Maybe we need more introverted politicians... Seems like nowadays being a politician is more about kissing babies, and accepting bribes^Wdonations than about trying to do something meaningful with their time in office like:
- Make an attempt to understand the laws that they are passing and their implications
- Cut 'riders' out of bills
- Try not to make laws that only benefit lawyers (so ambiguous that there will be multiple precedent-setting cases before the legal grey area is gone).
> It might not be a pretty world, but at least it's
> balanced (to a decent degree).
How so? If we accept the idea that extroverts are in the CEO / politician / sports star / etc positions, then you have to accept that the extroverts are the ones the hold all of the power. If the introverts are 'building the next Facebook/LinkedIn,' that gives them relatively little power: 1) politicians can make your product illegal 2) there are relatively few success-stories that give founders enough money to be considered in a position of 'power' (how many failed Facebooks are there for every Facebook).
I'm not throwing in on either side of the 'this is reality vs this is fantasy' argument, but if we assume that it is reality, your idea that it's balanced doesn't seem to hold up.
I wonder what would be the introvert/extrovert ratio for politicians be in countries such as China? From what I've heard, more of their politicians there have an education as engineer or scientist, instead of laywer or MBA which is common in the west (or at least, USA).
I'm not sure how to take that... (as purely inquisitive, or as a subtle attack on my argument -- i.e. more introverts as politicians => China => Socialism / Communism => Game Over).
On the same token (introverts in Washingon == Communism), I could say that few con-men are introverts, thereby implying that an extrovert-heavy government would be full of con-men. The introvert-vs-extrovert argument certainly isn't a battle of good-vs-evil, though I don't think anyone here is saying that we should have a population of 100% introverts (or extroverts) either.
My take on that comment was that it was not a subtle attack at all -- it was merely an observation that it's not a logical necessity for the leaders of a large country to be extroverts.
Indeed, that was my reasoning. I'm simply curious. It didn't even come into me to think of it as an attack. Any anti-communism or anti-introvert bias he might have read in my message is completely his own. I'm an introvert myself and I don't regard either capitalism or communism as evil in itself.
I may have been overreading into your comment. I tried to make my comment seem like I wasn't just assuming the worst of you, but it looks like I failed at that. My initial read of your comment was that it was just curiosity, but for some reason a second reading made me realize the 'oh noes! communism!' angle too.
You bring up a very good point, but if we take the politician example, I view extroverted as engaging with the public and facilitating what the public needs.
Maybe what's wrong with the political system boils down to false promises and inability to effectively determine what the people want. That is an introverted quality (lack of proper social communication). The bad politicians who pass crappy laws are more a testament to the people who vote for them anyway.
And there's no reason to suggest CEO's are anything like public figures. In fact, I would argue a good many of them are introverts. If you view their respective companies as teams, then introverts shine just as well as extroverts do in team settings.
I think some of the issue is 'pleasing the public' vs 'giving the public what they need.' There are a lot of poor political choices that are made in order to put on a dog-and-pony-show for portions of the public that don't like to think too much (e.g. prosecuting sexting teenagers as child pornographers just so that they can claim to be 'tough on crime' or 'of strong morals' or 'pro-family').
- Make an attempt to understand the laws that they are passing and their implications
- Cut 'riders' out of bills
- Try not to make laws that only benefit lawyers (so ambiguous that there will be multiple precedent-setting cases before the legal grey area is gone).
How so? If we accept the idea that extroverts are in the CEO / politician / sports star / etc positions, then you have to accept that the extroverts are the ones the hold all of the power. If the introverts are 'building the next Facebook/LinkedIn,' that gives them relatively little power: 1) politicians can make your product illegal 2) there are relatively few success-stories that give founders enough money to be considered in a position of 'power' (how many failed Facebooks are there for every Facebook).I'm not throwing in on either side of the 'this is reality vs this is fantasy' argument, but if we assume that it is reality, your idea that it's balanced doesn't seem to hold up.