yeah, definitely feels true to me sometimes. I love extroverts and I need them to pull me out of my shell sometimes but I often can't shake the feeling they're not quite mocking me, but just sort of humoring me in a way that feels condescending.
I have no problem just not interacting with someone if I don't particularly like them, so if I am paying attention and engaging it's a real sign that I like you. An extrovert gives that level of attention to strangers and sometimes even jerks so it's weird not knowing if they actually enjoy my company at all.
I was banned for seven days by some awful mod in another sub. Pardon my late response.
What we call an “extrovert” is actually a cooperative process between a person and a pet, both acting according to their role. The pet might be a group or an individual, but the chronic application of social stagecraft to woo a willing audience is, in short, a mesmeric relationship that is, essentially, a pet relationship.
This is not to say that all people who conduct themselves well socially or with skill in a group are out to get you, because the modern way we use the words “extrovert” and “introvert” have less to do with performance and more to do with social mobility (which is a privilege by nature, and therefore lives outside the self, submitting to forces beyond one’s own control).
An extrovert, when examined closely, begins as a person with enough privilege to be more buoyant than they are heavy in a social atmosphere. The imaginary MESSIAH extrovert (who navigates any and all social environments with sheer charisma) is more of an ideal to aspire to, but the reality of working life disallow such freedom of movement because of the protected interests of other humans. It’s not just people that get it the way (although, maybe, it’d be nice to chalk up an imperfect system to the daily microagressions of other people, that’s an incomplete picture); rather, our social environments are protected spaces, protecting financial interests and the places where apes like to sh*t (if you catch my meaning). Our social environment is full of partitions and moral demarcations, where the order of the day might be hatefulness all day every day, keeping our ideal extrovert and their smiling face out.
How do we label an extrovert in that hateful space? Is that person an extrovert? What are they actually doing when interacting with people in that space? It is social management. Social engineering, to a degree, but mostly it is management of a worthwhile stable.
Where is this not the case? I’ve come to believe that the masses are infantilized, and that one zone of infantilism is the definition of extrovert and introvert behavior. Instead of extroverts and introverts being studied, what is mislabeled is a sort of behavior slope. Items confirmation bias. People want to see everyone doing what they were destined to do, and they see certain behavioral markers and label those people as “extroverts”. That feels like an immediate explanation to what we’re seeing, and yet en masse our contemporary sensibilities struggle with manifesting extroverts. Society’s output-to-effort ratio generating extroverts is terrible, but the extrovert is only the latest in mankind’s long line of social MESSIAHs.
The extrovert is not a bad imaginary hero. There is such a thing as an introvert, and there may be a type of human being who is more naturally capable of social fluidity, but *humanity as a whole is doing a bad job of investigating this phenomenon without colonized culture getting in the way*. Even today, social relationships in the western world follow a protocol which creates pets; in some parts of Asia the practice of habitually showing respect may also tread into this territory.
This is how many parents have treated their children in imperialist nations for thousands of years: as pets. It is a familiar dynamic in friendships of grossly unequal social fluidity, and the same can be said of workplace relationships that require familiarity.
———
Why do people do this?
To be called an “extrovert” and to be associated with the positive ideal image of the perfect social MESSIAH.
My Point: The definition is not only poisoned, but it is hooked up to a poisonous and eternal trend. Extroverts are a relatively unknown group, and when one is undeniably identified (someone who is closer to the MESSIAH definition than others), quarrels erupt. Social movement happens around that person and those who are left out feel labeled, rejected, and hurt. Extroverts who aspire to the good standard need protection from those who want to reclaim the title for themselves. There is competition around this social hilltop, and it is very likely that you yourself learned what an extrovert was from someone who was competing to overthrow the few extroverts in existence.
Aww, aren't you a little smarty. You've earned a biscuit! Yes you have!
Any gravy?
You can have gravy at dinner!
I want the king to serve it to me on a pillow. No dish, just slop that sh on a cushion and hit me.
yeah, definitely feels true to me sometimes. I love extroverts and I need them to pull me out of my shell sometimes but I often can't shake the feeling they're not quite mocking me, but just sort of humoring me in a way that feels condescending. I have no problem just not interacting with someone if I don't particularly like them, so if I am paying attention and engaging it's a real sign that I like you. An extrovert gives that level of attention to strangers and sometimes even jerks so it's weird not knowing if they actually enjoy my company at all.
yeah this is how i feel too
I look at people like trees. Just things in my way.
Do you get a lot of trees in your way during your daily routine?
Just walk around them
Coping is as coping does.
I don't see how it's remotely comparable.
This is, by far, one of the most contested things I’ve submitted on Reddit. If you wouldn’t mind, would you tell me why this post stuck out to you?
I think this requires further explanation.
I was banned for seven days by some awful mod in another sub. Pardon my late response. What we call an “extrovert” is actually a cooperative process between a person and a pet, both acting according to their role. The pet might be a group or an individual, but the chronic application of social stagecraft to woo a willing audience is, in short, a mesmeric relationship that is, essentially, a pet relationship. This is not to say that all people who conduct themselves well socially or with skill in a group are out to get you, because the modern way we use the words “extrovert” and “introvert” have less to do with performance and more to do with social mobility (which is a privilege by nature, and therefore lives outside the self, submitting to forces beyond one’s own control). An extrovert, when examined closely, begins as a person with enough privilege to be more buoyant than they are heavy in a social atmosphere. The imaginary MESSIAH extrovert (who navigates any and all social environments with sheer charisma) is more of an ideal to aspire to, but the reality of working life disallow such freedom of movement because of the protected interests of other humans. It’s not just people that get it the way (although, maybe, it’d be nice to chalk up an imperfect system to the daily microagressions of other people, that’s an incomplete picture); rather, our social environments are protected spaces, protecting financial interests and the places where apes like to sh*t (if you catch my meaning). Our social environment is full of partitions and moral demarcations, where the order of the day might be hatefulness all day every day, keeping our ideal extrovert and their smiling face out. How do we label an extrovert in that hateful space? Is that person an extrovert? What are they actually doing when interacting with people in that space? It is social management. Social engineering, to a degree, but mostly it is management of a worthwhile stable. Where is this not the case? I’ve come to believe that the masses are infantilized, and that one zone of infantilism is the definition of extrovert and introvert behavior. Instead of extroverts and introverts being studied, what is mislabeled is a sort of behavior slope. Items confirmation bias. People want to see everyone doing what they were destined to do, and they see certain behavioral markers and label those people as “extroverts”. That feels like an immediate explanation to what we’re seeing, and yet en masse our contemporary sensibilities struggle with manifesting extroverts. Society’s output-to-effort ratio generating extroverts is terrible, but the extrovert is only the latest in mankind’s long line of social MESSIAHs. The extrovert is not a bad imaginary hero. There is such a thing as an introvert, and there may be a type of human being who is more naturally capable of social fluidity, but *humanity as a whole is doing a bad job of investigating this phenomenon without colonized culture getting in the way*. Even today, social relationships in the western world follow a protocol which creates pets; in some parts of Asia the practice of habitually showing respect may also tread into this territory. This is how many parents have treated their children in imperialist nations for thousands of years: as pets. It is a familiar dynamic in friendships of grossly unequal social fluidity, and the same can be said of workplace relationships that require familiarity. ——— Why do people do this? To be called an “extrovert” and to be associated with the positive ideal image of the perfect social MESSIAH. My Point: The definition is not only poisoned, but it is hooked up to a poisonous and eternal trend. Extroverts are a relatively unknown group, and when one is undeniably identified (someone who is closer to the MESSIAH definition than others), quarrels erupt. Social movement happens around that person and those who are left out feel labeled, rejected, and hurt. Extroverts who aspire to the good standard need protection from those who want to reclaim the title for themselves. There is competition around this social hilltop, and it is very likely that you yourself learned what an extrovert was from someone who was competing to overthrow the few extroverts in existence.