A Christmas Story for people having a bad day:
When four of Santa's elves got sick, the trainee elves did not produce toys as fast as the regular ones, and Santa began to feel the Pre-Christmas pressure.
Then Mrs. Claus told Santa her Mother was coming to visit, which stressed Santa even more.
When he went to harness the reindeer, he found that three of them were about to give birth and two others had jumped the fence and were out, Heaven knows where.
Then when he began to load the sleigh, one of the floorboards cracked, the toy bag fell to the ground and all the toys were scattered.
Frustrated, Santa went in the house for a cup of apple cider and a shot of rum.. When he went to the cupboard, he discovered the elves had drank all the cider and hidden the liquor. In his frustration, he accidentally dropped the cider jug, and it broke into hundreds of little glass pieces all over the kitchen floor. He went to get the broom and found the mice had eaten all the straw off the end of the broom.
Just then the doorbell rang, and irritated Santa marched to the door, yanked it open, and there stood a little angel with a great big Christmas tree.
The angel said very cheerfully, 'Merry Christmas, Santa.. Isn't this a lovely day? I have a beautiful tree for you. Where would you like me to stick it?'
And so began the tradition of the little angel on top of the Christmas tree.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Once upon a time a man appeared in a village and announced to the villagers that he would buy donkeys for $10 each.
The villagers, seeing that there were many donkeys around, went out and started catching them.
The man bought thousands at $10 and, as supply started to diminish, the villagers stopped their effort.
He next announced that he would now buy donkeys at $20 each.
This renewed the efforts of the villagers and they started catching donkeys again.
Soon the supply diminished even further and people started going back to their farms.
The offer increased to $25 each and the supply of donkeys became so scarce it was an effort to even find a donkey, let alone catch it! The man now announced that he would buy donkeys at $50 each!
However, since he had to go to the city on some business, his assistant would buy on his behalf.
In the absence of the man, the assistant told the villagers: "Look at all these donkeys in the big cage that the man has already collected. I will sell them to you at $35 and when the man returns from the city, you can sell them to him for $50 each."
The villagers rounded up all their savings and bought all the donkeys for 700 billion dollars.
They never saw the man or his assistant again, only lots and lots of asses!
Now you have a better understanding of how the WALL STREET BAILOUT PLAN WILL WORK !!!!
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Click on the drawing to see a LARGER version
Friday, November 14, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Click OVER the drawing to see it LARGER
Saturday, November 8, 2008
How to read this map Severe Weather Outlook National Forecast
Además, la culpa no es mía, es de la evolución. Sobreviven los organismos que mejor se adapten a los cambios al medio ambiente donde viven. Y éstos, señores, son los cambios que he podido observar en la sopa primordial de nuestra sociedad:
- Si a un estadista le gusta beber, cantar y janguear con los panas, es un "bum", un borrachón y un títere.
- Si lo hace un independentista, es un bohemio.
- Si un estadista es pelú y barbú es porque es un puerco desaliñado que imita a los rockeros americanos tecatos.
- Si un independentista es pelú y barbú está expresando su rebelión contra el sistema.
- Si un estadista cae preso por asesino, asaltante y ponebombas, es un reaccionario.
- Si un independentista cae preso por asesino, asaltante y ponebombas, es un preso político.
- Si un estadista no trabaja y vive de cupones, es un vago vividor que le chupa al sistema
- Si un independentista no trabaja y vive de cupones, está en huelga de brazos caídos protestando las injusticias del capitalismo
- Si un estadista lleva 10 años haciendo un bachillerato, es porque es bien bruto, centella.
- Si lo hace un independentista, es porque es FUPIsta y por lo tanto tiene cosas mucho más importantes que hacer en la Universidad que tomar clases.
- Si un estadista comete un crimen, es reflejo de la cómo la violencia y pudrición decadente de la sociedad americana se ha infiltrado en nuestra nación.
- Si un independentista comete el mismo crimen, es una víctima inocente de la sociedad.
- Si un estadista se va para los EEUU a buscar mejor trabajo, es porque es un vende-patria a quien lo que le interesa es el dinero.
- Si lo hace un independentista, es porque en PR lo "persiguen" y para huir, pues se va... precisamente para casa del perseguidor
- Si haces una parodia de un estadista, como Don Eleuterio, eres un comediante progresivo y de vanguardia.
- Si haces una parodia igual de un independentista, eres un reaccionario, un vendepatria y un pitiyanqui.
- Si un artista, deportista o figura pública se canta estadista, lo abuchean, la Prensa le cae arriba, y le dicen que los artistas no deben meterse en política.
- Si un artista, deportista o figura pública se declara independentista, lo trepan en las tarimas y lo alaban aunque desafine mas que un gato borracho
- Si un estadista se altera en una discusión y habla duro, es un malcriao, burdo y falto de educación
- Si lo hace un independentista, esta justamente indignado.
- Si un político estadista habla y no lo entiende nadie, es porque no se sabe expresar
- Si un político independentista habla y no lo entienden, es porque su pensamiento es muy profundo para las masas comunes.
- Si un político estadista pierde las elecciones, es porque el pueblo sabio lo sacó. - Si un político independentista pierde, es porque es un incomprendido.
Y para culminar:
- Si un estadista no paga sus impuestos, es un pillo.
- Si un independentista no los paga, es un héroe nacional y hay que hacer una colecta para pagárselos!!!
Luis Dávila Colón tomó "prestado" éste escrito hace años y lo incluyó (con varios cambios) como un capítulo en su libro La Dictadura de la Prensa. ;-)
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Click OVER the drawing to see it LARGER
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Best-selling author Michael Crichton has died in Los Angeles aged 66 after a "courageous and private battle against cancer", his family has said.
He penned Jurassic Park, as well as books like Congo and Disclosure, all of which were adapted into films.
His books have sold more than 150 million copies. He also created the long-running US hospital drama ER.
"He will be profoundly missed by those whose lives he touched," his family said in a statement.
A private funeral service is expected.
Crichton is survived by wife Sherri and daughter Taylor.
| || |
CRICHTON'S BEST-KNOWN NOVELS
Odds On (1966)
The Andromeda Strain (1969)
The Great Train Robbery (1975)
Jurassic Park (1990)
The Lost World (1995) - pictured
State of Fear (2004)
The family's statement paid tribute to a "devoted husband, loving father and generous friend".
It added: "Through his books, Michael Crichton served as an inspiration to students of all ages, challenged scientists in many fields, and illuminated the mysteries of the world in a way we could all understand."
A new Crichton novel had been scheduled to come out in the US next month.
Publisher HarperCollins said the book would now be postponed indefinitely.
A Harvard Medical School graduate, Chicago-born Crichton became the toast of Hollywood when his 1971 novel The Andromeda Strain was turned into a film.
Many of his novels and screenplays were adapted for cinema.
The most successful were Jurassic Park, which burst onto the screen in 1993, and its sequel The Lost World.
ER has won a host of Emmys since it began in 1994, and helped launch the career of George Clooney.
Crichton's 2004 bestseller State of Fear caused controversy when it cast doubt on the dangers of global warming.
Environmentalists said his novel was marring efforts to pass legislation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Published: 2008/11/05 19:20:06 GMT
© BBC MMVIII
Monday, November 3, 2008
Lo "fácil" es ganar la elección...
Lo difícil será bregar con el desmadre apocalíptico que ha dejado el PPD luego de 8 años...
Monday, October 27, 2008
Microsoft Unveils ‘Cloud’ Operating System
LOS ANGELES — Looking for growth in new markets where it is increasingly being bypassed, Microsoft said Monday that it would begin offering a new “cloud” operating system that would manage the relationship between software inside the computer and on the Web, where data and services are increasingly centralized. The software is expected to go on sale late next year.
Although Microsoft has continued to see strong sales of its operating system software to corporate customers, growth of its Windows Vista operating system appears stalled. Moreover, the company has significantly delayed its next generation of mobile smartphone software at a time that competitors like Apple and Research in Motion are making inroads into the market of software for mobile devices used in businesses.
Declaring a third era of operating systems, Microsoft, which is based in Redmond, Wash., is hoping that it will be able to repeat the success it had with its DOS and Windows operating systems of the 1980s and 1990s in a new computing world populated not by a single style of desktop computer, but instead by dozens of different kinds of Internet connected appliances ranging from smartphones to netbooks.
The new Microsoft “cloud OS” — dubbed Azure — has been designed during the last three years by Ray Ozzie, a software designer whose company, Groove Networks, was acquired by Microsoft in 2005. Mr. Ozzie began taking over the reins from Bill Gates as the company’s principal software architect in 2006.
Before an audience of 6,500 software developers, Mr. Ozzie tried to make the case that missing a shift to a new Microsoft operating platform is a huge risk for the computer industry rank and file.
Speaking as a software developer who had frequently sat in the audience at similar Microsoft events as a customer, Mr. Ozzie said: “Every time there is a major platform shift in our industry, it has turned into new opportunities for my apps and my business.”
His comment was a clear reference to an earlier juncture in the history of the computer industry, when companies like Lotus Development where Mr. Ozzie worked, were late to adopt the first generation of the Windows operating system. That shift gave the Windows Office suite a significant advantage and helped Microsoft dominate word processing, spreadsheet and other office software.
At the same time, while Microsoft’s software business for corporations continues robust growth, there are increasing questions about whether the company will be able to strengthen its desktop computing business in an era that is increasingly defined by free or advertising supported Internet services.
In that sense the arrival of Azure represents a harmonization of the traditional proprietary software world with a new set of tools that is more closely aligned with a set of Internet standards that is being widely used to generate most popular Web services.
“This is the first time they are showing all the pieces coming together,” said Peter O’Kelly, a computer industry consultant based in Andover, Mass. Although the company will not release a commercial version of Azure for a year or more, Mr. O’Kelly said that components of the system such as Live Services are already being used by millions of personal computer users.
Microsoft gave only one significant demonstration of the kind of applications made possible with its new system. Sentient Software showed a mobile social networking application called Bluehoo. The company said that Azure would make it easier to expand the service by using computing resources provided by Microsoft.
On Tuesday, Microsoft is expected to give its first lengthy demonstration of its Windows 7 desktop operating system, which is intended to rejuvenate the company’s sputtering consumer business. Microsoft has also hinted that it would show off Web versions of several of its Office applications for the first time.
TV prices could plummet for holidays
Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:52PM EDT
See Comments (41)Buzz up!on Yahoo!
I'm getting mixed messages on the TV pricing issue.
First, it's pretty clear that prices will continue to slip as the holidays approach: You can thank the global economic crisis and slow demand for that. But the harsh realities of how the flat-panel business would seem to indicate that there's not much further for flat panel prices to fall. Why? Because in virtually all cases, LCD screens are already being sold to TV and computer companies at prices below cost, according to the latest research from DisplaySearch, which closely tracks this industry.
In some cases the discrepancy is extreme: Panel makers are selling bare 32-inch LCD TV panels for an estimated $223 to manufacturers, but those panels cost between $248 and $256 to build. In other words: For now, the panel makers are losing up to $33 on every panel they sell.
Prices for finished TVs vary widely of course, but name-brand 32-inch LCD TVs can be found at retail for under $600, with $599 being a pretty common price point. Add in labor and the additional materials that go into a finished TV, distribution costs, and markup from the retailer, and there really isn't a lot of fat left in television prices. (Very large TVs are the exception, so if you're looking for bargains, shop smaller.)
Now here's the curious flipside. According to a blog post on the very same topic at the New York Times, another researcher, also at DisplaySearch, says that prices are likely going to plummet in the next few weeks. According the post, this researchers says prices on 32-inch TVs could hit between $399 and $499.
That would be an enormous drop, and it almost sounds too good (for shoppers) to be true. Again, the reasons are all about trying to salvage sales in the fourth quarter... but the story also alludes to the fact that the biggest discounts will be in the bare-bones, off-brand, stripped-down TVs. You'll get good enough picture quality, but don't expect, say, 120Hz operation, multiple HDMI inputs, and so on.
The most likely outcome is that off-brand models will fall quite a bit, but name brand sets will have more modest price cuts. (I'm deeply skeptical that we'll see 32-inch LCDs hit $399 aside from the occasional Black Friday sale, but that's a gut reaction.) Is it worth it to wait a few weeks to save 50 bucks on the price of a TV? How willing you are to brave holiday crowds and fight over what could become hotly desired goodies may have to dictate your next move.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
|GOES-East North America 4km Infrared|
02:15 PM EDT Oct 15 20081815 UTC Wed Oct 15 2008
| Select Image Size: Thumbnail | Standard | Large |
Model Overlay: On | Off
Select Animation Style: Java | Build Gif
Switch Satellite: GOES-West | GOES-West Mosaic | GOES-12
| Current Region: North America || Current Channel: GOES-East: 4 km IR |
|Return to: Main Satellite Page | Hawaiian Island Closeups | Tropical Central/Eastern Pacific | US Mainland | Tropical Atlantic|
Atlantic Tropical Weather Outlook
ABNT20 KNHC 151809
TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
200 PM EDT WED OCT 15 2008
FOR THE NORTH ATLANTIC...CARIBBEAN SEA AND THE GULF OF MEXICO...
THE NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER IS ISSUING ADVISORIES ON HURRICANE
OMAR...LOCATED ABOUT 235 MILES SOUTHWEST OF ST. CROIX VIRGIN
ISLANDS. THE NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER IS ALSO ISSUING
ADVISORIES ON TROPICAL DEPRESSION SIXTEEN...LOCATED ABOUT 40 MILES
EAST-SOUTHEAST OF LIMON HONDURAS.
ELSEWHERE...TROPICAL CYCLONE FORMATION IS NOT EXPECTED DURING THE
NEXT 48 HOURS.
WTCA45 TJSJ 151828
HURACAN OMAR ADVERTENCIA INTERMEDIA NUMERO 9A
NWS TPC/CENTRO NACIONAL DE HURACANES MIAMI FL AL152008
200 PM AST MIERCOLES 15 DE OCTUBRE DE 2008
...OMAR SE ORGANIZA MEJOR MIENTRAS SE MUEVE HACIA LAS ISLAS
SOTAVENTO DEL NORTE...
A LAS 200 PM AST...1800 UTC...EL GOBIERNO DE ANTIGUA Y BARBUDA HA
REMPLAZADO EL AVISO DE HURACAN CON UNA VIGILANCIA DE HURACAN Y AVISO
DE TORMENTA TROPICAL PARA LAS ISLAS DE ST. KITTS Y NEVIS.
UN AVISO DE HURACAN CONTINUA EN EFECTO PARA LAS ISLAS VIRGENES
AMERICANAS Y LAS ISLAS DE VIEQUES Y CULEBRA.
ESTA EN EFECTO UN AVISO DE HURACAN PARA ST. MARTIN/MAARTEN...
SABA...ST. EUSTATIUS...ST. BARTHELEMY...LAS ISLAS VIRGENES
UN AVISO DE HURACAN SIGNIFICA QUE SE ESPERAN CONDICIONES DE HURACAN
DENTRO DEL AREA BAJO AVISO EN LAS PROXIMAS 24 HORAS. LOS
PREPARATIVOS PARA PROTEGER VIDA Y PROPIEDAD DEBEN SER COMPLETADOS
ESTA EN EFECTO UN AVISO DE TORMENTA TROPICAL PARA ANTIGUA...BARBUDA
UN AVISO DE TORMENTA TROPICAL SIGNFICA QUE SE ESPERAN CONDICIONES DE
TORMENTA TROPICAL DENTRO DEL AREA BAJO AVISO EN LAS PROXIMAS 24
PERMANECE EN EFECTO UNA VIGILANCIA DE HURACAN Y UN AVISO DE TORMENTA
TROPICAL PARA PUERTO RICO.
UNA VIGILANCIA DE HURACAN SIGNIFICA QUE CONDICIONES DE HURACAN SON
POSIBLES DENTRO DEL AREA BAJO VIGILANCIA...GENERALMENTE DENTRO DE
LAS PROXIMAS 36 HORAS.
A LAS 200 PM AST...EL GOBIERNO DE FRANCIA HA EMITIDO UNA VIGILANCIA
E TORMENTA TROPICAL PARA LA ISLA DE GUADELOUPE.
UN AVISO DE HURACAN PUDIERA SER REQUERIDO PARA PUERTO RICO MAS TARDE
PARA INFORMACION ESPECIFICA PARA SU AREA...INCLUYENDO POSIBLES
AVISOS Y VIGILANCIAS...FAVOR DE REFERIRSE A LOS PRODUCTOS EMITIDOS
POR SUS OFICINAS LOCALES DE METEOROLOGIA.
A LAS 2 PM AST...1800Z...EL CENTRO DEL HURACAN OMAR FUE LOCALIZADO
POR UN AVION DE RECONOCIMIENTO CERCA DE LA LATITUD 15.5 NORTE...
LONGITUD 66.6 OESTE O COMO A 195 MILLAS...380 KM...AL SUROESTE DE
SAINT CROIX...Y COMO A 205 MILLAS... 330 KM...AL SUR DE SAN JUAN
OMAR SE MUEVE HACIA EL ESTE NORESTE A CERCA DE 13 MPH...20 KM/HR...Y
SE ESPERA UN MOVIMIENTO GRADUAL HACIA EL NORSETE MAS TARDE HOY CON
UN AUMENTO GRADUAL EN LA VELOCIDAD DE TRASLACION EN LOS PROXIMOS
DIAS. EN LA TRAYECTORIA PRONOSTICADA...SE ESPERA QUE OMAR SE MUEVA A
TRAVES DEL NORTE DE LAS ISLAS DE SOTAVENTO ESTA NOCHE Y TEMPRANO EL
REPORTES DE UN AVION DE RECONOCIMIENTO INDICA QUE LOS VIENTOS
MAXIMOS SOSTENIDOS ESTAN CERCA DE 85 MPH...140 KM/HR...CON RAFAGAS
MAS FUERTES. OMAR ES UN HURACAN CATEGORIA UNO EN LA ESCALA DE
HURACANES SAFFIR-SIMPSON. SE PRONOSTICA UN DESARROLLO ADICIONAL
DURANTE LAS PROXIMAS 24 HORAS...Y OMAR PUDIERA SER UN HURACAN
CATEGORIA DOS AL MOMENTO QUE SE ACERQUE A LAS ISLAS DE SOTAVENTO DEL
NORTE. ADEMAS...VIENTOS MAS FUERTES...ESPECIALMENTE EN RAFAGAS...SON
PROBABLES EN LAS AREAS MAS ELEVADAS.
LOS VIENTOS CON FUERZA DE HURACAN SE EXTIENDEN HACIA AFUERA HASTA 15
MILLAS...30 KM...DEL CENTRO...Y LOS VIENTOS CON FUERZA DE TORMENTA
TROPICAL SE EXTIENDEN HASTA 115 MILLAS...185 KM...DEL CENTRO.
DURANTE LA PASA HORA...LA BOYA NOAA 42059 LOCALIZADO JUSTO AL
NOROESTE DEL OJO DE OMAR REPORTO VIENTOS SOSTENIDO DE 1-MINUTO DE
64 MPH...104 KM/HR...Y UNA RAFAGA HASTA 78 MPH...126 KM/HR.
LA PRESION CENTRAL MINIMA ESTIMADA POR UN AVION DE RECONOCIMIENTO ES
DE 978 MILIBARES...28.88 PULGADAS.
SE ESPERA QUE OMAR PRODUZCA ACUMULACIONES TOTALES DE LLUVIA DE 4 A 8
PULGADAS SOBRE PORCIONES DE LAS ANTILLAS HOLANDESAS...CON CANTIDADES
MAXIMAS DE HASTA 12 PULGADAS POSIBLES. LAS CANTIDADES DE LLUVIA DE 2
A 4 PULGADAS CON CANTIDADES MAXIMAS DE 6 PULGADAS SON POSIBLES A
TRAVES DEL EXTREMO NOROESTE Y NORTE CENTRAL DE VENEZUELA Y AL NORTE
DE LA PENINSULA DE GUAJIRA. ACUMULACIONES DE LLUVIA TOTAL DE 5 A 10
PULGADAS...CON MAXIMOS DE HASTA 20 PULGADAS...SON POSIBLES A TRAVES
DE PUERTO RICO Y EL NORTE DE LAS ISLAS DE SOTAVENTO. ESTAS LLUVIAS
PODRIAN PROVOCAR INUNDACIONES REPENTINAS Y DESLIZAMIENTOS DE LODO
QUE PONGAN LAS VIDAS EN RIESGO.
SE PUEDEN ESPERAR INUNDACIONES COSTERAS DE 1 A 2 PIES SOBRE LOS
NIVELES NORMALES DE LA MAREA...JUNTO CON OLAS ROMPIENTES GRANDES Y
PELIGROSAS CERCA Y A LA DERECHA DE LA TRAYECTORIA DE OMAR. ADEMAS...
SE ESPERA QUE OMAR PRODUZCA MAREJADAS GRANDES QUE AFECTARAN LAS
COSTAS DEL OESTE Y SUR DE PUERTO RICO Y LAS ISLAS DE LAS ANTILLAS
MENORES. ESTAS MAREJADAS PUDIERAN CAUSAR EROSIONES EN LAS PLAYAS Y
DANOS A LAS ESTRUCTURAS COSTERAS.
REPITIENDO LA POSICION A LAS 200 PM AST...15.5 NORTE...66.6 OESTE.
MOVIMIENTO HACIA EL ESTE NORESTE A CERCA DE 13 MPH. VIENTOS MAXIMOS
SOSTENIDOS...85 MPH. PRESION CENTRAL MINIMA...978 MILIBARES.
LA PROXIMA ADVERTENCIA INTERMEDIA SERA EMTIDA POR EL CENTRO NACIONAL
DE HURACANES A LAS LAS 500 PM AST.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
How to read this map Severe Weather Outlook National Forecast
GOES-East Caribbean 4km Infrared
11:45 PM EDT Oct 14 20080345 UTC Wed Oct 15 2008
Select Image Size: Thumbnail | Standard | Large
Model Overlay: On | Off
Select Animation Style: Java | Build Gif
Switch Satellite: GOES-West | GOES-West Mosaic | GOES-12
| Menu of Text Products for the Hawaiian Islands and the Tropical Pacific/Atlantic Oceans:|
Narrow the Menu List
Select Time Limit: 12 hours | 24 hours | 48 hours | 72 hours | No time limit
Select Product Type: All | Routine Bulletins/Forecasts | Warnings/Watches/Advisories | Hawaiian Weather | Tropical | Marine | Aviation Products | Daily Observations | Special Messages
Atlantic Tropical Weather Outlook
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Rogelio Figueroa, el Colegio de Ingenieros y la Colegiación Compulsoria
Nadie dijo nada sobre lo de Rogelio simplemente porque Rogelio es totalmente irrelevante en ésta campaña. Como mucho, es el comic relief. Aníbal y Fortuño, en cambio, son los que representan a los partidos que tienen posibilidades realistas en las elecciones. Por lo tanto lo que hacen y dicen está sujeto al escrutinio público. Pero nadie pierde el tiempo discutiendo si Rogelio es o no ingeniero porque francamente ¡¡¡ a nadie le importa !!!
Dicho eso, Rogelio ES INGENIERO, aunque no le guste al Colegio de Ingenieros de PR (CIAPR). Rogelio tiene una Maestría en Ingeniería Química. Él estudió, pasó sus clases, obtuvo su grado de una universidad acreditada, por lo tanto es ingeniero. El CIAPR vive bajo la conveniente ficción de aunque te hayas graduado, aunque hayas revalidado, no puedes ser un ingeniero de verdad a menos que les pagues cientos de $ por un papelito verde que diga "Miembro del Club". This definitely falls under the category of "heap of hot steaming bullshit".
El CIAPR, igual que el de Abogados y demás Colegios en PR, tienen la mentalidad gremial idiota de la Europa Medieval, de que si no eres miembro del gremio y no les pagas cuotas a sus exhaltados líderes, no puedes ejercer. Afortunadamente la inmensa mayoría de los Ingenieros de PR se pasan lo que diga el CIAPR por donde el sol no les alumbra, y ni se preocupan por hacerse miembros. Váyase ud a cualquier empresa privada, cualquier farmacéutica, y verá que menos de 10% de los ingenieros están colegiados, aún cuando las empresas TE PAGAN la colegiación anualmente si quieres. Simplemente a la gente no les interesa colegiarse.
Desde luego, como buenos trucutrús que son, los genios del CIAPR miran la situación y en lugar de concluir lo obvio (que los ingenieros NO DERIVAN VALOR NI BENEFICIO ALGUNO de pagarle cientos de $ anuales a un grupito elitista de contratistas barrigones para que beban cerveza y jueguen domino), lo que hacen es recurrir a tácticas de intimidación y amenaza, como eso de públicamente amenazar a Rogelio. Es algo totalmente ridículo.
La colegiación compulsoria limita a las empresas multinacionales que tienen que traer personal de afuera para proyectos (algo que ocurre constantemente), porque es irreal y estúpido pedirles que revaliden y paguen cuotas.
La Colegiación tal vez haga sentido en el mundo de los abogados, porque tal vez sirva como mecanismo para asegurar que quien practica la abogacía conozca las leyes de PR. Pero en la ingeniería la colegiación compulsoria es una idiotez. La física, el cálculo, las ecuaciones diferenciales, la termodinámica y la mecánica de fluídos de PR son las mismas que las del resto del Universo. El título y la reválida son toda la evidencia necesaria para certificar que una persona es realmente un ingeniero.
El problema con las colegiaciones COMPULSORIAS en general es que los Colegios no tienen incentivo alguno de proveerle valor o beneficios a los colegiados. El colegiado está "obligado por ley" a pagarles, pero ellas no están obligadas por ley a nada. Si la membresía a éstas organizaciones fuera voluntaria, se verían obligadas a competir para GANARSE los miembros. Así hay muchísimas organizaciones profesionales (ASQ, ASME, ASHRAE, ASCE, AIChE), la membresía es voluntaria y los ingenieros prefieren meterse en esas y no en el CIAPR, porque obtienen beneficios y prestigio de ser miembros. Lo único que obtienes del CIAPR es arrogancia, attitude, cobros, y que usen tu dinero para hablar brosa y meterse en politiquerías a nombre tuyo. Dicho sea de paso, Rosselló siempre estuvo en contra de las colegiaciones compulsorias. Aníbal, en cambio, las defendió a rajatabla en la plataforma del PPD en el 2004.
La colegiación compulsoria es un RACKET.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Supreme Court's Direction Hinges on Who Wins '08 Race
A McCain Victory May Tilt Balance
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 6, 2008; A02
Conservative legal activists view the two men as remarkable successes in Bush's quest to move the court to the right, and that is part of the reason that, as the court begins its work anew today, public attention is focused less on the cases at hand than on the court's future.
"A President Obama or a President McCain will likely be handed an opportunity to affect the makeup of the Supreme Court that is unprecedented in our history," said Wendy Long, chief counsel for the Judicial Confirmation Network, which was active in generating public support for the confirmations of Roberts and Alito.
Obama, supported by a strongly Democratic Senate, could be presented with three openings during his first term, said Walter Dellinger, a prolific Supreme Court practitioner who was acting solicitor general in the Clinton administration.
"President Obama is going to be able, I think, to name whoever he wishes to the court and have that person confirmed," Dellinger said last week during a discussion at the Institute of Bill of Rights Law at William and Mary Law School.
But whether that would alter the court's basic dynamic is hardly clear.
The court is roughly balanced on important constitutional issues, with four consistent conservatives, four liberals and, in the middle, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who leans right on many issues but often joins liberals on some of the court's most controversial decisions.
Replacing liberals Stevens, Ginsburg and Souter with similar-minded justices would infuse the left wing of the court with younger leadership but leave the basic balance intact.
"What you really want to do in reshaping the court is change the median justice," said John McGinnis, a constitutional law expert and professor at Northwestern University. "That changes a lot more votes in the long run than just exchanging one liberal for another or one conservative for another."
To that end, advantage McCain.
The ages of the justices -- Souter is the youngest on the left, and Antonin Scalia is the oldest on the right at 72 -- favor the likelihood that the first opening would come from the liberal side. Stevens, although robust and in good health, is the second-oldest justice in the court's history. The fourth liberal is Justice Stephen G. Breyer.
Replacing one of the liberal justices with a consistent conservative such as Roberts and Alito -- the two McCain has said would serve as models for his picks -- could have far-reaching consequences on issues such as abortion, church-state separation, racial preferences and executive privilege.
But, as other presidents have found, justices take seriously their lifetime appointments and their legacies.
"We know from history that people generally do not leave the court when they're going to be replaced by someone they don't think is very much like them ideologically," McGinnis said.
Even if McCain has the chance to replace one of the liberals, he would face a formidable obstacle if Democrats control more than 55 seats in the Senate.
"It would be impossible for him to get somebody who's extremely conservative confirmed in . . . a Democratic Senate," said lawyer Miguel Estrada, whose nomination to a federal appellate court was blocked by Democrats.
McCain's best bet to appoint someone close to his "ideological ideal point," McGinnis said, would be to nominate a woman or a minority, who might be more difficult for Democrats to oppose. The last three appointments to the court have been white men, and there has never been a Hispanic justice.
Although there is no doubt the candidates would appoint very different people to the high court and lower federal judgeships, they also present a striking contrast in how they might approach the job.
Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, known for its analytic approach to the law, and would rely on his own thoughts on constitutional theories, said Cass R. Sunstein, a former colleague now at Harvard Law School and an informal Obama adviser.
"He knows these issues," Sunstein said. "I'd be very surprised if he wasn't extremely involved" in choosing nominees," Sunstein said, though he added that he has not had conversations with Obama about the qualities the Democrat would seek in a nominee.
Obama opposed Roberts and Alito and has mentioned Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer as models, although it was unclear whether he was looking only at the current court, rather than past justices, for examples.
Obama said in a speech this year that the court is in agreement much of the time. But on the important constitutional issues that divide the justices, "adherence to precedent and rules of construction will only get you through 25 miles of the marathon," Obama said.
"That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."
McCain mocked such standards in a speech in May on the role of the judiciary, calling them "vague words" that "attempt to justify judicial activism."
McCain said he would appoint judges "who have a proven record of strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States."
The Judicial Confirmation Network's Long said McCain's speech offered more details than "any presidential candidate in history" about the qualities he would look for in judges. But the judiciary has not been one of McCain's areas of specialty during his long tenure in the Senate, and others describe his interest as more of an outreach to conservatives, who consider the issue very important and have had a sometimes rocky relationship with him.
When the court narrowly decided that detainees held in the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to access federal courts, McCain called it one of the "worst decisions in history." Asked two months later what prompted such a strong denunciation, he said: "Sometimes I'm given to a little hyperbole."
Both men have ready evidence that even justices they hold up as examples do not always decide issues the way they would like. Roberts and Alito are deeply suspicious of McCain's landmark legislative accomplishment, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, and have voted to strike parts of it as unconstitutional.
Likewise, Ginsburg and Breyer were in the majority of a case that Obama said was wrongly decided, when they struck down the death penalty for the rape of a child.
Even the charge of "judicial activism" -- which is sometimes measured by a court's readiness to overrule legislation approved by a democratic body -- is becoming harder to define. Liberals, along with Kennedy, rejected Congress's mandate on the legal options for terrorism detainees. Conservatives, along with Kennedy, set aside the District of Columbia's gun-control law.
"The parties often argue about which is the party of judicial activism and which is the party of judicial restraint," Dellinger said. "I think it's pretty much a scoreless tie."
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Friday, October 3, 2008
The Atlantic Monthly | March 2003
Pursuits & RetreatsPersonal File
Caring for Your Introvert
The habits and needs of a little-understood group
by Jonathan Rauch
Do you know someone who needs hours alone every day? Who loves quiet conversations about feelings or ideas, and can give a dynamite presentation to a big audience, but seems awkward in groups and maladroit at small talk? Who has to be dragged to parties and then needs the rest of the day to recuperate? Who growls or scowls or grunts or winces when accosted with pleasantries by people who are just trying to be nice?
If so, do you tell this person he is "too serious," or ask if he is okay? Regard him as aloof, arrogant, rude? Redouble your efforts to draw him out?
If you answered yes to these questions, chances are that you have an introvert on your hands—and that you aren't caring for him properly. Science has learned a good deal in recent years about the habits and requirements of introverts. It has even learned, by means of brain scans, that introverts process information differently from other people (I am not making this up). If you are behind the curve on this important matter, be reassured that you are not alone. Introverts may be common, but they are also among the most misunderstood and aggrieved groups in America, possibly the world.
I know. My name is Jonathan, and I am an introvert.
Oh, for years I denied it. After all, I have good social skills. I am not morose or misanthropic. Usually. I am far from shy. I love long conversations that explore intimate thoughts or passionate interests. But at last I have self-identified and come out to my friends and colleagues. In doing so, I have found myself liberated from any number of damaging misconceptions and stereotypes. Now I am here to tell you what you need to know in order to respond sensitively and supportively to your own introverted family members, friends, and colleagues. Remember, someone you know, respect, and interact with every day is an introvert, and you are probably driving this person nuts. It pays to learn the warning signs.
What is introversion? In its modern sense, the concept goes back to the 1920s and the psychologist Carl Jung. Today it is a mainstay of personality tests, including the widely used Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Introverts are not necessarily shy. Shy people are anxious or frightened or self-excoriating in social settings; introverts generally are not. Introverts are also not misanthropic, though some of us do go along with Sartre as far as to say "Hell is other people at breakfast." Rather, introverts are people who find other people tiring.
Extroverts are energized by people, and wilt or fade when alone. They often seem bored by themselves, in both senses of the expression. Leave an extrovert alone for two minutes and he will reach for his cell phone. In contrast, after an hour or two of being socially "on," we introverts need to turn off and recharge. My own formula is roughly two hours alone for every hour of socializing. This isn't antisocial. It isn't a sign of depression. It does not call for medication. For introverts, to be alone with our thoughts is as restorative as sleeping, as nourishing as eating. Our motto: "I'm okay, you're okay—in small doses."
How many people are introverts? I performed exhaustive research on this question, in the form of a quick Google search. The answer: About 25 percent. Or: Just under half. Or—my favorite—"a minority in the regular population but a majority in the gifted population."
Are introverts misunderstood? Wildly. That, it appears, is our lot in life. "It is very difficult for an extrovert to understand an introvert," write the education experts Jill D. Burruss and Lisa Kaenzig. (They are also the source of the quotation in the previous paragraph.) Extroverts are easy for introverts to understand, because extroverts spend so much of their time working out who they are in voluble, and frequently inescapable, interaction with other people. They are as inscrutable as puppy dogs. But the street does not run both ways. Extroverts have little or no grasp of introversion. They assume that company, especially their own, is always welcome. They cannot imagine why someone would need to be alone; indeed, they often take umbrage at the suggestion. As often as I have tried to explain the matter to extroverts, I have never sensed that any of them really understood. They listen for a moment and then go back to barking and yipping.
Are introverts oppressed? I would have to say so. For one thing, extroverts are overrepresented in politics, a profession in which only the garrulous are really comfortable. Look at George W. Bush. Look at Bill Clinton. They seem to come fully to life only around other people. To think of the few introverts who did rise to the top in politics—Calvin Coolidge, Richard Nixon—is merely to drive home the point. With the possible exception of Ronald Reagan, whose fabled aloofness and privateness were probably signs of a deep introverted streak (many actors, I've read, are introverts, and many introverts, when socializing, feel like actors), introverts are not considered "naturals" in politics.
Extroverts therefore dominate public life. This is a pity. If we introverts ran the world, it would no doubt be a calmer, saner, more peaceful sort of place. As Coolidge is supposed to have said, "Don't you know that four fifths of all our troubles in this life would disappear if we would just sit down and keep still?" (He is also supposed to have said, "If you don't say anything, you won't be called on to repeat it." The only thing a true introvert dislikes more than talking about himself is repeating himself.)
With their endless appetite for talk and attention, extroverts also dominate social life, so they tend to set expectations. In our extrovertist society, being outgoing is considered normal and therefore desirable, a mark of happiness, confidence, leadership. Extroverts are seen as bighearted, vibrant, warm, empathic. "People person" is a compliment. Introverts are described with words like "guarded," "loner," "reserved," "taciturn," "self-contained," "private"—narrow, ungenerous words, words that suggest emotional parsimony and smallness of personality. Female introverts, I suspect, must suffer especially. In certain circles, particularly in the Midwest, a man can still sometimes get away with being what they used to call a strong and silent type; introverted women, lacking that alternative, are even more likely than men to be perceived as timid, withdrawn, haughty.
Are introverts arrogant? Hardly. I suppose this common misconception has to do with our being more intelligent, more reflective, more independent, more level-headed, more refined, and more sensitive than extroverts. Also, it is probably due to our lack of small talk, a lack that extroverts often mistake for disdain. We tend to think before talking, whereas extroverts tend to think by talking, which is why their meetings never last less than six hours. "Introverts," writes a perceptive fellow named Thomas P. Crouser, in an online review of a recent book called Why Should Extroverts Make All the Money? (I'm not making that up, either), "are driven to distraction by the semi-internal dialogue extroverts tend to conduct. Introverts don't outwardly complain, instead roll their eyes and silently curse the darkness." Just so.
The worst of it is that extroverts have no idea of the torment they put us through. Sometimes, as we gasp for air amid the fog of their 98-percent-content-free talk, we wonder if extroverts even bother to listen to themselves. Still, we endure stoically, because the etiquette books—written, no doubt, by extroverts—regard declining to banter as rude and gaps in conversation as awkward. We can only dream that someday, when our condition is more widely understood, when perhaps an Introverts' Rights movement has blossomed and borne fruit, it will not be impolite to say "I'm an introvert. You are a wonderful person and I like you. But now please shush."
How can I let the introvert in my life know that I support him and respect his choice? First, recognize that it's not a choice. It's not a lifestyle. It's an orientation.
Second, when you see an introvert lost in thought, don't say "What's the matter?" or "Are you all right?"
Third, don't say anything else, either.
The URL for this page is http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200303/rauch.--------------
Atlantic Unbound | February 14, 2006
Introverts of the World, Unite!
A conversation with Jonathan Rauch, the author who—thanks to an astonishingly popular essay in the March 2003 Atlantic—may have unwittingly touched off an Introverts' Rights revolution
Most magazine articles do not, as a general rule, inspire impassioned responses. But in 2003, when The Atlantic published a short essay by correspondent Jonathan Rauch on the trials of introversion in an extroverts' world, the reaction was overwhelming. Rauch was inundated with more enthusiastic mail about the piece than for anything else he'd ever written. And on The Atlantic's Web site, it drew (and has continued to draw) more traffic than any other piece we've posted.
"I am an introvert," Rauch declared in the piece. And as such, he contended, he is a member of one of the "most misunderstood and aggrieved groups in America, possibly the world." By definition, he explained, introverts are those who find other people's company tiring. Yet the uncomprehending extrovert majority imposes its own gregarious expectations on extroverts and introverts alike—compelling incessant socializing, enthusiastic party-going, and easy shooting of the breeze as norms. Introverts, Rauch pointed out—though an oppressed minority—comprise a significant portion of the population. Their quiet, introspective ways, he argued, should therefore be viewed not as a deviation from standard, but as a different kind of normal.
He addressed extroverts, admonishing them to be more sensitive to their introvert peers: after all, "someone you know, respect, and interact with every day," he explained, "is an introvert, and you are probably driving this person nuts." As for introverts, he wrote, "we can only dream that someday, when our condition is more widely understood, when perhaps an Introverts' Rights movement has blossomed and borne fruit, it will not be impolite to say, 'I'm an introvert.... Now please shush.'"
If the groundswell of support for these sentiments is any indication, Rauch may soon find himself the unwitting figurehead for an Introverts' Rights Revolution. We decided to have a few words with this author, who has clearly tapped into something important.
Rauch is a correspondent for The Atlantic and a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution. His book, Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, was published in 2004.
I spoke with him in early January.
Did anything in particular inspire you to write an article about this? An especially trying plane ride seated next to an extrovert, for example?
I don't think it was any specific incident. The idea was rolling around in my head for a while. To some extent, it was the result of being partnered with an extrovert and realizing that this was a daily source of tension. So I started organizing my thoughts on the subject. Another motivation was, basically, that I thought it would be funny.
It's interesting that you've found it a source of tension to be paired with an extrovert. I've read that introvert-extrovert pairings work well because the person who doesn't like to make small talk can just let the other person do it for them.
That's true. It does work very well in some situations. But for an introvert it also makes for a constant—I guess you might call it "brain pressure." That's a better phrase than "tension," because tension implies conflict and it's not that. It's just that my partner Michael's default mode of being is to talk and interact all the time, whereas mine is to talk as little as possible. We've been together since 1996 and we've spent much of that time just learning how not to drive each other completely insane. Part of my motivation for writing this piece was to pass along some of what I've learned. I was also hoping Michael would read it, which he did.
Did it help?
By the time the piece was published he'd probably heard it all from me before. But it doesn't hurt to go on the record.
If he were a writer he could do the companion piece—"How to Care for Your Extrovert."
Exactly. But of course my view, as I say in the article, is that it's much easier for introverts to understand these things than extroverts. Extroverts really have a hard time "getting" it. And even when they do get it, they still have a hard time modifying their behavior.
You wrote that for a long time you didn't even realize you were an introvert. What caused it to finally dawn on you?
From about the age of eighteen or nineteen, when I went to college, I realized that it was just not my idea of fun to party. In fact, I couldn't see why anyone would want to—I get so monumentally bored at parties. So I realized that I had this fundamental difference with a lot of other people. I didn't put a name on it until a few years ago when a friend of mine, who reads a lot of Jung, informed me that he's an introvert and that, "by the way, Jonathan, you're an introvert, too." He explained what that means and suddenly a lightbulb went on and things fell into place.
Now that you're tuned into it, can you usually tell when you meet someone whether or not they're also an introvert?
No. There's no introvert "gay-dar" that I can tell. One reason is that a lot of introverts are actually very good at being social. It just takes a lot of work for them. I'm like that. I'm not great at small talk, but I can seem quite outgoing for spells of up to an hour or so before I completely run out of gas. So I have to kind of get to know someone before I can figure out whether they're an introvert. Not that it takes all that much getting to know. If you notice that someone's getting tired out by a long conversation, they're probably an introvert. But it's not a first impression kind of thing.
I was surprised to read in your article that it's not typical for introverts to also be anxious or shy in social settings, because I'm both.
I was wondering whether you were an introvert. When did you realize that about yourself?
I'm not sure. I guess it probably hit me in seventh grade when somebody told my older brother, "You know, Sage could be popular if she talked more." Of course, he reported this to me, and I started to brood over it.
That is so unjust. Isn't it?
Yeah—chattiness suddenly seemed like the key to social success and happiness.
That story so sums up the kind of extrovert hegemony that can make life miserable. I think it's particularly hard for girls and women. "You'd be so much more popular if you'd talk more." It seems to me that the world would be a much better place, and that people would be much more rightly popular, if they talked less. Because so little of what most people say is actually worth hearing.
True. Although sometimes it's interesting to listen to other people talk. It's too bad it's not more acceptable to go to a party and just kind of soak things up.
Yeah. They should sell skybox seats at parties for people like us.
You asked about shyness versus introversion. My limited reading on the subject suggests that, psychologically speaking, they're regarded as different things. That reflects my own experience; I'm not particularly shy myself. To me, shyness implies a real reluctance to be socially aggressive or assertive. It's very difficult for shy people to put themselves out there if they need to. For introverts, it's never easy to do, but it's more a matter of reluctance to expend the energy, because it tires us out. That's what I feel most strongly. If I have to go to a party and then a dinner afterwards, I'm completely ruined for the evening. But if I'm called upon to run a business meeting or something, I don't feel any reluctance or anxiety about it. So, in my mind there's always been a fairly clear distinction between introversion and shyness.
You also mention in the article that studies have shown that introverts process information differently from other people.
Yeah, that's something I read back when I was reporting the piece. I can't remember the details now, but it involved brain scans.
It sounds right to me that the process is different. When there's a conversation flowing around me and everyone else is so quick with their responses, I almost imagine that other people's brains are endowed with some kind of fast-acting comment-generating engine.
Yeah, I marvel at Michael who can always somehow turn the conversation right over effortlessly and keep it going even when what he says is not necessarily profound or interesting. What he comes up with is perfectly tuned to the sense and flow of the conversation. But it's not words that are particularly intended to convey ideas or mean things. It's words that socialize—that simply continue the conversation. It's chit-chat. I have no gift for that. I have to think about what to say next, and sometimes I can't think fast enough and end up saying something stupid. Or sometimes I just come up dry and the conversation kind of ends for while until I can think of another topic. This is why it's work for me. It takes positive cognition on my part. I think that's probably a core introvert characteristic that you and I have in common and which can probably be distinguished from shyness per se—that small talk takes conscious effort and is very hard work. There's nothing small about small talk if you're an introvert. But we're good at big talk. Are you good at big talk?
If I get onto a topic I'm interested in and feel strongly about then it's true that I can get animated and engaged. But I'm not so good at chatting about things like the weather.
Right. The weather's not interesting. But once an introvert gets on a subject that they know about or care about or that intrigues them intellectually, the opposite often takes hold. They get passionately engaged and turned on by the conversation. But it's not socializing that's going on there. It's learning or teaching or analyzing, which involves, I'm convinced, a whole different part of the brain from the socializing part.
Do you ever wish you were an extrovert?
Not really. That may be because my "faking it" skills are pretty good. But I do think a lot of us are tired of being told that there's something wrong with us—of this lazy assumption that if you're not an extrovert, there's something wrong with you. I think my article may speak to people in part because of its defiant message. It says, "No, I don't wish to be an extrovert. Not everyone has to be one. And why don't you people get it?"
Your article made me think of that book The Lonely Crowd by David Riesman from the 1950s. He argued that the dominant economic model of each era in a sense "creates"—or privileges—the character type that's best suited to it. So, for example, in the agricultural and industrial eras, what he called the "inner-directed" type was best suited to getting work done and transmitting certain moral and cultural values. And then, with the rise of a more consumer-oriented economy, it became beneficial for people to be gregarious and affable. So teachers started to care more about whether their students were popular and cooperative than if they were interested in the subject matter and doing well academically.
I've never thought about it in those terms. It's true that in a lot of the social jobs that require leadership—whether in politics or in corporations—being energized by dealing with people all day long is a plus. And it's also probably true that, in an urban corporate economic structure, those skills are more important than in a rural peasant economy. But I wouldn't say that it changes the character of the people particularly. I do think that there's been, in the last ten years or so, a major economic resurgence for introversion—the "geek" economy. The prototypical geek is really good at thinking, has superb powers of concentration (which tends to be an introvert trait), and works very well independently. They're often pretty awesomely brilliant people, and they're fairly defiant about being geeks. They've turned this word "geek" into a term that's almost romantic in some ways, and through the Silicon economy, they've been massively innovative and economically important. A lot of them are running circles around the extroverts who are selling shoes. So I think part of what's happened lately is that the digital economy is giving introverts a new place in the sun.
You've gotten more reader response to this article than for anything else you've written. What do you think accounts for that?
Well, I can tell you that I never saw it coming. I thought I wrote this almost for my own fun and so that I would have something to hand people to get them to understand. Part of the problem with being an introvert is that it's hard to explain yourself. You can't say to your friends, "Hey guys, I'm an introvert," and have them know how to deal with you. So I thought it would be pretty darn handy to have something on paper.
Then I got this overwhelming reaction in the mail. It's been a bigger reaction than to anything else I've written. I think it suggests that a lot of people have the same experiences you and I do, and that they haven't had a name for it or a way of understanding it. Having that is very valuable. It tells you how to understand yourself and—maybe even more importantly—it tells you that you're fine and that, in fact, a lot of the problem is with the rest of the world.
People really do seem to be having a real "eureka" reaction to this. At some level, it reminds me of what it's like to discover that you're gay. Obviously there's no structural similarity between introversion and homosexuality, but there is this sense of realizing that you're different in a way that's very meaningful. Understanding introversion as a concept kind of makes the pieces fit together. A number of people have told me that they've Xeroxed the article and given it to their friends, their families, their significant others, and so on, as a communication device.
You jokingly talk about an Introverts' Rights Movement. It seems as though, given the dramatic response to this article, there must be a lot of people out there who are just now realizing that they're introverts and that the dominant culture doesn't really take their characteristics into account in terms of what it expects of them.
Well, that's exactly right. Part of the thrill of this article is that it seems to be helping introverts discover each other. It never occurred to me when I wrote it that there would be so many other people out there with whom this would resonate so strongly. But one of the main points I see over and over again in the mail I've been getting is, "I'm not alone! There are others like me." This sense of empowerment because of not being alone is very important to people. That in itself, to the extent that that takes hold, would be a very important part of correcting the introvert/extrovert imbalance.
Your article has also been one of the most popular pages on our Web site. We posted it three years ago, and it still gets more hits than practically anything else on the site.
Yes. The Internet is the perfect medium for introverts. You could almost call it the Intronet. You know the old New Yorker cartoon with a dog sitting at a computer saying to another dog, "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog." Well, on the Internet, no one knows you're an introvert. So it's kind of a natural that when The Atlantic put this piece online, introverts beat a path to it; it's the ideal distribution mechanism by which introverts can reach other introverts and spread the word.
Are you aware of anybody else writing about these things today?
I'm not. Some people who wrote in sent me some of their own writings on the subject. But if there are other articles I haven't seen them. We'll see over time.
So if you were to spearhead an Introverts' Rights movement what would be some of the things you'd advocate?
Massive subsidies. I think people like us should have twice as much Social Security.
I like that.
Yeah that's pretty good.
Maybe Greta Garbo could be the mascot.
Good idea. Though she may have just been shy. Did she really say, "I vant to be alone"?
That's what I've heard.
I think that was a line from her movie The Grand Hotel, though, in which case it was just her character who said that. But she could still be the patron saint. Actually, my favorite line is from Waiting for Godot. I can quote it to you exactly: "Don't talk to me. Don't speak to me. Stay with me."
To me those words sum up the introvert impulse. We love people—we're not misanthropic for the most part. We just can't socialize with them all the time. We want to hold their hand or hug them or just sit quietly and read a book with them.
I was tongue-in-cheek about the introverts' rights movement, but the main principle would just be that it should be as respectable for introverts to be who they are socially as it is for extroverts. We ought to be trying to make extroverts conscious and not uncomfortable about the fact that we're here. Extroverts should understand that if someone is being quiet it doesn't mean they're having a bad time; it doesn't mean they're depressed; it doesn't mean they're lonely or need psychiatric help or medication. A lot of the battle is making the extrovert world more aware. The onus is on us to do that. Maybe this article is a start. One thing you'll notice about the article, by the way, is that it addresses extroverts. I think that's very much the strategy; we need to tell the world who we are. The first step is to understand who we are ourselves, but the second step is to educate extroverts. This is stuff extroverts need to know. They're driving us crazy. We need to tell them.
The URL for this page is http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200602u/introverts.------------------------
Atlantic Unbound | April 24, 2006
The Introversy Continues
Jonathan Rauch comments on reader feedback about introvert dating and poses a new question
In 2003, The Atlantic published a short essay by correspondent Jonathan Rauch on the trials of introversion in an extroverts' world. The reaction was overwhelming. Rauch was inundated with more enthusiastic mail about the piece than for anything else he'd ever written. Given the number of heartfelt and articulate responses he had already been receiving, Rauch decided to ask readers a follow-up question: "In looking for a mate," he asked, "are introverts better off pairing up with extroverts or with fellow introverts?" We posted the question in January, alongside an interview with him about the piece, and the responses poured in.
We've posted some excerpts here, along with a brief introduction by Rauch and an invitation for responses to his next introverts-related question.
Here at The Atlantic Online, we're out to start an introversy. That's a controversy among introverts. So we asked Atlantic Online readers whether introverts are better off pairing up with extroverts or with fellow introverts.
We didn't quite get a consensus. At least one introvert married an extrovert and went almost nuts. That marriage didn't last. A gay introvert writes wondering how to find introverted same-sex singles, since dating extroverts hasn't worked out.
More often, though, the "yin-yang," introvert-extrovert pairing seems to work surprisingly well—if both partners understand the other's needs. So the answer, perhaps, is: It depends ... but with some effort, an intro-extro relationship can attain an extra richness.
One reader writes, "One of the greatest compliments I have ever given anyone I dated is that being with him was like being alone." That reminds me of something an introverted friend once told me, when I asked him how he kept his sanity living in close quarters with his extroverted wife. His reply: "We've learned to be alone together."
And now, another introversy:
What, if anything, should parents and friends do to help introverted teenagers? [Share your thoughts by email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Selected responses will be displayed.]
In looking for a mate, are introverts better off pairing up with extroverts or with fellow introverts?
Read below for excerpts from reader responses...
I believe introverts and extroverts can pair well—though only when both have extremely tolerant and generous personalities. If either party is the least bit selfish or self-absorbed you have a severe problem brewing.
The sex of the introvert is highly important.... As your article states—male introverts are more readily tolerated. Those of us female introverts (being naturally more reflective and intelligent than average) are more threatening to 90% of the American male population. A female introvert, if paired with an extroverted male, must find herself in love with an extremely caring and generous man who is overwhelmingly pleased to see her openly happy. This extroverted man will be one in about 250,000 (from my estimates) and will do whatever it takes to accomplish accommodating his wife/girlfriend's introversion. In my own situation, this exquisite man tries his damnedest to understand and modify his actions when they cause me grave discomfort. I of course understand that he does not usually understand me and I am sure to openly communicate my feelings with him.
I think, as an introvert, that the companionship of an extrovert can be very beneficial. The extroverted partner is like a shield for the introvert in social settings. I caution, however, that the "social" needs of the introvert can become burdensome for the extrovert. The burden is borne by requiring the extroverted partner to carry the load, provide the motivation and energy to engage in the social scene. The intro-extrovert relationship can be a palliative for the introvert, but an absolute chore for the extrovert who must often carry the full load of managing social arrangements and engagements. In the end, as a result of the effort required, the introvert may deprive the extrovert of the oft-needed joy of the social life the extrovert needs to thrive.
Been there done that.
My husband and I are perhaps the most vivid examples of the introvert-extrovert yin/yang pairing. I am, thankfully, an extrovert to the extreme. Not only do I enjoy socializing with people, I am energized by such interaction, and thrive on it. I look forward to meetings with potential clients at which I am to market myself and my law firm like a child awaiting Christmas. I've always attributed the energy boost I receive from meeting new people to the satisifaction of my desperate desire to be liked, by everyone, no matter how short our acquaintance. I've thought of this trait as a personality defect that I use to my professional advantage. Now, I know better. It is just my extroversion at work.
On the other hand, my poor husband is a classic, closet introvert. Jonathan Rauch's article highlighted the most important phenomenon associated with introverts—it is not that they cannot socialize in groups, it is just that it exhausts them to their core to do so. This is why they are so misunderstood, and, usually, grumpy. People meeting my husband in a social setting at first do not realize he is such an introvert—he can be witty, extremely bright and engaging in short bursts. However, we have never, ever, in eleven years of dating and two years of marriage, attended a party or event in which he did not want to leave before I was ready to go. He just cannot sustain that level of interaction for more than a couple hours, even then needing several breaks to recharge. Our close friends used to just consider him a grump, writing him off with a "well, that's just Jim," but in truth, he is merely an undiagnosed introvert. (Not to worry, I've already sent them the guidebook on "Caring for Your Introvert.")
Recognizing our introvert/extrovert dichotomy, my husband has identified the introvert/extrovert anthem, a song by bluegrass artist Jesse Winchester, called "Every Word You Say." It is truly the introvert's ode to his extrovert partner, and we could not resist dancing to this song at our wedding in May 2004. It was us! The version we played at our wedding was performed by Jerry Garcia, in one of his side bands, Legion of Mary. There can be no better expression of the dynamic shared by the introvert/extrovert couple, and I urge everyone reading this to track down Jerry Garcia's exquisite version. For now, the lyrics must suffice:
I'm no good company, I guess that's true
I like my silence, like I love you
But if you feel like talking, talk away
I'm gonna hang on every word you say
The odd thing is that I'm an extrovert with lots of introvert friends. There seem to be two kinds of introverts—ones who are made jittery by the presence of other human beings, and ones who are petulant about the existence of other human beings. The first are easy to deal with, the second are not. The second don't tend to understand extroverts or anyone else that well because they do not value or want connection with other people. The first type value it very much, but only when they feel relaxed enough to open up.
Some extrovert-introvert pairs can make beautiful music together because what one wants to give or receive in any social interaction matches up perfectly with the other person's wishes. But for a pushy extrovert who wants to turn everyone into the life of the party, and for a petulant, impatient introvert who just wishes the rest of humanity didn't exist, things can get much dicier.
I have a whole website dedicated to these issues.
The customary thing is to pair extro and intro according to traditional Myers-Briggs, but there are some pretty odd combinations from a superficial glance. John and Jacqueline Kennedy are the perfect example. She was very introverted. He, very extroverted.
Why do all the "men are from mars" type books assume that women are extroverts and men introverts? I have two X chromsomes and still need a "cave" to retreat to now and again. And why is it assumed that misunderstandings between heterosexual couples are caused by gender-related differences? Maybe, just maybe, it's more to do with variances in personality. With the difficulties that crop up when two people have a relationship. Maybe you can back me up on this, but I haven't noticed that same-sex couples are in accord with each other all the time.
Perhaps we should write a book called "Introverts are from Saturn, Extroverts are from Jupiter".
I just married an extrovert a few months ago. I have always treasured any alone time that I can get, and it takes a all of my energy to "act" like an extrovert for more than a few hours. He has to have people in the house every waking moment, and I get my fill after about two hours and want to just hide in another room and accomplish things other than visiting. I guess it comes down to finding balance in all things, because he does bring more living and memories and relationships to my life, but it also wears me out. I don't think it's healthy for him to have zero alone time to reflect on his life and thoughts, so I'm still working on the compromise part of our social life. If both of us were introverts, maybe we would be really miserable and depressed and have no enjoyment out of life whatsoever, so as long as we both can balance things out, its a great combination.
I was painfully shy and introverted as a youngster and as a young woman. I married an extrovert who was always student body president or spokesman for a singing group or whatever—the consummate politician and schmoozer. But after we had been married a few years, I became the extrovert and he became the introvert. Go figure. We were married for forty years. He died a year ago, and I am finding myself reverting to something in between extrovert and introvert but leaning to introvert.
I'm a female introvert. One problem with an extroverted spouse (I should know, I had one!) is that this person is always wanting to go to parties, to social events, out to dinner with other couples, to family get-togethers. Either the introverted spouse has to go too and be miserable (hearing: "What's the matter, why aren't you having a good time?"), or the introverted spouse stays home, making the extroverted spouse irritated ("Can't you at least come to one of these things?"), and leading other attendees to assume something is wrong with your marriage.
One of the greatest compliments I have ever given anyone I dated is that being with him was like being alone. Being an introvert himself, he took this as the huge compliment it was. Can you imagine saying this to an extrovert?
On the "is it harder for a woman to be introverted," I suspect yes. Women are expected to be warm, nurturing, "people" persons, willing to talk and listen to others for hours. As a female in management, I have been criticized for not being like this at work. As Mr. Rauch said, one becomes very good at putting on the social act, but it takes energy. I need hours and hours alone to recover.
I was married to an extrovert. His social acumen was enticing because he was so charming. Everybody liked him, he had no enemies, he always said the perfect thing at the perfect time. It didn't work out. Remarrying another introvert last August is the best thing that ever happened to me. I don't have to apologize or figure out some way to get out of going to social gatherings because he gets it. We can be together happily, just reading next to each other. Life is good.
As a female, I've always felt pressured to be more socially adept and I resented it. In large part, I married my first husband thinking that some of his extroversion would rub off on me. It took me too long to figure out that what I was was good enough.