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 pernic

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".