned.

      --
      un burrito me trampeó.
    48. Re:Well, duh... by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      So what happens if an extrovert is denied the company of others, or if an introvert is denied time alone?

      I'm (was?) a strong introvert according to the Myers-Brigg Type Indicator (taken back in '90, so I'm sure it's changed) and my girlfriend is a strong extrovert. This difference in personalities has been quite difficult to deal with in our relationship. Each one of us has a tendency to treat the other as we'd like to be treated in a given situation, which is not necessarily what the other person's looking for.

    49. Re:Well, duh... by kat11v · · Score: 1
      Actually no. Introverts definitely do feel easier around people when they are slightly tipsy but for a different reason than you think.

      One of the more interesting theories I learned in my third year psychology class was this: Being introverted or extroverted depends on how sensitive your central nervous system is to stimuli. And everyone has their own optimum level at which they like it to be stimulized.

      So for introverts, that level is fairly low and their nervous system is pretty sensitive. Get a lot of people around them (lots of external stimuli) and they're way over their optimum and start to feel overwhealmed and uncomfortable. But for extroverts, their system is pretty insensitive so they need to get a higher level of stimulation to reach their optimum.

      Now mix alcohol into the situation, which everyone knows is a depressant. When an introvert drinks, the depressant suppresses the stimulation to the central nervous system and so they are momentaraly less sensitive and can handle a higher level of stimulation. Hence, at a party they will become more relaxed and chatty. For an extrovert, however, that's a bad idea. Their central nervous system already has trouble and needs a high level of stimulation. Now, it will need even more. So these are the types of guys who can become obnoxious, loud, and even violent, because they are seeking to raise the stimulation even higher to compensate for the depressing effect of alcohol.

      To take the theory even further, why do you think Ritalin works on attention deficit disorder kids, even though it's a stimulant? Because, those kids have an extreme version of the extrovert's central nervous system - it's constantly seeking stimulation to compensate for a lack of sensitivity. So, when given a stimulant, they no longer need to seek external stimulation as hard. One of the lesser known things is that ADD adults tend to often self medicate with coffee. Which is, coincidentally, also a stimulant.

      Anyways, this was only a theory of course, but a rather neat one I think (with, yes, some research to back it up).

    50. Re:Well, duh... by torokun · · Score: 1

      But it's fun when you give up trying to be something you're not.

      Begin the conversation with whatever you're thinking about.

      I start many conversations like "hey, so what do you think will be the economic effect of the cut-off of gaza and the wall in the west bank?" Or "hey, did you know that there will soon be bionic hands with proper sensors tied into the nervous system such that people will be able to sense all sorts of variables through the artificial hands?"...

      You get one of two responses. Most people I know either find it interesting and talk about it, or laugh at the seeming non-sequitur, or just say no and the conversation goes nowhere. If you hit option number 3, you weren't going to have a good time anyway. :)

    51. Re:Well, duh... by rsadelle · · Score: 1

      Introverts don't want your kind of fun

      Yes, yes, yes! This is one of the things that most pissed me off about The 40 Year Old Virgin. The whole assumption of the movie was that the extrovert kind of fun is the only kind of fun worth having. I'm not just talking about sex here. The extroverts got him to get rid of his video games and action figures in addition to getting him to try to have a sex life.

    52. Re:Well, duh... by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 1

      Granted I took the example to an extreme to illustrate my point, but the truth is that introverts can be subjected to this mindset from (granted, extreme) extroverts often enough to be irritating.

      I never said that getting drunk, verbal diahhorea and hitting on anything with legs was inferior - if that's (and I'm talking generalities for extrovert pasttimes here, not specifically those three activities) what somebody finds enjoyable then more power to them, but it's NOT something generally that introverts would enjoy.

      Where you get the problem is the extroverts who don't, or can't understand that, and think that what's good for them, show by rights be good for EVERYBODY.

      --
      NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
    53. Re:Well, duh... by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      Depends on what you consider pointless. I want to understand people better. I learn a lot from their opinions and thoughts.

      Perhaps I am an extrovert at heart. For me, it's a matter of overcoming a fear of social situations and rejection.

    54. Re:Well, duh... by xenoandroid · · Score: 1

      I'm interested in people and what they say. However I'm not interested in speaking an unrefined thought or letting 90% of the things I think of that they won't understand or will cause a problem of some sort come out of my mouth. That's what I mean by pointless. It's frustrating when extroverts expect a full sentence reply from everything they say.

      My original post was poking fun at the ignorant and small minded nature of the parent post. I know not all extroverts yap too much and spout pointless crap from their mouth. In fact, random pointless conversation is sometimes fun. However it pisses me off when introversion gets treated like some kind of retardation and something that needs 'to be worked on'. People would be extremely boring if they were all the same, we need as much diversity as possible.

    55. Re:Well, duh... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      With all those voices in his head, he does not need friends.

      Read his post again, it wasn't friends he went looking for.
      If we were able to get what he was looking at from the voices in his head, well I'd say his medication dose was a weeee-bit too low.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    56. Re:Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Marijuana is banned by the Olympic committee, even though it doesn't really give athletes an advantage...it takes the edge off...and rhythm is everything when wins and losses are measured in the blink of an eye."

      Huh? By your logic it DOES give an advantage.

      "It also allows me to focus intently on more pertinent and prudent pursuits: getting laid...I far more enjoy getting laid on a regular basis."

      Smooth, guy - real smooth. Between poor logic and THIS attitude spewing outward, it's no wonder people get uncomfortable talking with you.

      "...I have an internal conversation with one of three distinct voices in my head."

      Oh, that explains it.

    57. Re:Well, duh... by BewireNomali · · Score: 1

      It also slows reaction time, reflexes, and impairs visual and audio perception. In addition, it causes pulmonary inflammation. In short, it doesn't confer physical advantage - it is a detriment, both in the short term and long to athletes. The psychological advantage is difficult to measure; athletes often perform poorly after marijuana usage, and as thus it does not meet the typical criteria for performance enhancement. There are some athletes who seem to do as well with it, so data is contradictory and incomplete.

      I assumed you were aware of the well known side effects. Clearly a poor assumption on my part, I agree. And it isn't MY LOGIC as you put it, but the logic of my teammates that used it to advantage, and the flowed logic of the Olympic committee that bans weed but not things like green tea extract, which convey far greater indisputable performance advantages.

      So I made two incorrect assumptions: first was to assume that you'd bring prior knowledge and reasoning skills, and second that you had reading comprehension skills. In that regard you are correct. You got me dude, I shouldn't have assumed those things. I'll work on it, I promise.

      Oh, and the insecure nitpicking and poring over details that have little to do with the point of the whole post is a quality skillset. I'm sure you're the life of the party.

      Not to mention that you're the third person to nitpick over that same detail, but the only one to post as AC. Character defects aplenty, I'd say.

      But good luck with that though.

      --
      un burrito me trampeó.
  20. Writing as fast as I can... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    N-th post!

  21. Groupthink!! by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 5, Funny

    So basically this is a colony of introverts, and we get a story about how great introverts are. What does that do for us in terms of teaching us? It feels like nerds needed to give each other a pat on the back.

    I feel the karma burning, but hey, I got a 4 today, so I can afford a -1.

    1. Re:Groupthink!! by Hockney+Twang · · Score: 1

      Gotta be careful with that logic. You've been upmodded as funny, for 3 points, which don't count towards your karma. Which means this comment could potentially be modded down by 5 negative mods, all of which *do* count against karma.

      Wandering slightly back on topic, I'll go ahead and assume you don't care, and keep my future opinions between me and my precious books.

    2. Re:Groupthink!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the previous posting about getting tipsy and therefore getting your brain to shut up was informative. I know it's happened to me (and only after one or two, so it isn't liquid courage), just enough to relax and shut the thinker down. If only there was something I could take to relax and shut the thinker down a bit when going to a staff meeting or wandering by the water cooler, then I could still get more done than the boss, *and* appear more extraverted to coworkers.

    3. Re:Groupthink!! by xilmaril · · Score: 1

      They have that. It's called irish whiskey.

      ... or maybe that's just my boss and coworkers.

    4. Re:Groupthink!! by LegendLength · · Score: 1

      So basically this is a colony of introverts, and we get a story about how great introverts are.
      I've read plenty of posts in this story from self admitting extroverts.

      What does that do for us in terms of teaching us?
      By hearing the opinions of all posters we get the chance of learning a new perspective.

  22. You're kidding.... by deanj · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Jimmy Carter? You're kidding, right? This guy has done nothing but shoot his mouth off about every damn thing, whether any one wants to hear it or not.

    Don't get me wrong, Habit is a great great thing, but ....an introvert? No way man.

    Plus, I don't buy the brainpower thing either. I mean, the guy presided over an economy with a prime rate of 18% and gas lines like you won't believe. Brainpower....yeah, right.

    1. Re:You're kidding.... by deanj · · Score: 1

      Habit == Habitat

    2. Re:You're kidding.... by Ironsides · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I mean, the guy presided over an economy with a prime rate of 18% and gas lines like you won't believe. Brainpower....yeah, right.

      Correction, Carter CAUSED the prime rate of 18%.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    3. Re:You're kidding.... by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You see, I was thinking something different. I was thinking that if Jimmy Carter was an introvert, then it might be a good thing we don't elect introverts.

      He really is a nice guy and all but as a president, he was *the* definition of ineffective. The malaise comment, his belief that Americans should wear sweaters to conserve power (right or wrong, we won't and didn't), staying in the white house during the Iran hostage crisis, and plenty more should put the whole "most brainpower" issue to rest.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    4. Re:You're kidding.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like Bush CAUSED the prime rate of 4%. Oh wait... the President doesn't control that stuff. Hmm... back to the drawing board.

      Maybe you mean the Fed overnight rate. Yes! That must be it. Bush got it down to 1.00%. Never fear the REPUBLICANS are here!

    5. Re:You're kidding.... by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Plus, I don't buy the brainpower thing either. I mean, the guy presided over an economy with a prime rate of 18% and gas lines like you won't believe. Brainpower....yeah, right.

      If you want the guy who's responsible for price controls (and thus lines for gas) his name is Richard Nixon. Though price controls did continue on into the Carter administration, Carter is also responsible for starting the end of price controls.

      That's not to say Nixon was stupid. Obviously he wasn't. But blaming every mistake someone makes on stupidity is just plain wrong. Very smart people make enormous mistakes. Look no further than Nixon (Watergate) or Clinton (Monica Lewinsky) for evidence of that.

      --
      AccountKiller
    6. Re:You're kidding.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that really pissed me off, how Jimmy Carter bought sooooo much gasoline for his Georgia peanut farm that I had to wait in line to buy some in Rock Island, Illinois.

      Wake up, nimrod. There was lots of gasoline in America at the time. It was an entirely demand-side panic by a stupid, automobile-addicted American public. Anybody who thinks a President can actually guide a five trillion dollar economy is an idiot. That's why people should stop wagging their tongues about that puppet Bush and start directing some venom at people who buy SUVs. If you own one you're the enemy.

    7. Re:You're kidding.... by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      "Carter CAUSED the prime rate of 18%"

      It peaked during the Carter years, but inflation was already a major problem while Jerry Ford was in office. You must remember those stupid WIN (Whip Inflation Now) pins.

    8. Re:You're kidding.... by ansible · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whatever you think of the Carter administration, the interesting thing to me is that Jimmy Carter has been arguably one of the most effective ex-presidents we've ever seen in recent times.

      The guy is out there, doing what he believes in, and making a difference. Promoting affordable housing and democracy, a couple of the USA's core values. All I can say is: Bravo.

      Compare that to the rest of the recent ones: Nixon, Ford, Regan, Bush One, Clinton. Mostly they made appearances to pay the bills. And found libraries. And play golf. Dunno, maybe I haven't studied up on them enough (which is to say, at all), but I don't recall hearing anything about any of them which impressed me.

      The only exception seems to be Clinton. He seems to be following the same path as Carter, but more ego-centrically. You hear a lot of 'I' when he talks about what he's working on.

    9. Re:You're kidding.... by operagost · · Score: 1
      Dunno, maybe I haven't studied up on them enough (which is to say, at all), but I don't recall hearing anything about any of them which impressed me.
      I suppose you haven't been paying attention to the "Odd Couple" who have been doing a little fund raising lately.
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    10. Re:You're kidding.... by jadavis · · Score: 1

      price ceiling => shortage => long lines at pump

      --
      Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
    11. Re:You're kidding.... by Galvatron · · Score: 1

      First off, as the other poster pointed out, Bush Sr. and Clinton have both been doing fundraising work for the tsunami, Katrina, etc. Reagan suffered from Alzheimer's (quite possibly beginning during his second term) and so was pretty much incapable of doing anything after he left office aside from reading the occasional scripted speech. Nixon was disgraced and wouldn't have been welcome doing much of anything. So what you're really saying is, Ford wasn't carrying his weight (and of course, he was never elected anyway).

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    12. Re:You're kidding.... by LegendLength · · Score: 1

      The guy is out there, doing what he believes in, and making a difference.

      And it's great that he never misses an opportunity to work his venomous political commentary into any interview he has regarding his charity work.

    13. Re:You're kidding.... by hackstraw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was thinking that if Jimmy Carter was an introvert, then it might be a good thing we don't elect introverts.

      For some reason, I've always liked Carter. I believe he was the best president during my lifetime. A more objective measure shows that he was about average with an average score of 26 out of 43.

      Keep in mind that Abraham Lincoln is hovering around #1,2, or 3 on the list. He was an introvert. And would NEVER be elected to any kind of political office today. For some reason, that bothers me.

  23. cha ching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    politicization of discussion topic boosts CPM for host

  24. As always, issue of causation by David+Hume · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Introverted children enjoy the internal world of thoughts, feelings and fantasies, and there's a physiological reason for this. Researchers using brain scans have found introverts have more brain activity in general, and specifically in the frontal lobes.
    Are they introverted because they have more brain activity? Or do they have more brain activity because they are introverted? Or are they introverted and have more brain activity because of another cause?

    There is frequently an assumption that the physical (brain chemistry, electrical activity) causes the behavior (introspection), as opposed to the other way around, or some other, independent cause.
     
    1. Re:As always, issue of causation by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      It's probably neither a cause nor an effect, but rather simply a trait that is common among, or perhaps the definition of, introverts. It seems like the researcher is just inflating the importance of his or her research. The only thing we can directly infer from the study is the equivelant of saying "Blonde people are blonde because they have blonde hair."

    2. Re:As always, issue of causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe your "thoughts" are just epiphenomena and your body just does whatever the fuck it wants.

    3. Re:As always, issue of causation by VB+Coder · · Score: 1

      I am more likely to think being an introvert/extrovert is more a result of outside forces. For example, when growing up, I was an extreme extrovert. I was voted class flirt and knew lots and lots of people. But that all started to change around graduation. After parting ways with most my friends, I totally changed. I couldn't exactly say why. I never have trouble talking to complete strangers. I usually don't have a care about making an idiot of myself in front of them either.
      But when going to school, I never really made new friends. And didn't really care to as much as I had before. Granted, a bunch of computer science majors aren't really an inviting group. I played some Unreal tournaments with them, but no real connection. I've noticed that I've become more disconnected since then. Even at work. Besides the people I work with directly, I haven't really talked to most the people in my own department, even though I've been there for three years.
      For some reason, I went from an extreme extrovert to extreme introvert. I don't think I unlocked any special brain activity. I think maybe people just adapt their personalities to fit their environment.

      --
      I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
    4. Re:As always, issue of causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, I was going to post the formal Latin name of the fallacy you're describing, then I noticed your name and figured you didn't need my help.

    5. Re:As always, issue of causation by bpd1069 · · Score: 1

      causation != correlation

      --
      --
    6. Re:As always, issue of causation by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      There is frequently an assumption that the physical (brain chemistry, electrical activity) causes the behavior (introspection), as opposed to the other way around, or some other, independent cause.

      No. That was the old way of thinking.

      The new, modern outlook is that your behaviour, like your height, weight, driving ability, sex drive, food preferences, psychology, ulcer count, job, status, sexuality, favourite color, pet, health, wealth, smell, car, hair, SAT scores, political party and number of pokemon captured are all predetermined at birth from your genes, and these factors are immutable and unchangable by any process whatsoever short of chaging your "faulty" genes.

      Hava a nicer life, by paying private companies to change your genes for you.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    7. Re:As always, issue of causation by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      ... are all predetermined at birth from your genes, ...



      Huh ? I always thought genes were determined about nine months before birth, a few hours after, um, ....

    8. Re:As always, issue of causation by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Huh ? I always thought genes were determined about nine months before birth, a few hours after, um, ....

      Silly rabbit! How can you determine what someones genes are while they're still in the womb. Didn't you ever see GATTACA?

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
  25. makes sense by ThatGeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I guess it makes sense. The more time you spend talking the less time you spend thinking.

    I still have to wonder about the research methodology though... You stick an introvert who likes being by himself in one machine and an extrovert who hates being by himself in another. Is it really any wonder that the person who likes being by himself has more brain activity in this situation? I think it would be better if they could somehow measure an introvert reading a book and compare that to an extrovert mingling at a party.

    --
    What are you eating? isItVeg?.
    1. Re:makes sense by mikapc · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you but when I'm "thinking" I'm often speaking in my head so I don't see how that is so much different then speaking out loud. I've found sometimes just speaking a thought out loud helps me move further on an issue then keeping it internalized.

    2. Re:makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how much brain do you need to talk?

    3. Re:makes sense by Tim · · Score: 1

      I guess it makes sense. The more time you spend talking the less time you spend thinking.

      Yow. That's a terrible generalization. I say this as an introvert.

      There is no necessary correlation between quality of thought, and degree of introversion. And anecdotally, I know plenty of dense introverts, just as I know plenty of smart extroverts.

      I realize that it's fashionable to for most of the slashdot crowd to label themselves as "introvert, with pride," but in practice, that kind of thought tends to be inflexible, and unhelpful. It's one thing to identify as an introvert, but it's quite another to assume that it's a superior way to think.

      Personally, I've always wanted to be able to control my personality. And while I accept that I may never be able to change, it doesn't stop me from trying. Life is so...boring, otherwise.....

      --
      Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
    4. Re:makes sense by Kuscheltier · · Score: 1

      The more time you spend talking the less time you spend thinking.

      That could be one of the reasons why we all love politicians so much.

  26. hah by ShaneThePain · · Score: 0

    take that preppies!

    --
    Fascism is the greatest political ideology ever conceived. Sorry.
  27. To Borrow a Quote... by Scarletdown · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I believe it was the late great philosopher Douglas Adams who stated, "If people stop talking, their brains start working."

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
    1. Re:To Borrow a Quote... by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      That explains why news channel reporters never seem to know anything.

      They're paid to never stop talking.

      QED?

    2. Re:To Borrow a Quote... by Zoxed · · Score: 2, Informative

      I liked this quote so I checked it:

      "If they don't keep on exercising their lips, he thought, their brains start working."

    3. Re:To Borrow a Quote... by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 0

      "the more you talk the less you say"

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    4. Re:To Borrow a Quote... by torokun · · Score: 1


      Yeah. I often think about the fact that the average person goes through our modern life now harangued by a cacophony of sounds at every moment. Radio in the car, TV at home, iPods, games, people, etc.

      I often go weeks at a time silent in the car, because there's no other place I can get away from the noise. I have an iPod, but often don't use it for long stretches, because it causes reverberations (automatic replaying) in my head for days.

  28. So What? by mattwarden · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Excerpt pokes at the perception that there is something wrong with introverts, but furthers the perception that somehow more brain activity as better. A lot of brain activity has to do with inhibiting other nervous system activity. The brain isn't a processor where cycles per second have some significance. If anything, the morphology of the brain circuitry would have a much bigger impact than any measure of global activity.

    1. Re:So What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed - I seem to recall some studies showing that in people who are experts at various tasks (maths, puzzles, etc. etc.) brain activity is actually less than people who are new to a task, even though they perform at a much higher level.

      You definitely can't just assume more brain activity indicates something better :)
      (And I say this as a massive introvert ;)

  29. Strive for diversity, not one or the other... by centipetalforce · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Attaching a label to yourself is a great way to start a self fulfilling prophecy, unless you are simply self analyzing. The old "I'm an introvert so I don't get friends" philosophy is widespread and teribly limiting. You CAN be both, and I try to stretch both sides of me.
    I try to beleive I'm a little more diverse than one word, the same way I don't describe myself as a Jew, or white, or red head, or whatever. If you are in a situation where you have to describe yourself as one word, you may be around the wrong people.

    1. Re:Strive for diversity, not one or the other... by nashih · · Score: 1

      thanks for sharing your optimism & wisdom :)

    2. Re:Strive for diversity, not one or the other... by lebski · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would describe you as Kyle.

    3. Re:Strive for diversity, not one or the other... by greg_barton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Attaching a label to yourself is a great way to start a self fulfilling prophecy...

      It's also a way of gaining self knowledge, a way to explore your own psyche and those of others. Finding language you can use to describe yourself doesn't have to limit what you can be.

      Anyway, you seem to be worried about being trapped by the "is" of identity. Check out E Prime.

    4. Re:Strive for diversity, not one or the other... by ClamIAm · · Score: 1

      I agree. Most "introvert checklists" describe some parts of my personality, but not other parts. I don't feel tired after social situations, unless I'm forcing myself to be what I'm not. I suppose this could be said of anyone, not just "introverts".

    5. Re:Strive for diversity, not one or the other... by martinX · · Score: 4, Funny

      and I try to stretch both sides of me.

      I think i've seen that photo.

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    6. Re:Strive for diversity, not one or the other... by Nurgled · · Score: 1

      I do agree with you to a certain extent, but there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to make observations such as "I tend towards introversion more than extroversion". You don't have to just pick one word; you can pick a whole bunch of them, and use qualifiers like "a bit" or "mostly" to modify them. Let's not demonize research into human behavior on the grounds that it's "labelling" people. We need to identify and name the extremes to make sure that we're all on the same page.

  30. Ewww. by deacon · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Extroverts seem to rule the world or, at least, the USA, which hasn't elected an introverted president for three decades, since Jimmy Carter.

    Heh. I remember Carter. His "introvertedness" if that's what it was, was beside the point. The man exuded a mopey hopelessness every time he spoke. His energy policy consisted of wearing cardigans on TV when he gave his "fireside chats", and telling us he was turning down the thermostat at the White House. His cap on gas prices resulted in gas shortages.

    His foreign policy of "USA bends over and spreads them" is directly responsible for the mess that exists in Iran today, and in fact one of the hostage takers of the time is "El Presidente" of Iran today.

    Carter may be capable of building houses, and beating off savage attack rabbits with a canoe paddle.

    He was waaay out of his depth as a president.

    Everyone should have to endure watching the man's speeches to America. Those who missed it won't understand what a dismal time that was.

    1. Re:Ewww. by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 1

      Makes you start missing Richard Nixon, doesn't it?

      (apparently an introvert as well)

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    2. Re:Ewww. by PepeGSay · · Score: 1

      yeah, the gas lines had nothing to do with ummm a little thing called OPEC?

    3. Re:Ewww. by sjames · · Score: 1

      His foreign policy of "USA bends over and spreads them" is directly responsible for the mess that exists in Iran today, and in fact one of the hostage takers of the time is "El Presidente" of Iran today.

      Republican "negotiations" to make sure the hostages weren't inconvieniantly released before the election and subsequent sales of weapons to Iran of course had nothing to do with it!

  31. Cause and Effect by Yeldarb-7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder if the increased brain activity causes a person to be introverted (they are more immersed in their thoughts and less concerned with the outside world) or if a person being introverted causes them to have more brain activity (they think to fill the "void" where social interaction would fit in in an extrovert)

    1. Re:Cause and Effect by Dreamstalker_wolf · · Score: 1

      It could be a feedback loop of some sort where outside world=social interaction...

    2. Re:Cause and Effect by Golthur · · Score: 2, Informative

      Speaking solely for myself (INTJ), I'd say that because my internal stimulus level is naturally "cranked up", I find external stimulus (noise, crowds, and so on) somewhat painful - like listening to fingernails on a chalkboard. I can tolerate it, but when I'm at a party, I always end up drifting somewhere where it's a bit quieter and there are a bit fewer people. It's like "stimulus overload" for me to be in an extremely noisy, crowded, etc. environment. So, I'd say that my internal stimulus is the cause (at least for me), and the desire to be alone is the effect.

      --
      Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.
  32. Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    I love this bit from your link:
    Are introverts arrogant? Hardly. I suppose this common misconception has to do with our being more intelligent, more reflective, more independent, more level-headed, more refined, and more sensitive than extroverts.
    1. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's not arrogance when it's true.

    2. Re:Irony by David+Hume · · Score: 1
      Grandparent:
      I love this bit from your link:
      Are introverts arrogant? Hardly. I suppose this common misconception has to do with our being more intelligent, more reflective, more independent, more level-headed, more refined, and more sensitive than extroverts.
      Parent:
      It's not arrogance when it's true.
      Arrogance:
      a feeling or an impression of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims
      Result: The fact that one informs others of one's superiority makes one a person who is less than superior, but nonetheless acting in an overbearing manner and/or making a presumptuous claim. In other words, arrogant. :)
       
    3. Re:Irony by Eideewt · · Score: 1

      That was probably a joke, you know. At least you took the time to kill it.

    4. Re:Irony by David+Hume · · Score: 1
      That was probably a joke, you know. At least you took the time to kill it.
      Sorry. I actually wanted to "joke back" (if that makes any sense). I was apparently unsuccessful.
       
    5. Re:Irony by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 1
      Result: The fact that one informs others of one's superiority makes one a person who is less than superior, but nonetheless acting in an overbearing manner and/or making a presumptuous claim. In other words, arrogant. :)
      Point of fact. This is an extrovert way of being. An introvert won't inform people of it by definition. They are introverts.
    6. Re:Irony by sunwolf · · Score: 1

      That's right. I'm not arrogant; I'm just better than you.

    7. Re:Irony by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      I think you're confusing introverts with... um... mimes?

      An introvert will inform others. He's just more likely to do it online. ;)

      Introverts can be very public people, even actors. They just need time to recharge after socializing, prefer smaller groups etc.

      Joke:
      How can you tell the difference between an introverted geek and an extroverted geek? An introverted geek stares at his shoes when he talks to you. An extroverted geek stares at your shoes.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    8. Re:Irony by Eideewt · · Score: 1

      At least I wasn't funny either. And they weren't that funny in the first place. Next to us, you're a comedic gem. :)

    9. Re:Irony by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 1
      I think you're confusing introverts with... um... mimes?
      Um, no.
      An introvert will inform others. He's just more likely to do it online. ; Introverts can be very public people, even actors. They just need time to recharge after socializing, prefer smaller groups etc.
      Of course introverts can play the extrovert game. I didn't challenge that nor do I see mentioning it, relevant.

      I'd like to know how you are defining "inform others" before continuing.

    10. Re:Irony by modecx · · Score: 1

      Maybe you aught to do like I have to do sometimes, doing what comes naturally to an introvert, having a smile and a little chuckle while everyone else wonders what's so funny because they probably wouldn't get it anyhow. If it's especially funny, they'll probably end up laughing with or at you because of your incessant giggling, and it's all good--or they'll think you're a sick freak and watch you very carefully around their kids.

      Yeah, I probably should have stopped like a few sentences ago, but so what... I'm a recovering introvert.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    11. Re:Irony by absinthminded64 · · Score: 1

      If one in ten attempts at humor are successful then I think it's all worth it. Humor is the cream in that bitchin coffee called LIFE and if you think you've manifested a bit of it on your own you should share it. Your friends already think you're weird so what are you going to loose?

    12. Re:Irony by sp0rk173 · · Score: 1

      Eh, that's a closed minded retort. Introverts will still inform people that they're superior, just in a passive-agressive way. You'll almost never see an introvert go toe to toe with someone over superiority, but you better fuckin' believe that after an introvery deals with someone they feel superior to, they'll inform their friends, collegues, and those they feel close to of their superiority. And, yeah, that's still arrogance.

    13. Re:Irony by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      Introverts can be very social in small groups or in proper circumstances. They tend to dislike large groups. I have one friend who is introverted and very bright. While she'll play down her accomplishments in a general sense, if she thinks someone is being hurt or even inconvenienced she'll have no trouble telling the person that they have no idea what they're talking about in the most forceful terms.

      I define 'inform others' as her saying "that's wrong, you have no idea what you're talking about." In other words, telling a person that they are incompetent or unable to participate because they're just not up to speed, or lacking in some other way. She'll stress her competence i.e. "I KNOW what I'm talking about" or emphasize her own qualifications or authority. I did x, y z, etc.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    14. Re:Irony by Drakai · · Score: 1

      My brother once asked me if I thought he was arrogant. I was put on the spot because he had been hurt by an ex-girlfriend recently but really needed honest feedback. So I said "No, your not arrogant... your just self-aware to a high degree." We laughed and moved on.

    15. Re:Irony by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 1
      From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=arrogance
      overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors

      Toward inferiors. So, there would have to be someone to be toward to, directed to someone. Your "toe to toe" if you will.

      Nope, still introverts won't exhibit this type of behaviour by definition. Or at least rarely.

      You can call this one a closed minded retort as well. That is, if you consider using dictionary definitions closed minded.

    16. Re:Irony by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 1

      So, then we are talking about public situations.

      Then your example is the exception to the rule and quite opposite to the rule itself, by definition of introvert. ie You cannot prove a rule by one example or person, we must consider the whole, the generality.

      Yes, introverts, when "poked," can act like an extrovert and we all have different buttons that cause it. But, that isn't the rule.

    17. Re:Irony by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1


      I'm not trying to 'prove a rule by using one person.' I'm saying that you're using an odd definition of 'introvert' and giving an example of how an introvert who I've known would assert their superiority, for illustrative purposes.

      from http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0818058.html

      The extrovert is characteristically the active person who is most content when surrounded by people; carried to the neurotic extreme such behavior appears to constitute an irrational flight into society, where the extrovert's feelings are acted out. The introvert, on the other hand, is normally a contemplative individual who enjoys solitude and the inner life of ideas and the imagination. The extreme introvert's fantasies give him or her libidinal satisfactions and tend to become more meaningful to him than objective reality.

      (Note that Jung, who invented the 'introvert' and 'extravert' (sic) labels uses the term 'libidinal' in a generic nonsexual sense, inconsistant with the mainstream Fruedian definition)

      So the notion that an introvert would be passionate about the superiority of one idea over another or one thinker over another, including their own ideas, is exactly consistant with the definition of introversion. You don't think that there are some very introverted people who compete academically and intellectually and are proud of their success? It would be uncharacteristic of an introvert to run out and tell the world about their successes. It would not be uncharacteristic for them to tell an associate in a one-on-one environment, or similar controlled situation.

      Introverts can be quite social in one-on-one situations or small groups of close friends. And they can be just as arrogant as extroverts.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    18. Re:Irony by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 1
      And they can be just as arrogant as extroverts.
      You're not getting my point.

      In the above quote, you stated "can." What I'm getting at is that this is the exception (or at least not the norm).

      For that matter, being proud of ones accomplishments and even telling others about them is a lot different than being arrogant. It is not arrogant to have a different opinion, nor is it an indication of arrogance if one has a (even heated) discussion with someone about something.

      I think you are mixing up definitions of words here.

      And again, I'm not saying that introverts cannot be arrogant. Just that it is unlikely or rare. Especially in the academic circles that you mention. Research is quite humbling after all.

      I'd also like to know how I'm using an odd definition of introvert. I did get it from dictionary.reference.com after all. So, calling it odd is rather an act of hubris on you part now isn't it.

      I'm starting to think that you are one of those extraverts that don't understand us introverts. After all, proud being arrogant?!? Seriously.

    19. Re:Irony by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      In the above quote, you stated "can." What I'm getting at is that this is the exception (or at least not the norm).

      Are you saying that some introverts can be arrogant, but most are not? Or are you saying that an introvert will not be arrogant most of the time, while an extrovert may be? Your comment that introverts can 'play the extrovert game' leads me to believe you mean the second, which I don't agree with.

      You're not getting my point.

      Or perhaps I just disagree with it?

      Try googling; introvert, "not shy"

      You'll get a lot a lot of people making the statement "I'm introverted, but I'm not shy."
      What sense does that make if introversion is synonymous with shyness? These are self described introverts. Introversion, at least as a technical term from Jungian and Freudian psychology is not the same as shyness, though some people use it colloquially the same way because they can't tell the difference between someone who is introverted and someone who is shy. They tend to look the same from the outside, after all. This is similar to the 'hacker vs. cracker' debate. Programmars can distinguish the nuance between the two terms, but in the popular mind everyone who breaks into a computer is a 'hacker.' Computer people all look the same. I'm using a technical rather than a colloquial definition here, if that clears up anything.

      If you're using 'introverted' as synonymous with 'shy' this debate is moot, of course. But given the context of this discussion ( the posted article used 'introvert' in the technical sense, after all, and not as meaning "shy" ) I assumed we'd be using a technical definition.

      I'd also like to know how I'm using an odd definition of introvert.

      It would seem, so far as I can tell, that you're using the more generic defintion of introvert as meaning "shy," as opposed to "someone who is oriented inwards towards their own thoughts rather than outwards towards people." That may not be true, but it's the only think of that would make your argument cohesive.

      Introverts are not nessicarily shy except in a bastardized colloquial usage as expressed above. Neither does introversion equate to humility. Extroversion or introversion, at least in psychology, referes to focus - outwards on people or inwards on ideas.

      I tend to test as a 'mesovert' on most tests I've taken, incidentally, though I was strongly introverted when I was younger. The better portion of my friends test as introverts. I hang around with language geeks and programmers rather than salespeople.

      Extroverts focus on people, introverts focus on ideas. An arrogant introvert would have an inflated view of the rightness of his or her ideas compared to other people's. They would state things as fact that lacked proper support, which is quite common among academics. Academic standards may try to work against arrogance, force citation, etc. and the internalization of those standards can be a hedge against arrogance, but that doesn't mean you can't have an arrogant academic. This would be seen in the way that some academics would use "arguments from authority" to argue with non-academics, and make untennable assumptions.

      I'm not saying "having an opinion is arrogant." I'm saying that a person may equate their opinion with fact as a result of arrogance, and that introversion will not protect them from this.

      You can, of course, have humble extroverts who want to get along with everyone just as easily you can have arrogant introverts who see the people around them as dull or stupid.

      Extroversion does not automatically equal arrogance, nor does introversion equate to humility. Go to a chess meet sometime, and you'll find plenty of introverts with an overbearing and arrogant attitude.

      After all, proud being arrogant?!? Seriously.

      Arrogance is usually defined as an excessive form of pride.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    20. Re:Irony by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 1

      My exams start next week, so I doubt that I'll have time to continue this for very much longer. So, this is just a quick reply.

      Are you saying that some introverts can be arrogant, but most are not? Or are you saying that an introvert will not be arrogant most of the time, while an extrovert may be? Your comment that introverts can 'play the extrovert game' leads me to believe you mean the second, which I don't agree with.
      Both.
      Or perhaps I just disagree with it?
      Or (probably) part thereof.

      I'm using somewhat your "someone who is oriented inwards towards their own thoughts rather than outwards towards people." Perhaps we just interprit it differently, or see it from different angles, or ...

      An arrogant introvert would have an inflated view of the rightness of his or her ideas compared to other people's. They would state things as fact that lacked proper support, which is quite common among academics. Academic standards may try to work against arrogance, force citation, etc. and the internalization of those standards can be a hedge against arrogance, but that doesn't mean you can't have an arrogant academic. This would be seen in the way that some academics would use "arguments from authority" to argue with non-academics, and make untennable assumptions.
      I think you're describing one of my math profs right now (except for the introvert part).

      I never said that you can't have a arrogant academic, just that it isn't very likely. But, at this point, I should probably point out that I think that I thought that you were reading my mind while I was writing that. I'm only refering to math and/or physics people as that I what I have the most experience with. As for other feilds... let's just say that I've met some very arrogant people, but haven't reached a critical number of them that I will generalize with.

      I'm not saying "having an opinion is arrogant." I'm saying that a person may equate their opinion with fact as a result of arrogance, and that introversion will not protect them from this.
      No disagreement here.
      You can, of course, have humble extroverts who want to get along with everyone just as easily you can have arrogant introverts who see the people around them as dull or stupid.
      My personal belief is that extrovertion creates an personality that is more likely to develope arrogance than introvertion. I could be wrong in general, but in my experience, this is true.
      Arrogance is usually defined as an excessive form of pride.
      The key word here being excessive. Pride, in general, does not equal arrogance.
    21. Re:Irony by sp0rk173 · · Score: 1

      You can call this one a closed minded retort as well. That is, if you consider using dictionary definitions closed minded.

      And, I do.

  33. frontal lobe by Anoraknid+the+Sartor · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ok, so you are saying that recent American Presidents have not had much frontal lobe activity...

    You know, we'd guessed....

    --
    Find Japanese addresses in English on Google Maps Japan: http://diddlefinger.com/
    1. Re:frontal lobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, so you are saying that recent American Presidents have not had much frontal lobe activity...

      I'm not sure but does an airhead have a lobe to begin with?

    2. Re:frontal lobe by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Clinton's frontmost lobe was very active, in the mouth of an intern

    3. Re:frontal lobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or frontal lobes

    4. Re:frontal lobe by nickheart · · Score: 1

      too bad our current president has limited activity in all lobes.....

  34. Extraverts [sic] have political problems, too... by dpbsmith · · Score: 2, Funny

    Supposedly George Smathers attacked Claude Pepper by calling him "a known extravert," with a sister who was a "thespian" and a brother who was a "practicing homo sapiens," saying that Pepper "matriculated" in college and "practiced celibacy" before marriage. Pepper lost.

  35. A Few Famous Introverts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Abraham Lincoln, sixteenth president
    Sir Alfred Hitchcock, film director
    Michael Jordan, basketball player and celebrity
    Thomas Edison, inventor
    Grace Kelly, actress
    Gryneth Paltrow, actress
    David Duvall, golfer
    Laura Bush, first lady [emphasis mine]
    Bill Gates, software pioneer
    Candice Bergen, actress
    Clint Eastwood, actor/director
    Charles Shulz, Peanuts cartoonist
    Steve Martin, comedian/actor/writer
    Harrison Ford, actor
    Michele Pfeiffer, actress
    Katherine Graham, late owner of Washington Post, author

    A snippet from "The Introvert Advantage". Keep in mind that most of these people are self-proclaimed introverts. If you are interested in finding out if you are one, just google for an introvert-extrovert quiz, although if you really want to be sure, take the extra long quiz(es). And if you really want to go into the subject, read up on Carl Jung, who's right up there with Sigmund Freud and Alfred Addler in terms of psychological R&D.

    And I'd hate to reply to my post, but I'm afraid by the time I post this it might be pretty far down the page.

  36. Maybe so but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Extroverts have more sex!!

    1. Re:Maybe so but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Introverts only have to look inward to answer such needs.

    2. Re:Maybe so but by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Extroverts have more sex!!

      No, they just talk about it more. That doesn't equate to having more...

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  37. No way by The+NPS · · Score: 1
    The attitude that there's something wrong with introverted people is widely shared in society

    Really? Says who? I certainly don't think that.

  38. Huh... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    ... specifically in the frontal lobe ...

    I thought it was from my mother dropping me on my head as a baby.

    1. Re:Huh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow ur fat

    2. Re:Huh... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Obviously, a classic exovert type who needs to find a life. :P

  39. INTP by foo+fighter · · Score: 1

    As an INTP, I'd like to be the first to say...

    --
    obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
    1. Re:INTP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, the first other INTP I've ever encountered. We're a rare breed my friend.

    2. Re:INTP by sczimme · · Score: 1


      As an INTP, I'd like to be the first to say...

      That INTJs are way cooler than INTPs could ever hope to be. :-)

      --
      I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
    3. Re:INTP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ISTJ's rule... because rules rule!

    4. Re:INTP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an INFP, I'd like to say something...

      But I won't. Instead I'll just sit in the corner and look at my picture book full of Pre-raphaelite Paintings, dream of fairies and unicorns and use my psychic powers to drill into the minds of my enemies, locate their most traumatic and humiliating childhood memories and then obliquely reveal them to others at the most inconvenient and embarrassing times until they [the aforementioned enemies] kill themselves out of shame.

    5. Re:INTP by HoneyBunchesOfGoats · · Score: 1

      And I make three. ./ INTPs represent.

    6. Re:INTP by lightknight · · Score: 1

      And ISTPs are king!

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    7. Re:INTP by IvyKing · · Score: 1

      How about four?

    8. Re:INTP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .... Or you could just unleash a horde of ninjas on them. Ninjas might be less cost effective, however.

    9. Re:INTP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      INFPs are the coolest anyway. I mean the whole "totured artist" thing. Like woah!

  40. Finally! by MuckSavage · · Score: 1

    Computer geeks across the world rejoice!

    1. Re:Finally! by MuckSavage · · Score: 1

      (by themselves)

  41. internal feedback by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dissociatives seem to alter the flow of signals through the limbic areas, possibly increasing the degree of internal feedback within these areas (or between these areas and the neocortex) and diminshing the amount of sensory data that comes in. Gating of signals coupled to the theta rhythm through the posterior cingulate (311) may be altered.

    The diminished sensory data (from top-down inhibition), and the decreased encoding of intermediate-term memory, combined with the enhancement of activity in the posterior cingulate and retrosplenial cortex, all lead to an increasingly closed feedback loop. Within this loop, random noise, individual differences in temporal lobe "wiring", the contents of intermediate memory, and the influence of electromagnetic fields (332) all combine to give rise to profoundly abnormal neural patterns.

  42. Social systems are complex, too! by ian_mackereth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's a common belittling of the sheer amount of complexity we need to deal with to interact in a social environment. There's movement towards acknowleging this with things like "EQ" as well as "IQ" being measured, but it's couched in a lot of New Agey jargon too much of the time. Being able to do complex maths and write good computer programs involves a lot of brain activity, but so does being able to effectively model a person's personality in your mind and interact more effectively with them using that model. I usually score as more introverted than extroverted on MBPT tests and the like, but I still enjoy the process of experiencing social and group dynamics at times, and playing with it in a similar way to the way I'd work on a logic problem.

    1. Re:Social systems are complex, too! by mikapc · · Score: 1

      Most people aren't deconstructing and analyzing a social situation like you are.

  43. As opposed to the blood-soaked 1980s by JimmytheGeek · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Reagan white house was a colony of vampires. It was a pretty dismal time to be a peasant in Guatamala, El Salvador, or Nicaragua. "Moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers" my ass. Unless he meant the slave-rapers.

  44. Adaptation of the Introvert by kai.chan · · Score: 1

    I have learned that being an extrovert will land you the great opportunities. I realized that no matter how much you know or how good you are, if you can't express your skills during critical moments, you are going to lose a job to an extrovert who can express his skills and demonstrate his communication skills.

    There are so many people competing for tech jobs, getting into a good company is very difficult. I used to be an introvert and I learned that in order for someone to compete in this world, they need to start to adapt and become an extrovert.

  45. People are introverts precisely for that reason. by elucido · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The main reason people decide on the introvert approach is because people don't actually care. If people actually cared then introverts would have a reason to be more outgoing. Think of it that way.

    One key difference among introverts, introverts know you don't really care and stay in their own world. An Extroverts world and entire reality only exists if people in that reality allow for it.

    View it like this, if you are an introvert because you don't want an overly dramatic, painful, insane life, and want actual control over your life, thats just the logical way to have control.

    If you are an extrovert, you care what other people think of you, you care about others more than others care about you, and I'm not saying its wrong to care about others, but extroverts simply get attached to everyone, or no one, while introverts are very selective with whom they attach to and connect with.

    It's just different strategies, if a person can put up with the pain of being an extrovert, then theres nothing wrong with it, but for others being an extrovert is impossible or difficult unless its in a very artificial way. The artificial way of being an extrovert is to pretend to care, pretend to listen to people, pretend to trust people, and pretend to be social. Example, being social at work or at school because you are supposed to, not because you actually like to or need to, this is how an introvert views.

    An extrovert HAS to be social or they go insane with bordem. An extrovert HAS to feel loved or they get depressed. An extrovert MUST feel accepted, MUST feel normal, and so on and so forth.

    introverts want to simply stay in their own world and enjoy their time here, and are much more time conscious in that they know its a complete waste of time to play social mind games with people.

  46. About Introverts... by earthshake · · Score: 0

    Introverts like to process the world internally and work on self-improvement and typically observe more and talk less. Read more...

  47. O.Q. by dimension6 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Every time you see a story about a serial killer on TV, what do they do? They bring on the neighbor. And the neighbor says 'Well, he was always very quiet,' and someone in the room says, 'It's the quiet ones you gotta watch.' This sounds to me like a very dangerous assumption. I will bet you anything that while you're watching a quiet one a noisy one will fucking kill you! Suppose you're in a bar and one guy's sitting over on the side reading a book not bothering anybody and another guy's standing up at the front with a machete banging it on the bar saying 'I'LL KILL THE NEXT MOTHERFUCKER THAT COMES IN HERE!!!' " --George Carlin

  48. Introverted Carter? Introverted Bush I? by tjstork · · Score: 1

    You guys are out of your mind if you think a man that takes off years of his life to travel to every god forsaken section of first his state and then his country in order to meet people and beg for money can somehow be called an "introvert".

    --
    This is my sig.
  49. Presidents nothing, try Apprentices by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nothing exemplifies the supposed power of the extrovert more than The Apprentice. All those disgusting Type-A personalities backstabbing each other and ripping the crap out of each other for the tiniest mistakes to make themselves look good, and not only are we supposed to be amused by it, but we're also supposed to believe that that's really how you get real work done. It undoes what few remnants of "cooperation" are left from our positive Sesame Street educations and convinces us that being rude and loud at other people's expense is the only way to succeed.

    1. Re:Presidents nothing, try Apprentices by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, that's all fictionalized for television. I own a business, and I know a lot of other people who own businesses, and I meet a lot of managerial employees, etc. Fake assholes like the people on The Apprentice are generally seen through very easily, and either used or dismissed. Don't use an overly-dramatized prime-time "reality" TV show produced by Donald Trump as a scientific study.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re:Presidents nothing, try Apprentices by lionheart1327 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you know, business leaders are Type-A personalities.
      The good employees who actually get the work done are introverts, but they're not exciting.

    3. Re:Presidents nothing, try Apprentices by meta-monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The "good employees" don't actually "get the work done." They're just cogs in the wheels. It's the Type-A business leader who's the Architect. It's his dream that the cogs realize.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    4. Re:Presidents nothing, try Apprentices by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1
      I'm glad to hear you say that (the voices in my head read Slashdot to me, but never mind that).

      I avoid reality TeeVee like I avoid Adam Sandler flicks, but I saw most of an episode visitng my sister and brother-in-law... Oh. My. God. I wanted to find that room they all sit in for their weekly evaluation to fire someone, and toss an ebola bomb in there. These are the people destroying Western civilization! Argh! Quick. Someone summon Bahamut or something! Burn these assholes to cinders!

    5. Re:Presidents nothing, try Apprentices by Travoltus · · Score: 1

      You are SO going to Guantanamo... :)

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    6. Re:Presidents nothing, try Apprentices by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A slight disclaimer...I only know people who own small-to-medium sized business ($200k/year - $5 million/year gross). It's possible that the big business people really are assholes like that, but I doubt it. The leadership required to build that kind of enterprise requires charisma. You have to be able to inspire people to work for YOU, not for money. Phony assholes like the people on the Apprentice are too easy to see through, so I doubt they would have that kind of success.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    7. Re:Presidents nothing, try Apprentices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's all fictionalized for television. I own a business, and I know a lot of other people who own businesses, and I meet a lot of managerial employees, etc. Fake assholes like the people on The Apprentice are generally seen through very easily, and either used or dismissed.

      Not in corporate America. Fake, backstabbing assholes might not rise all the way to the top, but they are big players in middle and even upper management. Be glad if you don't have to deal with them.

    8. Re:Presidents nothing, try Apprentices by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      The leadership required to build that kind of enterprise requires charisma.

      For building it, maybe, but there are an awful lot of large businesses that weren't built in a single lifetime. After the brilliant visionary establishes it, it is either passed down, or passed off. And there is no guarantee the new leader will be as exceptional as the visionary. Establishment is hard. Taking an existing, successful business and expanding it is hard. Simply keeping the gears grinding away is not hard.

      That said, I've never watched The Apprentice, nor have any desire to.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    9. Re:Presidents nothing, try Apprentices by EmagGeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I work for a $30BLN company, and I can tell you hands down that while assholes certainly exist here, the vast majority of management and executive folks are really nice people. I've met a bunch of them and they seem to be just regular folks like you and me, just with the willingness to work 100 hours per week and travel all over heaven and creation constantly to make the gears keep turning. Yes, they do seem to have a component of "schmooze," but for the most part they are not that different from most of the other people I know. It takes a lot of cooperation and teamwork to keep the gears turning in a company this size, so there is little room for back stabbing.

      We had a little incident last year where some of the middle management folks tried to cook the numbers to inflate their bonuses. They were summarily dismissed as soon as they were found out. Luckily it did not result in any criminal charges against the company, but their actions were not tolerated at all. Had they succeeded, the company would have mis-stated its earnings, which would have been BAD.

    10. Re:Presidents nothing, try Apprentices by gentlemen_loser · · Score: 1

      You make a good point - however the OTHER way to motivate people is through fear. Unfortunately, throughout my career, I've seen both used. There are plenty of asshole people leading successful companies. Just look at Disney and Eisner.

      Or better yet - Oracle. NOT a friendly place to work. Each year they cull the bottom 10% of their staff. Or better yet, my personal favoriate asshole manager - Jack Welch of GM.

      While I don't doubt that you are geniunely a good person and a positive motivator, I suspect that you are more of the exception rather than the norm.

    11. Re:Presidents nothing, try Apprentices by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I actually just got finished reading Jack Welch's new book, Winning. I found it to be very insightful, especially his motivations for firings. Much of the book was about management of people. Welch's system splits employees into the top 20%, the middle 70%, and the bottom 10%, and there are different management strategies for dealing with each. With regards to the bottom 10, they spend some time trying to figure out why they're there, and to try to move them up to the middle 70, but if they can't, they get let go...and it makes sense.

      First, why are these people in the bottom 10? Probably because they're in the wrong job. Perhaps they didn't understand what the job really entailed, so they're doing work that they don't really like. It's hard to be motivated when you really just don't click with what you're supposed to do. Or there was a screw up in the hiring process, and they hired someone without the proper skills. Regardless, you can send this person to a training camp or something if it's just a skills problem, but if it's a motivational problem...you're really doing them a favor by letting them go. Then they can go find a job where they can be in the top 20% instead of the bottom 10. Who wants to spend 20 years working in a job where pretty much everybody knows you're at the bottom of the heap, without real advancement potential, just drifting along because nobody ever told you, just so when you're 45 and there's an economic downturn, you can get laid off and have to start all over?

      I've never worked for the guy, but from his book, it seemed to me like Jack had the right idea. The whole management approach was based on candor. You let people know what they're doing right so they can keep doing it, you let them know what they're doing wrong so they can fix it, and if they can't fix it and management can't fix it, you cut them loose to find a job where they can thrive. That sounds much more fair and humane than letting somebody drift in the wind with fake smiles and phony "atta boys."

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    12. Re:Presidents nothing, try Apprentices by gentlemen_loser · · Score: 1

      True - and I have also read his book. However, the bottom ten percent is subjective, not objective. That is, the performance of the bottom ten percent in 1985 will be lower than the bottom ten percent in 1990. In terms of performance, the bottom ten percent in 1990 may actually be the lower end of the middle seventy percent in 1985.

      As it is, Jack has created an environment that constantly culls the herd and puts increasing pressure on the "survivors". Each year it gets harder to stay out of the bottom 10%. I'm sorry, I like my job, I dont mind putting in extra time when needed, but I work to live not live to work. Jack's environment forces you to constantly struggle for survival.

      Conversley - I see no issue with setting objective performance metrics and then letting go those who are not meeting the stated REALISTIC goals. I also see no problem with reviewing the goals each year in terms of possible process improvements that may have been made to see if the metrics need to be raised.

      I realize that I am now TOTTALY off topic from the parent, but you got me started on Jack ;-)

    13. Re:Presidents nothing, try Apprentices by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      From my reading of the book, it didn't sound subjective. The way he talked about candor as the basis for performance evaluation, it made it sounds as though the process is completely transparent. I have no idea how it works in practice, though, from an unbiased perspective. I've never worked for the man (well, for anybody, really...I started my own business out of college), but it seems to me that he's interested in getting the maximum performance out of his business, so he's after employees who feel the same way and share his work ethic. If you find yourself in the bottom 10% under his system, then that's obviously not the job for you. Why would you want to work at a place where you feel like you're constantly having to struggle to stay out of the bottom of the heap? That sounds like a quick way to get an ulcer.

      Realizations like that, I think, are part of the reason why his system works. His system attracts the kind of people who thrive in his system, and tells others, "You won't be happy here." Seems to me like everybody wins.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  50. Old Old News by oobob · · Score: 1

    Read up anything by Eysenck for more information on this. He theorized this around 1970, I believe, and there's been a stream of data since then to support his conclusion.

  51. See, I told you... by Abuzar · · Score: 0

    ..I told you I'm smart, it's not my fault no one understands me, they just don't stick around to listen.

    Now gimme some good karma +5 funny.

    1. Re:See, I told you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry dickface, funny mods don't count towards your karma.

      Bad mods do, which is why I'm AC.

  52. retrovert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember when I used to be a retrovert.

  53. The award for most obvious conclusion goes to... by Geak · · Score: 0

    Ok, I just don't get it. Why do people get research grants to come up with obvious answers to dumb questions. Of course introverts have more brain activity - they are the ones who sit in class - quietly figuring out the problems on the board while the extroverted dumb jocks are discussing the consistency of boogers with the prom queen. You don't need to get paid to figure this out - just ask any teacher. Next someone will get a research grant to determine if wheels are round. Go figure.

  54. Our current leader is an introvert by Animats · · Score: 1
    America's leader, Karl Rove, is quite introverted. In fact, he's a major nerd. He's memorized most of the electoral statistics for the US for the last few decades, and he uses them in conversation. He very seldom speaks in public. He actually wore a pocket protector in high school.

    He has a front man to do the public relations part of the job, of course. But Rove is the one who makes the decisions.

    1. Re:Our current leader is an introvert by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've always felt that the politicians are just the usually extroverted front people, they provide an interface to the population for the civil servants, who are the usually introverted behind the scenes people who actually do the work.

      The extroverts get the fame, glory and attention. The introverts get to solve the problems. Everybody's happy.

      --
      NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
    2. Re:Our current leader is an introvert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which means you don't actually get to vote for the people solving the problems. Democracy's just bread and circuses for the masses. Which makes it unsurprising that everything pretty much keeps going along the same path no matter who wins.

    3. Re:Our current leader is an introvert by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1
      I've always felt that the politicians are just the usually extroverted front people, they provide an interface to the population for the civil servants, who are the usually introverted behind the scenes people who actually do the work.
      The extroverts get the fame, glory and attention. The introverts get to solve the problems. Everybody's happy.

      *Thwbpbpbpt*. Excuse me while I clean coffee off my monitor. Civil servants certainly run the show behind the scenes, but they do *anything* but "solve the problems." Mostly, they create problems in order to make themselves indispensible. And the politicians don't get "fame, glory, and attention." Politicians get the blame. They're nothing more than fall-guys for a run-amok bureaucracy.

  55. Proof is in the puding by NoGuffCheck · · Score: 2, Funny

    Fast talkers? George v's Tony

    --
    serenity now!
  56. Re:Submitter is a link spammer, does /. care? NO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You see, many of us just don't care who submitted the story, let alone clink on the submitter's personal link. What we DO care about is the story itself. Get over it; get over yourself. Just read the story or move on.

  57. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by MBCook · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is the kind of thing I was going to post. I am an introvert (degree depends on situation, ranging from slight extrovert to medium/strong introvert). I think introverts have more brain activity because they think about things more. An extrovert says something in a conversation. They might think about it a little first, but they say it.

    An introvert says it, but only after thinking it over, if it is the best thing to say, the timing, thinking about what others say a bunch to try to come up with good things to say, etc. An introvert can "over analyze" things like that.

    Other things happen too. When I'm going to meet someone, I'll often think up entire conversations on the way. It isn't purposeful, but I think something along the lines of "I could say X", then that leads to "then they would say Y", and it continues and before you know it I've had a little conversation in my head.

    I think about all sorts of stuff. I can be walking down the street and I'll start thinking about something completely irrelevant. I'm not talking about "I remember that one birthday", I'm talking about "how you could build X" which leads to how to solve problem Y, how X would be useful in situation Z, etc.

    That is sort of the whole introvert/extrovert thing. Introverts do all this stuff inside. Extroverts might do these things as conversations with other people, or they might fill that "need" in some other way with normal conversation and such.

    That's how I see it. I used to be more of an introvert, and I've never been an extrovert so I can't say I've had that point of view (outside of the odd situation).

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  58. Curious by photoflyer · · Score: 1

    I think it is more about being curious. When someone is curious they become introverted because they don't have a need to speak out. Extroverts try to enjoy themselves, while introverts try to fill this curiosity. Filling the curiosity may bring enjoyment, though.

  59. In representation of introverts by aled · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have only this to say:

    --

    "I think this line is mostly filler"
    1. Re:In representation of introverts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You actually posted. On the Internet. Where everybody can see it. Imposter!!!

  60. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by Jessehk · · Score: 1

    That reminds me of me exactly. I guess I am not the only one. :)

  61. Partly choice and partly build. by elucido · · Score: 1

    Some people are built to be extroverts, figure out that it doesnt work, and decide to be introvert. Being an extrovert is nice if you like drama. If you like dramatic emotional situations, extrovert is for you.

    If you want to be emotionally stable, introvert is for you. However, the way around it is to simply change your way of thinking, an extrovert can become an introvert and an introvert can become an extrovert. An introvert can become an extrovert simply by faking it.

    The difference is the extrovert most likely believes in the illusion that they have a lot of friends while the introvert knows its an illusion and sees beyond it. Yes most people are fake, yes most of us will never know each other on a real life, but the introverts focus in on what they want or need from the specific individual while the extrovert just wants someone to listen to them.

    As an introverted-extrovert, while it would be nice in the perfect world, to be social and be real with people, if no ones real its kinda pointless if not painful to try to be real around your fake friends.

    Introverted or not, its better to have a few real friends than a dozen fake friends, and the only way to learn the truth of these words is to actually experience the results of surrounding yourself with fake people.

    1. Re:Partly choice and partly build. by tehdaemon · · Score: 1
      A chisel does not become a pry-bar just because you use it as one, even if it works just fine as a pry-bar.

      Likewise the neural circuits of an introvert do not become those of an extrovert by acting extroverted. [intr,extr]oversion is not changeable, at least after the beginning of puberty.

      --
      Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
    2. Re:Partly choice and partly build. by elucido · · Score: 1

      Thats not fact, thats speculation. The brain rewires itself throughout life, but how much and where, this is unknown.

    3. Re:Partly choice and partly build. by tehdaemon · · Score: 1
      "The brain rewires itself throughout life, but how much and where, this is unknown."

      Not completely unknown. We know quite a lot. Like say, if language is not learned by a certain age, (IIRC about 3?) it will never really be learned. Hence my qualification of 'at least after puberty'. By that age, if not sooner, these are fixed, and short of massive dammage - stroke etc, - do not change. Certainly not by thinking different, which is what was implied and I was disputing.

      --
      Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
  62. Thats a good way to phrase it. by elucido · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Extroverts simply like attention, like to talk, like to be heard, and would rather believe everyone cares than admit that they dont.

    Think of it this way, why would anyone care who you hooked up with? and how exactly is this information good to put out there? I wont say introverts are smarter, but introverts are at least more cautious when it comes to the information they put out and the trust they put into individuals. It should be obvious.

  63. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would an introvert go to a church event? The whole point is that introverts don't like "events" very much. Were you forced, or are you just pretending to be introverted?

  64. Time alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Introverted children need time alone more than do extroverted children, says Laney, whose book, The Hidden Gifts of the Introverted Child, is due in January. "Extroverts gain energy by being out and about," but "being with people takes energy from introverts, and they need to get away to restore that energy."

    This is true, it's very draining to be around people for prolonged periods. I am introverted (I don't *like* that I am but what can you do?) and people think that I am deliberately being rude when I try to avoid circumstances where there will be lots of people. They simply don't understand just how exhausting such situations are.

    I spend a lot of time in my own company and I enjoy it. I can think clearly and focus better on things when by myself. I'm not intentionally being rude - I'm just being me.

  65. As an introvert... by dslauson · · Score: 1

    I tend to be a bit of an introvert, especially around new people. One of the main reasons for this is that I start getting this internal filter for everything I say. Like, if I think about telling a joke, my brain kicks in and goes, "How will this be percieved by these people? Will they think it's funny? Will they be offended? Blah blah blah". Before I know it, the conversation has moved on to a different topic, and my comment would no longer make sense.

    I guess what I'm saying is that sometimes I feel like I'm an introvert specificly because I can't silence this little internal monologue in my head. I overthink everything, to the point that I end up not speaking at all.

    That's why I'm glad I have slashdot, so that I can pretend I'm interacting with people. Hooray!!!!

    1. Re:As an introvert... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen.

      If you could count how many posts I've made on various message boards vs. how many posts I've canceled for those reasons, it would astound most people.

      Incidentally, I was about two mouse wheel rolls from not making this post either.

    2. Re:As an introvert... by PepeGSay · · Score: 1

      Self dialogue is different than introversion, as is self monitoring.

  66. introvert != quiet by JanneM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Being introverted does not necessarily mean that you're a quiet, reflective kind of person in social situations. Being introverted really means that you don't like too much people, for too long a time at once. You need a good deal of "alone-time" to be comfortable.

    That can mean that you're also quiet or a wallflower at parties, but does not at all have to be. It may just as well be that you're happily partying and jabbering away - just mostly with people you already know, preferably smaller groups, and not that often.

    In fact, I prefer to see introversion as the positive difference of the clingy extrovert who can't stand being alone, who values themselves only through the eyes of others, and who has to fill their time with sounds and voices at any cost, whether if it means constantly blaring TV, spending hours on the phone saying nothing at all, or always having a boy/girlfriend just to have _someone_, since anyone, no matter what kind of creep, is better than being alone.

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    1. Re:introvert != quiet by Thing+1 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      [...] or always having a boy/girlfriend just to have _someone_, since anyone, no matter what kind of creep, is better than being alone.

      God damn you hit the nail on the head. I no longer have relationships becaues I don't need creeps. (Or children; with nano I'll live forever, blah blah blah.)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    2. Re:introvert != quiet by JanneM · · Score: 1

      I no longer have relationships becaues I don't need creeps.

      Or, well, you could be in a relationship with someone who isn't a creep. There's plenty of them out there, after all.

      As someone pointed out (no ref.), "It's amazing how often peoples' one and only soulmate just happens to live or work no more than five blocks away." Even if you're ridiculously choosy and will only accept a one-in-a-million partner, in a major city you'll still have upwards of a dozen candidates out there.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    3. Re:introvert != quiet by Kattana · · Score: 1

      Maybe its the introvert talking, but It is more comfortable being with people who are confortable with themselves.

    4. Re:introvert != quiet by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      You're absolutely right. I just don't see the benefit to the time and money spent on a relationship, because mating is no longer attractive to me. I want to reproduce myself mentally, not physically.

      I'm not being glib, and I'm sure many will point and say "sour grapes!" but I assure you that's not the case. I can see the future and it does not include children for me, so what's the point of dancing the mating dance?

      And, everyone's a creep. Some are creepier than others, but everybody has their price. I like the idea of soul mates; mine is myself.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    5. Re:introvert != quiet by cobras2 · · Score: 1

      >In fact, I prefer to see introversion as the positive difference of the clingy extrovert who can't stand being alone...

      Aaactually.. I think it's probably something more like this, on a scale of 1 to 4:

      1: Introvert who doesn't ever talk to anybody.
      2: Introvert who has some friends, albeit not to many, who talks to people, but not too frequently, and enjoys being alone, although he also doesn't mind spending time with people he knows.
      3: Extrovert who has quite a few friends, but not too many really close ones, who talks to people quite frequently and enjoys it, but also doesn't mind spending time alone.
      4: Extrovert who doesn't ever *not* talk to someone.

      I think both 1 and 4 are unbalanced cases, where the person isn't just exhibiting their personality.. it's more like they have a problem, and reverting to which behaviour is the easiest, is less work than fixing the problem. The two in the middle, on the other hand, are how you'll behave - depending on whether you're introverted or extroverted - when you're actually making an effort.

      You're introverted? - okay, that's fine, but it won't kill you (in fact you may even find you actually enjoy it, as long as you don't go overboard) to get to know some people.

      You're extroverted? - okay, that's fine, but it won't kill you (in fact it will probably help, as long as you don't spend *too* much time at it) to spend time alone thinking now and then.

      Anyway, that's just my own two bits on the matter.. and in case anyone's wondering, yeah, I suspect that I am introverted, and I also suspect (although this comes from 'tickle' and the mensa self-test, neither of which I'd be willing to bet money on if it came right down to it, simply because they are both a case of self-test) that I'm a fair bit above average intelligence.
      But, personally, I don't think intelligence is the only important trait (*OR* the most important) to have. I think it's just one part of the whole, which is *also* why I think that introversion and extroversion are simply parts of each person - some lean more to one or the other, but we all *have* both sides.
      And I think we all *need* both sides.

      --
      Early bird may get the worm.. but the second mouse gets the cheese.
    6. Re:introvert != quiet by cobras2 · · Score: 1


      Now, children, for a lesson in logic.

      (1) "And, everyone's a creep."

      Here Thing states that everyone is a creep. From this we can deduce that Thing is a creep.

      Thus my statement:

      (2) Thing is a creep.

      Next Thing states:

      (3) "I no longer have relationships because I don't need creeps."

      Herein we see what appears to be a very sensible statement. Ah, but there is a problem, because the next statement Thing makes is:

      (4) "I like the idea of soul mates; mine is myself."

      Now, from 1 and 2 we see that Thing is a creep, and from 3 we see that Thing does not wish to have a relationship with a creep, but in 4 Thing states that his (note: the term "his" is used because it's shorter than "his/her", not because I actually have any idea of Thing's gender) soulmate is himself, which of course means that either 3 or 4 is false.
      Children, have no fear, for the loss of Thing from the pool of available singles isn't really such a bad thing after all.. since he's an illogical creep ;)

      (Umm, sorry, my post didn't actually have a point, I just thought it was kind of funny :-) )

      --
      Early bird may get the worm.. but the second mouse gets the cheese.
  67. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by xSauronx · · Score: 1
    i used to use church as nothing more than an escape to think to myself for a couple of hours, since most people would just leave me alone if i stared ahead or had a bible open on my lap and kept quiet. i spend all day with an unimaginable number of things going through my head. thinking about what could or did or might happen as though it were a game of chess: analyzing every move i make, might make, or did make to see where it did, will or may lead me.

    i dont talk much at all, unless i happen to be very thoroughly educated and certain of my position on a topic, because if im not i end up rambling on endlessly as i begin to go over all the possible positions that could be taken up. my wife finds it quite a chore to talk with me. i have to keep reminding her that i need time to think about what i want to say, and how, and that once i have what i need arranged properly in my mind, i can talk to her without rambling on and on about things. it doesnt help that i almost certainly have ADHD (thats by looking at the brief descriptors in the DSM IV of ADHD and realizing that i meet a number of the requirements to be considered as such, not only do i ramble on, but i ramble into a string of varying subjects and ultimately forget what i was talking about in the first place)

    when i wrote book reports and essays in high school, i never needed a second draft. the first one was, short of perhaps minor spelling or grammatical errors, exactly what i intended to hand it when the project was due, despite my teachers insistence upon my writing a first draft before a final draft was turned in. i ended up having to intentionally make errors in the first draft to correct for the second, because id spend so much time thinking about the topic that when i put pen to paper initially...i was done. on other subjects, i just ramble in my head until i forget what i was going on about, which i find quite relaxing from time to time, as it seems nobody is terribly interested in enduring me when i speak it all aloud.

    --
    By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
  68. Well, duh by KylePflug · · Score: 1
    introverted individuals tend to have more brain activity in general, specifically in the frontal lobe.
    Well, yeah. I mean, I could have told you that.

    If only you'd ask... I'm afraid to start the conversation...
  69. Re:USA != The world - MOD parent as offtopic/troll by aristotle-dude · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    This topic is pretty universal. Sure, there are some cultural differences which can cause a greater propensity towards introverted personality traits (ie. my original homeland Finland). Having said that, I don't think you gave much thought into your post and it has the appearance of Anti-US troll posts commonly found on here. Are you an extrovert by any chance?

    BTW. I'm speaking as a Canadian in case you thought I was an American.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  70. bah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bah I say! /. ers are neither extra nor intro verted, they are PER verted

  71. Theres a reason for this. by elucido · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd say that extroverts trust more than introverts.

    Introverts quickly learn they will never be accepted, and cannot trust the common individual.

    Also, its not like someone who is an introvert cannot fake being an extrovert. Thats the difference. Any introvert can decide to pretend to be social. All you have to do is learn the body language and words which initiate certain patterns, conversations, etc.

    Ultimately, if you want to be an extrovert yet be an introvert, talk to people when you have a reason to.

    1. Re:Theres a reason for this. by MBCook · · Score: 1
      I agree completely. I don't see any way to question the trust thing you bring up, it is an excellent description.

      As for the "acting like an extrovert" idea, I have learned to do that, and it is the "cure" to being an introvert. All introvert really means is you have a natural tendency towards that stuff. I did it exactly the way you suggested: talking to people when I had a reason to. I've known I was an introvert for many years, but I was surprised last year when a teacher was surprised when I said I was an introvert, she thought I was an extrovert. That was when I realized that I've gotten so good at "acting" extrovert at school that I am extroverted in classroom situations.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    2. Re:Theres a reason for this. by Prophet+of+Nixon · · Score: 1

      I disagree with that a bit... I'm extremely introverted, but I trust everybody until they give me a good reason not to, and I'm slow to change my opinions. I choose to believe that people are trustworthy because to do otherwise is to distrust by default, and that is too close to fear.

      Yea, I occasionally have to deal with some real bastard, but that occasional burden is better than the constant burden of distrusting.

      Most people actually are trustworthy if you bother to give them trust, anyway. Similarly, most people will always be honest with you if you are always honest with them. And most people will accept you if you accept them... that has nothing to do with the introvert/extrovert issue.

      I view people who don't play by those rules as psychopaths, and though they have been scarce, I've been seeing more lately. Most psychopaths have some motive, usually personal gain or fear (the latter being promoted by everything these days), but I've seen one or two in the past year or so who didn't seem to have any motive, and that bugs me a bit. I'm wondering how best to deal with one, if I need to.

  72. Yes but... by imstanny · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does more brain activity = good or bad, or neither?

  73. No, Silly Re:USA != The world by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    He clearly said The World, which as everybody knows is that popular MMORPG. But it's easy to see how one could confuse the USA with it, seeing how President Stonecold resigned and everything!

  74. Optimal Stimulation Theory by Stagemonkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, basically, they figured out the same thing I was taught five years ago in college. It's explained by "Optimal Stimulation Theory." People have an optimal level of stimulation that they try to maintain. Introverts naturally have a higher level of internal stimulation, therefore they seek to reduce the amount of outside stimulation they receive in order to maintain their optimal stimulation level. Extroverts (and "sensation seekers") have a lower level of internal stimulation and therefore seek to increase the amount of external stimulation they receive in order to maintain their optimal stimulation level. So...what's new about this study?

  75. Extroverts do and then talk about it. by elucido · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This means, extroverts can't keep a secret, can't do something without telling the world about it, and like to gossip.

    Gossiping is not something an introvert would ever do because whats the point? There is no logic behind gossip. So think of it this way, introverts are good planners, strategic thinkers, and this is good for certain fields and tasks. Extroverts are good salesmen, good with words, perhaps better with expression.

    The problem is, expression without reason is art. Extroverts would make a good artist, but would you really want an extrovert to be handling strategy or any of the planning? All your plans would be gossip and sooner or later all your ideas and plans will be stolen.

    So yes, its a catch 22, extroverts are great at marketing, but bad at planning. If you are running a business, it takes more than just marketing, because you cannot even get a patent or use your idea if your extrovert partner tells everyone the idea before you can patent it or actually build a business around it.

    The planners therefore have to be introverts. The salesmen have to be extroverts, there can be exceptions for fields such as law in which you'd want to be capable of both.

    1. Re:Extroverts do and then talk about it. by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      The leaders in general need to be extroverts. Leaders inspire and energize others. Introverts don't do that very well.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re:Extroverts do and then talk about it. by koekepeer · · Score: 1

      your comment is close to fascism, when i look at the blanket statements you make about introverts/extraverts. fill in race/genders/etc, instead of I/E, and you'll see my point.

      there is no catch-22. there's a need to find out how people can be complementary in their character properties, yes. but no need to be grandstanding because you are such a smart introvert as opposed to "them salesmen who (according to you) know how to babble but not how to reason".

      (many great artists were introverts by-the-way)

    3. Re:Extroverts do and then talk about it. by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      Introversion is merely the inward direction of the intuition/sensing and thinking/feeling as opposed to being directed outward. It has nothing to do with logic or reason. An INFP is no more logical than an ENFP; behavior is the only thing that is different.

      Go read more on Meyer's Briggs, please.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    4. Re:Extroverts do and then talk about it. by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 1

      Leaders might need to be extroverts, but their advisors had better be people who are more introspective and contemplative. Otherwise, all you'll end up with is leadership which goes charging into everything without thinking first. :-)

      --
      Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
      The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
    5. Re:Extroverts do and then talk about it. by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      "Extroverts would make a good artist"

      I don't think you can pin artists down so easily. I doubt Michelangelo and Vincent van Gogh would have been described as extroverts.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    6. Re:Extroverts do and then talk about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, please do. Like how it's pseudo-scientific bullshit, and people that talk about it seriously, embarrass themselves before their audience. The entire Jung typology has no scientific basis, and largely stems from statistically meaningless anecdotal observations by a man that considered his "intuition function" to correspond to ESP. The MBTI itself has no scientific basis either, being the byproduct of a house wife unleashing her considerable scientific expertise into refining the useless Jung typology.

      Please, by all means, read more about the MBTI. It's complete nonsense.

  76. Saying yes to being an unique individual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First: those who can please mod parent +5 insightful.

    I don't know how to praise the parent enough for that post. I'm tired of all these stories (there's been a few) on Slashdot that seem like they're written to be pep-talks entrenching stereotypical notions about geeks and nerds.

    Wake up people, we're all unique! The stereotypes aren't worth anything but the jokes they attract (which are usually funny).

    Sincerely from an AC that's both introverted and extroverted and a whole bunch of other things.

  77. More isn't better by The+Pim · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While I'm sure that many introverts are turning over deep coding problems, coming up with the idea that will change the world, and making keen observations, others are neurotic, anxious, or wasting cycles on trivialities. Not all brain activity is condusive to health, happiness, and success.

    --

    The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
  78. What next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's it, I've seen better shit on a National Enquirer cover. What next, a post that says Nerds have bigger penises?

    1. Re:What next? by reiggin · · Score: 1

      You're obviously not a nerd yourself.

    2. Re:What next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...otherwise he'd know that we do. ;-)

  79. Introverts vs. Extroverts by anon37 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    While Beatles-Beatles leaves the impression that this is new, it isn't. The basics of the introvert-extrovert differences were described in the excellent book Gifts Differing (1980) which is based on Jung's Psychological Types (1923).

    Beatles-Beatles attempt at politicizing this seems off: Bush I and Bush II also appear to be introverts.

    1. Re:Introverts vs. Extroverts by ockegheim · · Score: 1

      I have yet to see documented evidence of any brain activity in Bush II.

      --
      I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
    2. Re:Introverts vs. Extroverts by Gorbag · · Score: 1
      I don't think Jung correlated anything with brain activity; measuring brain activity (or localizing it), is a fairly recent thing, requiring modern scanning techniques to perform. Now the problem is, that pretty much any kind of brain scan results gets published, which is pretty foolish too. I don't think that having people think about "white houses" and localizing some point in the brain that is stimulated really tells us much about cognition. But I seem to be currently in the minority in the cogsci universe...

      (I am a cognitive scientist).

      --
      -- I speak only for myself
  80. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by Eideewt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think you're over-generalizing a little. Actually, a lot. Isn't it possible for a person to enjoy being social without being attached to everyone? Sure, an extroverted person needs to have someone to be extroverted to -- but that's a far cry from needing to be loved and accpeted by everyone, and from getting attached to everyone.

    Introversion and extroversion are about what your focus is, not what you need. Some people have all the fun and energy in the world when they're with other people. Some people have a great time just thinking and doing things alone. That doesn't mean that an introverted person doesn't want or need love, or that extroverted people are some sort of incomplete half-humans when they're alone.

    I'm guessing that you consider yourself an introvert (or you're a very bitter extreme extrovert) from your comments. That's fine but you seem to have some huge resentment towards more social people. Enjoying socializing is not the same as dependance on others or "play[ing] social mind games". Some people just like to hang out. Others like to amuse themselves.

  81. Bush II an introvert? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He sure doesn't give me that impression. He seems happiest when he's out dealing with people, and tends to speak before he thinks (well, whether you think the latter actually happens would depend on your political views I suppose).

    1. Re:Bush II an introvert? by Zellis · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's the source of "bush-isms": he's an introvert who isn't taking the time to think before he speaks because he feels the need to present himself as an extrovert in order to convince the extrovert-loving American public to vote for him.

      When I've seen him speaking without benefit of a pre-written speech, he seems to find it hard to speak coherently. Sign of introversion rather than the stupidity so many people seem to take it for?

    2. Re:Bush II an introvert? by scheming+daemons · · Score: 1
      Nah..

      I'm pretty sure it is stupidity in his case.

      --
      "I have as much authority as the pope, I just
      don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin

  82. INTJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The parent is a typical, indecisive INTP. As an INTJ I'd say what I think, but you don't care so I won't waste my time.

  83. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by Eideewt · · Score: 1

    So yes, we think more but why would the thinking want to associate with the brain-dead? We don't. We fall back into our shells and think about why the world is as it is.

    Or, from the other angle, why would people who can communicate their thoughts want to associate with those who can only run circles in their heads?

  84. Not only that... by Greg_D · · Score: 1

    ... but an overwhelming majority of introverts also claim to be afflicted with Asperger's, datelessness, hairy palms, and large anime figurine collections.

  85. Smarter, eh? Listen up! by ZeroZen · · Score: 1

    Imagine, people who talk all the time aren't as smart as those who shut up and listen!!!

  86. How can you tell an extroverted engineer? by csoto · · Score: 3, Funny

    He's the one staring at YOUR shoes.

    Thank you, I'm here all week. Try the lobster.

    --
    There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
  87. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by macdaddy · · Score: 1
    Wow. I always thought I was the only one that over-analyzed everything around me. I knew the word introvert before this article but I never really realized that the word described me. In my opinion the way I think bothers some of the people around me. Others I believe find it useful. Whenever someone mentions a new project for the first time within a minute I've gone over the whole thing in my head, thought of this, thought of that, found flaws in the project, fixed the flaws, planned new expansions on the project, analyzed their flaws, etc etc. Often people have to remind me that we're simply not to that point yet. Well, that's may be true.. for them. I've already planned up to that point and beyond. I've built a complete project plan in my head and I want to iron out all the wrinkles before I start the implementation phase. Sometimes it's very unnerving. Like I said, I believe some people find my thought process useful. They'll bring a problem to me and in a short while I've gone through all the various options, stumbled on all the caveats, found all the gotchas, and fixed all the problems. I'm a great person to brainstorm with. Even if I'm not an expert at the topic we're brainstorming over I can think of the questions that prompt the other person to think of the right answer with simple logic, deductive reasoning, and my introverted mind.

    Well, I'm glad to know that I'm not alone. I just wish I knew how to fully harness my method of thinking. I would think that I could get a lot more done if I knew how to use what I've got.

  88. one word: community. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we all long for community. yes, even this introvert. I can't meet people, especially the women type from my house.

  89. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by wytcld · · Score: 1

    degree depends on situation

    Yup. There's other research that shows that the distinction totally breaks down if you track people through different contexts. Or at least claims to show that. Sorry I don't have the reference at hand. But there are contexts where I'm extremely one way or the other. I both have a handful of very-long-term friends and at time enjoy chatting up total strangers. People who are just one way or the other -- wonder if they can learn to switch modes (or contexts) to advantage, there being unique values to gain from each.

    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
  90. How can you tell an extroverted computer geek from by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Funny
    From Fri Aug 08, '03
    Q: How can you tell an extroverted computer geek from an introverted computer geek?

    A: The introverted computer geek will look at his shoes while he talks to you. The extroverted computer geek will look at your shoes while he talks to you.


    Q: How do you tell if an Extroverted computer geek is Russian?
    A: His shoes look at you while he is talking.

    After 2+ years, it still doesn't get old.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  91. The intelligent AND outgoing rule. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "more brain activity in general"... "extroverts seem to rule the world"... but the people who "rule the world" are extroverted _and_ sharp.

    If I recall my studies correctly, acuity in the frontal lobe is where conciousness and intelligence are rooted. It is said that many intelligence tests really just measure the number of things a person can consider at once.

  92. Fine by SiO2 · · Score: 1

    Inroverts tend to be introspective. That's a given and even redundant. Perhaps we should consider the mental health issues involved, such as manic-depressive, overt depression, OCD, or whatever the flavor of the day. A lot of the people afflicted with these disorders exhibit the very same "symptoms" of either genius or psychotic behavior.

    Sorry, but this is an issue very close to someone in my family.

    Thank god for AC posting. Oh. Wait.

    I'm not saying that I fall into either category. I certainly do not. I just wonder how mental "afflictions," be they either good or bad as perceived by the collective reflect upon the development and current state of our society.

    Who's in charge and how many medications are they taking to keep whatever balance their doctors seem to think is real?

    SiO2

  93. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by Eideewt · · Score: 1

    I'm actually not trying to be mean here, but I am illustrating what it's like for the rest of us (sounds exclusive, eh?) to talk to a person who isn't so good at putting their thoughts in order and communicating them. I think we all kind of know what it's like -- everyone has moments when they try to articulate what they were thinking but get bogged down because there's just so much of it -- but for those of us who can summarize well it's exhausting trying to extract the point from all your thoughts. I think from your other post that you understand that, but I wanted to explain my post.

  94. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by Rirath.com · · Score: 1

    No offense to a fellow introvert, but if you really want to get more done, stop patting yourself on the back long enough to work. For being an introvert, that's a whole lot of text all about you, and how great you are. This simply does not work when you are working with a group of people on a group project. Even if you know how to solve a problem, you're probably still going to need help implementing the solution, and for that you're going to have to take a deep breath and explain. Don't be surprised if the rest of the group has their own solutions, or questions your judgement. Your way is one way of many, and your thinking that you're already "past that point and beyond" is what annoys people.

    As a Slashdot tagline once said:
    In theory, everything works in practice. In practice, it never does.

  95. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you're about right. I'm extremely extroverted, but I don't mind being alone, either. I find people extremely interesting and entertaining...at least when there's something interesting and entertaining about them. I like being able to talk to pretty much anybody. It's really not hard...just ask them questions about themselves. What do you do? Where are you from? Do you have a family? What do you like to do for fun? The best questions to ask are "why" questions, because they're open ended and make people think, and also motivation questions, for the same reasons. "Wow, what made you want to be a chicken sexer?" usually makes for a very interesting story.

    The problem occurs, however, when you meet truly boring people. The guy who works as an insurance claims adjuster and has no hobbies or interests. Thankfully that's pretty rare. Most of the time people have at least one thing about them that's truly interesting and unique, and if you get them started on that topic you can be entertained for quite awhile. As a bonus, they'll think you're the most interesting person in the world, too, since the most interesting people are those are interested in them. You better actually be interested in people, though, or you'll just find yourself getting annoyed.

    Oh, but playing social mind games is fun, too.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  96. testimonial by yagu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the slashdot article:

    The attitude that there's something wrong with introverted people is widely shared in society, where fast talk and snap decisions are often valued over listening, deliberation and careful planning

    I consider myself introverted but I was always excellent applying technology and creating solutions that worked and usually exceeded expectations.

    That "exceptional" technology skill got me invited to lots of decision-making and planning meetings and consortiums. But people often expressed afterwards (and sometimes even during) these sessions disappointment in my seemingly lack of participation or unwillingness to "speak up". I always apologized and explained I really couldn't find it in my constitution to say something unless I had something to say.

    I usually found myself deep in thought about discussions ongoing but rarely found conclusions simple, even in seemingly simple scenarios. Overall I sometimes wonder how many dings I accumulated for that trait. (I will say, I did quite well for myself reputation-wise overall.)

    Curiouser and curiouser.

  97. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by xilmaril · · Score: 1

    yeah, but this is a story about the vast differences between introverts and extroverts. Since that's only once facet of most peoples personality, there aren't really any broadly accurate differences. Still, the general differences can be interesting.

  98. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by antifoidulus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't you think you are creating a false dichotomy though? For example, I am by no means an introvert, but I sometimes have trouble with doing/saying things impulsively. So where do I fit in? Honestly, I think this whole thing seems a bit fabricated, personality cannot be distilled into two catagories very easily(if at all)

  99. Cathartic Session... by TheIndifferentiate · · Score: 1

    Being an INTP (just found that out recently and it helps explain a lot), I've been a big introvert misfit all my life. In contrast to what TFA says about shyness, I'm pushing forty and have only overcome mine in the past few years through conscious effort. I'm functional, but I'm not going to be running for office any time soon. The Smiths How Soon Is Now? pretty much sums up how I was until some time after I turned thirty. I found liquor helped when going out, but by the time I started loosening up, I could barely talk... They have better treatments for it now, I hear. What I have found that helps is when I have to give presentations in my MBA classes. I've got four coming up over the next two weeks...where'd I put that bottle... Just kidding! Anyways, I hope shyness is not an intrinsic characteristic of all introverts. I'd hate to think that all the other misfits out there like me have had to put up with something so stupid their whole lives too.

    1. Re:Cathartic Session... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      official acknowledgement of viewing of post.

      I'm similar. I'm 19. What's saved me from 20 years of what you've had, to some extent at least, is language learning - an obsession of mine. It's easier to force myself to talk if I can believe it's helping me improve a skill.

    2. Re:Cathartic Session... by TheIndifferentiate · · Score: 1

      I hope that helps you. Get professional help if you can't seem to get over it on your own. Don't let life and opportunity pass you by because you can't seem to bring yourself to speak out and be noticed like other people do without a second thought.

  100. false dichotomy by macsox · · Score: 1

    as an introvert (to which i would testify in court), i take exception with the categorization of introverts as being loathe to make snap decisions and speak quickly. i hate going to parties or work events, and am most gleeful curling up with my laptop. but i speak extremely quickly and eat and make decisions very quickly. introversion is not the same thing as being shy. it is about whether or not you enjoy the company of other people. i don't. i get energy from spending quiet time by myself, not from other people. that's what distinguishes an introvert -- not social awkwardness.

  101. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

    erm, I meant extrovert, not introvert. See what I mean?

  102. This has been known for a while by et764 · · Score: 1

    As the saying goes, "Still waters run deep."

  103. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have OCD, faggot.

  104. Perhaps by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 4, Funny

    a site where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the characters of their content.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  105. Re:USA != The world - MOD parent as offtopic/troll by Bonobo_Unknown · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have lived in the USA and in other countries. The only place that I have seen in the world that being introverted or "thoughtful" is thought of as being weird or spooky is the USA. In other places in the world people who think about what they have to say, rather than spouting some clichés and dogma, which seems so common in the USA, are the ones who are respected. That certainly holds true of all the Canadians I've met.

    Having said that, there are a lot of very intelligent and thoughtful people in the USA, and yes most of them aren't extroverts :P

    So my point is not about how leaders and extroverts in the world are, just that thinking that introversion is a bad thing is probably likely to be a fairly US specific thing.

    --
    We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
  106. Sweeet.... by JimXugle · · Score: 0

    So Shut-ins are smarter than their "social" counterparts?

    Score 5 for me!

    --
    -jX

    Don't you just love politics? It's like a comedy of errors.
  107. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was that irony? After that description, you don't sound like an extrovert.

    You're describing pretend-theory's post - and avoiding exposing yourself using a simple social manipulation. And it's common tool for introverts.

    Or you're just trolling very subtly?

  108. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

    I think introverts have more brain activity because they think about things more.

    I've heard that Introverts have a generally higher level of arousal (not necessarily the sexual kind), probably caused by hormones, and this is why their brains are busier and they have less interest in interacting with others. People with ADHD, OTOH, have a very low level of natural arousal and so need to do outrageous things or take stimulants to feel normal.

  109. A couple things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One way Introverts and Extroverts can be differentiated is by how they "recharge", whether that be through an internal world or the external world, respectively. Another method can be related to how they think and/or perceive. I like to visualize it as follows:

    Extrovert = Breadth-first Search
    Introvert = Depth-first Search

  110. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by MBCook · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I think it simply refers to a natural tendency. It isn't a binding concept. Like I said, it can change depending on the situation. Alcohol seems to make people less introverted. In some situations you are probably introverted, in others extroverted. Maybe doing/saying things impulsively (which I do sometimes too) is sort of a "pressure valve" from all those times you held it back? Just a random theory.

    Like many (well, MOST) things in psychology, this is a guide and nothing more. Psychology (like most disciplines) suffers from "Physics Envy"; that is they lack the ability to make concrete statements like Physics has ("Earth's gravity is 9.8 m/s^2").

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  111. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I only became an introvert so people wouldn't find out how dumb I am.

  112. Not surprising, though... by billyradcliffe · · Score: 1

    It comes at a price. I can't help but wonder how many introverts also suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder or any other anxiety disorder. Sitting and thinking about every possibility to every situation amplifies the effects of OCD and makes it much, much worse. Ignorance is truely bliss.

  113. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    No, that wasn't irony. Don't get me wrong, I like to talk about myself, too. I would describe a extrovert as someone interested in things outside himself...other people and environments. I like to go places and I like to meet people. I look forward to parties and enjoy going out. "Extrovert" does not mean "blathers on about himself to people who don't care." That's the definition of a boor. Extroverts can be thoughtful and considerate, too.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  114. That's incredibly subjective by itsphilip · · Score: 1

    It's very subjective of you to label all U.S. Presidents since Carter as extroverted. What qualifies you to draw this broad generalization? Do you have substantial basis?

  115. Carter? by TopSpin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    James E. Carter and introvert? The guy who, for most of my lifetime, has been gallivanting around the planet advising and negotiating with anyone drawing breath, publicly criticizing all of his successors, participating in all manner of charitable causes, special interests and important events, and doing interviews for anyone capable of granting airtime? That "Jimmy" Carter? This guy visited TMI while the core was still molten.

    Give me a ****ing break. The man has probably forgotten more friends than any ten of you will ever have.

    --
    Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
  116. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by saranagati · · Score: 5, Insightful

    well one thing both of you are a little off about is introverts and extroverts "enjoy" acting out as one (or not acting out?). The basis of the test is really to prove whether you feel "recharged" after spending time by yourself or by interacting with others. Although people generally enjoy doing what they feel recharges them, you really can't interchange the two. Personally I'm about as introverted as it gets according to myers-briggs, however I really do enjoy interacting with people who I find interesting and when I feel that they find me interesting however, interacting with people really drains me and after a while of interacting with people I'll naturally just start to appear uninterested even though I'm just self-reflecting so that I'll be able to continue.

    As for whoever said, extroverts need others to care about them, that can't be farther from the truth, they really just seem to have a more verbal way of self-reflecting. By talking with others, most extroverts I've known seem to realize more about themselves from either hearing other peoples experiences or just saying something about themselves aloud.

    As for the parent poster stating that talking isn't hard, introverts know that, usually we genuinely just don't care and sometimes don't want to know the answer to these questions.

    --
    Give a man a match and he'll be warm for a minute, set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
  117. Re:TAKE A SPOON by infinityxi · · Score: 1

    Who the hell modded this up? The GP has a valid point and this is just some Anonymous Coward crap. Get with it mods.

    --
    Turn based strategy game that runs over XMPP. Phalanx
  118. So true, so true... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 1

    "ntroverted children enjoy the internal world of thoughts, feelings and fantasies..."

    And what fantasies I've had too! ;-)

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  119. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by MBCook · · Score: 1
    I don't know how common all that is (sounds like me too) among people (or even introverts) but that is how I see it. I could be that only a fraction of introverts are like that. If you take a personality test (like a Myers Brigs test) you can get the description of the kind of person you are and while there are always things that don't fit, there are some that are just spookily accurate. Your type changes over time (I've been an INTP, ISTP, INTJ and ISTJ for example), but the test will tell you how strong each trait is. My "I" (Introvert vs Extrovert) is only mild. The N and P (or S and J) are mild to low. However, my T (Thinking vs Feeling) is WAY up there (and I wouldn't be surprised if yours was too). It can be interesting insight (or just some fun navel-contemplation).

    I agree with your last statement though. Every once in a while I get the feeling that I could be some genius or invert some mega-successful-help-the-world type thing if I could just get the right idea to start, instead of the random little things I think of.

    I don't know if any of history's great geniuses or important people did this same thing. I've never read about it, but I don't really read biographies. Of course, they may never have written something like that down or discussed it. If I become famous or invent that thing, what are the chances someone would find these "moments of brilliance" (as they may call them :) that I post to Slashdot. Another thing only a time machine will solve.

    Of course I know I won't be a Newton, for example. By my age he had basically invented optics, single-handedly created Calculus, made the then most powerful telescope known to man (that out performed telescopes 12x it's size by leaps and bounds), and more. Einstein had some of his major work in place by 25.

    But maybe I could be another Philo T. Farnsworth. History will see.

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  120. Introverts make more lasting contributions by billmil · · Score: 1

    As an extravert, I'm pretty aware that the people I've worked with who are very good programmers are all introverts--ability to focus on hard problems, enjoying working by themselves, etc.

    I've concluded that while society values salesmen and take-charge-folks, the the lone author/scientist/programmer/inventor, etc. tends to make the lasting works society in the long run values.

  121. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by billyradcliffe · · Score: 1

    The thing of it is, a lot of what you're describing could be caused by something greater, such as an anxiety disorder. I'm the same way, and I am in therapy for OCD. It's not really a matter of introvert versus extrovert, it's a defect in logic, bad brain chemistry. You get stuck on the one negative comment and you worry about it and it ruins your evening, whereas someone else could hear the same comment and just keep going...their mind lets it go. It's all about perception, really. You can't change what was said, you can only change your reaction to it.

  122. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by birge · · Score: 1

    I mean this in the most helpful way, but it's possible you're just obsessive and perhaps depressed. Being an introvert doesn't neccesarily mean you obsess over a bad day for the next day or two.

  123. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    I don't know about that. A lot of the introverts I know truly have difficulty talking with others. They might want to...they just can't figure out anything to say and feel generally uncomfortable in social settings. Personally, I go to parties all the time where I only know two or three people, and I really enjoy it.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  124. Why politicize.... by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

    Why do they do it? Could it be:

    1. Slashdot is ran by a bunch of college dropout .bomb wealthy pinkos? The sort who kinda like Howard Dean but wish he would have the guts to REALLY speak truth to power.

    2. Are savvy businessmen who understand the nature of their readers. They know that a political thread gets almost as frenzied as a PC vs Mac flamefest, and every reader and poster is generating pageviews, which helps Cmdr Taco save up for his next Powerbook.

    3. Both of the above.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  125. How many? by CrankyOG · · Score: 1

    Q:How many introverts does it take to change a light bulb?

    A:

    Q:How many?

    A:

    Q:Alright, Jeez, I'll just do it myself.

    --
    [ ]Clever sig [X]Lame sig
  126. Introverts... by dcam · · Score: 1

    The attitude that there's something wrong with introverted people is widely shared in society, where fast talk and snap decisions are often valued over listening, deliberation and careful planning.

    What does fast talk and span decisions have to do with introverts? I talk relatively fast and I certainly make snap decisions and I am introvert.

    The article doesn't seem to ever define just what it means by "introvert". According to Wikipedea:
    The terms refer to "attitudes" and show how a person orients and receives their energy

    This has squat to do with speed of decision making (although I can understand the fast talking thing to some extent).

    --
    meh
  127. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by billyradcliffe · · Score: 1

    I work the same exact way, thinking over conversations in my head and what I could say and what they could reply. I do it *all* the time, and that's what makes socializing so difficult. You think of all the negative things that can be said, or you're waiting for the right setup to go into your next bit of conversation. In my self-treatment of OCD, I just have to let go...I have to care less, say something, and let it go through. And it works. Conversations should just flow. You shouldn't have to work for it, you shouldn't force anything. It comes naturally. You just have to be willing to let go and be ready for the unexpected, or you'll end up in a deeper mental mess than you were originally in.

  128. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well aren't you the "macdaddy". No one gives a shit about you and your wonderful thought process. Go back to sitting in your cube and being a good little worker.

  129. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by Nutty_Irishman · · Score: 1

    Your comments are a bit black and white. I say this because I'm someone that leads a bit of a double life. When I do go out, I will randomly go up to people and ask them about their life. At work I'll ask almost every person how they are doing, strike up a random conversation with someone just to see how they are doing. I don't care how people feel towards me, I do it regardless. I don't have a need for people to care and love me, and I certainly don't mind if people don't like me. That's life.

    At the same time, I enjoy being alone during the evenings. I usually sit in my room doing something quiet, perhaps play a game, or do some reading. While I have many people I talk and converse with, I have a select few friends whom I am quite close with. These are the people that I am quite close with, and would bend over backwards for. At the same time, if I am going out with a group of close friends, I will not hesitate to ask someone that I'm not close to come along with me. I don't get offended if people choose not to come, but I offer the friendly gesture anyways.

    I used to be strictly an introvert. Why did I change? Because I found that the people I was closest with and got along the best with were also introverts, and being an introvert myself, that didn't leave me much of a chance to meet other introverts. So I changed, I decided I'd go out and be outgoing. What did I find out? That balancing my social and quiet time is far more satisifying in life then being an introvert, and I ended up meeting some great friends along the way.

    (BTW, I won't look up the paper, but they actually did a study on college students to find out what makes them happy/sad-- and they found that the happiest students were the ones that had an active social life. As negative as you make it seem, being social and outgoing does have its pluses)

  130. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by dcam · · Score: 1

    The main reason people decide on the introvert approach is because people don't actually care. If people actually cared then introverts would have a reason to be more outgoing. Think of it that way.

    You assuming that people "choose" a particular approach.

    --
    meh
  131. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  132. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by woolio · · Score: 1
    The artificial way of being an extrovert is to pretend to care, pretend to listen to people, pretend to....
    Oh, you mean the typical American... Disclaimer: "typical" means pop culture in this context, since there really is no such thing as "typical American".
  133. What about /.ers? by Palal · · Score: 1

    So are most /.ers intraverts in their REAL life?

    --
    -Palal
  134. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

    What if I'm an introvert because I just don't like other people? Maybe I find them irritating.

    Perhaps I view the slavish way normal people pursue the goodwill of others as a weakness, a pathetic addiction to the approval of others. Perhaps I am just as disgusted by this addiction as I am by alcohol, heroin, or crystam meth addiction, and view it in a similar light?

    Perhaps I just think most other people are stupid, boring, and unimaginative, and don't want to waste too much time on them.

    Or, maybe, and humor me here, the only other people I find even remotely interesting are people who are geeks like me, and into the same things (technology, modern visual culture, etc)... Maybe I just don't have any use for anyone else.

    Remember -- some of us introverts are freakin' HOSTILE.

    --
    Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
  135. Group Sex! by EnderWiggin99 · · Score: 1

    Intellectual masterbation is all the sex some geeks get.

    Stroking an introvert just may have a similar effect in terms of that 'comfort feeling' that you get after sex. Dopamine regulation keeps us focused on the task at hand. It's a great feeling to be on the same page without having to beat it mindlessly into someone else.

    Disclaimer: Introverted.

  136. Jimmy Carter? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    So he's complaining about how extroverts make bad presidents, and then his example of an introverted president is Jimmy Carter? This does not bode well for the argument that introverts would do better.

  137. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, extroverts do think a lot:

    "Where's the beer? Where's the beer? .... "

    "Go for the touchdown! Pass the ball! Sack him! Sack him!"

    They just don't know what "loopback" means.

  138. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by elucido · · Score: 1



    I'm an extrovert who learned to be an introvert after I learned that I don't enjoy being social and was only doing it to be accepted, feel normal, or seem like I had more friends than I actually had. Most people grow out of that in highschool but some people want to be accepted and feel normal all their lives. This is why theres people with eating disorders.

  139. Use of time? by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

    Well, what else are introverts going to do with their time if they (OK, we, being an introvert myself) don't spend it talking?

    OK, there's pr0n. But besides that?

  140. I thought he was neutral by jellybear · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or maybe lawful neutral.

    1. Re:I thought he was neutral by AtrozGrifo · · Score: 1

      Lawful?

    2. Re:I thought he was neutral by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      I believe that's chaotic stupid, or is that the current one?

    3. Re:I thought he was neutral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not turning neutral on me, are you Kiff?

  141. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by elucido · · Score: 1


    You socialize in groups but you are an introvert?

    Thats something I'd shy away from, I like to hang out with one friend at a time, and keep my friendships seperate. The one thing I'd never do is bring a complete strange into the mix.

  142. I also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I also hold conversation in my head before speaking to someone. The problem is if I know the person well I can predict the conversaion so well I forget to actualy talk to them! This means I can never remember if I've actualy told the person what I was going to.....

  143. Presidential elections ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "...at least, the USA, which hasn't elected an introverted president for three decades, since Jimmy Carter."

    The US public has not elected a single president for a long time. Most of them were decided by drawing straws in the supreme court's conference chambers.

  144. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by The+Allmighty+Fluffy · · Score: 0
    Along those lines, and as I recently experienced coming home for Thanksgiving this year, there's a perpetual tug-of-war going on at holiday gatherings and family events between my parents and myself. I'll stick around for the opening round of pleasantries, the food, and then maybe a bit longer if the conversation has any depth, and then I'll wander off and stare at the TV while thinking about things, or return to my room and browse the Internet/read a book/write something/etc... Won't be ten minutes before my parents show up and inform me through gritted teeth that I need to "come be social." What? I already did that, it got boring, so I'm doing things that engage the brain. I'm not interested in Aunt Bea's latest neighborhood gossip. I end up feeling smothered by it all and just want to get alone, but to please my parents I sit at the table for another hour or so and stare into space. Can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, huh?

    Funny thing is I really only have that problem with my mom's side of the family, where everybody's loud and extroverted and pretty much superficial. On my Dad's side, we like nothing better than to all get into a room and debate the hell out of something, be it politics, philosophy, or religion. People on that side of the family are much more interesting to me, because talking with them gives me more "deep" stuff to think about.

    Bottom line is that it's really no use trying to make an extrovert of an introvert. Several years ago I actually started to give a crap what the rest of the world thought, but that about it as far as extroverted behavior goes for me. I just can't make small talk for more than twenty seconds or so, and parties with more than five or ten people -- especially if I don't already know a few people there -- get downright claustrophobic. No matter how much I'm told to "be social," I'm not going to be much better at it.

    --
    Don't Mind Me, I'm Just Nuts
  145. Bet #2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet you that introverts are going to use this research to say they are more intelligent. No this is not a flame against introvert in particular. I am one myself. It's just that I'm sure I'll hear people say stuff they understood from this research when it isn't the case. Introverts might or might not be more intelligent. Having more brain activity might mean that something is wrong and not working efficiently. Maybe it means that something is working more. Who knows if it affects intelligence.

  146. uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jimmy Carter isn't a model US president...sorry. :P

    1. Re:uh... by Zey · · Score: 1

      Oh, I dunno... He's the last US President you could say at least tried not to be a force for evil in the world. Gotta give him points for that.

  147. Har har, very funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Apple's customers are like no others--a rich blend of the most sociologically elite with those seeking elegant, simple computing... Unlike users of Intel/Windows computers, a significant portion of Apple's users are active , exploratory , avant-garde and early adopters . The activities they enjoy are unique in the way that they more often incorporate rich media such as video and music as well as more active prosumer behavior than many more passive Windows [and Linux] users.

    -- MetaFacts, Inc.


    With above-average household income and education levels, the Mac population [is] very attractive [ intellectually as well as physically .]

    -- Nielsen/NetRatings (as quoted by C|NET)


  148. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by amliebsch · · Score: 1
    What if I'm an introvert because I just don't like other people? Maybe I find them irritating

    Well, then, s/introvert/psychopath.

    --
    If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  149. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by absinthminded64 · · Score: 1

    I am a 'social introvert' too. I haven't always been.

    To me my outgoing work personality and my ability to strike up conversations with random people is learned because being an extrovert is the 'norm' and it will benefit me professionally. It feels very fake and I know it isn't genuine but I've observed people for a long time and I truely feel like I successfully exhibit a non introverted persona intentionally.

  150. It Fits! by eno2001 · · Score: 1

    Goofus is an extrovert. He enjoys making an ass of himself in the name of "good fun" even if it's self-destructive and unproductive.

    Gallant is an introvert. Much of his time is spent up in his head dreaming up new plans for things to do around the house for his family, improving his work skills and trying to stay several steps ahead of life in general.

    Goofus, as an extrovert, gets great pleasure from gloating about how "great" he is at sports, work, relationships, driving or whatever. But the reality is that Goofus is seen as an obnoxious self-serving lout by his co-workers, family, girlfriends (nearly all ex) and other drivers on the road.

    Gallant, as an introvert, is mindful that he shares the world with other people. He is quiet about his achievments and derives pleasure from simply accomplishing goals so long as they are beneficial to everyone concerned. He sees more value in cooperation than competition and is percieved by all as a kind, thoughtful and genrous individual.

    Goofus would far rather socialize by the water cooler even though his break is only fifteen minutes because in his own words, "Gawd!! Work is so borrrrring. Wouldn't it be great if we could find a way to make money and never lift a finger? Haw haw haw"!!!

    Gallant takes his fifteen minutes to grab a quick snack in the cafeteria and take it back to his cubicle. "Excellent! If I put in another solid four hours I can finish this Perl script and get some time to work on compiling the latest Linux kernel at home tonight after reading a bit of that Dashiel Hammett mystery. Reading is the greatest hobby"!

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    1. Re:It Fits! by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, in the end they both spend the evening with "Mrs. Palmer and her 4 sisters."

      Now if Gallant were to dump perl for python, he wouldn't have to "spend another solid four hours" working on a perl script - it would have been finished before he grabbed his 15-minute lunch, and he could spend some quality [tt]ime schmoozing :-)

  151. more brain activity doesn't equal wisdom by ffflala · · Score: 1

    /. likely attracts more introverts than extroverts, if stereotypes are accurate. Yes, extroverts may want attention and care what other people think... and so do YOU. We all do. Just admit it fer pete's sake. It's part of being human. Quantity isn't quality. Having more brain activity isn't that handy if it's spent endlessly going through possible scenarios that generally trigger behavior that can be called socially unsuccessful. Increased brain activity can also come from an introvert's tendency to be mindful of thoughts, thereby amplifying them. An extrovert's focus will be on others, which places mental activity in a secondary role, one where it has specific purposes instead of being glorified for its own sake.

  152. maybe it's because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... we're always wondering what sex would be like?

  153. The advantage of being an introvert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Advantage of being an introvert is that you're looking for answers all the time.

    You spend your mental capacity on looking for truth and a good/truthful model to explain reality around you.

    What if you formed a model of reality that could explain almost everything. Then you'd have two advantages over other people.

    1. You'd have an easy way to see how the world is because it's basically the same as your model. Easy to see truth because it's already known to you what truth is like and it's easier to predict actions that give the results you want.

    2. You've spent all this processing power and time forming up the right model in your brain, training your brain. Now that you're done with the pattern forming process, you've got processing power to spare, you're a better thinker.

    So you'll come to better conclusions faster. That's a great goal to strive for! Don't give up, but I know you won't, because it's not in your nature. There is a level of knowledge where you can feel your brain snap and you go: "I GET IT!"

    And then you'll lose it again after a while in heaven. Keep working and you'll get it back after shorter and shorter times.

    Oh you want help?

    * http://www.enlightenedcaveman.com/intro.html
    (He's not completely right about everything)

    * http://www.doubleyourdating.com/google/
    or search for "David DeAngelo" or "Double your Dating" on the eMule P2P network
    (Everything David DeAngelo says is true)

    This is to help you start building the "What are humans like" part of your model with evolutionary psychology. Good luck.

    1. Re:The advantage of being an introvert by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1
      (Everything David DeAngelo says is true)
      I wouldn't go anywhere near that far. He has several pieces of good advice, I'll agree. He's always put me off because he sounds way too much like a salesman all the time.
  154. well by jjshoe · · Score: 1

    Extroverts have more sex

    --
    -- botsex is {grep;touch;strip;unzip;head;mount} /dev/girl -t {wet;fsck;fsck;yes;yes;yes;umount} {/de
    1. Re:well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know that? Extroverts talk about every sexual escapade often in detail. Introverts may or may not get sex, but you would never know since they don't talk about it.

  155. Answer to "Why Is This So?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Because us introverts are busy determining
    • how we are going to kill the f**king extrovert that got us into this mess, or
    • how we can regain our self-control and NOT kill the f**king extrovert that got us into this mess!

    Hello to all you extroverted salespeople out there!-))

  156. Alcohol & Your Personality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I was wondering what affect alcohol has on other introverts. I'm a classic introvert. The last time I took the Myers-Briggs test I was as far I as the test score would allow. In reading some of these other commments, I'm glad I'm not the only introvert that over analyzes *every* situation. Tone, inflection, exact words that people used. As stated above, one misstep can throw off my entire day because I'm worried about what other people think of me and if what I said sounded approprate or not.

    In the above examples, I can see myself in every description of an introvert. However, before I go out I *always* predrink. Why? Because it turns me into an extrovert. I tried to go to a bar once with friends sober. I couldn't do it. I almost had a panic attack because there were so many people I didn't know and I felt extremely uncomfortable.

    Now, I'm not talking about getting absolutely plastered and not remembering an evening. But after a bit of alcohol. I turn into a social butterfly (as my friends call it). I will talk to anyone about any subject in the bars. My ADHD truely comes out as I feel bad if I talk to one person for more than 5 minutes, because there are SO many people to talk to. My personality pulls a 180 and I will exhibit every one of the above extroverted traits.

    I've known people, however, that alcohol has had the opposite effect on. The introverts become more introverted.

    I was just wondering, Slashdot. How does a bit of alcohol affect your personality?

    1. Re:Alcohol & Your Personality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny you should mention alcohol. Sometimes it makes me more introverted, and sometimes it turns me more extrovert. I think it has something to do with familiar situations. If I drink with strangers at a place I've never been before I'm more likely to lock up, but drinking in my apartment together with a few friends makes me very extrovert (relatively speaking).

    2. Re:Alcohol & Your Personality by jesterpilot · · Score: 1

      This is why introverts would die out without alcohol. They'd never get together soberly.

      --
      Trust me, I work for the government.
    3. Re:Alcohol & Your Personality by Breetai · · Score: 1

      I'm quite introverted myself but nowadays I always stay sober when I go out. It takes a while to get into it and the first couple of times were quite stressfull and I totally flipped. Like almost panic attacks and the muscles around my shoulder completely locking up so much it hurts. But after getting plastered every weekend with my friends and getting no girls I decided it was time a change.

      Peripheral vision and breathing exc ercises help a lot. Also just being left to my own devices for once in a while and just thinking stuff over in a bar helps me to get back my energy en motivation. Also the martial arts I train (aikido and kobudo) have prevented me from freaking out a couple of years ago.

      I will have to go out every week otherwise I get back to my old ways and have to retrain my sensors and my way of thinking. When everything goes fine, I get completely wild and extroverted and will talk to anyone whoever even blinks to me. I've first noticed this when I was at a festival. The first days I kept quiet, bu on the third day, I became the animal let loose and partied all night long without any trouble. I guess I just need a couple of days adjusting to the setting.

      I have no trouble going out alone. My friends are a bit much tied to their usual places and I still want to see a lot of places and parties. It's a great ride for the night. People sometimes ask what kind of drugs I've used, but only mineral water will do the trick.

      The next sunday I will have to cooldown again and have a long (3 to 4 hours) to get everything back together again. Mondays and tuesdays become a real downer and I have to recouperate. On Thursdays, I already get bored and need my next fix of meeting people.

    4. Re:Alcohol & Your Personality by EvilNTUser · · Score: 1

      "I was just wondering, Slashdot. How does a bit of alcohol affect your personality?"

      It just makes me feel uncomfortable. The feeling before it starts affecting my brain isn't that great, and if I accidentally drink enough to affect it, I feel like I want to escape into my computer until I can think at normal speed again. Somehow I manage to feel normal at the keyboard even when drunk.

      As far as social situations go, it doesn't change anything. I always hate being close to groups of people I don't know, so places like bars are displeasing to me in general. Nightclubs are especially repulsive, because the music is so loud I can't have a real conversation even with people I know - I just end up wanting to go home to my beloved $ and forget about everyone else.

      --
      My Sig: SEGV
    5. Re:Alcohol & Your Personality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My profile: The Portrait of the Mastermind Rational (iNTj)

      Booze loosens me right up though.

  157. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am sorry to spoil your rosy vision of your behavior...

    The real reason you think and analyse your actions is because you are insecure and inconfident. Know why your "extrovert" friends shrug it off as a bad day?? Bacause they dont care about what others think of their position. They are secure as they are...

    I have noticed that "introverted" people who become secure and confident get into that golden middle ground - not extrverted like a salesman, not introverted either, but their normal self-assured self.

  158. Misunderestimation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Your opinion is, in fact, very popular among some of our worst citizens. Here's the thing:

    Reagan/Bush's campaign team paid the Iranians to keep the American hostages through the 1980 election against Carter. Then Reagan/Bush's Iran/Contra team sold Iran weapons while also sending Iraq chemical weapons during their war against each other, which Bush followed with a war against Iraq. Then Bush's son started a war against Iraq that's turning it over to Iran.

    Weigh all that against Carter failing to stop a Soviet invasion of their neighboring Afghanistan, which undid Russian confidence in their government's invincibility. Throw in Reagan/Bush's creation of the Afghan jihad, including bin Laden, which eventually destroyed the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon. Which Bush's son used to justify invading Iraq, which we're now turning over to Iran (see paragraph 1).

    I'll take Carter, thank you, even if he couldn't do much to rescue an economy destroyed by Nixon/Ford's disastrous war in Vietnam, defeat by OPEC (see paragraphs 1 & 2), and general implosion of American confidence after Watergate. To say nothing of the SEC chaired by Bush/Reagan's campaign manager, Bill Casey (see paragraph one).

    Certainly better than the current Bush residue: Worst. President. Ever.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Misunderestimation by smashin234 · · Score: 2, Informative

      And what about the Savings and loans fiasco? That was caused by Carter de-regulating the S&L industry. That fiasco cost billions in tax payer dollars. That probably did not HELP the economy whatsoever. It wasn't all a big Reagon conspiracy to make the economy bad so he could get elected. Carter did enough to dig his own grave.

    2. Re:Misunderestimation by TheSync · · Score: 2, Informative

      Carter began the process of deregulation, starting with airlines, rail transport, natural gas, oil, and banking. Of course, Reagan kept this going, along with a coherent freee-market philosophy to back it up.

    3. Re:Misunderestimation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your opinion is, in fact, very popular among some of our worst citizens. Here's the thing:

      [ 4 paragraphs of good ol' Republican-bashing ]


      Wow... Carter actually did a number of good things as President, (Camp David peace accords, anyone?) and is quite an admirable person as well, but in defending him, you somehow managed not to mention any of this.

      Seems you would rather take this opportunity to bash Republicans... as usual.

    4. Re:Misunderestimation by stonedonkey · · Score: 1

      Seems you would rather take this opportunity to bash Republicans... as usual.

      And you would respond by claiming unpatriotic behavior, instead of refuting the evidence. Like Cheney does.

    5. Re:Misunderestimation by EiZei · · Score: 1

      Certainly better than the current Bush residue [google.com]: Worst. President. Ever.

      Still better than Woodrow Wilson, but hey, can't blame dubya for lack of trying.

    6. Re:Misunderestimation by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      You forgot about the crack.

    7. Re:Misunderestimation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Nixon/Ford's disastrous war in Vietnam, " ????

      So Lyndon B. Johnson did absolutely nothing to get us into the war?

      The Tet Offensive was in 1968. Nixon wasn't in office until 1969. Read a history book sometime.

    8. Re:Misunderestimation by stunt_penguin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think this could be the best /. thread ever. Successive American administrations have fucked up enormously when it comes to foreign policy, meddling in matters that they couldn't fix even if they tried to do the right thing for everyone, and basically being dirty rotten bastards.

      The thing about the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan is that the Soviets would have been delighted to know the trouble that that would cause the decadent west as far into the future as 2005. Evil shits.

      It's all Hitler's fault you know. Trace all of the ripples of trouble back through the century and where do you end up? Berlin 1945.

      --
      When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
    9. Re:Misunderestimation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well your opinion is also very popular among our worst citizens as well. How this isn't offtopic when this should be about "Introverts Have More Brain Activity?" is a mystery. Apart from the /. groupthink, just a note on "Worst.President.Ever.",
      where historians were polled on the worst Presidents of the US.

      "And then there was this split ballot, comparing the George W. Bush presidencies failures in distinct areas. The George W. Bush presidency is the worst since:

      In terms of economic damage, Reagan.
      In terms of imperialism, T Roosevelt.
      In terms of dishonesty in government, Nixon.
      In terms of affable incompetence, Harding.
      In terms of corruption, Grant.
      In terms of general lassitude and cluelessness, Coolidge.
      In terms of personal dishonesty, Clinton.
      In terms of religious arrogance, Wilson."

      So just because you're emotional about a current president doesn't necessarily make it the Worst.Ever. More likely it's your emotions in hysterics making such a "judgement" call.

    10. Re:Misunderestimation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While Bush spends more than than on the Iraq war, further ruining the American economy. ...balance each other out IMHO. Which means Carter's still the better option.

    11. Re:Misunderestimation by ooze · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And Berlin 1945 was only possible because of Versailles 1918. And Versailles 1918 was only possible because of Imperialism/Colonialism of all European/Wesetern nations wich was only possible because of trade and commerce which is only possible because of greed. But wait, greed is the recurring theme in anything that has been mentioned so far.
      So if you want to do anything about it, fight greed and all it's symptoms.

      --
      Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
    12. Re:Misunderestimation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not actually elected to office, Bush.

    13. Re:Misunderestimation by flyinwhitey · · Score: 1

      You know, if it wasn't for the fact that your first link points to nothing but speculation (and very poor speculation at that), and that your entire post relies on inflammatory language and hyperbole, I might pay attention.

      As it is, this is just more Doc Ruby bashes one side, which happens to be the side he disagrees with.

      When all you ever do is bash one side, you have no credibility Doc.

      --
      How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
    14. Re:Misunderestimation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey Mr. Liar, when did I ever say that bashing Republicans is unpatriotic?

    15. Re:Misunderestimation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ford

      oooh this is fun, got any more?

    16. Re:Misunderestimation by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 2, Informative

      Vietnam was Nixon and Ford's war? Just like WWII was Trumans war, and Kosovo was Bush's war. Hahah, man you have no credibility, especially with those links. At least you're a step above those loonies thinking 9/11 was an inside job. So I'll give you that.

      --
      "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
    17. Re:Misunderestimation by benzapp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The entire Iran Contra affair as far as the "Iran" part, and the story you discussed was retracted by the New York Times, the paper that originally published it. It was completely insane, and required George Bush I to fly to Iran on an SR-71 as it was the only plane capable of getting there and back in time. Have you read the original story? Its a joke. Now, I have no doubt Reagan was selling weapons to the Contras, but so what! They were communists, and the president has that authority.

      And Vietnam? What history are YOU reading? Vietnam was a Democrat war, like all wars of the 20th century save the Iraq wars. Nixon was the one who got us OUT of the war! Duh, why were the riots at the democratic national convention in 1968? Because of Johnson and vietnam!

      As for Carter, his entire presidency was marked by double digit unemployment, inflation and interest rates. It was without a doubt, the worst time in American history since the depression. His presidency, by every reasonable measure, was a complete total failure and every year since has been remarkably better.

      As usual, Carter and the democratic party was voted out of office because the American middle class was getting fucked, and making up all sorts of ridiculous stories like this does nothing to help your cause. You are the victim of the lies here jack, and unfortunately you just weren't alive when any of this happened so you don't know.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    18. Re:Misunderestimation by ChadAmberg · · Score: 1

      The US WON the Tet Offensive. Read a better history book sometime. The media started the woe is me crap and now everyone thinks we lost that battle. Thats because the media repeats a lie often enough and you do believe it.

    19. Re:Misunderestimation by budgenator · · Score: 1

      it was more JFK - LBJ - Nixon. JFK had something like 50K over there and a lot of Special Forces, who spent their time teaching the Vietnamese how to defend themselves so they could make decisions without being bullied by any side. The program was reasonbly effective as a Spec OPs mission and LBJ was kept out of the loop by the bros from Mass. When LBJ got the program he did what most Americans would do, "if enough is good, too much is better" and turned it into a real war. Nixon's unpopularity alowed the North to perfect a polictical attack method, which we are starting to see again; everytime somebody calls on American Politicians to not "vietnamize" Iraq that's exactly what they are doing.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    20. Re:Misunderestimation by publius_jr · · Score: 0
      Come on. Give W credit. If Bush didn't sign-off on the creation of the Income Tax & the Federal Reserve, liberty-suffocating instruments which would allow the federal gov't to rob the people of their property & spend it on whatever the it pleased (like WWI a year later, as well as the sequal(s?)), you can't say that he's therefore better than that guy who did. Bush didn't have the chance. He, moreover, seems to love the power they give him & is probably glad they exist. At least Wilson regretted his decisions*, if without effect. Neither man understood the Constitution. Neither understood liberty. I don't know what the ranking is, but they're both pretty damn bad. Scary thought though--that there might be something lower than Bush.

      * "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson

    21. Re:Misunderestimation by d3funct · · Score: 0

      Let's not forget that it was Eisenhower that sent the first Special Forces "observers/advisors" to Indochina in 1956. Kennedy just kept it at that pace. LBJ was the one who made it worse, and it was dropped in Nixon's lap where he was forced to make the decision to get out as it was much too politicized to fight effectively.

      --
      ASCII a stupid question, get a stupid ANSI!
    22. Re:Misunderestimation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Yes, what about the S&L heist? Carter's reregulation of the S&Ls made their deposits investable in more than just buildings, and raised the government insurance from $40K to %100K. A measure to increase the investable cash being held by these rich people's banks that they were witholding from the economy, and to lower the risk of investment, by government indemnification.

      Then Bush, as VP, oversaw the subsequent reckless deregulation of the S&Ls. Removing their requirements for things like collateral, or sufficient deposits. Reagan/Bush oversaw the recession of 198s which, in combination with their deregulation program, transformed the American economy. The S&Ls invested in new "junk bonds", like craps at a casino: a few big winners, and a guaranteed huge loss overall in these voodoo economic tricks. Meanwhile, the S&Ls also invested in worthless real estate in Southern California and Texas (where Reagan and Bush came from, respectively), pumping billions into the pockets of Reagan/Bush bribers^Wsupporters. Along the way, Bush got the S&L heist smokescreen to cover some "small" ripoffs to finance Iran/Contra, along with his royal Saudi buddies (see previous post).

      By 1989, when the S&Ls were collapsing under the weight of all their bad loans, Reagan/Bush had overseen the industry for 8 years. If Carter in fact had done anything to cause it, they had nearly a decade of their "revolution" to undo it. In fact, they did it, and did it to death. And I'm still paying off their heist. Your mistaken assertion is right along the rightwing blinder policy that will blame Clinton for Bush's Iraq catastrophe. You vote for these criminals - you have to take the punches they throw at our country. Don't try to duck the blame when someone like me, who saw it all happen, tells the truth about their crimes.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    23. Re:Misunderestimation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      No, Carter began a process of reregulation, which Reagan/Bush hijacked to rip off the economy. Their incoherent strategy was "free market" only in the sense of a gang of thieves free to steal from an unlocked vault. For over 8 years, while they stole some for their own covert CIA Iran/Contra wars. I guess Carter must have also killed Kennedy, too, right?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    24. Re:Misunderestimation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Well, Anonymous Republican whiner Coward, if you showed up and shot off your Republican mouth with a bunch of lies covering for irreparable attacks on America, I'd bash you, too. Why would I waste time "defending Carter", instead of attacking the lying, thieving Republicans you'd present? Typical Republican: thinks every debate is an election campaign, where you just attack/defend your partisan favorite. And where Republicans get outraged when their opponents don't defend themselves the way the Republicans would prefer they do.

      When Republicans stop attacking America, when their damage is gone and forgotten, I'll stop bashing them... and ride my flying pig to the pie in the sky.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    25. Re:Misunderestimation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      JFK was killed the week he decided to reduce US forces in Vietnam. Johnson's first act was to reverse that decision. Johnson certainly had a lot of blood on his hands for creating that war. Nixon campaigned on a platform of ending the war, then acted to make it permanent. In fact he also kept the war going in 1972 specifically to campaign for reelection. If he hadn't got caught in Watergate, he'd have cut and run in his second term, and installed his successor as President in 1976, probably Bush, the head of the Republican Party. Which is exactly the same strategy Bush is using right now: prop up the catastrophic Iraqis long enough to win in 2004, cut and run in 2006 enough to install his successor in 2008. Too bad his office has committed so much treason that even Republicans are turning against him. I'm looking forward to the full Nixon treatment.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    26. Re:Misunderestimation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Well, Anonymous liar Coward, if you're going to rewrite the headline to suit you, despite the content of the article to which you linked, you can get as emotional about Bush as your lovey little Republican heart desires. The article in fact states "The second most common response from historians, trailing only Nixon, was that the current presidency is the worst in American history." Since you've got a Bush education, I'll translate: historians most commonly say that Nixon was the worst president in American history, while Bush is second worst. And that's before all the facts are in, and while many historians are Bush worshippers, just like you - before something like impeachment smashes that delusion. Sure, each of those other presidents had their personal bests in worst, but Bush combines all of them into the worst ever. And he's (probably) still got 3 more years to outdo everyone. He can pull that off without even trying - his specialty.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    27. Re:Misunderestimation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      If you weren't a Republican apologist who ignores the facts about Reagan/Bush crimes, I might care about what you pay attention to. Instead, you're a lost cause. I mainly just linked to Google searches on a couple of keywords each, which would have turned up some facts defending your boys, if there were any. "The facts are clearly biased against the Bush administration." - The Daily Show (paraphrase)

      How about that NEA, huh? At <0.00005% of Bush's budget, it's apparently destroying the entire culture, right?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    28. Re:Misunderestimation by robertjw · · Score: 1

      ...required George Bush I to fly to Iran on an SR-71

      Let's not forget that George was a Navy pilot during the war. This might not be so far fetched...

    29. Re:Misunderestimation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      Vietnam was Nixon's war because Nixon took over that catastrophe from Johnson, campaigning that he would end the war. Instead he expanded the war, including covert war on other neighboring countries not otherwise involved. Then he propped up the war in 1972 solely to win reelection. It's Ford's war, because Ford inherited it along with everything else he accepted from the Nixon he pardoned. And WWII was surely Truman's war (as well as FDR's), as he actually ran its ending, along with decisions that ended it more quickly. Your either/or logic is perfectly suited to keeping our moronic president where he can do most harm: in the White House.

      Those links are mostly just Google searches on the nouns in the subjects I mention. If there were exonerating facts, they'd be in there, too. You can hide behind your denial, but what's scaring you is the truth: Bush is the worst president ever, and we're (probably) stuck with him for another 3 dangerous years.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    30. Re:Misunderestimation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Let's see, VP Bush oversaw Iran/Contra out of the White House, and that required his flying to Iran on an SR-71. What, you get your history from Stephen Segal or Chuck Norris? TOW MISSILES, just for starters - the "Iran" half of Iran/Contra is so well documented (though certainly not completely) that I'm not going to bother arguing about a NYT story you don't even bother to cite specifically, let alone link to.

      Reagan's sale of weapons to the Contras was illegal, as was his covert method of doing it, and his coverup.

      As for your "Democratic wars" theory - how about the way that those wars are started by Democrats, then prolonged indefinitely by Republicans (except WWII, which Democrats won)? As usual, the Republicans hijack the government to destroy it.

      You're as wrong about me as you are about Republicans and war - and everything else you just make up to suit your demented version of history. I watched Nixon resign on TV, after watching his body bags come home. I expect to see your boy Bush follow suit.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    31. Re:Misunderestimation by flyinwhitey · · Score: 1

      "If you weren't a Republican apologist who ignores the facts about Reagan/Bush crimes,"

      I'm a Democrat, and it doesn't surprise me one bit that in response to genuine criticism you rely on an ad hominem attack.

      Just more of the same from you.

      And conveniently, you ignored the most important part, your utter lack of credibility.

      The other guys get it right sometimes. Your failure to admit it illustrates how biased you are, and how worthless your opinion is.

      While I may come down on the Republican's side from time to time, I do the same for the Democrats.

      "How about that NEA, huh? At 0.00005% of Bush's budget, it's apparently destroying the entire culture, right?"

      Perfect example. I put that there because it's a travesty that so little is spent. Read that again. It's a travesty, and it stunned me that the entire budget for art is so small. More importantly, it's a tool to gauge the biases of people who respond. Look how YOU responded.

      What does it say about you that you assumed you knew why I put it there, and attacked me based on that?

      Of course, there will be no admission from you that you made a mistake. You'll make up some excuse, then find a way to blame me.

      --
      How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
    32. Re:Misunderestimation by flyinwhitey · · Score: 1

      "You're as wrong about me as you are about Republicans and war - and everything else you just make up to suit your demented version of history."

      As soon as you admit you screwed up and made assumptions about me, then you can call others out for mistakes.

      But you haven't, so stop being a hypocrite.

      --
      How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
    33. Re:Misunderestimation by flyinwhitey · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what you always do Dic.

      Someone posts a link to information you dispute, and yet somehow you turn somehting with "Deregulation" into reregulation.

      It's amazing to watch someone twist reality so much and still try to pretend they're right.

      And you still haven't owned up to what you did. Hiding Dic?

      --
      How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
    34. Re:Misunderestimation by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I didn't realise it went back that far (for the US), I was about two then. I did meet a Frenchman who told me he served in Viet Nam in 1954, that was the year I was born.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    35. Re:Misunderestimation by aaronl · · Score: 1

      Democrats and the same thing as Republicans. The blinders are well in effect for you, too, with your ignoring all the ridiculous crap that Democrats have done. BTW, I think both parties are pathetic and the people that go on and on about one being better than the other are blind to the real world.

      Carter screwed up big and repeatedly, as did Reagan, both Bush's, and Clinton. Carter is the only one that probably isn't a criminal, but he was trying to be an honest man in a profession that requires deception, which makes him foolish. Just because he wasn't a lying, stealing, asshole doesn't make him a *good* president, it just makes him less of a bad president than the other four.

      Your belief that Reagan and Bush orchestrated a massive multinational conspiracy to have terrorists keeping hostages, to overthrow governments, and to ruin the economy - just so that Carter lost the election - sounds like something a crackpot website would go on about. It is ridiculous in magnitude, and even more ridiculous in value. If they wanted Carter out of the White House, they only had to ruin him personally, and it would've been much easier. Plus, it wouldn't have screwed a whole region over, as well as nearly throwing the US into another depression. Seriously here, how can *anyone* believe this kind of filth; if they had the resources to arrange all the conspiracy-nut things, they had far more than the necessary resources to much more easily and permanantly ruin just Carter, or even the entire Democrat party.

    36. Re:Misunderestimation by benzapp · · Score: 1

      As for your "Democratic wars" theory - how about the way that those wars are started by Democrats, then prolonged indefinitely by Republicans (except WWII, which Democrats won)

      What about World War I? Did you forget Wilson was a Democrat too? The same president who gave us every single major oppresive federal agency from the FBI down? And how did Nixon prolong the war? What did you want the guy to do? Just pull out? The fact remains he was re-elected, so if you believe in the powers of democracy, you should stand by the reality that the majority of americans in 1972 did not agree with you.

      I don't follow either party, but the politics of the moment is class division. The rebranding of the Democratic party as the hip, peace party during the 1970's is one of the greatest scams of the 20th century. Wake up!

      Also, the "illegal" sale of weapons to the Contras was by any reasonable measure an abuse of executive authority. The president has exclusive control over the military and ordinance, as well as foreign policy. It is hardly as cut and dry as you think. At the very least, it was on par with the indictment of Clinton.

      It was partisan politics, nothing more.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    37. Re:Misunderestimation by benzapp · · Score: 1

      Is the wolf greedy because it is hungry for the lamb?

      Life is killing and exploitation. It is nature you wish to fight, not human vice or virture.

      Until the unlimited right of reproduction is ended and intelligent selective breeding takes over, humans will fight over scarce resources, land, and abilities. Such is life.

      Don't be a pussy, stand and defend yourself. To die in battle is one of the greatest honors. How will you die? A miserable wretch, alone in a dark room, an embarassment to the fucked up children you have spawned to replace yourself? It sounds to me that your conception of life is sick and pathetic. It is whining of a runt for the bone it can't have.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    38. Re:Misunderestimation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life is killing and exploitation. It is nature you wish to fight, not human vice or virture.

      Until the unlimited right of reproduction is ended and intelligent selective breeding takes over, humans will fight over scarce resources, land, and abilities. Such is life.

      Don't be a pussy, stand and defend yourself. To die in battle is one of the greatest honors. How will you die? A miserable wretch, alone in a dark room, an embarassment to the fucked up children you have spawned to replace yourself? It sounds to me that your conception of life is sick and pathetic. It is whining of a runt for the bone it can't have.


      All this begs the question, "Why is an obivious ubermensch like you wasting his time posting on Slashdot?" Certianly you have much better things to do they associate with us weak and inferior types.

    39. Re:Misunderestimation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Well, I read your ambiguous .sig's meaning wrong. But then, it just pointed at a fact mentioned by hardly anyone but Republicans - your .sig is just part of the chorus of rightwingers who scream that the government spends any money, on the NEA, on art, on anything. So you fooled me, I admit - by being indistinguishable from a rightwinger.

      Which fit the rest of the context. I didn't exhaustively compare pros and cons of Democrats and Republicans. I replied to a post blaming Carter for "the Iran hostage crisis, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the horrid handling of the oil shortages, the terrible economic conditions, the absolute failure to accomplish any of his campaign promises, the continuation/reinstatment of the draft programs, and the policy to consider Taiwan as a part of China". To which I replied only correcting only about half those lies. You complain that I linked to "nothing but speculation", when I just linked to a Google search for "reagan hostages". Readers can decide for themselves, as I have, from the available evidence and reasoning. You don't like that, because you're a Democrat who apologizes for Republican crimes. Your kind of Democrat is one of the reasons I don't belong to your party, either. If you're not going to realize the Republicans have been screwing the Democratic Party harder than even America for years, you're the one with a credibility problem. So it was easy to mistake your NEA statement as a complaint it's getting any money at all. Maybe sometime you'll learn to take a strong stand in favor of your politics in an effective way. Not just attacking people with whom you claim to have so much in common politically, to no effect. When your fellow "Democrats" do more standing up, we might have less of the blight your duopoly enables in the Republicans. Meanwhile, I see no reason to go out of my way to point out irrelevant correct actions by Republicans while I make the simple point that they have screwed up so much, on purpose, and we need to get rid of them. Perhaps if you understood that, your party might win elections more often, and I wouldn't have quite as much to complain about.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    40. Re:Misunderestimation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's also the conceit that powerful people have, that they can control the dangerous, powerful forces they unleash. They often get short-term gains, and longterm destruction.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    41. Re:Misunderestimation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you compared Clinton's indictment for appearing to lie about a blowjob (when it turned out he hadn't, legally). Because Reagan's weapons sales weren't just "technically illegal". He was overseeing an illegal war in Central America, not only without Congress' explicit consent, but against several laws passed explicitly to stop him, including the Boland Amendment, which he violated with the Iran/Contra secret fundraising, too. You can spout your personal political theories about peace, hipness, class division or whatever else. But if you're going to compare a legal, white lie about a blowjob to illegally arming not only narcoterrorists in nearby countries, but also arming our enemies in Iran, you've got nothing worth hearing about politics. Naturally you make a nonsensical point about Wilson and WWI, seemingly to say we shouldn't have entered it, while claiming Nixon was right to lie about both ending the war, and his coverups of the covert wars in nearby countries he waged instead. And his propping up the war solely to help win reelection in 1972, as he admitted. It's no surprise you don't understand that "Watergate" was when Nixon's gang got caught breaking into Democratic Party headquarters as part of their absolutely criminal campaign that year - all part of that victory you claim justifies the crimes they committed to win. That is partisan politics, and your willful ignorance, equating a lie about a blowjob with illegally arming our enemies and rigging wars to win elections, is precisely the partisan payoff, whether you can see it or not.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    42. Re:Misunderestimation by d3funct · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the French had colonized what is now Viet Nam (was French Indochina ) back in the 1800's and were there until the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954 where they were badly defeated and pulled up stakes and left Indochina. Then in 1956 Vietnamese President Diem cancelled elections scheduled for later that year igniting the fire that was Ho Chi Minh, who had reason to believe the Communists would fare well. The ensuing skrimishes with the Viet Cong from the northern provinces of Viet Nam became too much for Diem's government to contain and they requested aid from the U.S. and we (stupidly) stuck our noses under the tent and got it bitten off (IMHO).

      --
      ASCII a stupid question, get a stupid ANSI!
    43. Re:Misunderestimation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      OK, now that I admit I misinterpreted your .sig as consistent with the rest of your crypto-Republican post, I'll remind you that I disputed their false assertion with links to evidence, describing the truth. You're the one trying to twist reality, if you're pretending that Carter created the Savings & Loan heist. You're such a great "Democrat" that you're falsely attacking your own party's president, as well as me for pointing out the truth about him. You're the one with the twisted reality and pretense.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    44. Re:Misunderestimation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Democrats and Republicans have each sold out to different corporations. That's the difference between them, and the reason I've never been a member of either party.

      You can cite the popular media myth that Carter was a nice guy, but I'm talking about specifics: Carter didn't create the Savings and Loan heist, though the post to which I replied made that up. I never claimed he wasn't a lying, stealing asshole, or a good president - that's your hobbyhorse to ride, your strawman to argue.

      Just like your overblown distortion of the facts I presented about Reagan, Bush, hostages and the economy. Your own buyin to the "Carter's decent" media image shows how hard it was to attack him personally. And if you don't think it was worth screwing the hostages for a year, creating a recession to blame Democrats to smokescreen the damage done by Republicans in Nixon's criminal career, and getting 12 years to exploit the country as "Reagan/Bush", then you're just proof of how well it worked. You're omitting Bush's years running the CIA under Carter, ease of making a deal with the Iranians - as demonstrated in the 1980s when they made even more complicated deals to arm the Iranians. You really don't understand anything about politics and covert actions our government commits. You're just in denial, with the "it's too hard" excuse your only safety from the terrible facts.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    45. Re:Misunderestimation by da · · Score: 1
      To die in battle is one of the greatest honors.

      !!!

      and how much military action have you seen? How old are you by the way? Does your mum know you're up? To die fighting to _defend_ your country may be an honourable thing, but please... and please don't give me that "Iraq had noo-killer weapons" rubbish.

      --
      I reserve the right to be wrong.
    46. Re:Misunderestimation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Moderation 0
          30% Insightful
          30% Flamebait
          10% Offtopic

      If pointing out the truth to a violent gang of ignorant Republicans is "Flamebait", whose fault is that? It's the Republican flamers, of course - to say nothing of the Republican TrollMods.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    47. Re:Misunderestimation by benzapp · · Score: 1

      Again, fuck the Boland Amendment. Congress has no power to restrict how the Comamander and Chief can fight utilize the active military.

      Where were the democrats complaining about such activity with the Bay of Pigs Invasion? The Vietnam War? Korea? The endless missle strikes against various Arab targets in the middle east? Like there was congressional authorization for any of those activities? Typical democratic hypocricy.

      There is a long and established tradition of American presidents, of both parties, aiding in wars like this. Given the tens of millions of people who have died under communism, that seems to be a worthy cause. The difference is, Republicans have ALWAYS been against communism. Democrats only supported anti-communism when it was proven half of Roosevelt's cabinet were communist traitors. Here you are whining about Watergate when Roosevelt sold out all of Eastern Europe and gave us the cold war. The Bay of Pigs invasion was just politics, simply to prove that Democrats weren't infact internationalist communists.

      You are just a brainwashed idiot, who has listend to all of your liberal professors, and marvelled at the endless pro-Clinton propaganda on MTV. Get a grip! The democrats controlled congress for 40 years, and every program they ever advocated is a complete failure. The democratic party will never rise again, they are proven hypocrits, just as you are here. Focus on the future, not this warped vision of the past . The future is not the democratic party or their failed policies.

      40 years of failure, that's what you want to return to?

      And what is this ridiculous accuastion I am justifying anyone's crimes? To be perfectly honest, I'm a dedicated fascist and look at fools like you as evidence for why democracy must be abolished. The mere thought that someone like you has a say in the future of human civilization makes me sick. Its the pandering for votes from morons that corrupts politics and leadership.

      A true leader acts because it is the right thing to do, irrespective of the popularity of his actions. Your political creed makes him a slave of the masses, and decay and destruction is the result.

      I'll see you at the front.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    48. Re:Misunderestimation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Yeah, crazy me, destroying America with my insistence that only Congress exercise its power to declare war, to make laws, to represent the people of the United States. But why should we argue about the Republican crimes of yesteryear? Your asshole president has now taken the Congressional authorization to protect America, if necessary, from Saddam Hussein, and turned Iraq into an actual threat instead of a Republican wet dream. When we impeach Bush for lying us into war, you and your gang of traitors will say it's a "liberal plot", not enforcing the law or protecting the Constitution, and us, from your favorite tyrant. Why do you hate America, you warmongering fascist? BTW, thanks for claiming Bush for the fascists. I'd like to thank you with a baseball bat. Drop by any time.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    49. Re:Misunderestimation by aaronl · · Score: 1

      My problem is that the things you call facts don't have any concrete backing. I could believe that it was all a set up purpetrated by the likes of Reagan or Bush, same as I can believe that it was just how things happened. It's much easier to believe that it was the flow of things without having data to the contrary to work off of. If you have any definitive source to back your claims, then provide it.

      I don't trust the CIA worth a damn, and they've certainly done things of that ilk before and after. I also don't trust the RNC, DNS, or mass media, which are where your facts seem to come from. As you said, they've been wholly bought by corporations. It's one of the many reasons that I'm not a member of either party, and why I don't waste my life on TV. If you didn't get it from a primary source, there's a good chance that it isn't true, and you have no way to verify it.

      The reason I was saying that Carter is a nice guy is because of a combination of the post-presidency work he's done and that he's never been slammed with criminal accustation. I still don't like him. He's very gullible, lacks the follow-through to finish situations, and doesn't know when to shut his mouth. The "Carter's decent" image you think I have is about him personally; he was incompetent in the presidency and should never have been elected. If the only two I had to choose from were Reagan and Carter, I wouldn't vote, but if I was forced to, it would be Reagan. I don't play the lesser of two evils game, though; everyone loses in that.

    50. Re:Misunderestimation by flyinwhitey · · Score: 1

      "Well, I read your ambiguous .sig's meaning wrong. But then, it just pointed at a fact mentioned by hardly anyone but Republicans - your .sig is just part of the chorus of rightwingers who scream that the government spends any money, on the NEA, on art, on anything. So you fooled me, I admit - by being indistinguishable from a rightwinger."

      No, you made an assumption because your biases rule your decision making process.

      Since you've shown NO evidence of making any attempt to actually listen to me, but rather just spun more garbage and insults, I'll end this discussion.

      Think about that. Your post was insulting and derogatory, while mine was not.

      Why do you have to resort to such tactics if your position is so strong, especially when you're not being attacked in the first place?

      --
      How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
    51. Re:Misunderestimation by aaronl · · Score: 1

      I might have argued with you all through this tread, but the moderations on posts like yours are bullshit. You got slammed for linking a bunch of google queries that you were using as facts, and I got slammed for reiterating things printing in textbooks, encyclopedias, newpapers, and press releases. We both got slammed for fighting for our opinions. The only negative moderation that was appropriate on these really was Offtopic.

      I'd say it's pretty equally Democrat asshats *and* Republican asshats doing most of the moderation on this one.

    52. Re:Misunderestimation by benzapp · · Score: 1

      Listen to yourself. how have I supported any position Bush has taken? You are such a fucking puppet! it is rare the disease of parlimentarian politics is so painfully demonstrated.

      I don't give a fuck about Republicans OR Democrats. All political parties should be banned, period. There should be no professional politicians.

      The point is a simple one: you are not motivated by any principle or virtue. You are a political tool. You haven't made a single criticism of republicans that hasn't applied to democrats, sometimes more so. This tells me you are blind to the truth when it doesn't suit your agenda.

      And as far as the coming battle, fuck off. I'll see you at the front. You pansy liberals will never survive the coming global crisis and breakdown of civil society. All your endless talk about rights, you don't give a fuck about duty and that's why you will all cry to your grave.

      For your information, a casual look at the members of Bush's cabinet should make it quite clear he is no fascist. There is also the whole issue he was umm, elected. Fascism is the repudiation of democracy, and the rejection of egalitarianism. Of course to a brainwashed fool like you, it is just a political slam word, but it has real meaning, unlike "democratic".

      Like I've said, a look at the Democratic party record since WWII proves their party is a failure. Democracy is a failure and is failing all over the world. You are supporting a sinking ship. Republicans have had their decade, and it mostly sucks, but 10 years of failure is a far cry from nearly a half century.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    53. Re:Misunderestimation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I see no reason to believe that the many people in the journalism workflow are any different from the TrollMods in these threads. Collectively they filter away real facts that threaten either their vested interests or just their preconceived notions. Fortunately there's still some diversity in this big world, so different filters allow different facts through. Searching the Web, corroborating and invalidating, is a way to find more of the complete picture.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    54. Re:Misunderestimation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Yeah, yeah, you talk tough. But when I invite you to a beatdown, you pussy, you retreat into meaningless political jabber. It's all just a bunch of words for you, a simulated personality you strut for yourself to compensate for your cowardice.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  159. Too bad the /goths can't share this victory by Bushido+Hacks · · Score: 1

    Could you believe it? Just a few days after closing down their website (slashGOTH.org) our website (slashDOT.org) gets this news. It would have been interesting to see their reaction.

    --
    The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
  160. Fight back against the spammer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    He has a guest book. Spam it with links to Slashdot. Troll it with goatse links. Better yet, use your imagination and do something original. Teach them never to get into a spamming/trolling contest with the Slashdot crowd. We are the experts, let's show them what we're made of.

    Here's that link again in case you missed it.

    1. Re:Fight back against the spammer by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 1, Troll

      Sorry. But /. is definitely NOT the experts on this. I believe the GNAA is leaps and bounds ahead of /. in this regard.

  161. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Unfortunately, you are not confined in your behavior and mannerisms like an introvert, thus, you cannot actually understand how an introverted perspective is viewed.

    What the parent poster stated is accurate to an extreme degree.

    Of the MANY conversations you have, EVERY DAY of EVERY WEEK, can you recall every conversation and connection you make in every one of those moments??

    If you answered yes, you're lying. The human mind has not the capacity for such informational retrieval for such vast amounts of detail ALL the time.

    If you answered no, at least your an honest extrovert. That being said, what have you gained for all those conversations other than pleased moments that passed the time?? Oh, some would call it networking. I call it social bullshit, but hey, thats how you like to kill your time. So hey, more power to you.

  162. Extra brain activity is not good by Sarusa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Mind Wide Open summarized this pretty well. Active scans of people working on a problem or engaged in a specific endeavor have shown repeatedly that extra brain activity is not a good thing. It means you're floundering. The more activity the worse you're doing. Your best results are when just that tiny minimum necessary bit of the brain lights up.

    Thinking of several pronounced introverts I know I'd have to say this applies; sure they're thinking a lot, but what they're doing is obsessing on little problems and turning them into full-blown crises which they can mull over and over again for maximum horrorific effect.

    Of course there are real introverted geniuses. I guess they just channel it better.

    1. Re:Extra brain activity is not good by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Active scans of people working on a problem or engaged in a specific endeavor have shown repeatedly that extra brain activity is not a good thing. It means you're floundering. The more activity the worse you're doing. Your best results are when just that tiny minimum necessary bit of the brain lights up.

      I'm a programmer; I could have told you that. I measure how well a program does by how much "computer activity" it causes.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    2. Re:Extra brain activity is not good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Active scans of people working on a problem or engaged in a specific endeavor have shown repeatedly that extra brain activity is not a good thing. It means you're floundering.

      That's conditional though: Searching is more difficult task and solving, and searching for a method of solving is very hard. So while you have high activity when you don't know what to do, that doesn't mean that more activity is worse - it means that searching is worse. If you don't understand, then you work harder. But that doesn't mean that working harder means you don't understand.

  163. Outsourcing by stud9920 · · Score: 1

    Of course ! Extraverts are outsourcing thoughts.

    1. Re:Outsourcing by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

      Of course ! Extraverts are outsourcing thoughts.

      I thought they had NO source of thoughts!

      --
      Tag lost or not installed.
  164. Oh I hear ya by planetoid · · Score: 1

    The attitude that there's something wrong with introverted people is widely shared in society, where fast talk and snap decisions are often valued over listening, deliberation and careful planning.

    I'm reminded of when I was in high school. I'm definitely introverted, and when I'd get into one of those exchange 'yo mama' insults (yo mama is so fat / so skinny / so ugly / etc) to each other contests with rival classmates. I'd always come to a complete halt when I'd get a really good one thrown at me... but like, three weeks later, I'm still dwelling on it and I'd finally come up with a devastating and awesome comeback that, by itself, would have totally owned back tenfold... but being three weeks later, it was obsolete for the relevant "yo mama" insult contest that it was related to. So I would, at best, hope for an opportunity to use it in the future, which was why I usually initiated those to begin with. And still, they would end the same way, and begin the same way. Graduating highschool was my only way out.

    I sort of wish I'd used my brainpower on studying math or something instead of coming up with "yo mama" insults, maybe then I wouldn't have had such a rough time in Calculus and Statistics as I did during my time majoring in computer science in university.

    --
    Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
    1. Re:Oh I hear ya by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Yo mama so stupid it took her 2 hours to watch 60 Minutes!

      I'll be looking for your email in about 3 weeks :)

  165. OK, we'll play it your way by GunFodder · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have no problem boosting an author's Pagerank if his or her articles are good. This article is not. It falls into the category of "scientist discovers what psychologists have known for decades."

    1. Re:OK, we'll play it your way by somersault · · Score: 1

      I felt that most if not everything I learnt in my psychology course was stuff that everyone has known for millenia =p

      Also a lot of it is bollocks - we did a test on reaction times where your reaction speed to hit a target that wasnt centred was longer than one for a centred target - I got the same reaction times for all the targets, presumably because I move my mouse and click in one movement from playing too many computer games =p Even with my obviously different results their program still said "oh lookie, your results confirmed the hypothesis!!".. I should have written some better programs and sold them to the uni. Though I'm too lazy..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:OK, we'll play it your way by budgenator · · Score: 1

      It's more along the lines, "Scientists proves what I've known all my life, psycologists still trying to catch up" What i would find interesting now that we have an objective determination method is what are the proportions of introverts/extroverts

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    3. Re:OK, we'll play it your way by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      How's your 3d depth perception? You wear glasses with different strength lenses?

    4. Re:OK, we'll play it your way by somersault · · Score: 1

      no, I dont use lenses at all, but my right eye is weaker than my left. My reaction time is above average, and my CS skills also, hehe

      --
      which is totally what she said
    5. Re:OK, we'll play it your way by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      I notice that my reaction times are faster when i don't use binoculor vision,ymmv. People who deal more with 2d details will have faster times than those who have focused on data crunching strategies for 3d objects where more 'extraneous detail' needs to be discarded.

  166. Extroverts do so care! by Highrollr · · Score: 1

    I am an extrovert. No, wait! Hear me out!

    It seems to me to be a misperception among some of the introverts hereabouts that extroverts don't really care. We're superficial people. We can talk for hours without saying a darn thing. There are certainly people like that out there, but they are a distinct minority of extroverts.

    Take for example when I see someone and ask "How was your weekend?" Sure, it's a common everyday thing to ask someone how their weekend was. Introverts may see this question as a pointless, mildly annoying bit of social nicety. But if a friend tells me they had a good weekend that genuinely makes my day a little brighter. If they didn't then I want to hear about it to see if there's anything I can do to make them feel better. Extroverts, in general, talk because we care, even if it seems superficial.

    With regard to spewing hot air, it seems to me that some introverts miss the fact that there is almost always deeper communication going on. I had lunch with a friend today, and I'll freely admit that we discussed nothing of substance in that hour. However, I hadn't seen her for a few weeks, so what we discussed was completely irrelevant anyway. The point of lunch was to just spend some time together and reconnect. What I was saying was "blah blah blah" and the message I was sending was "I like you and I enjoy your company." Everyone likes to hear that!

    --
    I typed this sig manually. Go me!

    1. Re:Extroverts do so care! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I am an extrovert. No, wait! Hear me out!

      Sorry, but you lack the proper mechanisms for introspection and self-evaluation. Not enough brain activity, you know.

  167. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by Stephen+H-B · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The term you're looking for is misanthropy, or dislike (lit. hatred) of people in general.

    You can be an extroverted misanthropist, but it is more commonly associated with introversion.

    --
    Sick of WoW? Try the thinking man's MMORPG: EVE Online
  168. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by LegendLength · · Score: 1

    For example; today I had an awful day. I'll think about it until tomorrow morning. My extroverted friends will shrug it off as "bad day, tomorrow is another".
    My brother is an extrovert yet he is known as a real worrier.

  169. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by j_w_d · · Score: 1
    For example; today I had an awful day. I'll think about it until tomorrow morning.


    That, my friend, is obsession, not introversion.


    --
    ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
  170. Introvert by cameroneagans · · Score: 1

    I didn't need a Slashdot article to tell me that I think more than other people :D. But every single introvert I know fits this too...its common sense, really...if smart people get grouped with idiots, the idiots will either (a)slow down the smart people or (b) make the smart ones do all the work. Therefore, the smarter people tend to become an introvert, secluding themselves from anyone, and preferring to work alone, as they can get more done that way.

    PS. I haven't read any of the posts up there, so if I'm repeating info, sorry.

    --
    -- Cameron Eagans http://cweagans.net
  171. Not now by daivdg · · Score: 1

    I don't want to talk about it.

  172. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by Shihar · · Score: 1

    I think you point out an important distinction. Thinking more isn't necessarily a good thing. The ability to come to a conclusion on a thought and then shove it out of sight and out of mind is not a bad thing. In your example, you worried on some small slight or perceived insult. Others might have simply discarded that insult and thought nothing more of it other then making a mental note that the other guy is a jerk.

    I see this every single day. My girlfriend and I are roughly equal intelligence on most things. That said, I am pretty sure she spends more time firing neurons then I do. I can easily close my eyes and turn my head off and not worry. She on the other hand lives in a constant state of obsessing over past events, worrying about small slights she might have made to someone or that someone made to her, and all manner of things that I wouldn't even think to concern myself with.

  173. Easy by melted · · Score: 1

    I'm an introvert (I think). Why? Because I'm more interesting to myself than a lot of people around me. I know more than they do, and it's frustrating to me when someone doesn't know things that I know. I also have very low tolerance for mediocrity and I very rarely lie to make others feel good. There you go, my reasons to be introverted.

  174. Extroversion is still healthier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It may very well be true that introverts have more brain activity, but the issue is that humans are obviously a very social species, and *many* psychological problems may be traced back to a lack of socialization. We require socialization to remain psychologically healthy.

    1. Re:Extroversion is still healthier by planetoid · · Score: 1

      When I had friends, I couldn't get a damn thing done; they would always pester me, and if I turned down an offer to go out and socialize, they'd whine and whimper at me and try to make me feel like an insensitive asshole for using choice. I'm glad I moved back to California to get away from all of them once an for all. I care more about my projects and hobbies than I do about seeing some overpriced Jim Carrey movie (since he was the Vin Diesel of the 1990's) on a Friday night.

      --
      Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
  175. Observations on conversations by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't know what it's like to be an extrovert, but I've been around a couple in my life. Conversation can really separate the one from the other--at least, that's what I've noticed.

    Seems to me like extroverts _plan_ their conversations. They might be listening to you, sure, but on some deeper level they're busy thinking of what's coming next--or perhaps looking around to see who else is around they can draw into the conversation.

    I'm an introvert. I don't like a lot of "change" in my conversations--new people cause repetition, get me off on tangents, or cause the subject to change prematurely. Extroverts plan as they go for this kind of stuff--"Hey, there's Bob. Bob knows Optics. I'll get him over here and see what he has to say." My reaction to Bob's presence--unless for some reason Bob is already part of the conversation--is, "Oh, it's Bob."

    Unless I've planned well ahead of time, I'm so busy trying to come up with what to say _as I'm talking_ that I don't have much ability to map out my thoughts. Even when the other party is talking, I'm too busy pondering what _they_ are saying to think about what _I_ am going to say. I converse by inspiration: if the other party doesn't give me any good inroads to a new topic, I have a hard time holding up my end--unless I don't feel the need to pay attention because, for instance, I've heard a story before. Then I'm free to sit and think about what's been said.

    If I had to guess at the main mental difference between extroverts and introverts, it would really be that the former can think off the cuff and get along, whereas we introverts are compelled to reflect and concentrate, whether or not we can get along by winging it.

    Extroverts bubble; introverts stew.

    1. Re:Observations on conversations by aj_308 · · Score: 1

      Good points there. I find that people find me introverted because after I have finished listening to their dribble, I am often left powerless to reply, stunned by their dribble, as it were. Maybe you suffer the same?

    2. Re:Observations on conversations by ben4242 · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that if you are still concentrating on what is being said, you could respond with something generic like, "That's fascinating. Tell me more." That way, you are buying time to articulate an actual response to what is being said.

    3. Re:Observations on conversations by fuzza · · Score: 1

      ... except then you have to concentrate on what they say in reply - infinite loop :(

      You really need to say "That's great... now give me 5 minutes to come up with a response" - but that's hardly polite now, is it?

      --
      Can't find examples of evolution? No matter, neither could Dawkins
  176. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did not know slashdot can be a dating site.. Are you gay dude..He hee

  177. I for one welcome by Ulrich+Hobelmann · · Score: 1

    our new introverted overlords!

  178. Embiggening terrorism. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My favorite part is when we hear crowing from the righties about how we're only having a terrorism problem because Clinton cut and run in Somalia, not wanting a lengthy and bloody engagement. (I don't recall any Republicans shouting "stay the course!" at the time, but I might be wrong.) This, according to the narrative, showed the world that America was a paper tiger, which would back down if you bloodied its nose a bit, and led to 9/11, 7/7, and whatever else happens.

    However, nothing is said about Reagan's Iran-Contra deal. If you recall, this is where we traded arms for hostages. That is, Reagan appeased the terrorists. Which is just about the worst kind of message you can send. It's like writing a blank check to the bad guys. Look, if your citizens are held hostage by these people, plan a daring rescue mission if you can, but if that doesn't work out, mourn them, 'cause they're already dead.

    Reagan? Goddamn appeaser.

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:Embiggening terrorism. by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1


      Reagan? Goddamn appeaser.

      He was almost as much of a clown as Bush the second.

    2. Re:Embiggening terrorism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose that's better than a low-down, dirty deciever.
      [/firefly-reference]

    3. Re:Embiggening terrorism. by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      The US had the reputation of being a paper tiger far earlier than Somalia, I'm thinking it started with Vietnam. Reagan pulled the marines out of Lebanon, when the Iranian funded Syrian terrorists were too much for them.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    4. Re:Embiggening terrorism. by aaronl · · Score: 1

      Our terrorist problem goes back a lot futher than even Reagon. Not that he didn't screw up badly, too, but you have to go back to WWII even. We were screwing around in Africa, and then pretty constantly involved politically and militarily the entire time after that. We created a lot of enemies with Korea and Vietnam. We were involved in messing about with USSR bloc nations. Then you have the nearly continual involvement in the Middle East. We've also been heavily influencing South American countries, and regularly having little operations down there.

      You're right about Reagan doing the very wrong thing with appeasing though. That's why the US always had the policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

      We're going to have constant enemies like this until we pull back our direct involvment in foreign countries. Almost everything the US has done with putting people in power and destabilizing governments has ended up worse than what was already there...

    5. Re:Embiggening terrorism. by d3funct · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Almost everything the US has done with putting people in power and destabilizing governments has ended up worse than what was already there..."


      Yeah, like Germany and Japan after WWII, they're alot worse off. Iraq looks like it's doing terribly too. I mean more infrastructure, schools, electrical power, people not dying for speaking their minds or voting their conscience. South Korea since the armistice. Yeah, they're all alot worse off, we Americans are terrible people. /sarcasm
      --
      ASCII a stupid question, get a stupid ANSI!
    6. Re:Embiggening terrorism. by aaronl · · Score: 1

      Bub, first off I said "Almost everything the US has done", not everything. If you take a multiple choice test and answer 'A' for everything, you'll still tend to get some answers correct. Not that everything the US has done right has been by accident, but it looks bad given the track record.

      Germany and Japan were already industrialized first-world countries *before* the US got involved. The US was also largely responsible for blowing their stuff up, and then coming in to rebuild it and "fix" their governments. Have to give the US credit for that, they aren't sore winners like some other countries are, such as France is.

      Iraq *is* doing terribly right now. It will improve, and then we'll see what their government ends up like. Maybe they'll end up being another Iran, maybe not.

      S. Korea has been successful because the US never left. It can practically be considered a US territory, considering the US military presence there. That is not a success, even if it's better than it was.

      You missed an important point. If you see someone cooking their food wrong, so you kick in their front door, take away their utensils, and then cook for them, they will resent you. They'll probably try to beat the hell out of you and throw you out first, but they'll resent you. The US keeps smashing their way into other countries and taking over. That builds a great deal of resentment, and from that, a lot of terrorists. It is a bad policy to try to force someone to have you run their show. The US runs the US, and that's all it *should* run.

    7. Re:Embiggening terrorism. by d3funct · · Score: 1

      I have friends IN Iraq, on the frontlines rebuilding schools, oil fields, powerstations etc... They tell me the stories of Iraqis living worse off than they did when Saddam was in power is a load of crap. The majority of Iraqis are glad we are there, they are glad we came in and have done what we did and what we are doing. They know that we are not there to take their country away from them, but to provide them a good foundation from which to kick off a democracy that they are creating. It's the neighboring governments that are afraid. They are afraid their citizens will see what's happening in Iraq and demand it of their own governments.
          And, you state that we (US) created terrorists due to the resentment they felt when we came "smashing our way into other countries and taking over." HMMM...while I've heard of a lot of terrorists dying (especially in Iraq). I haven't heard of alot of terror threats lately, in other countries. Sure, there is the occasional plot we hear about, but the bulk of terrorism is either tied down in Iraq trying to kill "Westerners"/US service people or hiding. They are not threatening the bulk of the world as they did throughout the 90's when we were treating them like criminals and not enemies. I don't see the US moving in and taking over anywhere. We do move in stabalize and turn the countries back over to the people of that country to govern as they see fit, without the "help" of a despot or dictator.
          I'd say we saw them (Iraqis) having their food cooked dangerously wrong for them by a poisoner of foods. We kicked in HIS door, took away his utensils, kitchen help and everything else he was stealing from his people, and we are now SHOWING them how to cook for themselves. AND, they don't resent us.

      --
      ASCII a stupid question, get a stupid ANSI!
    8. Re:Embiggening terrorism. by aaronl · · Score: 1

      I'm actually in agreement with you. We're just talking about different parts of it, that's all.

      I hadn't said that it was worse in Iraq now than before, just that it's bad there now. I have friends over there too, though most of them are over in/around Kuwait right now. I know that most of what gets put up on US news tends to be total BS; I don't need to ask anyone in Iraq to confirm that for me. In some regards, we might not know if terrorism has cut down because of how bad our news coverage tends to be. Now, I tend to agree with you that most of it *was* coming from the Middle East, and that they're focusing on the troops in Iraq right now, as targets.

      The last thing I wanted to mention is that you don't need everyone to be pissed that you're there. There was a group in power in Iraq, and the US went over there and ripped it all apart. That's the sort of thing that creates terrorists that try to come over here and blow our stuff up. Sure, they were *already* likely terrorist types, but now they're targetting us instead of each other.

    9. Re:Embiggening terrorism. by d3funct · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the only way I can judge whether terrorism for me is affected is the fact that we have not had a terrorist incident INSIDE the Continental U.S. since 9/11/01. And if that's the short term goal, then I'll back whomever can make it happen. I'm a Libertarian, as such I don't want the Government in my life anymore than it has to be. But, the one place we need it and the one place I don't mind my tax money being spent is National Defense. Glad we could have the discussion. You have a happy holiday season. Hope to yack with you more on these boards.

      --
      ASCII a stupid question, get a stupid ANSI!
    10. Re:Embiggening terrorism. by wilec · · Score: 1

      Reagan also didn't waste any time pulling out of Lebonon.

    11. Re:Embiggening terrorism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carter - Never met a dictator he didn't like!

    12. Re:Embiggening terrorism. by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1

      "the fact that we have not had a terrorist incident INSIDE the Continental U.S. since 9/11/01."

      Did we just decide that the Anthrax attacks of 2002 didn't happen? How about the "shoe bomb"? Or even the attack on mall shoppers that occured on November 20th, 2005 -- FIVE DAYS AGO!?

      If you think nothing has happened since 9/11/2001, then you must be blind. I could name many others.

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    13. Re:Embiggening terrorism. by d3funct · · Score: 1

      The Anthrax attacks of 2002 are still only reported as "unexplained deaths of 5 people from anthrax poisoning. http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/op inion/13288512.htm" The "shoe bomb" never went off. And I just did a Google search using the terms "shooting November 20th" and looked at everything from Nov. 20th to today and there was no mention of an attack on mall shoppers. Now, locally here in the Seattle area there was a 19 year-old kid who was depressed and went into the Tacoma Mall and began shooting random shoppers. If that's what you're talking about, well you'd be hard-pressed to convince anyone he was a terrorist. Hell, he even apologized while he was holding hostages, though I doubt that will help much in the eyes of those he shot. But, it shows he's no terrorist. http://www.sequimgazette.com/article.php?sid=1435

      Next...

      --
      ASCII a stupid question, get a stupid ANSI!
    14. Re:Embiggening terrorism. by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1

      Of course that kid was a terrorist, he caused terror. And "in the eyes of those he shot" is all that matters. After all, "we" were the ones who were "shot" on 9/11, and "we" call "them" terrorist. I'm sure they call themselves freedom fighters or something.

      Regardless of how you classify the kid, here is a fact. There was NO security in place to stop him BEFORE he started shooting, if he HAD been an islamic fundimentalist there still would have been blood shed. Once the shooting started, who cares what his ideals, or lack thereof, are? He terrified people, made them run for their lives from gun fire.

      But I guess the apology makes it all better?

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    15. Re:Embiggening terrorism. by d3funct · · Score: 1

      Well, see now your getting into semantics. Sure he caused terror, but that was not his intent. He was obviously depressed, you can tell that by his text messages to his girlfriend, and the fact that he was feeling so guilty after he'd taken hostages and his rage was fed, and he'd calmed down. Yes, he caused terror in that mall, but in the context I was speaking about terrorist attacks prior to your reply, I was talking about real terrorists. You know the kind that blow themselves up to injure innocent people, trying to make a political statement. This kid had no political agenda and was not attacking those people to send a message to the government.
          Now then, just who is it "we shot" on 9/11? It seems to me it was our innocent civilians dying in those airplanes and buildings when the TERRORISTS ATTACKED US! And yes, WE call THEM TERRORISTS. They DO NOT call themselves "freedom fighters." They are not fighting for freedom, they are killing innocent people just because they don't believe religiously in the same way that those TERRORISTS do. These are not people you can sit down and come to some sort of accord with. They just want all non-fundamentalist muslims to die, period. I suppose the Nazis called themselves "self-preservationists", but I call them MURDERERS. I suppose Stalin thought of himself as a freedom fighter, yet he killed more people than Hitler did, he too was a murderer, war criminal, tyrant...the list could go on.
          You point out that "there was NO security in place to stop him BEFORE he started shooting". Well, IT'S A MALL in the USA! This is not some jack-booted thug country where people are expected to see armed guards all over the place. Especially since, and here's where you help make my point, there has been NO TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THIS COUNTRY SINCE 9/11/2001. Yes, he brought an AK-47 into the mall and started shooting the place up, but had he first robbed some store there first would you call him a gun toting thief or a terrorist?
          No, the apology makes nothing better. In my opinion, even if he gave some excuse like "I was abused as a child, or I was temporarily insane" it wouldn't take away from the fact that he was responsible for his actions. But, the fact that he was apologizing even while carrying out his crime shows that his state of mind was not that he was intent on hurting people, but that he was screaming out that his life (to him) sucked, and he was going to visit that pain on someone, anyone else. That doesn't absolve him from what he did, but it certainly doesn't make him a terrorist. Fortunately there were so many witnesses and so much evidence that he WILL go to prison, hopefully for life.

      Have a nice day!

      --
      ASCII a stupid question, get a stupid ANSI!
    16. Re:Embiggening terrorism. by aaronl · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it was cool debating/typing with you. It's nice having intelligent conversation on here every now and then. ;-)

      Hope you enjoy your time with family/friends this season, too!

    17. Re:Embiggening terrorism. by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1

      Now then, just who is it "we shot" on 9/11?"

      Actually, what I typed in my post was, "we were the ones who got shot". I didn't say we shot someone.

      Well, IT'S A MALL in the USA! This is not some jack-booted thug country where people are expected to see armed guards all over the place. Especially since, and here's where you help make my point, there has been NO TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THIS COUNTRY SINCE 9/11/2001.

      Well, that is in fact my point. The fact that no one stopped him means this, that the "terrorists" aren't attacking us has NOTHING to do with our security. This incedent demonstrated that ANYONE could walk into a mall and do this. Better hope those "non-islam hating terrorists" don't read Seattle newspapers. If they do, they'll realise that US civillian security is so bad that CHILDREN can walk into busy shopping districts with ASSAULT WEAPONS ANYTIME THEY FEEL LIKE IT.

      You don't seem to get it. That kid COULD have been a terrorist, the security would still have been just as lax. However, for some reason, people like you parrot that the US is secure for some reason. If some terror group hears about this, what's to keep them from getting the idea this could happen anywhere anytime and send out five guys a day to five different malls all over the country?

      Still think this country is secure? You probably do. It's sad really. The only reason we are secure is because these people aren't attacking us. If they decided tomorrow to start, we'd be completely fucked over a barrel.

      So, what does this mean? It means all those government press releases about "strengthening" our domestic security over the past 3 years is total bovine droppings.

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    18. Re:Embiggening terrorism. by d3funct · · Score: 0

      Ok, You're right. I misread your first line. Sorry.

      But, as for the second paragraph. Sure, I may be making your point that yes in fact it COULD happen anywhere in this Country, that a TERRORIST COULD walk into a MALL and start shooting the place up, or blow himself up or cause whatever terror he may want. It also makes my point which is IT HASN'T HAPPENED SINCE 9/11/2001.

      If a terrorist wanted to go into a crowded place and cause terror, sure he could do it. But my point is that Terrorists (and here again I'm talking about the kind that we are killing in Iraq and Afghanistan)are not doing those thing in the USA. Why? Because they're preoccupied with dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are disorganized because they're top people keep getting killed, or they don't have enough lower echelon to coordinate something like that. AND, everytime they put a cell together and activate it in the US, they get caught. So, I think they're doing a pretty good job of keeping our citizens safe. And I salute the service men and women, and the Bush Administration for letting them fight the war . Instead of trying to bind their hands like so many of the left side of this country wants to do.

      --
      ASCII a stupid question, get a stupid ANSI!
  179. I could have told you this in high school. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    But, if you'd asked me I'd have said "Shut up. I'm thinking!"

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  180. Read C.G.Jung, cause he invented the terms! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi Yall,

    or read one of the Jungian books on personality typology. To yourself be true & it would not hurt towards others either, most times....

    Take care of yourselves.

    Greek Geek :-)

  181. Almost every comment in this thread is stupid... by Psyonic · · Score: 1

    Because introvert and extrovert are polar opposites; however people generally don't reside on one end or the other but in the middle. So I'm going to coin a new term, "middlevert", that describes this phenomenon, and say that 66% of people would be better described as that than introvert or extrovert.

    --
    A man walks into a bar. The bartender says, "What is this, some kind of joke?"
  182. adhd? by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    Lots of these symptoms are also being linked with ADHD; so; what I wonder is; is ADHD created by the extrovert people making the introvert people to think more? I think ADHD is a society-created disorder; made by chaos, unreliability and speed without thinking. Lots of people do really annoy and hurt me just because of their actions without thinking; sortof "shoot before asking questions" instead of "ask questions before shooting"...

    Mostly when those people do shoot before asking people any questions; I got to clean up the mess; which makes me hyperactive by thinking continuesly why that "friend" or employee did that action without thinking twice?...

    Being fast and abrupt is not always a good choice; why are people being classified in corners as either introvert as extrovert and not been seen as both? Since; most people WILL think if it'll affect their own personal life by any fast decisions; most should be part of both worlds; but only when it suits them?

    No offense intended; but; it's something I've been thinking about for years; and; I guess extrovert people just care less about the people around them because they already have enough "friends" around them... But is a friend neccesary a real "close friend" ?

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  183. Don't believe the hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take it from a psychology student - this article is hyped up pop psychology. Yes, it's a well known fact - not breaking news - that introverts have more brain activity than extroverts. This is why introverts are less stimulation-hungry than extroverts - their baseline brain activity is higher, so it takes less stimulation to satisfy them, and therefore introverts stay away from meeting new people, don't go to concerts, and so on, since they don't 'need' to be involved in these activities and many find these things to be overstimulating - too loud at the concert, too tense when meeting strangers. Extroverts on the other hand have, as TFA would say in its neanderthal-like summary of the facts, "less brain activity" meaning they have a lower baseline. Extroverts require more stimulation to bring their brain activity up to enjoyable levels and therefore seek more stimulation than introverts, which is why they enjoy meeting new, novel people and go to concerts and the rest.

    Dumbing the issue down into a "introverts smart, extroverts dumb" scenario is just ridiculously stupid. Furthermore, it's silly to label people as 'introverts' or 'extroverts' in general because everyone is a mix of the two. For example, I am a very extroverted person, but with some introverted tendencies (depression, Civ4 addiction) and I have a WAIS-III tested IQ of 130. For those of you who aren't familiar with the IQ bell curve distribution, that's two standard deviations above the (Western population) norm of 100, putting me in the top 5% of the population. If you are an introvert it's likely that you have some very extroverted tendencies - especially when you are in the right environment (online, at a geek con, at work).

    Nerds like us on slashdot are smart because we are smart, not because we are introverted. Don't take these articles as a guide to how you should judge people out there in the world - there are highly intelligent extroverts AND introverts, and also highly stupid extroverts and introverts, but making generalisations about people because they are quiet or loud would definitely put you in the latter category.

  184. Empirical science.. BLEH!! by jw53z · · Score: 1

    I tend to choose for a mix of empirical/a priori science first and following the findings with a priori science to think things out.. but ok.. What I mean is.. those empiricists didn't thought of the fact that if extroverts start with meditation and introspection they start to get NOT-Extroverted and get more brain activity! You can start life on the extroverted or introverted side but you can condition yourself into something more refined. I for example are just in the middle, tests show 70% or higher introverted, perhaps because I've learned from internet texts about introvertedness and introspection..

  185. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by masterQba · · Score: 0, Redundant

    me too.

    --
    xb0x
  186. OMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG, I'm expressing myself right now, I must extrovert, which means I'm dumber than people who don't post DERRRRRRRR....

  187. 15 pages is too long, but the idea is sound by Flying+pig · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Years ago I did get such an assessment. It was actually paid for by a company I had applied to. I didn't get the job but the agency wanted to discuss the report with me. Why? Because it said that I was in the top 2% of white collar workers for management aptitude but was more suited to a small company. That was 10 years ago and it was the best advice I ever got. I moved to a small company, was on the board after just a few months, did almost everything, then moved into consulting, still in a small company environment. I didn't get rich (though I am today a lot better off than if I had stayed in large corporates) but I have had a very interesting ten years doing stuff I enjoyed. I would recommend anyone unsure of their job path to get a professional assessment.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
  188. Lovely Spin on Introvert vs. Extrovert by tyrione · · Score: 1
    "The attitude that there's something wrong with introverted people is widely shared in society, where fast talk and snap decisions are often valued over listening, deliberation and careful planning. Extroverts seem to rule the world or, at least, the USA, which hasn't elected an introverted president for three decades, since Jimmy Carter."
    No, Introverted people aren't viewed as being invaluable listeners, who take their time deliberating well-founded decisions. They are the nutbags who are socially dysfunctional outside of their phantasms they create due to the fact they feel themselves disassociated from the "norms" of Society.

    If you think critical thinking cannot be made in rapid succession then I suggest you work on your memory skills and your rate of recall. Both types of traditionally classified personalities are ripe with morons. They just express it through their actions differently.

    Next.
    1. Re:Lovely Spin on Introvert vs. Extrovert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No, Introverted people aren't viewed as being invaluable listeners, who take their time deliberating well-founded decisions. They are the nutbags who are socially dysfunctional outside of their phantasms they create due to the fact they feel themselves disassociated from the "norms" of Society.
      Silly extrovert. You just don't get it. We don't feel disassociated from the "norms" of society. We don't care about the "norms" of society. The article also doesn't state that we are viewed as invaluable listeners, just that we are better at it. It should be self evident that one listens much better when one is not speaking.
  189. Gates and Torvalds :) by brys · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Bill Gates is extrovert (ENTj) and Linux Torvalds is introvert (INTp - aka "Geek") - note that this two types are very similiar. Steve Jobs is ENTp so he is very diffrent. More info at http://www.socionics.com/

  190. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by Liquid+Len · · Score: 1

    I entirely second this. I too build some kind of a chart for most of the situations I have to face that don't fit in my daily routine. This is rather brain-consuming (and tiresome) and not too useful, but I can't help it. It also leads to bursts of anguish (oh my, what if...), but I guess it's a side effects of being slighly smarter than most people (or so I like to think).

  191. I for one... by daggerr · · Score: 1

    ...welcome our new introvert overlords

  192. No, he spelled it correctly... by sczimme · · Score: 2, Funny


    And yet you still can't spell populace right. I'd get a refund.

    No, he spelled populous correctly; he used it incorrectly. :-)

    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
  193. Re:How can you tell an extroverted computer geek f by maxwell+demon · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Q: Why doesn't your method work in Korea?
    A: In Korea, only old extrovert geeks will look at your shoes.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  194. What if I have an introverted uterus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does that mean my pussy has a mind of it's own?

  195. Re:Submitter is a link spammer, does /. care? NO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks, Carl

  196. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by maxume · · Score: 1

    Hopefully you(and the gp post) realize that this study is talking about *averages*. What I mean to say is that even as a mighty mighty introverted thinker, your frontal lobe activity could be lower than that of the average extrovert. I don't mean to imply that it is, just that it very well could be.

    Also, I'm glad you think when you walk down the street, but what do you think extroverts are doing, concentrating on holding in their drool?

    In the end, introversion and extroversion are pretty much descriptions of behaviors. They might have some predictive capacity in relation to intelligence, but no matter what you want to think, there are plenty of crazy bright extroverts and plenty of stone dumb introverts.

    There are so many damn people on this planet that trying to cut all of them into two groups with some arbitrary test and then pretending that every member of each group is more alike every member their group than they are alike any member of the other groups is bone headed. Shades of gray and all that.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  197. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by pla · · Score: 1

    and they found that the happiest students were the ones that had an active social life

    When studying matters of perception, you can't just come right out and ask people to rate themselves on a vague term. Do you "love" you father, your dog, and your wife? Trying to evaluate that question with any single definition of "love" would make you either really sick, or really cold. So, you ask related questions, hopefully of a more objective nature, about related behaviors and actions, which you can measure.


    Behaviors and actions, however, do not adequately express the "happiness" of an introvert. Very few people, even introverts, would describe sitting alone in a room for hours at a time as overly indicative of feeling happy. But give me a good book, and in exactly that externally-visible state, I feel just about as "happy" as I get.

  198. ermm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Why does every other post on Slashdot (or Fark, or any other site) have to include something about Americans being stupid or inferior or misguided, or the even more reflex-driven attacks on George W. Bush?"

    Because they usually *are* stupid, inferior or misguided (pick two out of three every time).

    And Bush...well, he deserves to be bashed as often as possible. Even by Americans.

    1. Re:ermm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why does every other post on Slashdot (or Fark, or any other site) have to include something about Americans being stupid or inferior or misguided, or the even more reflex-driven attacks on George W. Bush?"

      Because sitting on your ass complaining about the world's problems and pretending to make a difference is a hell of a lot easier than actually doing something about it. Here's a multiple choice question to prove the point:

      Q: All the worlds intelligence is convinced there are WMDs in the country. UN inspectors were kicked out. Political opponents of the leader were killed and families of members "removed" as well. Financial support and training for terrorists has been provided. Do you:

      a. Ignore it and drink another glass of wine, figuring the stupid Americans will piss them off the most and bear the brunt of any strike. And hell, so what if they blow up a cafe. As long as the violence is in the poor parts of town and just kills off some undesirables, no harm.
      b. Bribe them with gifts and "economic support" and point out you're weaklings that could never hurt them. Quietly promise to look the other way when terrorists come through your doors.
      c. Get really, really angry and tell them they'd better follow UN resolutions or else, well, then you'll be super really really angry.
      d. Fix the problem by taking them out if need be and bearing the cost in soldiers lives, money and international popularity to make the hard but correct decision all others in the worlds commons benefits from.

      The unfortunate thing is that while these truths apply to Iraq, I was talking about Iran. Yes, Europe's hand-wringing about morality, ethics and tyranny continues for another hundred years (Hitler's Willing Executioners and other excellent reads explain there is a deeper cultural flaw affecting Western Europe that may not be solvable until 50+ years of oppression by a ruthless force like Islam).

      As you all will encounter, most people in companies, politics, etc. are ass-sitting complainers who rarely offer any proposal other than a complaint of what you are doing. When proposals are offered, they're unworkable and foolish, usually consisting of either running away from a problem or stealing from those who earned more than the ass sitter. Americans have an expression for this: arm-chair quarterback. Should you develop advanced leadership skills, you'll identify that this behavior is more pathalogical and closely corrolated with relativism, denial and procrastination. It represents a rationalization process associated with attempting to explain why one doesn't have to carry out a difficult choice, and depending upon the pathology of the individual, can range from simple denial or irrational disagreement to projection, nihlism or even adoption of dangerous, self-destructive views.

      For the simple cases, there's no problem with being the ass sitter as long as you understand you get what we decide for you (though you do need to quit pretending you matter when you default from the difficult process of choice). Western Europe unfortunately has collectively decided that its fate will be decided either by Islamist dictators or Americans. When a sheep refuses to defend itself, it determines that the battle between protector and predator will ultimately decide, though in this case, the sheep is throwing rocks at the protector.

      Are you an ass sitter or someone who has the internal courage and motivation to do unpopular but strategically correct actions? Remember, you're free to make any decision you wish (including default), but are not free from the consequence.

  199. Average slashdot poster by frostilicus2 · · Score: 1

    "introverted individuals tend to have more brain activity in general"

    This is hard to believe judging by the quality of an average slashdot post.

    --
    Nothing sucks like a Vax, nothing blows like a PowerMac G4
  200. Something WRONG with introverts? by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

    If introverts have more brain activity, that would certainly make them not normal. I think it might be "wrong", too. Remember the Pythons: "He's that most dangerous of creatures, a clever sheep."

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
  201. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1
    Psychology (like most disciplines) suffers from "Physics Envy"; that is they lack the ability to make concrete statements like Physics has ("Earth's gravity is 9.8 m/s^2").

    I've often thought that this was the reason why we have so many "sciences" now: Military Science, Library Science, Political Science, Waste Management Science. There is a tendency in the West to label everything as a "science" in order to make people think more highly of your chosen path in life. I think it derives from a false understanding of science as "absolute truth" instead of a process for observing and recording apparent consistencies in the natural universe. Which is also the heart of the Evolution vs. Creationism debate, but that's a post for a different story. :-)

  202. Old news + false dichotomy by Theovon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First of all, the idea that introverts get their energy from being alone (and are therefore overloaded around others) and that extraverts get their energy from being around others (because they are understimulated when alone) is OLD OLD OLD OLD news. I think I read about this in "Please Understand Me", the original book by the original Myers-Briggs people. Indeed, Carl Jung may have recognized this even earlier than that.

    Secondly, people seem to want to be overly binary about this. I know people who get most of their energy from being alone. Those are introverts. I know people who get most of their energy from being with other people. Those are extraverts. I know people who seem to require a balance. What are THEY called?

    1. Re:Old news + false dichotomy by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      perverts

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  203. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by vorpal22 · · Score: 1

    I find people extremely interesting and entertaining...at least when there's something interesting and entertaining about them. I like being able to talk to pretty much anybody. It's really not hard...just ask them questions about themselves. What do you do? Where are you from? Do you have a family? What do you like to do for fun?

    I think that this paragraph perfectly highlights the differences between introverts and extroverts. I have little interest in hearing people's answers to those questions unless I intend on making a serious investment in them and inviting them into my circle of friends in a meaningful, long term way. Small talk typically bores me and when people try to engage me in it, I find myself feeling annoyed because they're interrupting my internal dialogue, which I feel is more productive and more enjoyable than an external conversation would be.

    LOL... what's funny is that the majority of my close friends are persistent extroverts that just couldn't take a hint and kept engaging me in small talk until it was unavoidable that we grew to know each other well. Finally, it would get to the point where I'd invested so much time talking to them and learning about one another that it would be silly not to be friends.

  204. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by cbreeze34 · · Score: 1

    There is a distinct difference between introversion and social anxiety. Introversion is 100% natural and part of your personality, and doesn't mean you're socially inept or clumsy---just more thoughtful and deliberate. a listener, not a talker. Social anxiety (aka shyness), in many cases, can be crippling and difficult to deal with, and in my experience is tied closely to depression. Though i would guess it's more common in introverts than extroverts.

    --
    using anti-bacterial hand soap is like drying your feet in the middle of a shower.
  205. Extroverts run the country? by mislinux · · Score: 1
    "Extroverts seem to rule the world or, at least, the USA, which hasn't elected an introverted president for three decades, since Jimmy Carter."

    They have only elected 4 presidents since then. So let me get this straight, since the last 4 presidents are extroverted, then extroverts rule the world. I want to live where they do causation like that!!

  206. Just imagine ... by DaViking · · Score: 1

    all the '5, Insightful' comments the Introverts out there are thinking of right now...

    --
    (This sig intentionally left blank.)
  207. Contingency planning as practice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sort of thing happens a lot. Most introverts already feel like they don't fit in, and they also tend to want things to go smoothly and efficiently without misunderstanding. The thing people tend to forget, and even are implying a bit on some of these posts is that it isn't really a choice, more of a compulsion. I don't tend to think about planning out my conversations before I have them, it just starts happening.

    When conversations that I've worked out beforehand (I even do this when ordering a pizza on the phone) go differently than planned I may find myself unable to stop reflecting on the conversation for several hours afterwards and may even panic over something that could have presented misunderstanding (depending on what it is of course).

    But the planning is all about preparing for any possible reaction to what I'm saying, along with making sure what I say will communicate what I want as precisely as possible. It's a form of practice.

  208. Thinking out loud by DavidHumus · · Score: 1

    I know one extrovert who apparently talks so much because that's how she figures out what she's thinking.

  209. misinterpretation by dick+johnson · · Score: 1

    uh.... If I recall, schizophrenics also show increased brain activities in the frontal lobe area.

    Increased activity != Increased intelligence.

    --
    - dj
    1. Re:misinterpretation by dick+johnson · · Score: 1

      Well, I just googled it and discovered I was wrong. The opposite is true. Schizophrenics tend to have lower activity in the frontal lobe area.

      Sorry for the incorrect posting.

      --
      - dj
    2. Re:misinterpretation by scheming+daemons · · Score: 1
      How can you tell if you're a dyslexic schizophrenic?

      You always have the nagging feeling that you're following someone.

      --
      "I have as much authority as the pope, I just
      don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin

    3. Re:misinterpretation by cobras2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but what *I'd* like to know is, how do you classify a schizophrenic whose personalities are both extroverts, but always spend their time talking to each other?

      --
      Early bird may get the worm.. but the second mouse gets the cheese.
  210. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

    Now, that's interesting. But I don't think I'm entirely misanthropic; in my case it's just in respect to the general population. There are certain subcultures I'm rather fond of. And once I know someone, and have decided I like them, I'm perfectly friendly, although being an introvert I don't exactly seek out interaction.

    Perhaps I'm introverted and somewhat misanthropic, and they're related (even correlated) without having a causal relationship. I like that.

    --
    Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
  211. ur just retarded - this is the wrong site 4 u. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's because you're an idiot!

    GP assumed that you were aware of the conventional info on the physical side effects of marijuana. It makes people perform worse - not better, asshole. How can you perform well when you can't fucking breathe properly after smoking!? How can you have great reaction time when bud slows you down???

    You need everything spelled out for you, dummy?

    Retard.

  212. Jimmy Carter was a complete moron by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 2

    This dumbass was put into power by the Trilateral commission for one thing. But the guy has gone totally senile. he endorses communist dictators, poo poo's his own country's election process and now the bonehead actually believes that he didn't send in special forces to rescue the hostages in Iran. May the ghosts of those soldiers place a pox on his house!!!

  213. Ignorant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your statement only goes to show how little you understand about ADHD.

    Would type out an informative piece from the perspective of an introvert suffering from ADHD, but this is Slashdot, and therefore a waste of time.

  214. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

    Silly slashdotter... Psychopath does NOT mean "one who dislikes other people in general". It means "one who has no moral constraints or conscience with respect to his dealings with others, who usually behaves in a completely irredeemable, evil way" -- in other words, one who is, for lack of a better word, evil.

    I don't believe I said anything about being EVIL. I just said I find all you silly fucks irritating, and this leads to my actively avoiding your presence.

    Now, if I was a psychopath (which, thank God, I'm not) I'd find you irritating and poison your twinkies. See the difference?

    Crazyphilman: introverted and hostile, but NOT PSYCHO.

    Psychopath: introverted and hostile, and poisons your twinkies.

    --
    Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
  215. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, but that's his point exactly. Making small talk can be hell for an introvert because small talk feels so phony. You don't actually care about all that little crap that extroverts use as an excuse to make a connection and trying to force yourself through the routine makes you feel uncomfortable and fake.

    The worst conversations ever are between two introverts that forget the other person isn't expecting them to be extroverted (which is easy, since introverts are forever acting to put extroverts at ease). Two introverts making small talk because they think they have to is just scary.

  216. Really? by AviLazar · · Score: 1

    Since when is an extrovert necessarily a " fast talk and snap decisions are often valued over listening, deliberation and careful planning." Being an extrovert just means you are out going. Introvert just means you are not outgoing. An introvert could be a fast talker who makes snap decisions and throws wit.

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  217. Strategy not working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well if he's doing it to raise his Google rank, it ain't working. His rank is still 5, the default value.

  218. Nixon 2008 (yeah I know he's dead) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of america has been missing Nixon all along (not the sheeple of course).

    Does that sound strange to you? You might want to look at the actual policies of his administration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon and tell me if that isn't the epitomy of centrist america. Too many people fail to see anything else than Watergate, guess that says something about them (not a surprise).

    1. Re:Nixon 2008 (yeah I know he's dead) by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 1

      I hate to say it openly, but that was the point. I'm not saying the man didn't have some "issues", but if you look at his governing, he's holding up pretty well.

      Come out from under your AC, put your hand in the air, admit you bought the R.M. Nixon commemerative stamps, and loudly say, "I'm a Republican Centrist, and I'm Proud!"

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
  219. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  220. Presidential Brain Activity by rocker_wannabe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm a bit disappointed. I thought for sure that this post was a troll for comments about our current president's brain activity, or lack thereof. I'm always up for a good trouncing of President Bush and his administration. I guess I'll have to look elsewhere.

    When Ronald Reagan became president I realized that many people in this country just don't trust intellectuals. They're more concerned, it would seem, about a president doing something evil rather than something stupid. One problem is that we have laws against doing something evil but there aren't any laws against doing something stupid. Stupid, like the new Medicare prescription drug program, you just have to live with.

    --
    "Meaningless!, Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless!"
  221. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by amliebsch · · Score: 1
    Now, if I was a psychopath (which, thank God, I'm not)

    Must have been the "crazy" in "crazyphilman" that threw me off. It's a joke, son, laugh a little.

    --
    If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  222. Obl. Simpsons quote by japhmi · · Score: 1

    C. Anything linked to Jimmy Carter is unlikely to be considered positive.

      "Jimmy Carter?! He's history's greatest monster!"

    --
    "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
  223. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1
    As for the parent poster stating that talking isn't hard, introverts know that, usually we genuinely just don't care and sometimes don't want to know the answer to these questions.
    Bingo. I, for one, don't like to talk just to talk.

    Unfortunately, for me at least, there's also just something about verbal interaction that feels intimidating. I like to think it's the "real-time" aspect of it, but I really can't say. I like to gather my thoughts and think about what I want to say, but that's just not possible with verbal interaction without some extremely awkward periods of silence.

    Still, "small talk" is one of the most boring things I can think of, because, generally, I don't care about those sorts of things. I'm not going to ask someone if they have kids, because chances are, if I have to interact with this person for a significant length of time, that information will come out on its own eventually anyway. If I'm not going to be interacting with this person for any length of time, then it truly does feel like a waste of time and energy on my part.
    --
    People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
  224. This C program: main(){for (;;);} by Darius+Jedburgh · · Score: 1

    makes a computer seem very introverted. What's more, if you hook up a scope or measure the magnetic fields around the CPU it looks like it's very busy indeed. It'll certainly run the batteries down faster on a laptop. But it's not exactly very interesting is it?

  225. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by rizole · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure that introversion/extroversion is a choice. What ever it's causes - nature/nurture - the upshot is that there are measurably different physiological, emotional and psychological levels of activation between the two.
    Thinking theres a choice in this seems as counter intuitive to me as thinking I have a choice as to weather I want to be a sprinter. Sure I can exercise, eat well, get coaching and end up being reletivley fast but my body type just wont go as fast as someone with a sprinters body. No one would employ as a sprinter. On the curve of sprinterlyness I just don't cut the mustard.
    I'm an introvert. That doesn't mean I can't turn it on, be gregarious and act out. But being introverted doesn't need to be turned on in me, it's something I am.
    Ah well, At least I can choose to do something about being a couch potatoe......no wait./

  226. Dude, foreign policy is a disaster. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    It's telling that half of your examples date back to the second world war. Here are a few more recent examples of the brilliance of American foreign policy.

    Guatemala. Iran. Dominican Republic. Chile. Nicaragua. Panama. Afghanistan. Angola. Pretty much anywhere the disgusting, disgusting Kirkpatrick Doctrine took effect.

    I find myself trying to look up an instance where the CIA did something right for a change.

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  227. More brain activity by rpillala · · Score: 1

    This is like saying that extroverts have more physical activity. While it's generally true, it doesn't mean anything beyond what you could know by reading the definitions.

    The introvert's inner world is usually more interesting than the outside world. Maybe not always as much fun or gratifying, but more demanding of attention. So the only way to do that is in your head.

    --
    When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
  228. Profile of a perfect president? by Drakai · · Score: 1

    Do you really want a psyche profile for presidential selection? Should we give em a physical and genetic screening? Use the Probulator 6000 to check for cancers and test limits?

    Here's a plan:

      Let's just let the brave souls with the financial and popular backing make a go of it in contest of ideas and ideologies to lead our country with constraint that true change shall be governed by a diverse representation of the people.

    Or something like that. Bottom line is that the mindset of a president does not dictate the greatness of the president or the outcome of his terms. It is mostly luck, perception and historians sifting through the garbage.

  229. Calm down by elucido · · Score: 1

    Unlike fascists, I actually love the extroverts when they love me. I'm not declaring war on the extroverts who actually care about people.

    If a salesman wants to sell me something which helps me, I'll consider the salesman to be a good salesman, but if the salesman tries to sell me something which hurts me, then my previous comments are correct.

    1. Re:Calm down by koekepeer · · Score: 1

      my dear man, i am very calm.

      i just vented my opinion, and it had the right effect -> you reacted :-)

      although i am an extravert (according to the -very crude- MBTI test), any statements about general characteristics, correlated to extraversion/introversion, are blanket statements, and therefore at least ignorant. the world is not black and white. many introverts are lousy thinkers. many extraverts are lousy salesmen. believe me, i met quite a few in both categories :-)

      why would you pigeonhole people into "us" and "them", based on such crude criterea? wouldn't you agree that this is not exactly the best strategy to get the best out of interaction with others?

      in fact, i was often *asked* to be involved in strategic planning, although i am an extravert pur sang. both my bosses so far were professors with a strong role in setting out strategies for the institutes they work for. both are quite extraverted. so i guess there must be something else that's important when it comes to planning strategy... like, for example, intelligence?

      have a nice day :-)

      ps. i declare war on no-one. war is a senseless option!

    2. Re:Calm down by elucido · · Score: 1


      The world isnt black and white, its yes and no. 60% yes or 60% no.


      why would you pigeonhole people into "us" and "them", based on such crude criterea? wouldn't you agree that this is not exactly the best strategy to get the best out of interaction with others?


      Because people are usually either one way or the other based on percentages. Even if the world isnt black and white, people are what they do based on how much they do it. If a person lies more than they are honest, they are a liar. If a person talks more than they think to themselves, they are an extrovert. If a person thinks more than they talk, they are an introvert.

      It's always us vs them, not because I choose for it to be that way, but because people refuse to actually get along and cooperate. Why do you think money was invented? Why do you think the concept of winners and losers was invented? Why do you think war was invented? All of these things were invented because people want the world not to be "us" vs "them", but "me" vs "world".

      So its questionable if there is even an us, but if there is an us, its those who want to cooperate vs those who want to compete.

    3. Re:Calm down by koekepeer · · Score: 1

      nice... first of all: i understand your point of view better now, based on the assumptions you're putting forward in this post. this is good :-)

      okay... your claim on percentages defining how people are... i agree completely that actions define people. nonetheless, action is cumulative, and our (dis)regard of someone is mostly based on our impressions when we just meet that someone (if you don't like someone from the begining, you're less likely to give them a second chance). i like the idea of being unbiased and just look at the percentages in standardised time periods, evaluating behaviour constantly, but i'm afraid it doesn't work like that in practice.

      in light of your definition (thinking versus talking) i can understand your prior posts. this is where the confusion came into play. in your definition i am an introvert. i know of nobody who would characterise me as an introvert, though.

      maybe it would help if you could envision talk and thought as independent variables in the equation... or accept that different modes of thinking can exist (extraverted thinking - introverted thinking)... or take into the equation that extraverts score (by nature of their extravertness) higher in the "EQ" dept yet may still also have a high IQ. but, if you'll forgive me my joking, as an introvert you are probably not interested in anything else than your inner world of thoughts ;-)

      like you write in the ending, the "us" would be those who are cooporative instead of competing. here we are in complete agreement: in my opinion cooporation is the key to making the collective something better/more successful than the sum of individuals. but this is likely my opinion because i was confronted with more left-wing ideology in my life than the majority of slashdot visitors ;-)

      my personal conviction is that it's a choice indeed to be cooporative or not. but it's my personal choice to preferentially engage into cooporative efforts, thereby at least making the world around me a better place. competition breeds more competition. i noticed that i can make a difference around me by looking for ways to solve problems *together* instead of infighting.... so i don't think competiteveness is a given. i hope the expansion of this principle (by example) will be exponential and that this ideology will rule the world soon!

      time will tell if i'm right or not. i'll write you a comment when i become the peaceful world leader, so you'll recognise me ;-)

  230. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The flip side:

    Once the introvert has figured out what he is going to say, he will go ahead and say it, without regard for what other people will think. This doesn't help in, say, politics, where you have to mince words and won't say something if it will offend the "wrong people".

  231. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by bioglaze · · Score: 1

    I'm an introvert by that definition too. After my university studies began i have attented many parties and i'm slowly beginning to be more extrovert, because i really want to make new friends. I just don't always know what to speak to them or, more importantly, how to express myself in an interesting way :-(

    --
    Who is John Galt?
  232. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    Not all talking in social situations is "small talk." I don't think anybody likes small talk. Extroverts have a genuine interest in other people. The small talk is the way you find out what's interesting about this person. It's hard to just ask somebody "what's so interesting about you?" I like to get stories out of people. The other day I was talking to some completely non-descript dude, forcing small talk about where he was from, or what his family was like blah blah...and then somehow he mentioned he hiked the entire Appalachian trail. After that we talked for over an hour about that. I found it fascinating. That wasn't small talk...I was genuinely interested in what the guy had to say, and what his experiences were. Small talk just gets thing started.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  233. What about Musicians? by KGB+is+My+Name · · Score: 1

    If people who essentially talk less are more intelligent, what about people who sing?

    The brainplace: http://amenclinics.com/bp/articles.php?articleID=1 2
    Be nice to your brain.

    --
    Harsh generalizations are never true.
  234. Rape, pillage and plunder by lazy+genes · · Score: 0

    It takes allot of thought to rape pillage and plunder and be successfull.judging success is a flip of the coin in a closed world.

  235. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a bit introvert (but no hermit like some of the other posters here ;-) and I do see why small talk can be useful sometimes. I noticed that extroverts indeed follow a strategy of asking questions and tried to do so myself. Asking the first few quiesionts is not a problem but keeping the conversation flowing is hard for me. Something like this would be typical:

    Me: " Wow, what made you want to be a chicken sexer?"
    Intresting person: "I dunno, just needed the money"
    Me: "Ah, I see. ...."

    Of course this just an example, my mileage varies. How would you handle this MetaMonkey?

  236. What were the testing conditions? by NTDaley · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder what environment the test subjects were in when they measured their brain activity.

    I think it is more likely that they were measured in a lab with not much social activity, than at a party.
    i.e. In an environment where introverts work better.

    Perhaps if they were measured in a social environment, the extroverts would do better.

    --
    bits and peace
    Nicholas Daley
  237. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    If they really didn't want to talk about it, you move on to something else. But if you were really interested, there's a lot of questions you could ask..."How does one become a chicken sexer?" "Is it something you want to keep doing, or are you holding out for something better?" "What's going on in the chicken sexing industry? Are you worried about your job being outsourced to chicken sexers in Bombay?" etc etc. If they're simply not passionate about it, you just change the subject. The point of small talk is to find something you have in common with someone else, or something they're passionate about discussing, and then the conversation just takes care of itself. For instance, I'm really passionate about my job, and if somebody asked me about that I'd talk their ear off, but my family is completely boring, so I wouldn't have much to say about any of that.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  238. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by macdaddy · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure if you're replying to someone else's post or if you read something into what I wrote that I'm not seeing. I'm not a back-patting kind of guy and I never consider myself the smartest person in the room. In fact I feel more than a little inferior when I attend our monthly all-eggheads meetings at work. As for this being a whole lot of text about me, well, yes it is which I don't find at all surprising considering I discovered something new about myself in a forum of similar people. That doesn't strike me as odd.

  239. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Wow, what made you want to be a chicken sexer?"

    That sounds frighteningly like my Penis Mightier.

  240. Re:Yes yes, I think so, yes, maybe, well, no yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Introversion and propensity to reflect have a strong relationship, but whether we don't care what people around us are doing because we have more interesting things to think about or whether we think about other things because we don't care isn't really clear.

    We're all misunderstood, but there are probably two extremes of introverts: those so socially disconnected that they fill their social needs within themselves, and those who are so self-absorbed with thoughts and analysis that they become socially disconnected.

    I think the key issue is that our social observation tends to be less "natural." We think about whether or not things are normal, have to remember how to be interact right, how to say things, and analyze our interactions more. This is why is "draining" for introverts to be social - its hard work to interact more.

    It has nothing to do with whether or not we want to collaborate, or want to be social. I know I'm a thinker: I can present, or banter, or collaborate, or politick, but its just so much harder than simply solving all the world's problems.

  241. A wise old owl... by fusion9290991 · · Score: 1

    A wise old owl
    Sat in an old oak,
    And the more he heard,
    The less he spoke.
    The less he spoke,
    The more he heard,
    Why can't we all be more like that wise old bird?

    --
    remember to loot and pillage before you burn!
  242. you hit pretty close to the mark .... by wilec · · Score: 1

    As someone that fits most definitions of introvert pretty well, I would say you have hit pretty close to the mark. The reason I don't care to involve myself in most social situations is simple. Most people that occupy these events are self serving idiots that have no interest in my thoughts short of however they can use me in some self serving manner. It is much easier and simpler for me not involve myself in it in the first place.

        However it is not that I do not care at all for the plight of others, I do care very much about the misfortunes of others and the world in general. I just don't care to expose myself face to face to what is usually superficial whining, someones lightly reasoned pitch of their world view, or worst of all meaningless babble just to 'make conversation'.

        I do enjoy well reasoned, even to include non-sophist contentious discussions on any of a wide variety of topics. However it seems that 98+ percent of people are either incapable of or at least disinterested in such discussion. I do not care to engage in empty yap about trivial stuff that I have zero interest in. I especially do not care to engage in political or spiritual discussions with the typical brain dead FOX news fan. In short most social encounters either bore me to tears or tick me off.

    Matthew

  243. Reagan and Clinton both appeased by rrgg · · Score: 1

    >Reagan? Goddamn appeaser. Um, yeah, but Clinton's policy appeased to terrorists with an equally bad effect. If you look at what bin Laden actually cites as examples of American weakness, it's the pull-outs from Mogadishu (Clinton) and from Lebanon (Reagan)... not Iran-Contra.

  244. Seymour Cray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A quote from Seymour Cray:
    "My want in life is to be left alone - to do technical work. We each have our thresholds of how much human interaction we want with our contemporaries. My requirement would be quite minimal. I would say a few hours a week would suffice for me."

  245. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by Alsee · · Score: 1

    Oh my god, an extrovert with social anxiety!
    And his blind brother has a phobia of the dark!

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  246. too much of a good thing... by verlorenModus · · Score: 1

    i have a cousin who is 'introverted'. as 'introverted' as is possible. the outside world has no meaning to him. i am sure there is incredible power in there somewhere, but there is no outlet. you see, my cousin is autistic. there is a point when there is too much introversion. i barely function in society. but i function. he does not. the abilities of the inroverted are only as useful as their ability to use them. which is a function of extroversion.

    --
    -verlorenModus-
  247. Re:People are introverts precisely for that reason by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

    I was kidding you, too, hence the twinkie poisoning. Admit it - the concept of poisoned twinkies is at least amusing. Ah, well.

    --
    Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
  248. Are You Introverted or Extroverted? by Fotinakis · · Score: 1

    Try this test to see which one you are:
    http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm

    (based on the Jung - Myers-Briggs typological approach to personality)

  249. Dam you briggs-myers by int21hex · · Score: 1

    Ok, so know we have found a validation to jung's idea that introverts(which he percieved himself to be) are somehow more evolved. This what the article is stating. The more brain energy as a result of internal operations is better. Forget the idea of difference being good. Forget the idea that introverts work on an internal world, and extroverts an external (locust of control). If you are not an introvert then you my friend are out of luck. Meh, The whole point of extroversion vs. introversion was the very idea that while different both where usefull.