7 Things Introverts Wish Extraverts Knew

As I pointed out a few columns ago, introverts tend to be more creative, more reliable, more trustworthy and to work harder than extraverts. Not surprisingly the great inventors and innovators of history have been markedly introverted: Einstein, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Isaac Newton, Nikola Tesla, Archimedes, and Charles Darwin.

Insanely, though, contemporary business culture values extraversion.  They hire people based upon first impressions (extraverts are good at that), goal them on “collaborating” (which extraverts love) and then spending billions of dollars creating open plan playgrounds perfectly suited for extraverts.

As I said, insane. Or maybe “inane” is the mot juste.  

Anyway, because of the egregious management boneheadedness, most workplaces are dominated by extraverts… to the great detriment of both productivity and innovation. However, since, alas that’s not likely to change any time soon, introverts and extraverts will need to learn how to get along.

Unfortunately, while introverts can see right through extraverts, extraverts simply don’t seem to grok introverts at all. So, since I’m off-the-scale introverted, I’ll take in on myself to speak for my fellow introverts to tell the extraverts what we wish they already knew. Here goes:

1. You’re talking too much.

Introverts are good listeners but the fact that we’re listening to you and not saying anything doesn’t mean that we’re enthralled by everything you’re saying. Quite the contrary. If you’ve been talking for more than a couple of minutes without pause, we’ve mentally proceeded from “What a bore!” to “OMG, will he never stop talking!?” to “For God’s sake, STFU!!” We’re not going to say anything, though, because if we did, we would never hear the end of it.

2. We don’t want to change.

Even though it’s abundantly clear that society (in general) and workplaces (in particular) tend to value outgoing “people-people,” we introverts don’t want to, nor feel the need to, change to fit other people’s ideas of how we ought to act and feel. We’re perfectly fine the way we are, thank you very much. What’s more, we’d greatly appreciate it if you stopped assuming we envy you. We don’t. Believe me. We don’t want to be like you.

3. Give us private offices or let us work-from-home.

Today’s open plan offices are productivity toilets and health hazards for everyone. For introverts, though, they’re particularly hellish because there’s no way to get away from other people. Forcing an introvert to work in an open plan office is like forcing an extravert to spend all day in solitary confinement. We need privacy. Please have the common sense and common decency to give it to us.

4. We resent doing more than our share.

Because extraverts spend so much time collaborating, sharing, and gossiping, the burden of actually getting real work accomplished falls to the introverts. After a while–no, scratch that–from day one, we resent that you waste time and money socializing while we’re working our asses off. And we really resent it when you pipe up to steal the credit.

5. Leave us alone to recharge.

Introverts feel physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually drained after being forced to interact with other people. The only way that we can recharge is by disconnecting and being by ourselves. Yes, we know that you draw energy from other people. Like a vampire. But we’re the opposite. So when you see us sitting by ourselves, don’t think you’re doing us a favor by pestering us. You’re not.

6. We are not shy loners.

Quite the contrary. Introverts are often talented at public speaking. We often have a small circle of close friends and family with whom we enjoy spending time. We’re not bashful about our accomplishments; we just don’t feel the need to toot our own horns. We don’t talk about ourselves because we’d rather talk about something more interesting than stuff we already know.

7. Go away, please.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Google staff discussed tweaking search results to counter travel ban: WSJ

(Reuters) – Google employees brainstormed ways to alter search functions to counter the Trump administration’s controversial 2017 travel ban, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday, citing internal emails.

FILE PHOTO: A Google logo in an office building in Zurich September 5, 2018. REUTERS/Arnd WIegmann/File Photo

Google employees discussed how they could tweak the company’s search-related functions to show users how to contribute to pro-immigration organizations and contact lawmakers and government agencies, the WSJ said. The ideas were not implemented. on.wsj.com/2DePzWh

President Donald Trump’s travel ban temporarily barred visitors and immigrants from seven majority Muslim countries. It spurred public outcry and was revised several times. Trump said the travel ban was needed to protect the United States against attacks by Islamist militants, and the Supreme Court upheld the measure in June.

The Google employees proposed ways to “leverage” search functions and take steps to counter what they considered to be “islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from search terms ‘Islam’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Iran’, etc.” and “prejudiced, algorithmically biased search results from search terms ‘Mexico’, ‘Hispanic’, ‘Latino’, etc,” the Journal added, quoting from the emails.

A Google spokesperson said the emails represented brainstorming and none of the ideas were implemented. She said the company does not manipulate search results or modify products to promote political views.

“Our processes and policies would not have allowed for any manipulation of search results to promote political ideologies,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

Reporting by Rama Venkat in Bengaluru; Editing by Cynthia Osterman

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

American Airlines Just Raised Its Baggage Fee and Offered an Incredible, Maddening Explanation

Absurdly Driven looks at the world of business with a skeptical eye and a firmly rooted tongue in cheek. 

You knew it was going to happen.

I knew it was going to happen.

American Airlines knew it was going to happen too. 

The only question was how many hours the populace would be waiting before American followed Delta and United Airlines (and JetBlue) in raising baggage fees to $30.

When the announcement was made, I sat and pondered the meaning of life for a while.

Then I did the only thing my Yoda could suggest. I contacted American to ask for its logic in making this unpopular move.

An American spokesman told me: 

Like fares, baggage fees are set by the supply and demand for the product in the marketplace, and today’s changes are in line with what other U.S. competitors are charging. 

I stared at this for quite some time, tried to absorb it thoroughly and only then did I consider its fine logic.

I fear some might observe that if baggage fees are set by supply and demand, does that mean that American will raise them for every flight that happens to have a lot of cargo in the hold? 

After all, there might be less space. Ergo, the price should go up.

Please consider arriving at the ticket counter, to be told:

Yeah, sorry, we’ve got a big shipment of golf equipment in the hold today. So your baggage fee will be $175.

And when baggage fees didn’t exist, did this mean there was simply far too much space in the hold, none of it was precious, so it could be just given away?

I fear what American might actually mean by supply and demand is that when four airlines hold more than 80 percent of all available seats, they have most of the supply.

They therefore have the power to set the price of anything to a considerable extent.

The only thing that might even hold them back even a little is the existence of a budget airline on a specific route or, in this case, Southwest’s insistence that its customers’ bags fly free.

There’s a little more logical consistency, I fear, in the second part of American’s statement: United and Delta have done it, so we will too. What did you expect?

Of course, it’ll be fascinating to see whether the more baggage fees go up, the more people try and haul all their belongings onto the plane, hence delaying departure.

That’s something airlines really don’t like.

The baggage fee hike is merely a fare hike by other means. It also comes with a lower tax rate for the airline, as fees are taxed differently from fares.

I wonder if, for even a nanosecond over a third cocktail, an American executive or two might have considered that not raising the baggage fee might have given the airline a little point of difference.

Ach, but what’s the point of difference when your only true distinction is your network and you can just keep on scooping up (what you think is) your fair share?

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts