It was clear to me from the beginning that it likely was a case of Generalizing From Few Examples (“[My test subjects and I don't like alcohol, therefore] nobody actually likes alcohol, and if you claim you do you're a liar!”), but I tried to keeping on reading. I had to stop at
(And FYI, that’s the proper spelling: extrovert is common but wrong, because extra- is the proper Latin prefix.)
No, etymology has little to do with whether a spelling is ‘wrong’. Extrovert it is the far more common spelling even in formal, edited prose (25 hits in the “Academic” section of the British National Corpus for extrover* vs 3 for extraver*) and it is the first spelling in plenty of major dictionaries. (Not to mention that the Italian word for that also has an O in the middle, so the alteration from the “proper Latin prefix” didn't even originally occur in English, unless the Italian word is re-borrowed from English.)
As for me, I prefer group brainstorming for certain tasks and individual brainstorming for other tasks.
I still like extravert, personally, because all the other english words which borrow that latin root are spelled with an "a"...extra...extraordinary, extraterrestrial, extravagant, extraneous.
For some reason, when I hear "extrovert" I picture someone who enjoys socializing, whereas when I hear "extravert" I picture someone who "turns outwards" and seeks external stimulation - as the latin roots dictate. This is probably because I first read "extrovert" in popular usage, and first read "extravert" in reference to Jungian typology, and the two definitions are slightly different.
I suppose making English consistent is a lost cause though, and I ought to just give up.
(And FYI, that’s the proper spelling: "homosexual" is common but wrong, because omo- is the proper Greek prefix.)
Cute.
Alas, "homosexual" — like "polyamory", "microgravity", "electroconduction", and "mammogram" — is a Greek-Latin compound.
("Homophile" was current once, but no longer; "polyphilia" is sometimes reported, "multiamory" not so much; "microbaricity" would imply vacuum rather than freefall; "anbaroconduction" unreported outside certain fantasy universes; and a "mammoscript" sounds like the upstairs equivalent of a Vagina Monologue.)
Silly introvert...the point of meetings is not to get work done, nor is it to generate ideas. It's to energize the team members, build relationships, and ensure that each person is on the same page and aware of the activities of other members. Most of the actual ideation is done in the shower.
On a serious note, the study cited only shows that groups are more satisfied with their performance on a brainstorming task than individuals are. It makes no mention of groups being more or less productive - except when citing other papers.
The reader should note that our explanation cannot only account for the fact that group members are more satisfied with their performance than individuals, it can also account for the finding that most people believe that group brainstorming is more effective than individual brainstorming, despite consistent evidence to the contrary. We would argue that in groups the impression arises that the ideas of others are very helpful, and recent evidence has indeed shown that ideas of others can be stimulating (Dugosh et al., 2001; Nijstad et al., 2002; Paulus & Yang, 2000). The reduction of failures may therefore be attributed to the stimulating effects of the ideas of others. After experience with group brainstorming, people believe that group brainstorming is effective, because ideas of others triggered new ideas and apparently made idea generation easier. They are, however, unaware of the disrupting effects of other factors, such as production blocking (see Diehl & Stroebe, 1987, 1991).
All this paper tells me is that individuals feel more satisfied after working in groups ... which seems like a terminal positive to me. Even looking at the citations for group work being unproductive, it seems like this issue is a bit more complicated than it is being made out to be. I'm not saying your quoted author is wrong, I'm saying that in order to determine whether or not his statements are founded in evidence, I would have to read the citations of his citations ... and frankly that's bad practice (unless you are citing a review paper).
in order to determine whether or not his statements are founded in evidence
His statements are pretty obviously founded in a bottom line of personal revulsion, and the details filled in later.
(extrovert here who hates meetings)
I think the extro/introvert split is unhelpful, people have preferences for and against different social activities. E.g. I can enjoy parties but not meetings, or prefer to read in silence but work as part of a group. The article is trying to take a few examples and extrapolate a much wider theory out of them.
Disliking meetings and reading in a crowded environment doesn't seem like much evidence that you're neither introverted nor extroverted (except that you're not one of Those Nasty Extraverts that keep supposedly fawning over meetings), which doesn't seem like much evidence that the introvert/extrovert split isn't helpful. I can't enjoy parties or meetings, prefer to read in silence and work alone.
Yeah...I'm extraverted too and I like meetings only if I like the people who are at the meeting and there is no clear leader of the group leading it.
He did mention that not all extraverts like meetings though.
Of course, most people I know hate meetings simply because meetings are work and they can't slip away to goof off.
That said, there is probably truth somewhere in what he said. I'm just mad at how he didn't say it in a way that was useful or effective in communicating any of it to me. I can't update on this type of evidence.
I need to know why he thinks he knows what he knows, and I need to know which tasks lower in productivity as a result of meetings.
Of course, most people I know hate meetings simply because meetings are work and they can't slip away to goof off.
Hmm, I have a bit of the opposite impression - meetings are the goofing off where everyone is trying to jabber on and on about their opinion on something nobody else cares about, or two people are talking about some obscure issue the other eight people here don't care or know about, or someone has to crack lame jokes all the time, and I keep wishing they would shut up and the meeting could end so we could get back to work because there's a goddamned project to finish.
Sure, communication is useful, but email and watercooler chat work often work well.
(of course there are also useful meetings, when they are short and have a specific topic, or when it's important to make sure everybody knows about something or agrees about something)
I guess it depends on the culture. It's up to the leader of the group to set up a successful meeting, and the skill with which you do this can make or break a team.
Where I work, we take turns choosing a relevant scientific paper published by someone in the field. We explain the ideas from the paper to the group and discuss how we can use these ideas in our own research.
For those who have our own projects, we explain the project and the rational behind it to the group. The newer members ask questions which force everyone to think clearly, and the more contrarian members point out flaws in the project.
The best meetings are where someone with a skill spreads it to the rest of the group. For example, the person in charge of the statistical analysis of the data might show everyone else the details of how it is done.
Especially for the undergrads like me, the "how" and "why" of what they are doing gets lost and these meetings help fill them in.
It helps that every meeting has a specific goal, and everyone is aware of this goal before they show up.
Some people zone out and are texting under the table the whole time. They treat meetings like a lecture which they are forced to sit through. Those who show interest and let their intelligence show are given more responsibilities and are given free reign to design their own projects. Obviously there is no "actual work" being done here, but I still think it's pretty valuable.
I dunno...I think it's one of the best parts of working in a lab. Running the actual experiments can get really, really boring...the primary pleasure is the exploratory phase where we talk about our ideas. But then, I'm an ENTP so I would say that.
Honestly, reading papers, devising experiments, and exchanging ideas with other people is the entire reason I like science, I don't enjoy the actual work of running the experiments...anyone with good attention to detail can do that job, given careful instructions.
And it seems to me like intelligent extraverts and introverts both speak up whenever ideas are being discussed. while those who are either less interested or not able to follow what is going on kind of retreat, regardless of intro/extravert status.
Yep, I agree, it probably depends of the organization culture and of the type of meeting. The meetings you describe sound kinda useful and closer to what was meant in the OP. It also covers some meetings I have at work on say brainstorming for game ideas (stuff that we all have to agree on, and where spontaneous surprises are needed), but meetings that are basically status reports about what everybody is working on, or in preparation for an upcoming feature tend to be a bit more like noisy distractions.
Silly introvert...the point of meetings is not to get work done, nor is it to generate ideas. It's to energize the team members, build relationships, and ensure that each person is on the same page and aware of the activities of other members.
Silly idealist... the point of meetings is to allow the powerful to display and exert social dominance and for the less powerful to affiliate and jostle for favor at the expense of rivals.
Silly introvert...the point of meetings is not to get work done, nor is it to generate ideas. It's to energize the team members, build relationships
So not to produce any product beyond good feelings in extroverts and bad feelings in introverts?
and ensure that each person is on the same page and aware of the activities of other members.
The two people who need to be on the same page about any particular issue make it happen offline.
But it sounds like someone is drinking the corporate Kool Aid just like a good extrovert should.
I think more accurately, the point of most group meetings is to diffuse credit, responsibility, and accountability, while giving the illusion of effort and contribution to those providing neither.
You're acting like extraverts get good feelings and introverts get bad feelings via simple contact with other people. It isn't like that at all.
Extraverts get energized by external excitement and get bored or listless in the absence of it.
Introverts get energized by internal excitement, and get worn out when it gets blocked out for prolonged periods via attention-sapping external stimulation.
A meeting isn't going to hurt introverts, any more than reading a book would hurt extraverts. Introverts also derive benefits from making connections with others, even if they do not necessarily enjoy the initial stages of social activity involved in forging those connections. It's not like the introverts are being dragged into nightclubs or anything.
I agree with you about the diffusion of accountability thing though...that happens all the time and it is beyond irritating
Extraverts get energized by external excitement and get bored or listless in the absence of it.
Introverts get energized by internal excitement, and get worn out when it gets blocked out for prolonged periods via attention-sapping external stimulation.
So, extroverts get energized by interacting with a bunch of people, i.e., having a meeting, while introverts get worn out by "attention-sapping external stimulation". Energized good, worn out bad.
For more news from the Introvert Liberation Front
Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking, Susan Cain
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004J4WNL2/ref=oh_d__o07_details_o07__i00
Viva la Resistance!
Groupthink is as powerful as ever. Why is that? I'll tell you. It's because the world is run by extraverts.
The problem with extraverts... is a lack of imagination.
pretty much everything that is organized is organized by extraverts, which in turn is their justification for ruling the world.
This seems to be largely an article about how we Greens are so much better than those Blues rather than offering much that is useful.
Yeah, my first thought was, because we're animals that evolved to be quite social and have developed cognitive biases in light of that fact! Bet you can find powerful "groupthink" in introverts as well. . . like, say, an insistence on thinking in terms of introverts vs. extroverts.
Personally, as an introvert, I tend to be more productive in group projects than individual projects, not because group brainstorming provided me with useful ideas (I don't recall this ever happening,) but because being productive in the group project would improve my status among my peers in the group, and being unproductive would lower it.
Pair me up with an unproductive person, and I can produce more than the two of us put together would have produced separately.
On the other hand, if other members of the group are productive enough that they deliberately shift the work burden to themselves, I will tend to become less productive (and accept the consequent status loss,) because I'm not forceful enough to demand "Hey, give me a bigger share of work."
Office stuff is different from carpentry, but I know that one person is less productive (per person) than two, and two less than three. Four is usually overkill. Beyond that, carpentry teams are organized in groups of three when they're not singletons.
I don't know if the sheer number of items on the board is a good measure of productivity. Under certain circumstances, a brainstormer might edit what she says more tightly. I suspect that above a certain number of people, there isn't enough time for everyone to be heard in any case.
I have a hunch that for office environments, the ideal team size is somewhere between 1 and however many co-workers you are forced to endure. I've been at really effective meetings: they aren't "productive" so much as "efficient". Rather than inspiring everyone, they end up with everyone knowing what's been done and what needs to be done, all with the least time spent.
There's certainly a case to be made for fewer meetings that are better run, and smaller teams may make sense, but I'm not convinced that this study has anything to say about introverts vs extroverts.
I went and looked through The American Conservative site more carefully, here is what it says:
Today the country pays the price for the left-wing ideologies that ran rampant in the 20th century and the right-wing, but not conservative, reaction that has only exacerbated the destruction wrought by the left.
That's some mind-killing stuff right there. And the writeup by Alan Jacobs spins the linked article on group productivity a fair bit, too. Surely you could have found a less biased source to quote. Here is one for example.
Hypothesis: the only reason people downvote this is because the link is The American Conservative.
Another counterexample: I didn't follow the "article" link either.
I did look up the paper quoted (Nijstad et al), looked up and skimmed through Diehl and Stroebe 1987, found two blog posts by Scott Berkun discussing brainstorming in a much saner manner, and overall updated somewhat away from the belief "brainstorming is a valuable part of a decision or design process".
Then I came back and downvoted the OP, for approvingly quoting someone who spins "brainstormers in groups produce fewer ideas than individually" into "all group work is useless", then non sequiturs into rant mode.
Well, I didn't downvote it, but I'm certainly tempted to because introvert and misanthrope are not synonyms. And the author is a pedant too.
A fun article by Alan Jacobs. Check out the paper he cites, if anyone finds an non-paywalled version, I'll edit in the link here. HT for the link to Michael Bloom.
I really do need to find more written by this author. But while I certainly do very much share this sentiment I have a hard time figuring out how common it is. After all people don't look good saying they "don't like meeting new people".