Thinking about people, thinking about stuff.

There are two kinds of people in the world [sic]: those who think about people, and those who think about stuff.

You may know them as extroverts & introverts.

I suppose you are familiar with the shortcomings of introverts: to be an introvert is to find oneself adrift in a world of bewildering social convention, inscrutable interpersonal subtleties and generally awkward at parties. It's exhausting. Introverts are like Formula 1 drivers trapped on the roads of a small village in an unfamiliar country. Forever forced to go slow because they don't know the rules.

But what of extroverts' shortcomings? At a neurological level improved mental ability generally comes at the expense of some other ability - so what have extroverts sacrificed in order to be able to able to make small talk?

They have sacrificed the ability to think about stuff. They are not good at thinking about things. Instead, they think about people. And this is a problem.

I have observed that people who I admire for their interpersonal sophistication, their political sense, their charm and flair for connecting with others - are really very bad at thinking clearly about problems and things. Often there is little more to their thinking than conformity. There seems to be an inverse relationship. See for yourself: in conversation,'E's bond over their chit-chat about people whilst 'I's wait for the opportunity to talk about something that interests them. 'I's can converse endlessly about the things that interest them - to the disdain of 'E's. 'E's are uneasy with dissent, 'I's quite like a good argument.

This problem plays out routinely, and with incalculable detrimental effect, in meetings (and Education policy). For starters  a meeting is an extrovert's way of solving things - 'we'll get together and chat'. From an introvert's perspective they are often utterly counter-productive: the extroverts in the room quickly dominate the interpersonal territory, chatting, building rapport, establishing congruence, while the introverts sit patiently waiting for a reasonable discussion about a topic to take place. But this never happens: by the time the group are ready to discuss something, not only has a pecking order been established, the group 'resolve' the matter by recourse to whatever best preserves the relationships: this makes perfect sense from an extrovert's perspective since they find thinking about 'stuff' as painful and confusing as do introverts about social niceties. 

So the introverts are forced to sit quietly by as they witness score upon score of ridiculous and ill-conceived conclusions being reached by people who are really just looking to find a way to 'get along'. In his TED talk, Jason Fried describes 'why work doesn't happen at work' - and makes a related point.

Technology is an introvert's tool. While extroverts fixate on their Facebook likes, introverts build Facebook. Technology empowers introverts enabling them to quietly, thoughtfully, work through problems and build solutions; beneath the babble of increasingly redundant 'decision-makers'. What choice do we have? They cannot think through stuff, they cannot play a useful part in this conversation. They will feel as lost and as overwhelmed as an autistic at a house party.

It's a curious kind of war that is being waged, therefore - but a very real one. One where an entire industry can be overturned by a couple of introverts working unnoticed on software. And very real choices for us: do we withdraw from these meetings, ignore their outcomes - or do we try to collectively redefine the way in which organisations and groups function, apportioning to each their proper place - how would we have such a conversation? It's difficult because 'I's have long been aware of their shortcomings, but 'E's have yet to become aware of theirs.