I'm not an extrovert. Introversion itself was probably more of a euphemism that I used to rationalize something closer to social anxiety.
But I feel I'm better off now for doing what the article suggested, over the last 5-6 years. Doing so improved my knowledge, my empathy, grew my revenue, built larger professional networks, introduced me to hobby networks, and helped with better financial planning.
I even changed to the extent of actually looking forward to outreach activities that involve a lot of conversations. I find them very satisfying because they help me understand social realities and people better than social media and books and help me develop empathy.
I wouldn't say I'm now an extrovert. My personality still prefers a lot of alone time. There are times when I still don't feel like talking to anyone. But they're now for positive reasons like books to finish rather than negative reasons like social anxiety.
I now tend to see things like introversion and social anxiety as obstacles. One can rationalize them in many ways but they'll remain objective obstacles IMO.
Welcome, but your point hasn't been proved at all actually. Your point was that this sort of stuff is imposed upon you by a "dictatorship of extroverts."
But I'm not an extrovert and not supportive of a dictatorship of extroverts. For example, I'm not a fan of imposed socializing of office coworkers outside the office in order to fit in.
Regarding "for some reason," it's quite obvious - you made a mistaken assumption and that's the only reason I came here to gave a counter example and a counter view to your wrong assumption. I wouldn't have written any of this as a top comment.
A dictatorship? Are you being forced at gunpoint to talk to people?
Perhaps more unsurprisingly, at the mere suggestion that socializing is good for you (it demonstrably is https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11403199/), you went and wrote a comment that I can only imagine someone who is deeply unhappy would write.
That is not a kind judgment. While I hesitate at the word “dictatorship” it is fair to say that society puts more value on extrovert interaction than introvert contemplation, and it does this because extroverts dominate the social conversation.
the dictatorship is doing extremely badly then because in my experience roughly the last two decades have consisted of safety obsession, various 'cozy' aesthetics that don't involve leaving your house, the death of social drinking and an uptick of pills and psychological diagnoses and people staring into their phones on every occasion.
We've completely normalized being a shut-in to the point where your take, that it's authoritarian to push people out into the world and engage others, is quite common. What now passes for 'extroverted' used to be known as the human condition. Even extroverts today probably have fewer friends, smaller families and spend more time isolated and on screens than 99% of humanity.
I can't agree. I'm pretty sure that we're in dictatorship of introverts that convinced everyone that talking or even eye contact with strangers is creep.
"Reduce human contact to bare minimum" is standard now, at least in America.
I had a recent encounter with a guy in a coffee shop who approached me and wanted to discuss recent sportsball games in great detail. I had no idea what he was talking about, I don't even know the local teams, after living here 30 years. He had no other topics.
I had a friend like that. Soccer soccer soccer. His soccer knowledge was impeccable. But he allowed almost no space in his life for anything else. A kind of addiction. He had no other interests, didn't read about anything else.
There's only so mach a person can take being on the other side of someone like that. We drifted apart...
Yeah, that's issue #2 or 3 with me. My life has pretty much been minmaxed to be the stereotypical nerd. I don't have much "small talk" topics to approach with.
I want to change that too, but that involves time for hobbies instead of job searching and worrying about debt.
I abhor small talk. It's physically painful. I've heard that's often true of some cultures, especially northern europeans.
I think the trick to converse on a more engaging level is to introduce conversation that invites deeper thought. Somehow you need to intrigue the other person. Compel them through curiosity to leave their comfort zone and join you where you'd prefer to be.
IMO, even disagreement can be agreeable if it's not confrontational, if you genuinely express curiosity to learn what they think, what they care about.
1. No pointless layer of "inner" keys that you never use
2. The thumb keys are closer to the main keyboard, so more of them are in a natural reach, rather than being a big stretch (this is the biggest one in usage)
3. Uses all 1u keys, so greater keycap compatibility (any ortho kit will work)
4. If you're comparing to the Ergodox EZ, construction is better, with a metal case instead of plastic
5. Takes up less desk space
And it's still QMK, still hotswappable, still has the columnar layout. I don't think the Ergodox offers anything over it.
no, and that is widely known. the actual problem is that the margins are not sufficient at that scale to make up for the gargantuan training costs to train their SOTA model.
I think I’m lucky, because for me it’s the other way. In 2009 I started my first real programming job writing c++ in vim. For the last 5 years I’ve been writing rust in helix and things have never been better.
Oh yeah, because in the absence of regulation, the insulin producer would sell it at negligible margins, sure!
As for the socks - my city has like ~5 locations where old textiles can be recycled, the closest one in slightly less than 1km from where I live. I see no problem with going there twice a year :)
With lack of regulations, the theory is, there will be many competing manufacturers of insulin, dropping the cost down. Probably not as simple as that, but that's the idea at least
Now, that's all just regulations. What are regulations but laws that restrict/govern the way to do commerce? Anti-slavery is part of that, just like every other concession we've had to pry from the hands of capitalists over the last 100 years, like no child labor, no locking workers into factories, PPE, etc...
You're free to call contract law and private property law "regulations", but recognize that these branches of law have very different properties, history, and functions than what we traditionally refer to by regulations. Traditionally, when people talk about regulations they are talking about legislation, i.e., rules and decrees created by a legislative body, voted into law by some parliamentary body or created by an executive agency to support decrees of a parliamentary or similar body with the power to declare law. You can think of this as legislation or declaratory law.
Contrast this with contract and property law. These laws were created primarily out of common law, a long evolutionary process arising out of series of decisions from a judiciary attempting to reconcile conflicts between the parties. This is judicial or conciliatory law.
Crucially, most if not all the advances and the rise of extreme productivity from capitalism that supports populations in excess of 8 billion as opposed to about 0.5 billion, have come from emphasis and pre-eminence on the latter kind of law and the smashing of the former kind of law, i.e., the destruction of the guild system of privileges, removing or minimizing protectionist laws, etc. And the former kind of law has either been nominal, merely codifying the advances caused by the latter law like in the case of child labor, or it has been reactionary and hampered the progress of the latter sort of law.
Yes, insulin producers would! It is illegal to compete, and insulin producers enjoy a legally backed monopoly. Yes, removing the regulations which support that monopoly will reduce prices. Any other option merely exists to support and uphold the special privileges that the current regulatory regjme grants to insulin producers.
reply