[This article appears in The Atlantic Monthly.]

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. Science has learned a good deal in recent years about the habits and requirements of introverts. It has even learned, by means of brain scans, that introverts process information differently from other people (I am not making this up). If you are behind the curve on this important matter, be reassured that you are not alone. Introverts may be common, but they are also among the most misunderstood and aggrieved groups in America, possibly the world.

I know. My name is Jonathan, and I am an introvert.

Oh, for years I denied it. After all, I have good social skills. I am not morose or misanthropic. Usually. I am far from shy. I love long conversations that explore intimate thoughts or passionate interests. But at last I have self-identified and come out to my friends and colleagues. In doing so, I have found myself liberated from any number of damaging misconceptions and stereotypes. Now I am here to tell you what you need to know in order to respond sensitively and supportively to your own introverted family members, friends, and colleagues. Remember, someone you know, respect, and interact with every day is an introvert, and you are probably driving this person nuts. It pays to learn the warning signs.

What is introversion? In its modern sense, the concept goes back to the 1920s and the psychologist Carl Jung. Today it is a mainstay of personality tests, including the widely used Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Introverts are not necessarily shy. Shy people are anxious or frightened or self-excoriating in social settings; introverts generally are not. Introverts are also not misanthropic, though some of us do go along with Sartre as far as to say “Hell is other people at breakfast.” Rather, introverts are people who find other people tiring.

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. 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. This isn’t antisocial. It isn’t a sign of depression. It does not call for medication. For introverts, to be alone with our thoughts is as restorative as sleeping, as nourishing as eating. Our motto: “I’m okay, you’re okay—in small doses.”

How many people are introverts? I performed exhaustive research on this question, in the form of a quick Google search. The answer: About 25 percent. Or: Just under half. Or—my favorite—”a minority in the regular population but a majority in the gifted population.”

Are introverts misunderstood? Wildly. That, it appears, is our lot in life. “It is very difficult for an extrovert to understand an introvert,” write the education experts Jill D. Burruss and Lisa Kaenzig. (They are also the source of the quotation in the previous paragraph.) Extroverts are easy for introverts to understand, because extroverts spend so much of their time working out who they are in voluble, and frequently inescapable, interaction with other people. They are as inscrutable as puppy dogs. But the street does not run both ways. Extroverts have little or no grasp of introversion. They assume that company, especially their own, is always welcome. They cannot imagine why someone would need to be alone; indeed, they often take umbrage at the suggestion. As often as I have tried to explain the matter to extroverts, I have never sensed that any of them really understood. They listen for a moment and then go back to barking and yipping.

Are introverts oppressed? I would have to say so. For one thing, extroverts are overrepresented in politics, a profession in which only the garrulous are really comfortable. Look at George W. Bush. Look at Bill Clinton. They seem to come fully to life only around other people. To think of the few introverts who did rise to the top in politics—Calvin Coolidge, Richard Nixon—is merely to drive home the point. With the possible exception of Ronald Reagan, whose fabled aloofness and privateness were probably signs of a deep introverted streak (many actors, I’ve read, are introverts, and many introverts, when socializing, feel like actors), introverts are not considered “naturals” in politics.

Extroverts therefore dominate public life. This is a pity. If we introverts ran the world, it would no doubt be a calmer, saner, more peaceful sort of place. As Coolidge is supposed to have said, “Don’t you know that four fifths of all our troubles in this life would disappear if we would just sit down and keep still?” (He is also supposed to have said, “If you don’t say anything, you won’t be called on to repeat it.” The only thing a true introvert dislikes more than talking about himself is repeating himself.)

With their endless appetite for talk and attention, extroverts also dominate social life, so they tend to set expectations. In our extrovertist society, being outgoing is considered normal and therefore desirable, a mark of happiness, confidence, leadership. Extroverts are seen as bighearted, vibrant, warm, empathic. “People person” is a compliment. Introverts are described with words like “guarded,” “loner,” “reserved,” “taciturn,” “self-contained,” “private”—narrow, ungenerous words, words that suggest emotional parsimony and smallness of personality. Female introverts, I suspect, must suffer especially. In certain circles, particularly in the Midwest, a man can still sometimes get away with being what they used to call a strong and silent type; introverted women, lacking that alternative, are even more likely than men to be perceived as timid, withdrawn, haughty.

Are introverts arrogant? Hardly. I suppose this common misconception has to do with our being more intelligent, more reflective, more independent, more level-headed, more refined, and more sensitive than extroverts. Also, it is probably due to our lack of small talk, a lack that extroverts often mistake for disdain. We tend to think before talking, whereas extroverts tend to think by talking, which is why their meetings never last less than six hours. “Introverts,” writes a perceptive fellow named Thomas P. Crouser, in an online review of a recent book called Why Should Extroverts Make All the Money? (I’m not making that up, either), “are driven to distraction by the semi-internal dialogue extroverts tend to conduct. Introverts don’t outwardly complain, instead roll their eyes and silently curse the darkness.” Just so.

The worst of it is that extroverts have no idea of the torment they put us through. Sometimes, as we gasp for air amid the fog of their 98-percent-content-free talk, we wonder if extroverts even bother to listen to themselves. Still, we endure stoically, because the etiquette books—written, no doubt, by extroverts—regard declining to banter as rude and gaps in conversation as awkward. We can only dream that someday, when our condition is more widely understood, when perhaps an Introverts’ Rights movement has blossomed and borne fruit, it will not be impolite to say “I’m an introvert. You are a wonderful person and I like you. But now please shush.”

How can I let the introvert in my life know that I support him and respect his choice? First, recognize that it’s not a choice. It’s not a lifestyle. It’s an orientation.

Second, when you see an introvert lost in thought, don’t say “What’s the matter?” or “Are you all right?”

Third, don’t say anything else, either.

Jonathan Rauch is a correspondent for The Atlantic and a senior writer for National Journal.

Update: I recently re-joined Facebook, but only after fully deleting my previous account.  Now I post ONLY non-personal information such as funny stories, etc.  I will not let FB profit from any of my “likes” or personal information.  I don’t actively seek out new “friends,” and only accept friend requests from people with whom I interact on a regular basis — in other words, friends.

The article below was posted by Jason Calacanis, a noted industry pundit:

===================================

Last Wednesday, 10AM, Las Vegas.

The South Point Hotel and Casino, a couple of miles off the strip. The
kind of hotel where you can get steak and eggs for $2.99–24 hours a
day.

Cashier: “How would you like your $200,000, Mr. Calacanis? Chips?”

Me: “That would be perfect.”

A huge security guard carries my “bird cage”–lingo for a clear white
case used for carrying poker chips–to the set of “PokerStars’ The Big
Game,” the most expensive poker show ever created.

Two hours later, I’ve got sick cards and I’m facing the most famous
poker player of all time, Doyle Brunson.

Me: “All in.”

Doyle: “I. Call.”

To myself: F@#$ me–I guess I overplayed my [INSERT CARDS HERE].

[Note: I can't say anything else about the hand due to my contractual
agreement. I can say that I feel I played well on the Big Game, which
will be airing on June 14th on Fox. ]

Overplaying your hand
=================
The biggest mistake most new players make at poker is overplaying
their hand. They spend so much time thinking of the ways they can win
that they forget all the ways they can lose. Overplaying hands can
affect even the most seasoned players, especially after they’ve won a
couple of hands in a row.

Over the past month, Mark Zuckerberg, the hottest new card player in
town, has overplayed his hand. Facebook is officially “out,” as in
uncool, amongst partners, parents and pundits all coming to the
realization that Zuckerberg and his company are–simply put–not
trustworthy.

Casual gaming company Zynga is reportedly developing plans to get over
their Facebook dependency. I predict a complete heads-up match with
Facebook–Zynga’s now been double-crossed not once but twice by
Zuckerberg. (The first double-cross was when Facebook stopped letting
applications like Farmville easily market themselves on profile
pages.) Instead, Zynga and others were told to advertise their apps if
they wanted distribution. OK, I’m guessing that evaporates 20-35% of
an app developer’s margin.

Now, Facebook is reportedly forcing developers to use their virtual
currency–for a 30% cut. These two moves have to take at least 50% of
the margin out of Zynga’s business.

Last year, when I realized that Zuckerberg was an amoral,
Asperger’s-like entrepreneur, I told Zynga CEO Mark Pincus that
Zuckerberg would try and slit his throat. I knew this because I
watched Zuckerberg screw over his users again and again in terms of
privacy, and I heard about the stories of him screwing over his former
employers at ConnectU and his early partners at Facebook.

The money quote from Business Insider’s scoop comes from Zuckerberg
himself: “they made a mistake haha. They asked me to make it for them.
So I’m like delaying it so it won’t be ready until after the facebook
thing comes out.” He stalled and sandbagged ConnectU–then
Zuckerpunched them! Of course, the person he said this to was his
partner–Eduardo Saverin–who he reportedly screwed as well.

Read all here: http://bit.ly/bmRip3

Add to all this that Zuckerberg was stealing every tiny innovation the
second Evan Williams and the team over at Twitter released it, and
Zuckerberg is clearly the worst thing that’s happened to our industry
since, well, spam.

You’re Zucked!
=================
Yes, that’s the new catch phrase for when someone either steals your
business idea or screws you as a business partner.

Who’s been Zucked and how? Let’s take a look back:

1. FourSquare was Zucked when Facebook stole their check-in feature.
2. Twitter was Zucked when Facebook stole their public facing profiles.
3. Facebook users got Zucked when the site flipped their privacy
setting–three different times!
4. The co-founder of Facebook was allegedly Zucked when he was kicked
out of the company he helped found.
5. The founders of ConnectU got Zucked when he allegedly screwed them
over by not delivering their social network and then launching
Facebook at the same time–and joked about it!
6. Harvard reporters reportedly got Zucked when Mark hacked their
accounts to try and stop a negative story/investigation about him.

You can only screw people for so long before it catches up to you. The
entire industry went from rooting for Zuckerberg to hating him and
Facebook–in under 18 months.

Peter Rojas and Matt Cutts have turned off their Facebook pages, and
more intelligent people everywhere are talking about doing so.

Zuckerberg represents the best and worst aspects of entrepreneurship.
His drive, skill and fearlessness are only matched by his long
record–recorded in lawsuit after lawsuit–of backstabbing, stealing
and cheating.

A look at last week’s headlines shows the trend:

Facebook’s Eroding Privacy Policy: A Timeline
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-timeline

Top Ten Reasons You Should Quit Facebook
http://gizmodo.com/5530178/top-ten-reasons-you-should-quit-facebook

Yet another Facebook privacy risk: emails Facebook sends leak user IP address
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/05/07/yet-another-privacy.html

A Stunning Infographic on Facebook’s scary privacy evolution
http://mattmckeon.com/facebook-privacy/

Facebook’s “Posts By Everyone” Feature: Do People Realize They’re
Sharing To The World?
http://selnd.com/96avG4

Facebook’s Gone Rogue; It’s Time for an Open Alternative | Epicenter |
Wired.com
http://bit.ly/aoNxf0

Senators Call Out Facebook On ‘Instant Personalization’, Other Privacy Issues
http://tcrn.ch/907D27

Facebook’s email days: “I’m CEO bith@#$%!”
http://bit.ly/ba5wRY

Facebook’s new features secretly add apps to your profile
http://bit.ly/bHXpH5

The Day Facebook Stole My Page
http://bit.ly/ar4A4As

Facebook is Dying – Social is Not
http://bit.ly/atwbzX

Facebook’s “Evil Interfaces” | Electronic Frontier Foundation
http://bit.ly/9ww6g3

I’m not making this up people.

The Stakes
==================
We’ve fought for years to create an open web, and we would be crazy to
give our future over to a selfish little kid who has no problem
stealing any innovation he catches from the corner of his eye from
other entrepreneurs.

Didn’t anyone read “Tom Sawyer”? We’re whitewashing Zuckerberg’s fence.

People are creating fan pages on Facebook and then paying Facebook to
send them traffic. Let me explain this one more time: You’re PAYING
Mark Zuckerberg money to send traffic to HIS SITE. Think about it.

Oh yeah, and while he’s taking your money and page views, he’s
convincing everyone that they don’t need their own customer’s
information: Just use Facebook Connect!

Oh yeah, and if you’re stupid enough to give up your customer database
to Facebook, he will pay you back by screwing over your user’s
privacy! Yes, that’s right: give up your customer database, pay for
traffic to build Facebook’s page views and, by the way, if you would
like to use a virtual currency, Zuck will take 30% of that as well!

Are we blind? It’s a trap! It’s a trap!

Zuckerberg’s crowning achievement is, of course, to show his utter
disdain and contempt for the industry by not only claiming–but
naming–his master plan “The Open Graph.”

An alternate path
==================
There a people and organizations in our industry–heck, our
world–that believe in being fair and respectful to competitors and
consumers alike. They don’t see the need to reverse open standards.
Rather, they embrace and expand them. Facebook is not good for our
industry, and as talented as Zuckerberg is, he is hopelessly misguided
and has a horrible ethics problem.

The Internet is the fastest growing medium–heck “thing”–in history
because it was designed to be open and fair. If you have a level
playing field people can invest in it. That is why the United States
has been such an amazing place to invest in a business and places run
by dictators are not. At any point your investment in Facebook can be
taken from you. At any point they can change the rules, and history
shows that dictators tend to changes rules in their favor–not the
other way around.

Facebook taking people’s topic pages out from under them or their
forcing folks into their virtual currency is no different than a
dictator in a 3rd world country telling an outside investor who just
spent millions putting in wireless phone network that their taxes have
just doubled–conveniently to a level that is almost exactly their
profit margin.

Anyone who trusts Facebook to do the right thing for the industry,
their customers or their application partners simply needs to look at
their history. Remember Frank’s First Rule from “Scarface”: “Lesson
number one: Don’t underestimate the other guy’s greed!”

The Web and HTML grew into the juggernaut they are today because
they’re based on open standards that everyone can buy into. No one
player has control or dominance over anyone else. Facebook’s very
obvious goal is to use the their social graph dominance to control the
future of advertising and attention on the Web. Why on Earth are we
supporting this?

The Social Graph will only reach its potential if it is truly
open–not controlled by a spoiled little kid with questionable ethics.

It’s time for the good people of the world to stand up against
Facebook. It’s time to build and support OpenID and the creation of an
truly open social graph. It’s time to force Facebook to allow open
data portability. It is our data, after all. The road map for the open
web has been laid out and supported by the “good guys/gals” at OpenID,
Google, Twitter, Open Social and countless others who don’t feel the
need to control the industry and manipulate our customers.

The more we feed the monster that is Facebook, the more we lose.

A Facebook Boycott?
====================
I’d call for a boycott of Facebook, but they’ve actually beaten me to it!

The enthusiasm for Facebook has soured with early adopters, Facebook’s
biggest partners and the French all pilling on. (Hey, you’re nobody
until the French hate you, right?).

In the words of Warren Buffet, “Look for three qualities: integrity,
intelligence, and energy. And if they don’t have the first, the other
two will kill you.”

Facebook has been overplaying hands for a long time and there is a
chance they might now get felted.

Stop Facebook, Save the World!

best regards,

Jason

After the crotchbomb there has been a lot of noise about airplane security again—you can see how stupid the leaked new flight rules are here. But what’s the actual risk of an airplane attack? Here’s the definitive chart: http://gizmodo.com/5435954/the-true-odds-of-airborne-terror-chart

The stats are from Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com

There is an Asian story about a farmer who saw a tiger’s tail swishing between two large rocks. In a moment of haste, he grabbed the tail and pulled.  All of a sudden he realized he had an angry tiger by the tail and only two rocks stood between him and the tiger’s teeth and claws! So there he remained, afraid to loosen his grip on the enraged animal’s tail lest he surely be killed.

A monk happened by and the farmer called out in desperation, “Come over here and help me kill this tiger!”

The holy man said, “Oh, no. I cannot do that. I cannot take the life of another.” Then he went on to deliver a homily against killing. All the while, the farmer was holding tightly to the tail of an angry tiger.

When the monk finally finished his sermon, the farmer pleaded, “If you won’t kill the tiger, then at least come hold its tail while I kill it.”

The monk thought that perhaps it would be all right to simply hold the tiger’s tail, so he grabbed hold and pulled. The farmer, however, turned and walked
away down the road.

The monk shouted after him, “Come back here and kill the tiger!”

“Oh, no,” the farmer replied. “You have converted me!”

There seems to be a fine line between situational ethics on one side and idealism on the other.  It’s so easy to think of the world in black/white terms, but in reality, there are just so many shades of gray.

There’s also probably a message here about hasty actions.

http://www.arin.net/knowledge/about_resources/ceo_letter.pdf

They point out that we have about two years remaining in the life of of the IPv4 address space, and that we should be preparing to transition to IPv6 now.  Are you ready?

I like to watch the TED talks.  Most are merely good, some are exceptional.  I just watched a most excellent talk given by Elizabeth Gilbert (bio) titled “A Different Way to Think About Creative Genius”  In her 19-minute talk, she explains the two ways Western thought has considered our creativity.  Ancient Romans and Greeks believed that creativity was a cooperation between humans and the gods.  Since the Renaissance, rational humanism has assigned the creative process to us mortals alone.  Gilbert thinks the ancients had it right and explains why.

Listen to her talk here.

Check out the interview and read the post from a former Republican and conservative author Frank Schaeffer here.  I agree with everything the man says.

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_10.html

Mainframe

In fact, computers do not have brains like we do.  They cannot really think for themselves except when they are doing complicated arithmetic. The important thinking is done by humans who feed them with information called programs. If computers are not regularly fed, they may become listless and unhappy.

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/12/24/how-it-works-the-com.html