Let me tell you something about Magic Kingdom: Everything between the parking lot and the rides exists the way it does in order to SLOW YOU DOWN so you spend more money. All of it! Okay, maybe not the parking lot trams, but all their other gimmicks are just part of a funnel to keep you away from the rides as long as possible and once you're inside, to keep you from leaving.
> It's highly questionable whether she changed her personality at all.
She’s offered her strategy and provided some measurements. It is fair to question the results, but what specifically are you questioning?
> Why is being extraverted so highly praised, anyways?
In general I think introversion is a fine trait to have, but some of her descriptions in the text made it seem like she was introverted to the point where it was causing her problems. Everything’s a spectrum, I wouldn’t want to be an extrovert, but it is nice to be able to strike up a conversation in a social setting instead of playing with one’s phone.
I think it just strongly translates into a significant ability to "win friends and influence people" and so on, relative to the alternative or in other words mastery over social interactions and empowerment for an individual to do with it whatever they choose to, while introversion is limiting in this or that way even just making one be viewed socially "less than" in relation to peers.
I see it as almost no different than "why would someone want to be more physically attractive". And, not exactly the same as but close to "charisma" which having more of makes someone more admired, liked, attractive etc.
Having said all that, regardless of other people's perception of you, It seems like being naturally extroverted makes social interactions come easier, effortless, while being introverted and still having to interact socially requires much more effort and is less enjoyable. So having fun and being at ease doing something is better than not.
This is the main problem with talk of being able to "change your personality". It is almost self evident this isn't possible to any significant degree because the thing about extroverts doing something that introverts want to be able to do is, for extroverts or those with social charisma, it comes naturally. They don't have to work hard at it. They are not thinking and analyzing and calculating about it. They just do it without thought. Their mental process around these things is much more efficient in other words. It is akin to someone who knows a language well vs someone with limited mastery of a foreign language, having to constantly exert mental effort to translate thoughts words by word in their head. Some people are also naturally funny; someone who is not can not really change their personality to become this, they would be working hard at something that the other one does not really have to "try" to do.
> [extroversion] comes naturally. They don't have to work hard at it. They are not thinking and analyzing and calculating about it. They just do it without thought
I'm not sure I would frame it as a fixed trait (genetic).
I completely agree one shouldn't neurotically overthink everything. Faking a response using rationality is unhealthy; also people don't respond well to fakeness nor the apparent manipulation.
I believe we can change ourselves somewhat, but I always try to think along the lines of internal encouragement (or even operant conditioning).
I guess my underlying belief is that we are both rational and irrational, and that our rational side can influence our irrational side by self-teaching.
Then again I hate this modern belief that we can do anything if we just believe in ourselves enough. Of course the outcome is that we blame ourselves if we don't make it, or blaming our society (which isn't any more helpful).
Life-goals are a modern weirdness, and there's a lot of adjacent woowoo like manifestation.
Personally Im more on the introveted side and that is due, I think, to a sensory sensitivity. I could switch extroverted but it’s exhausting, possibly less if I drink but it’s still taxing. No amount of personality retraining would change that for me
Additionally, the author seems to be placing value judgments on agreeableness and neroticism.
That's fine they if want to change their personality, but I would be very hesitant to argue that turning up the agreeableness and down the self-awareness dials, are a net benefit to society.
I guess it's because being extroverted is more positive for society as a whole than being introverted. And so society is trying to -- even if it's not always a conscious efforts made -- kind of encourage and reward this type of behaviour.
EDIT: of course it's not all that simple. IMHO a society of pure extroverts would be an unstable network of salespeople with nothing to sell and no one to engineer and manufacture the things needed. I'm joking here, but... :)
No one says they are not needed. It's just that extroverted individuals typically create more relationships within society, and those relationships are usually stronger. However, it's not always the case -- for example, introverted individuals may have a smaller number of relationships, but those relationships may be much stronger.
Society exists because of those relationships, and so it is good for its survival and success if the number of relationships or connections within society is growing and they are becoming stronger. It is basically the existential need for any society.
(I'm sorry if I'm wrong, I'm not a specialist in this field, it's just a bunch of guesses based on my observations)
My question exactly. They place extraversion as if it is a positive trait, which automatically suggests introversion is a negative trait.
It's probably just poor choice of langauge.
Sociability may be a better term. We benefit from relationships and hermits are unlikely to form close relationships. I feel as if the person is suggesting that being sociable and being extraverted are the same thing. They are not.
But also, how silly is the recommendation of how to be more extraverted. "Go to events and meet new people". I stopped reading at that point.
I think “sociability” would be a bad switch because the intuitive meaning of “sociability” would also imply some amount of agreeable-ness, right? Better to keep the basis orthogonal!
Sociability also sounds… good, right? Extroversion/introversion sounds more neutral to me.
Anyway, whatever we call it, I don’t think the author was trying to call extroversion universally good. Rather, they had identified their level of introversion as a problem, so the correction they wanted to apply was in the direction of extroversion. They just wanted to move closer to the middle, from an extreme.
The purpose of command and control servers is to send and receive data to victims devices.
A secondary goal is to do so while evading detection. This is why many threat actors piggy-back off of legitimate services, it disguises the malware communications and avoids directly exposing the upstream C2 instance.
I spent an excruciating 3 months or so learning about IPV6 in a college networking class circa 1994 so that I could be "current" in order to land a job right out of college.
Their UX is not steamlined. They seem to also opt you in by default to every conceivable category of notifications. It feels like a clown website. If they fixed some of this it could genuinely be enjoyable though of course I get the point that it's employment networking as opposed to a social media 'connect with friends' site
How many days a year did Buffet live in that house, though? I suspect he was always on the move such that the home base never actually mattered. Same as Musk.
You wouldn't need the long blog post or any other efforts if you didn't work remotely (remote work is poison). Having kids is a personal choice, but so many of you are failing to understand why family is so important that maybe you should revisit that choice, too. What are so afraid of? Was your home life as a kid that painful and awful? Even so, you can do a better job of it!
reply