Imagine becoming helpless and crippled because youre battey died. Imagine not being able to remember much of any useful information, because you've never had to. Imagine what this will do to people's already short attention spans.
Technology is great as a tool, but too many people become dependant on things that should be convieniences.
But I do like watching the confusion and panic when I tell people I don't have a cell phone.
The way I see it is that capitalism has no way to deal with a zero incremental cost item. Economic theory says that in a mature market the sale price of any given item should approach the cost of delivery. If someone is making excess money on something, then someone else should come along and sell it cheaper. So if you can make something for zero price, then you have to sell it for zero price, and you can't afford to make it in the first place.
The thing is, now that we can make things for free (copies of anything digital. Software, music, movies, etc.), people realize that there is a HUGE win in here for everyone. We can actually get something for nothing. Picture having access to any music or movie you want at any time. Better yet, think of the manufacturing shops that could use better CAD system, the video houses that could use the kind of software that ILM has, or even the cinema student who has a good idea for his project.
There's so much to gain here that people are making it happen, either in good ways (free/OS software), or in illegitimate ways (mp3 sharing). But since capitalism doesn't have any way to deal with this sort of thing, it basically screws up the economy. We need to figure out how to pay for the creation of digital content in such a way that it then becomes free for public consumption. The Linux community (and many related projects) seem to have a good idea by selling service and support, but that isn't going to work for music and movies. There's also a lot of people doing work that get little or nothing back (except lots of flames from the people who don't have their skills).
Anyone got any good ideas how to pay for creation if we can't use the normal market mechanisms?
Back on topic, though, I agree with everyone that SCO is swinging pretty wide, since the GPL is based on copyright law. My idea here would pretty much supercede and destroy copyright, though.
You make it sound like a bad thing. Is introversion something that needs to be fixed?
I came to a realization when I was in middle school. My yearbook from the 7th grade has signatures all over it. I talked to people, did things with them (I was introverted, and not reallly social, but I did some things.) 8th grade I figured out that I just don't like being around people. Blank yearbook.
Every once in a while I socialize. I get along with people fine. I'm not shy (I have no problem making a fool of myself in public.) It's just that after a little while I just want to get away.
Thinking about it here, part of the problem is that I pay too much attention to the other people. To be polite, friendly, helpful, whatever, I'm always paying attention to the other person, what they want, how they react. It makes dealing with people a lot of work. It makes it very hard to deal with more than one person at a time, since I have to manage several personalities at once.
So, I spend my time alone. I don't think it's a bad thing. I like it this way. I can probably change if I want to, but I don't.
I agree with some of the other posters that a bulliten board doesn't seem as much like social interaction to me. I read a post, and I think about it for a few minutes. It's an intellectual exercise. I get to gain from your insight, and I get to build on my views as I formulate a response. Since I don't have to deal with you, really, I don't find it social.
You see, Its not that I dont like exchanging ideas and being social, its that people being as ignorant as they are, take all the fun out of it.
Kind of an elitist, are you? (By saying that, I'm acting elitist, too, I know.)
And this is why I say most introverts choose to be introveted due to perosnal experience.
Eliza mode on. Sorry, but I can't resist.
What you are coming across as here, is that you had one or more bad experiences with other people, so you retreated into your little ball away from the big bad world. You can come out online where you can easily avoid people and situations you don't like. You have chosen to live in a sterile, safe world due to your bad experiences, and assume that everyone else does, too.
Sorry, but I don't agree. I'm an introvert by nature, not by choice. I can talk to most people, get along, do fine. I'm not afraid of them. I haven't been punched in the face, because I get along well enough not to let them get that mad. I've met far more suicidal people online than off. Actually, most of the things you talk about avoiding (rudeness, ignorance, bigotry, etc.) I see more of online, because people have less incentive to get along. I can be nasty to you without fear of reprisal.
Many of the things you want to avoid in the real world are what it makes it interesting. When I'm talking to someone, I have to think on my feet. I have just a few seconds to think about what they said, and come up with a response. If I'm skilled, I can make them laugh, smile, or cry when I want to. If I'm not skilled, I might get an emotion that I don't want. It's a game. The most complicated, interactive game in existance. Also the highest stakes.
The thing is, it's the only game that counts. I realized sometime in college that I will never be truly happy. I'm too objective. I overanalyze. I can see the bad in any situation. I'm introverted enough that I can't find joy or solace with others. That means no love. (and no sex). Because I can control my emotions and my interactions with others, there's no more interest. My life is an exercise in breathing.
Believe me, if I could go out and get drunk with some friends and just forget it all and have fun, I'd love to. If that means a bar fight over a hockey game, I'm up for it. Unfortunately, it's so far against my nature that I can't even honestly try. (Besides that I don't drink and I don't have any friends.)
Friday night and I'm debating introversion on Slashdot before I get back to my RPG. Isn't that pathetic?
You forget to mention that most introverts have a higher IQ than extroverts, in most cases.
Source please?
Everyone likes to think they're better than average. A group is going to take their defining qualities and say that those are the desireable ones. It's been said that if a group of aboriginies made up an IQ test, most westerners would turn out to be low IQ. I want proof that a defining geek attribute (introversion) is related to a desireable trait (intelligence).
Whenever scientists correlated intelligence with brain size, it was found that scientists had the largest brains. - Discover magazine
Re:Introverts converse for different reasons
on
The Introvert Advantage
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The comments on this article are fascinating to me, because most of them are so far off the mark. I'm sure a lot of the readers here are introverts, so why haven't any of them taken the time alone to analyse themselves?
What is most amusing is I am sure most introverted folks consider such verbal exchanges akin to jibber. The vast majority of conversation in this world is nothing more than the helpless, aimless masses engaging in reciprocal ego stroking.
I'm the most introverted person I know. Having had a lot of time alone to think (try not having a conversation for 6 months sometime), I discover that the human is a social animal (as all mammals), and requires a certain amount of social interaction. Usually 2 days with the family over the holidays fills my quota for the year.
Besides filling the minimum requirements of social interaction, there's also the fact that I live in a society, and I work in a company with other people. I have to interact with people regularly, so it's very useful to know how to do it. Spending a few minutes shooting the breeze with someone helps me know how they think, and it makes us a little closer. I don't care about being close personally, but the understanding that develops helps us work together. It means we're more likely to be on the same side in office spitting matches. It means I can get someone to help me get my refrigerator up the stairs.
Many people here are talking about information exchanges as being better than smalltalk. The thing is, if I want information, I'll get it by reading. Speech is slow and people are rarely totally accurate. If you want to convey more information than is contained in about 2 paragraphs of text, it's called a lecture, and nobody likes it.
Why would an introvert (someone who doesn't like dealing with other people) talk to someone else for information they could get without talking to someone? On the other hand, getting to know someone so that you can get along better and work together goes faster with smalltalk, debates (arguments), or philosophy than with factual exchanges.
In a certain sense, you are exactly wrong. An individual has little influence in a world of 6 billion. The chances of your research, your work, your art making a difference are pathetically small. There are a lot of people smarter and more talented than you. Where you can make a difference is by directing a team of 1000 researchers. By running a large company. By getting a public office. A single soldier fighting doesn't win a war, but a good general, who the troops will follow, can. You get to these positions not through technical skills and book knowledge, but through social skills and networking (knowledge and skills don't hurt, though).
The extroverts win because they scale better.
For those of us who can't stand socializing enough to be influential, we need a good leader. Find someone social enough to be influential, and get on their good side, so they'll get you to the right places. You just can't make a difference alone anymore.
Reed:
Truth is, internet e-commerce is costing states just one or two billion dollars year in lost sales taxes ationwide.
Yeah, but pretty soon it starts adding up to real money...
Seriously, though. Reed: I know we all have to give up a little in this time of crisis,...
I'll take a quote from MiB:
There's always an Alien Battle Cruiser...or
a Korlian Death Ray, or...an intergalactic
plague about to wipe out life on this
planet,
The world is always in a "state of crisis". I don't think we should be making special allowances now, just because it's "in". If it isn't the terrorists, it's the communists, or the nazis, or the economy. Terrorism is about making fear disproportionate to the threat. Yes, they killed a few thousand people, and that's tragic, but that many people die every day. Why's it an issue now?
To answer my own question, the terrorists did their job well. They made a public statement that made people scared. Instead of working up a proportionate, methodical, effective response, the gov't tried to appease the people by doing something visible, right now. Unfortunately, people don't always know what they really want (elitist attitude, yeah. I am people, too, though. I don't always know either.) A good leader would convice the people that big public displays of force don't work on terrorists, and would have sold a better solution. We need a good, responsible leader...
Also, isn't the PATRIOT act illegal under the fourth amendment? Until they amend the constitution, it still supersedes all other law, right? No search or seizure without a specific warrant based on probable cause.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine becoming helpless and crippled because youre battey died. Imagine not being able to remember much of any useful information, because you've never had to. Imagine what this will do to people's already short attention spans.
Technology is great as a tool, but too many people become dependant on things that should be convieniences.
But I do like watching the confusion and panic when I tell people I don't have a cell phone.
The way I see it is that capitalism has no way to deal with a zero incremental cost item. Economic theory says that in a mature market the sale price of any given item should approach the cost of delivery. If someone is making excess money on something, then someone else should come along and sell it cheaper. So if you can make something for zero price, then you have to sell it for zero price, and you can't afford to make it in the first place.
The thing is, now that we can make things for free (copies of anything digital. Software, music, movies, etc.), people realize that there is a HUGE win in here for everyone. We can actually get something for nothing. Picture having access to any music or movie you want at any time. Better yet, think of the manufacturing shops that could use better CAD system, the video houses that could use the kind of software that ILM has, or even the cinema student who has a good idea for his project.
There's so much to gain here that people are making it happen, either in good ways (free/OS software), or in illegitimate ways (mp3 sharing). But since capitalism doesn't have any way to deal with this sort of thing, it basically screws up the economy. We need to figure out how to pay for the creation of digital content in such a way that it then becomes free for public consumption. The Linux community (and many related projects) seem to have a good idea by selling service and support, but that isn't going to work for music and movies. There's also a lot of people doing work that get little or nothing back (except lots of flames from the people who don't have their skills).
Anyone got any good ideas how to pay for creation if we can't use the normal market mechanisms?
Back on topic, though, I agree with everyone that SCO is swinging pretty wide, since the GPL is based on copyright law. My idea here would pretty much supercede and destroy copyright, though.
It's Friday night. Where else would I be except in front of my computer?
You make it sound like a bad thing.
Is introversion something that needs to be fixed?
I came to a realization when I was in middle school. My yearbook from the 7th grade has signatures all over it. I talked to people, did things with them (I was introverted, and not reallly social, but I did some things.) 8th grade I figured out that I just don't like being around people. Blank yearbook.
Every once in a while I socialize. I get along with people fine. I'm not shy (I have no problem making a fool of myself in public.) It's just that after a little while I just want to get away.
Thinking about it here, part of the problem is that I pay too much attention to the other people. To be polite, friendly, helpful, whatever, I'm always paying attention to the other person, what they want, how they react. It makes dealing with people a lot of work. It makes it very hard to deal with more than one person at a time, since I have to manage several personalities at once.
So, I spend my time alone. I don't think it's a bad thing. I like it this way. I can probably change if I want to, but I don't.
I agree with some of the other posters that a bulliten board doesn't seem as much like social interaction to me. I read a post, and I think about it for a few minutes. It's an intellectual exercise. I get to gain from your insight, and I get to build on my views as I formulate a response. Since I don't have to deal with you, really, I don't find it social.
You see, Its not that I dont like exchanging ideas and being social, its that people being as ignorant as they are, take all the fun out of it.
Kind of an elitist, are you? (By saying that, I'm acting elitist, too, I know.)
And this is why I say most introverts choose to be introveted due to perosnal experience.
Eliza mode on. Sorry, but I can't resist.
What you are coming across as here, is that you had one or more bad experiences with other people, so you retreated into your little ball away from the big bad world. You can come out online where you can easily avoid people and situations you don't like. You have chosen to live in a sterile, safe world due to your bad experiences, and assume that everyone else does, too.
Sorry, but I don't agree. I'm an introvert by nature, not by choice. I can talk to most people, get along, do fine. I'm not afraid of them. I haven't been punched in the face, because I get along well enough not to let them get that mad. I've met far more suicidal people online than off. Actually, most of the things you talk about avoiding (rudeness, ignorance, bigotry, etc.) I see more of online, because people have less incentive to get along. I can be nasty to you without fear of reprisal.
Many of the things you want to avoid in the real world are what it makes it interesting. When I'm talking to someone, I have to think on my feet. I have just a few seconds to think about what they said, and come up with a response. If I'm skilled, I can make them laugh, smile, or cry when I want to. If I'm not skilled, I might get an emotion that I don't want. It's a game. The most complicated, interactive game in existance. Also the highest stakes.
The thing is, it's the only game that counts. I realized sometime in college that I will never be truly happy. I'm too objective. I overanalyze. I can see the bad in any situation. I'm introverted enough that I can't find joy or solace with others. That means no love. (and no sex). Because I can control my emotions and my interactions with others, there's no more interest. My life is an exercise in breathing.
Believe me, if I could go out and get drunk with some friends and just forget it all and have fun, I'd love to. If that means a bar fight over a hockey game, I'm up for it. Unfortunately, it's so far against my nature that I can't even honestly try. (Besides that I don't drink and I don't have any friends.)
Friday night and I'm debating introversion on Slashdot before I get back to my RPG. Isn't that pathetic?
You forget to mention that most introverts have a higher IQ than extroverts, in most cases.
Source please?
Everyone likes to think they're better than average. A group is going to take their defining qualities and say that those are the desireable ones. It's been said that if a group of aboriginies made up an IQ test, most westerners would turn out to be low IQ. I want proof that a defining geek attribute (introversion) is related to a desireable trait (intelligence).
Whenever scientists correlated intelligence with brain size, it was found that scientists had the largest brains. - Discover magazine
The comments on this article are fascinating to me, because most of them are so far off the mark. I'm sure a lot of the readers here are introverts, so why haven't any of them taken the time alone to analyse themselves?
What is most amusing is I am sure most introverted folks consider such verbal exchanges akin to jibber. The vast majority of conversation in this world is nothing more than the helpless, aimless masses engaging in reciprocal ego stroking.
I'm the most introverted person I know. Having had a lot of time alone to think (try not having a conversation for 6 months sometime), I discover that the human is a social animal (as all mammals), and requires a certain amount of social interaction. Usually 2 days with the family over the holidays fills my quota for the year.
Besides filling the minimum requirements of social interaction, there's also the fact that I live in a society, and I work in a company with other people. I have to interact with people regularly, so it's very useful to know how to do it. Spending a few minutes shooting the breeze with someone helps me know how they think, and it makes us a little closer. I don't care about being close personally, but the understanding that develops helps us work together. It means we're more likely to be on the same side in office spitting matches. It means I can get someone to help me get my refrigerator up the stairs.
Many people here are talking about information exchanges as being better than smalltalk. The thing is, if I want information, I'll get it by reading. Speech is slow and people are rarely totally accurate. If you want to convey more information than is contained in about 2 paragraphs of text, it's called a lecture, and nobody likes it.
Why would an introvert (someone who doesn't like dealing with other people) talk to someone else for information they could get without talking to someone? On the other hand, getting to know someone so that you can get along better and work together goes faster with smalltalk, debates (arguments), or philosophy than with factual exchanges.
In a certain sense, you are exactly wrong. An individual has little influence in a world of 6 billion. The chances of your research, your work, your art making a difference are pathetically small. There are a lot of people smarter and more talented than you. Where you can make a difference is by directing a team of 1000 researchers. By running a large company. By getting a public office. A single soldier fighting doesn't win a war, but a good general, who the troops will follow, can. You get to these positions not through technical skills and book knowledge, but through social skills and networking (knowledge and skills don't hurt, though).
The extroverts win because they scale better.
For those of us who can't stand socializing enough to be influential, we need a good leader. Find someone social enough to be influential, and get on their good side, so they'll get you to the right places. You just can't make a difference alone anymore.
Yeah, but pretty soon it starts adding up to real money...
Seriously, though. ...
Reed: I know we all have to give up a little in this time of crisis,
I'll take a quote from MiB:
There's always an Alien Battle Cruiser...or a Korlian Death Ray, or...an intergalactic plague about to wipe out life on this planet,
The world is always in a "state of crisis". I don't think we should be making special allowances now, just because it's "in". If it isn't the terrorists, it's the communists, or the nazis, or the economy. Terrorism is about making fear disproportionate to the threat. Yes, they killed a few thousand people, and that's tragic, but that many people die every day. Why's it an issue now?
To answer my own question, the terrorists did their job well. They made a public statement that made people scared. Instead of working up a proportionate, methodical, effective response, the gov't tried to appease the people by doing something visible, right now. Unfortunately, people don't always know what they really want (elitist attitude, yeah. I am people, too, though. I don't always know either.) A good leader would convice the people that big public displays of force don't work on terrorists, and would have sold a better solution. We need a good, responsible leader...
Also, isn't the PATRIOT act illegal under the fourth amendment? Until they amend the constitution, it still supersedes all other law, right? No search or seizure without a specific warrant based on probable cause.