Extroverts and Introverts

You know what I hate?  Humanity.  You know what I hate worse?  The blindly stupid.  This particular extrovert felt bad about not being part of the new under-represented, disenfranchised cool-kids and so claims to be pissed about the myths surrounding extroverts.  Like the myth that they’re outgoing, or that they’re self absorbed. 

This is not to say, “introverts are awesome and you should try to be one.” We are awesome, but really you should go live your loud little lives elsewhere and leave us the fuck alone.  That would make everyone happier.

Anyway, here are her gripes:

Myth 1. Extroverts don’t have feelings.I can only assume that introverts think this about extroverts when I read articles like Revenge of the Introverts.I get it. I talk too much. I’m loud. You feel overlooked and marginalized. You’re afraid you’re being left out.That said….WE ALL FEEL LEFT OUT.You don’t have the market cornered on feeling unwanted or under-appreciated..I’m not your enemy, and it hurts my feelings when you label me as one. Stop it.

Listen, loudmouth, we’re not afraid of being left out.  Introverts will participate when we damn well feel like it.  If we don’t go to your party, it’s likely because you’re going to be there, and you won’t shut up for five minutes, not because we’re afraid of being left out of the party we didn’t want to attend in the first place. 

You are loud. You don’t say smart things. Don’t feel bad because I don’t want to be your friend. You probably don’t want to be my friend. I'm kind of an asshole.

Myth 2. Extroverts are naturally outgoing.For reasons completely beyond my powers of comprehension, introverts think they have the market cornered on social anxiety.

Who said this?  You may be socially awkward, or you might be the second coming of Zig Ziglar.  You still talk entirely too much, and really ought to stop wanting us to validate your meaningless chatter with our attention.

Well, I’m here to inform you otherwise.

Gee, thanks.

Take a moment to dip into my world.

I’d rather drink from a public toilet.

I consistently embarrass myself in public, because I just can’t seem to STFU.Do you even know what happens to the loud kids? THEY GET LAUGHED AT. ALL THE TIME.True story.

You know what that’s called?  Being loud and embarrassing.  If you’re loud and stupid in public you deserve to be laughed at.  Social anxiety arising from a history of doing stupid things in front of other people is natural.  Embrace it and maybe learn from it instead of saying stupid shit like:

I wish I could be like you. You know when — and how — to keep your mouth shut. It protects you from the particular brand of bullying, wherein kids pick on what you have to say.

Right, because the quiet kids are always the ones left alone by bullies because they fit in so well.  Also, the entire internet is about picking apart what other people say.  It’s an effective tool for weeding out bullshit.  Pointing out dumb things isn’t bullying. It’s social upkeep.  Really you ought to thank us for keeping you from being taken seriously.

Do you know how demoralizing that is? It’s enough to make a kid feel like the world’s biggest loser.

Don’t be a loser, then.  Loser.

Now, I know there’s rampant bullying in schools, and it gets a lot worse than tricking a girl into thinking you want to talk to her, just so you can pick apart her words.

Like being the quiet kid who hates going to school because “they” are going to insist he participate in the mind-numbing process of fitting in, and practicing social protocol with the knuckle-dragging mouth breathers that take up 85% of the school?  Or working in groups that will take your work and the credit and then whip your ass in the hallway because you corrected their spelling, or grammar, and because nerds are soft targets?  Or getting the shit kicked out of you because you’re a dopey looking kid with a book waiting for the bus to arrive?

Body snarking. Class warfare. It all goes on, and it needs to stop.

Oh, you mean being kids, not actual bullying.  Gotcha.

Can we set that side for a minute, just so you can feel what I’m saying? I’ve been burned before, publicly.

And obviously didn’t learn anything from it.

I’m just as scared to open myself up to you, as you are to me.

Aha!  Now I get what your problem is.  You assume because we’re introverts that we’re scared to talk to you.  We’re not.  You’re not intimidating; you’re ridiculous. We don’t participate as fully as you extroverts do, not because society frightens us, but because it tires us. 

Some extroverts present as shy and don’t even realize that they are, in fact, extroverts.

What the hell?  You obviously haven’t been reading the articles and books you’re complaining about because EVERY.SINGLE.ONE.OF.THEM takes great pain to say “shy and introverted are not the same thing.”  Shy means you’re scared.  Introverted means interacting with people drains you of energy.  They have a large correlation, but they are not the same thing at all. 

Because somehow we’re not allowed to feel insecure.

Again, "What the hell are you talking about?"  I am pretty sure, that as a SWPL-Female-Blogger you’re encouraged to feel insecure.  It’s almost a requirement if you’re going to succeed in that world. You can't be confident and act the ingenue.  

Myth 3. Extroverts aren’t introspective.A common argument is that introverts think and extroverts act.As my counter-argument, I present this entire blog.

You are a PR Hack and you use the word “unfettered” non-ironically.  Your counter-argument is hereby refuted.

Myth 4. Extroverts don’t want to hear what you have to say.Nothing could be further from the truth! I’m intensely interested in other people. That’s kind of the definition of extroversion. I get high off being around you.

What if what I want to say is nothing?  Then you’ll just talk and talk and talk and talk and soon I’ll lose my fucking mind because you’re so interested in filling the silence with bullshit.  It's not my job to get you high. 

But I do understand the source of the confusion — and it’s something I work on every day.

Doubt it.

When I get excited, I tend to talk my ass off. I can’t seem to help it, although I am getting better. Later, I am totally traumatized, because:A: I am petrified of being a bore, and I’m certain you don’t like me.B: I wanted to learn all about you, and I totally sabotaged myself.

That’s not my problem.  Introverts don’t typically want to share with extroverts OR introverts.  That’s kind of how it works.  You may get high off being around us, but that’s because you’re an energy-suck.  You can’t seem to help it.  Just like we can’t seem to help hating that part of your personality.  You might be super-entertaining, but that doesn't mean we want to be entertained.  You might be a great listener (doubtful…) but that doesn't mean we want to talk to you. 

So I stop myself, sometimes mid-thought, to turn the conversation back on you.

If you extroverts would confine yourselves to just stopping the conversation, we might be able to get along.  The problem is the second half of your sentence. 

But here’s the thing about us extroverts. We aren’t comfortable with silence. For me, silence = social rejection.

Since social rejection is probably what is being conveyed, then you get points for being astute enough to realize that.

This is problematic, because introverts generally take more time to choose their words.

So, by implication extroverts don’t?  Doesn't that conflict with your “myth 3” counter-argument?

So when the silence stretches on too long, we freak out and start to fill it.

And that’s why we hate being around you guys. SHUT.YOUR.MOUTH.

Opportunity lost. :(

Maybe for you.  We’re happy when you leave.  It’s quieter then.  WIN!

Myth 5. Extroverts are self-absorbed bastards, who are stomping all over you.

This is two “myths.”  1) You’re all self-absorbed bastards. 2)You’re stomping all over us. 

Isn’t this the crux of those articles? That we’re at war.

Nope.  If we were at war, you would have lost already.  You’d still be chatting about the appropriate uniforms and flags and holding dedication ceremonies so that everyone got to talk about their feelings about the war and how it made them feel special and anonymous and part of a group and an individualist and tough and all that hippie bullshit flag waving mental vocal masturbation that you talkative types do.  Meanwhile, the introvert defense command would have launched the ICBMs chock full of Nuculary-goodness.

However, we do frequently find ourselves in conflict with extroverts.  I understand that due to the watering down of the language*, you might confuse “conflict” and “war” but they really are two distinct words.

The conflict arises because you insist on holding a conversation and having a god-damned life experience every time you see someone.  We want to conduct our business and go home where it's quiet and probably dimly lit.  The point of these articles, and my screeds against extroverts, is to show that we don’t like to participate in your madness, but since explaining it in person will only feed into your extroverted need for conversation, we need to write articles (and screeds) to explain it.  The reason you feel like you’re being picked on when you “read” these articles, is that you’re unable to insert your bullshit into our bullshit.  An article isn’t a conversation, it’s a declamation.

This is intentional.  You can’t interrupt an article.  You can’t overpower us with your enthusiasms.  You either read it or you don’t.  Articles (and screeds) are the ultimate way to “get” an introvert.

If you’re really interested in what we have to say, you’ll ask us in an email.  Or post a nutty article like yours to the internet where introverts like me will be mean to it.

Fuck that.

Okay.

Extroverts, by their very nature, really, really, really want to get to know you. We don’t win by marginalizing you.

No, you win by monopolizing our time and forcing us to be a part of your life.  I don’t want to be made into an audience, and I REALLY don’t want to be a bit player in whatever little costume drama you’ve concocted this week.

Once again, you’re conflating “not participating” with “not being allowed to participate.” 

Sure, we can — and should — work on being more sensitive to your needs. I agree with that. Every human being should work on empathy. That’d be awesome.

And also unworkable.

Also. It goes both ways.

Agreed.  You extroverts shut up, and I’ll listen.  Works for me.

If I have to get over my fear of prolonged silences, then you can work on being more spontaneous with your responses.

You realize you’re asking people to deliberately act stupid, right?  “Don’t think about what you’re about to say, just say it!”

(Tip: something as simple as saying, “Let me think about that for a second,” works wonders to allay our fears.)

Really?  And how much quiet time to think will this get us?  A minute?  Forty-five seconds?  I’m betting on something like ten seconds, which is the same as nothing.  You don’t need to teach the quiet types how to be polite, we’re quite accustomed to it already.

Deal?

No.  You keep to your side of the conversational fence, and we’ll keep to ours.  The problem is, your conversational is to test and test and test the boundaries.  Ours is o retreat into enough silence to not lose our shit.  Keep cutting holes in that fence and we’ll keep poking holes in your over-sized egos.

Reject the dichotomy. We’re in this together.

The hell we are.  You might be in this with someone else, but I’m not in it for you.  And this is the REAL problem.  You want to be in a group, and face life as a team and make sure everyone gets a chance to play.
 

We don’t. 

Your problem with that is like the problem faced by someone served with divorce papers.  The person who cares least, wins.

So far, that seems to be the introverts. 

I'm never touching people again. Except maybe violently.

What other choice do I have?

Ninety-one percent of adults claimed in the poll that they washed their hands after using a public restroom. But of the 6,336 adults whose behavior was observed, only 82 percent actually did so.

You nasty, untrained bitches need to wash your god-damned hands.  Filthy motherfuckers.

The telephone poll asked about hand washing in other situations as well. Fewer than half of adults said they always washed after touching a pet, sneezing or handling money. Washing hands after changing a baby's diaper is also far from a universal habit, with only 64 percent of men and 82 percent of women reporting that they did so. And most people wash up before handling food, but by no means all: 23 percent of adults said they regularly handled food without first washing.

I can never eat again.  That's great.

This is more literal than I had supposed.  How awful.

But your honor...

...you see what she was wearing?  She was practically begging for it.

Summed up nicely, I think.

This is without a doubt, one of the clearest glimpses you'll ever have of the mindset of the average baby-boomer.  This is the generation that cast Gordon Gecko as the villain, but sucked off his hind tit to the tune of ALL THE DOLLARS.

You know what?  You people are not, as one commentor to the article says, biting the hand that will feed you for the next 25 years.  You're biting the hand that WOULD HAVE fed, clothed and kept you for the next 25 years.

Just hurry up and die, already.  Fuck.

You know what? I fucking give up on you, asshole.

I hate you Dan Akroyd. This is beyond the god damned pale.

The question of whether or not there will be another Ghostbusters film has long been the subject of a public tug of war between beloved actor Bill Murray, who has always seemed more than skeptical about reviving the franchise, and vodka baron Dan Aykroyd, who would like to fill his many crystal skulls with riches paid in our nostalgia. But throughout their back and forth, there has at least always been the basic understanding that--even if Peter Venkman comes back only briefly, and as a CGI ghost--at least everyone would be returning to their respective roles before handing the whole operation over to the lanky guy from Criminal Minds.
No longer! Turns out, if you won't sign on to a mediocre script, Dan Aykroyd will just replace you with some other guy, even if you are GD Bill Murray.

I will no longer support a world where this is okay.  I hope everyone involved in this travesty is set on fire, and the ashes are shat upon by lepers. If you buy a ticket to see this movie I will personally punch you in the dick.  Unless you are a girl, then I will punch you in the cooter.

Senator Lindsey Graham is a Traitor.

He has betrayed any oath of office he took:

Senator Lindsey Graham said the extraordinary measures were necessary because terrorism suspects were wholly different to regular criminals.

"We're facing an enemy, not a common criminal organisation, who will do anything and everything possible to destroy our way of life," he said. "When you join al-Qaida you haven't joined the mafia, you haven't joined a gang. You've joined people who are bent on our destruction and who are a military threat."

Graham added that it was right that Americans should be subject to the detention law as well as foreigners. "It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next," he said. "And when they say, 'I want my lawyer,' you tell them, 'Shut up. You don't get a lawyer.'"

No jokes here. Just disgust.

The lousy 99.999%

Making the rest of us look bad again. (skip to about the 00:55 sec mark and watch the cops hand on the right side of the car.)

Also, I don't know how to embed videos so here is a heartwarming picture of Farmer Hogget and his loyal pig instead.

Tasty, loyal, and he saved the farm in the second movie.  What can this pig NOT do?

Surpisingly bad "good news"

Fans of the drug war rejoice! The rest of us should keep quiet while our betters work things out for us.  Really, it's better if we don't have any say in the whole thing. I mean, it's complicated.

The Mexican army announced Sunday that it had captured the head of security for Sinaloa drug cartel head Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, one of the world's most wanted men.

The suspect, who was not identified by name, was captured in the Sinaloa state capital of Culiacan and will be presented to the media Monday morning, the army said.

Those of us who are LOYAL Americans would do well to ignore the creeping little doubt that rises up occasionally.  Also, someone should tell the state department about radical nut jobs like this "Fred" person. He's obviously Not To Be Trusted:

The war failed, as anyone with even a vague understanding of the world would have predicted. A war on drugs—foolish phrase—may be said to succeed if the price of drugs rises on the American street. It didn't. It won't.
Things happened that were touted as successes against the traficantes. A fair number of bosses of important cartels were killed or caught. Since Americans confuse leaders with movements and countries, this sounded like progress. Of course if, for example, you kill a leader of the “Taliban,” his second takes over within hours and all goes on as before. And if you kill the leader of a cartel, his underlings fight among themselves for the pieces, thousainds die, and law breaks down. Mexicans know this. The State Department apparently doesn't.

To which I say "harrumph," and also "pish-tosh."  Everyone knows there's no such thing as a war we can't win. Right?

I pretty sure we learned all the right lessons in the 20's, right?  If we outlaw something, people will naturally stay away from it.  Simple!

Obviously the two things are not connected

Why would they be?  One person has obviously done wrong, while the others are, just as obviously, in need of leniency because they're from a different culture.

It's not that I care about either case, I really don't.  What the Brits do to each other really shouldn't matter except as a signpost to show where we're going. If they want to incarcerate a single mother because she doesn't say nice things, fine. If they want to let obviously racist foreigners beat up their white folks, I guess that's okay too.

It's only the juxtaposition of these two cases that bothers me.

Pop quiz, everyone!

What is the common denominator in these stories about the decline?




Here's a hint: when you slander and abuse and generally fuck with 1/2 of the population, the Red Foreman affect kicks in.



I'm okay, you're okay... if you're on fire, and somewhere else other than near me.

The Atlantic had a piece in 2003 on the proper care and feeding of your introvert, but it misses a pretty important point: it assumes that an introvert will necessarily have an extrovert "keeper."

Do you know someone who needs hours alone every day? Who loves quiet conversations about feelings or ideas, and can give a dynamite presentation to a big audience, but seems awkward in groups and maladroit at small talk? Who has to be dragged to parties and then needs the rest of the day to recuperate? Who growls or scowls or grunts or winces when accosted with pleasantries by people who are just trying to be nice?

If so, do you tell this person he is "too serious," or ask if he is okay? Regard him as aloof, arrogant, rude? Redouble your efforts to draw him out?

If you answered yes to these questions, chances are that you have an introvert on your hands—and that you aren't caring for him properly.

We won't, at least not the smart ones of us, choose to live with, or if allowed the option, anywhere near an extrovert.  This is because of the three most iportant parts of our personality:

1. People are tiring (and most of the time, not worth the cost of a bullet)
2. I need to be alone, but will want someone with whom to share snide comments about extroverts.
3. People are tiring (and most of the time, not worth the cost of a bullet)

 This makes most of us choose the reasonable option and surround ourselves with about 80% introverts.  We use the remaining 20%-ers to help us find more introverts.

"You should totally meet Joe*, he glares at people almost as much as you do. His wife hasn't said more than 5 words to me in the fourteen years I've known her."

We think alike.

The Atlantic continues with:

Extroverts are energized by people, and wilt or fade when alone. They often seem bored by themselves, in both senses of the expression. Leave an extrovert alone for two minutes and he will reach for his cell phone.

 There's a term I like to use for people like this: "Simple minded."  I used to use the term retarded, but apparently the retards don't want to be associated with the extroversion.  I can sympathize.

In contrast, after an hour or two of being socially "on," we introverts need to turn off and recharge. My own formula is roughly two hours alone for every hour of socializing.

 I don't need quite that much recharging, but then again, I spend my day making life harder for the outgoing personalities I'm surrounded by, and the enticing mixture of their fury and my hate recharge my batteries.

This isn't antisocial.

Well, for me it is.  My general rule is "please go away and die horribly." 

It isn't a sign of depression.

Someone please tell this to the mental health "professionals" who work here. I'm getting tired of rebutting heads with them. (get it? it's a joke!)

It does not call for medication.

Unless that medication is single malt and at least 12 years old.

For introverts, to be alone with our thoughts is as restorative as sleeping, as nourishing as eating.

They should have said "as nourishing as HEALTHY eating."  Extroverts are the morbidly obese diabetics of conversation, and talking with them is like all you can eat mcdonalds: the content is terrible, tasteless, and bad for you, but god-damn if there isn't a lot of it.




He's got a lot to say...



Our motto: "I'm okay, you're okay—in small doses."

I don't believe that there is an official motto of the congenitally un-social, but I've outlined mine in the title of this post.

Wait, what?

Do the people at the Department of Agriculture even remember attending a government or civics class?  Based on the evidence, nope.

So let's clarify:

-it's not a tax, but you have to pay it to the government and can go to jail for failing to do so
-it's an "added cost" on a religiously themed item by the government to promote the purchase of that religiously themed item to people who will likely purchase that religiously themed item in the first place.

Okay, understand that?  Good.  Please explain this to me.

'Sup, bitch?