I would only change that aggression isn't always bad. When aggression is part of a drive to do something worthwhile, it can greatly benefit society. Aggression in the face of a natural disaster, for example. There are people who are very good at making other people happy, which is also beneficial, but can lead to problems if they go too far--buying things just to make a sales clerk happy, for example.
There's another aspect, which might possibly fit under "aggression" but I'm not sure, and that's the lack of social awareness or empathy required to notice when other people have (or are trying to take) the floor. Something I've seen a lot at HRSFA events in particular is certain people who just kind of jump in on top of others, not out of a conscious aggression but because they've missed the social cues which say to be quiet and let someone else speak for a bit.
We've talked about this before, but: I hesitate at the inclusion of extroversion here, because extroversion is not a talent, and while it is true that being extroverted can be advantageous, the same is true of being introverted. I'm an introvert; I'm also shy and lacking in both confidence and assertiveness. Does my lack of confidence and assertiveness cause me difficulties in social situations? Absolutely. Does my introversion? I don't think I'd say so. It has disadvantages, sure, but, like any property, it has its advantages as well. I've been able to develop a set of skills that would have been harder to develop as fully were I an extrovert, and I don't think I'd trade those in order to avoid the disadvantages, if I had the choice. I may wish that our society were more understanding of the care and keeping required of its introverts, but that's a different matter.
I'm afraid I disagree. While I made clear my preference for introverts and extroverts among my friends, I think extroverts are greatly advantaged in current society, when it comes to social, professional, and leadership opportunities. I'm unaware of any introverted heads of state or CEO's (outside tech startups of course.)
I'm certainly glad you have used being an introvert as a way to develop your other skills. However, if you feel you were in a situation with extra challenge that you had to grow in order to overcome, that sounds like a disadvantage to me.
I don't think 'wish that our society were more understanding of the care and keeping required of its introverts" is a different matter from the subject at hand, which is largely "extroverts (and others), wake up and admit your privilege."
I do see what you're saying, both here and when we've discussed this elsewhere. Certainly American culture is oriented towards being extroverted; this is one of the reasons I was happier in the UK. And certainly, any time you deviate from the default, you may find yourself at something of a disadvantage. But I think it's important to delineate one's categories carefully, to ensure that one is talking about things of the same type; and I don't believe introversion is of the same type as shyness or a lack of confidence. Shyness is a problem. So are lack of confidence or an inability to assess social situations. Introversion is not a problem; it's a property, which is not the same thing. It's also not the same as being [- charismatic]: some people have an indefinable extra something we call charisma, and other people don't. Introverts aren't missing an extra something; we're just different in some ways. I just think that it is important to keep some of these subtle nuances in mind in abstract conversations of this sort, because
( ... )
I'm all for keeping this subtle differentiations in mind. Introversion is indeed not a problem. I still think it's a liability and should be acknowledged here
( ... )
About alpha/beta traits: I do suspect that it's a "sorting hat" situation (where the category feels satisfying and means nothing), but there's also an interesting amount of culture of people flagellating themselves for not being alphas. (Specifically: underachieving men who believe that, if they just think themselves alpha, will suddenly get all the women/MLM they crave.)
An aggression scale is a better look at it, and I can even come up with examples where one party's "aggression" was critical for a group's health. Still, I have frequently disdained social aggressives (and/or "alphas") when I feel that they are messing with the implicit social rules - when their aggression risks messing things up for everyone. (So perhaps I disdain their lack of "social intuition"?)
What our bro-dominated culture calls Alpha and Beta personality types is largely just about contrast on the traits (in the following order) of: aggression, confidence, charisma, extroversion.
The actual metaphor I think doesn't actually have Beta's at the bottom of the pecking order. There's a lot below beta. In fact, in primate groups, beta males do quite well (less mating partners, but also less stress and heart attacks).
The degree to which people here have pointed out that "social intuition" and "aggression" can possibly be opposing traits, is interesting. Often this may be true. However, in the egregious cases that plague our culture, I would say bullies can have both and make them work together be a) They don't care about how it effects others (or at least tell themselves, those others need to learn to be as aggressive as them). b) Having this intuition lets you know WHEN you can get away with breaking the rules that others may think are inviolate.
I think aggression, like confidence, is something that it's ideally good to have some but not too much of. As someone who is not aggressive, I am pretty keenly aware of situations in which I could be a better person if I could make myself be more so. Comfort in calling attention to oneself at the risk of starting a conflict is a thing which enables people to stand up against wrongs being perpetrated; the fact that I'm not very good at this is one of my least favorite things about myself
( ... )
So I am not unaware of the subtleties and complexities involved here. When introducing people to a big complex concept though, I often try to keep it as simple as possible. As you know, my preferred argumentation method is to present this framework to people, and then let them go out into the world and find how much evidence fits that framework
( ... )
Comments 24
Reply
Reply
Reply
I'm certainly glad you have used being an introvert as a way to develop your other skills. However, if you feel you were in a situation with extra challenge that you had to grow in order to overcome, that sounds like a disadvantage to me.
I don't think 'wish that our society were more understanding of the care and keeping required of its introverts" is a different matter from the subject at hand, which is largely "extroverts (and others), wake up and admit your privilege."
Reply
Reply
Reply
An aggression scale is a better look at it, and I can even come up with examples where one party's "aggression" was critical for a group's health. Still, I have frequently disdained social aggressives (and/or "alphas") when I feel that they are messing with the implicit social rules - when their aggression risks messing things up for everyone. (So perhaps I disdain their lack of "social intuition"?)
Reply
The actual metaphor I think doesn't actually have Beta's at the bottom of the pecking order. There's a lot below beta. In fact, in primate groups, beta males do quite well (less mating partners, but also less stress and heart attacks).
The degree to which people here have pointed out that "social intuition" and "aggression" can possibly be opposing traits, is interesting. Often this may be true. However, in the egregious cases that plague our culture, I would say bullies can have both and make them work together be
a) They don't care about how it effects others (or at least tell themselves, those others need to learn to be as aggressive as them).
b) Having this intuition lets you know WHEN you can get away with breaking the rules that others may think are inviolate.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment