5 ms·

Here's the argument presented in the article. premise 1: all manipulative people are bad premise 2: some manipulative people are extroverts conclusion:

by bregma 4y ago

Here's the argument presented in the article. premise 1: all manipulative people are bad premise 2: some manipulative people are extroverts conclusion: all extroverts are bad I'm not sure I agree with the argument. It seems to be loudly and publicly proclaiming something as a fact when it's a logical fallacy. Not unusual these days.

wwilim 4y ago
Ironically, this is typical "strawman extrovert" behavior
tunap 4y ago
Agreed. Not all extroverts are narcissistic, sociopaths.
blantonl 4y ago
I think this article is more of a tongue in cheek rant against the culture of BS artists vs measured takedown against extroverts.
lo_zamoyski 4y ago
And don't forget fallacious conclusion #2: all introverts are good. The author does strike me as the caricaturish Hollywood movie nerd, whiny, full of self-pity, bad faith, envy, and repressed narcissism, putting down everything to do with the "popular kids" or jocks while craving all the same things. Either own up to it and saddle up, or take a good hard look at your contradictions, disingenuousness, and self-deception. Pick up Nietzsche and Scheler and learn about ressentiment because this is a textbook example. Take this revealing quote: > The school’s emphasis on networking above studious reflection makes outcasts of, for instance, many brilliant but introverted Asian students who feel out of place in this cheerleader hell. Why would this be a cheerleader hell? If the networking milieu is superficial, thoughtless, and crass, why the desperate desire to fit in with them? To be accepted by them? (Or, later on, play the game of sour grapes?) After all, aren't they worse off? Aren't they less desirable? This is incoherent. You say these introverted students are "outcasts" who feel out of place with these glad-handing extroverts. But if that is the case, then why would it ever be their goal to fit in with people you believe are so deserving of scorn and contempt? Why do you put them up on a pedestal and pout about not being accepted or even adored by them? If you were being honest, then they would never feel the need or desire to join their ranks, to receive their affection and approval. Fortune favors the bold. Hiding in your basement and expecting the world to come to you, to appreciate your ostensible greatness, while denying that of others, is perhaps the height of arrogance and egocentrism. Everyone is busy living their own lives, dealing with their own problems, just like the introvert, yet the latter expects special treatment. One of the greatest lessons I've learned in life is that it is a waste of time complaining about the state of the world. It is a waste of time blaming the world for your dissatisfactions, thinking all the while that if only the world would be a certain way, THEN I could finally flourish. This is the creed of the effeminate procrastinator. But life is a meat grinder. Waiting for it to be easy, for it to be comfortable, for the stars to align before you make a move is to waste precious time and to wait for one's death. Life is struggle. Do not pity those poor, immigrant students, dear author, because they are still better at bearing the pains and discomforts of life than the brats of the first world who can only survive in the rarefied confines of their warm, padded cells. Their children, however...
- modo_mario 4y ago
  >why the desperate desire to fit in with them? To be accepted by them? (Or, later on, play the game of sour grapes?) After all, aren't they worse off? Aren't they less desirable? This is incoherent. You say these introverted students are "outcasts" who feel out of place with these glad-handing extroverts. But if that is the case, then why would it ever be their goal to fit in with people you believe are so deserving of scorn and contempt? Why do you put them up on a pedestal and pout about not being accepted or even adored by them? Presumably because one would still like to pass, even in a school with supposedly "emphasis on networking above studious reflection"
naasking 4y ago
That's not the argument. The very opening paragraph says: > [extroverts] may not be responsible for all the evil in the world, but they did give us such pernicious results as Enron, Hollywood, the financial crisis, Washington, infomercials and Harvard Business School. A better summary of the article is contained within the article itself: > Susman noted that the qualities most often lauded in the advice manuals of the 19th century were “citizenship, duty, work, golden deeds, honor, reputation, morals, manners and integrity.” In the post-Carnegie era, these concepts were replaced by words such as “magnetic, fascinating, stunning, attractive, glowing, dominant, forceful and energetic.” Substance, then, was being replaced with surface, and the era of B.S. had begun. Fast-forward a hundred years and you can see Carnegie’s descendants trained in the highest BS — HBS, or Harvard Business School. So a fairer reading of the argument is, tongue in cheek, "not all extroverts are harmful bullshitters, but most bullshitters causing systemic problems are (at least trying to be) extroverts".
- zozbot234 4y ago
  > the qualities most often lauded in the advice manuals of the 19th century were “citizenship, duty, work, golden deeds, honor, reputation, morals, manners and integrity.” In the post-Carnegie era, these concepts were replaced by words such as “magnetic, fascinating, stunning, attractive, glowing, dominant, forceful and energetic.” Substance, then, was being replaced with surface, and the era of B.S. had begun. Quite accurate, but this had nothing to do with Carnegie and everything to do with the society-wide disaster that was WWI and WWII. If anything, Carnegie tried to avert the damage with his philanthropy and promotion of culture. The author is grasping at a strawman.
Bakary 4y ago
I can't believe I'm defending some random New York Post author, but that's not what's happening here. The article is deliberately employing a rant-like, tongue-in-cheek agony aunt style and sharing open-ended observations based on shared life experience and the natural intuition of the reader. It is not meant to be analyzed like a formal logic paper. There is no real data to verify since it concerns abstract values over trillions of human interactions, yet that does not mean it is not a worthwhile contribution. There are plenty of articles like this but there's nothing inherently wrong with employing this discursive style.
- fknorangesite 4y ago
  I've learned to never underestimate HN's capacity for pedantic literalism.
  - As_You_Wish 4y ago
    It's everywhere. Everywhere. Metaphor, understatement, hyperbole, irony, satire, all verboten. I'm pretty sarcastic/satirical, and the number of times people say that it is "impossible to tell" sarcasm and satire in written form amazes me. Yet, there are always some people who do understand, so I know it isn't me, and I know that people do understand satire and sarcasm and all the other wonderful literary devices that are available. It's a cross to bear if one uses the full range of language.

by bregma 4y ago

wwilim 4y ago

Ironically, this is typical "strawman extrovert" behavior

tunap 4y ago

Agreed. Not all extroverts are narcissistic, sociopaths.

blantonl 4y ago

I think this article is more of a tongue in cheek rant against the culture of BS artists vs measured takedown against extroverts.

lo_zamoyski 4y ago

And don't forget fallacious conclusion #2: all introverts are good. The author does strike me as the caricaturish Hollywood movie nerd, whiny, full of self-pity, bad faith, envy, and repressed narcissism, putting down everything to do with the "popular kids" or jocks while craving all the same things. Either own up to it and saddle up, or take a good hard look at your contradictions, disingenuousness, and self-deception. Pick up Nietzsche and Scheler and learn about ressentiment because this is a textbook example. Take this revealing quote: > The school’s emphasis on networking above studious reflection makes outcasts of, for instance, many brilliant but introverted Asian students who feel out of place in this cheerleader hell. Why would this be a cheerleader hell? If the networking milieu is superficial, thoughtless, and crass, why the desperate desire to fit in with them? To be accepted by them? (Or, later on, play the game of sour grapes?) After all, aren't they worse off? Aren't they less desirable? This is incoherent. You say these introverted students are "outcasts" who feel out of place with these glad-handing extroverts. But if that is the case, then why would it ever be their goal to fit in with people you believe are so deserving of scorn and contempt? Why do you put them up on a pedestal and pout about not being accepted or even adored by them? If you were being honest, then they would never feel the need or desire to join their ranks, to receive their affection and approval. Fortune favors the bold. Hiding in your basement and expecting the world to come to you, to appreciate your ostensible greatness, while denying that of others, is perhaps the height of arrogance and egocentrism. Everyone is busy living their own lives, dealing with their own problems, just like the introvert, yet the latter expects special treatment. One of the greatest lessons I've learned in life is that it is a waste of time complaining about the state of the world. It is a waste of time blaming the world for your dissatisfactions, thinking all the while that if only the world would be a certain way, THEN I could finally flourish. This is the creed of the effeminate procrastinator. But life is a meat grinder. Waiting for it to be easy, for it to be comfortable, for the stars to align before you make a move is to waste precious time and to wait for one's death. Life is struggle. Do not pity those poor, immigrant students, dear author, because they are still better at bearing the pains and discomforts of life than the brats of the first world who can only survive in the rarefied confines of their warm, padded cells. Their children, however...

modo_mario 4y ago
>why the desperate desire to fit in with them? To be accepted by them? (Or, later on, play the game of sour grapes?) After all, aren't they worse off? Aren't they less desirable? This is incoherent. You say these introverted students are "outcasts" who feel out of place with these glad-handing extroverts. But if that is the case, then why would it ever be their goal to fit in with people you believe are so deserving of scorn and contempt? Why do you put them up on a pedestal and pout about not being accepted or even adored by them? Presumably because one would still like to pass, even in a school with supposedly "emphasis on networking above studious reflection"

naasking 4y ago

That's not the argument. The very opening paragraph says: > [extroverts] may not be responsible for all the evil in the world, but they did give us such pernicious results as Enron, Hollywood, the financial crisis, Washington, infomercials and Harvard Business School. A better summary of the article is contained within the article itself: > Susman noted that the qualities most often lauded in the advice manuals of the 19th century were “citizenship, duty, work, golden deeds, honor, reputation, morals, manners and integrity.” In the post-Carnegie era, these concepts were replaced by words such as “magnetic, fascinating, stunning, attractive, glowing, dominant, forceful and energetic.” Substance, then, was being replaced with surface, and the era of B.S. had begun. Fast-forward a hundred years and you can see Carnegie’s descendants trained in the highest BS — HBS, or Harvard Business School. So a fairer reading of the argument is, tongue in cheek, "not all extroverts are harmful bullshitters, but most bullshitters causing systemic problems are (at least trying to be) extroverts".

zozbot234 4y ago
> the qualities most often lauded in the advice manuals of the 19th century were “citizenship, duty, work, golden deeds, honor, reputation, morals, manners and integrity.” In the post-Carnegie era, these concepts were replaced by words such as “magnetic, fascinating, stunning, attractive, glowing, dominant, forceful and energetic.” Substance, then, was being replaced with surface, and the era of B.S. had begun. Quite accurate, but this had nothing to do with Carnegie and everything to do with the society-wide disaster that was WWI and WWII. If anything, Carnegie tried to avert the damage with his philanthropy and promotion of culture. The author is grasping at a strawman.

Bakary 4y ago

I can't believe I'm defending some random New York Post author, but that's not what's happening here. The article is deliberately employing a rant-like, tongue-in-cheek agony aunt style and sharing open-ended observations based on shared life experience and the natural intuition of the reader. It is not meant to be analyzed like a formal logic paper. There is no real data to verify since it concerns abstract values over trillions of human interactions, yet that does not mean it is not a worthwhile contribution. There are plenty of articles like this but there's nothing inherently wrong with employing this discursive style.

fknorangesite 4y ago
I've learned to never underestimate HN's capacity for pedantic literalism.
- As_You_Wish 4y ago
  It's everywhere. Everywhere. Metaphor, understatement, hyperbole, irony, satire, all verboten. I'm pretty sarcastic/satirical, and the number of times people say that it is "impossible to tell" sarcasm and satire in written form amazes me. Yet, there are always some people who do understand, so I know it isn't me, and I know that people do understand satire and sarcasm and all the other wonderful literary devices that are available. It's a cross to bear if one uses the full range of language.