we understand your concern, are mulling over it and contemplating the potential danger we’re facing from reading this blog.

would it be ok to give us some time and space to think about your points more deeply before you repeat them again?

your co-operation would be greatly appreciated.

thank you.

Please visit this link to see what I mean.

http://www.sociopathworld.com/

Why? Because you say so?

Talk about “dangerous” demagoguery!

Unless I had some exceptional reason to believe that my blog was particularly likely to cause some sort of strange reaction in its readers, I don’t see why I need to take any special measures or slap on any warning labels.
I get input from some of my readers and I have yet to get a single strange, threatening, or disturbing message from anyone.

I get the impression I’ve had some impact on a few people. For this I am thankful. It is among my objectives to exert an influence and change people’s world views for the better. I especially want to reach out to those who are young and troubled so they may have some assurance that they are not alone during a critical formative time of life.
You envision these young people getting megalomaniacal ideas in their heads and becoming dangerous.
I envision these young people discovering that there’s nothing wrong with them and turning away from possible destructive courses of action.

Perhaps not everyone who reads this site gets my full meaning. This is not grounds, however, to dumb down or tone down my blog.
If only one person read my blog, understood my intent, and derived some benefit, I would count my efforts here to be fulfilled.
You think in terms of the one odd person who could misunderstand.
I think in terms of the one person who might benefit from my perspective.

If someone were already looking for justification for dangerous beliefs, wouldn’t they find their muse somewhere sooner or later?
For this reason, we can’t really blame the computer game ‘Doom’ for causing the Columbine shootings. Surely we can’t hold ourselves hostage to people who are bound to find some reason to something stupid anyway.

Should we not post up ideas and perspectives out of some abject, unfounded fear that someone somewhere could misunderstand it? If so, one has created a system wherein only the most unscrupulous and ambitious would dare present ideas.

People generally have a lot more power than they realize over the creation of others reality. Both extroverts and introverts can miss seeing this power for different reasons. Extroverts might not see the effect in modern societies, as they move through social environments and friends.

But introverts have often had so little experience being the “talker” that they don’t realize people are really out there listening. And in the digital world you may not see the impact you’ve had.

I only suggest caution. Not all introverts continuously exhibit restraint. And many people, especially those who are young and troubled, will pull ideas from almost anywhere that make them feel better and empowered – not always with the perspective on how those remarks were intended.

It is my intention to point out on this site that there is more than one viable reality to embrace. One need not allow any social group or organization a monopoly on reality.

Introverts are far more selective about their information. We are generally quick to spot demagoguery and empty rhetoric. We focus on relevant information and sources of insight that bring some new and fascinating perspective to the matter at hand.
From childhood, we’ve been told we’re wrong to be who we are. We’ve been trained all our lives to know that something is not necessarily true just because we believe it to be ‘right’ on the emotional level. Among the information we select are typically sources from the opposing viewpoint. We take care in investigating our position before openly adopting it. By our very nature we don’t rush in; we are not impulsive. We tend to test ideas first.
You will find that many of my posts on this site address extrovert views concerning why we are wrong, inferior, or psychopathic.

I’m sure there’s webrings for any number of unusual organizations. I don’t know why you’re trying to make a link between my site and a site for anorexics.

Introversion is without doubt a serious impediment when it comes to social situations. It makes tasks that are routine to others rather stressful and difficult. I suppose you could call it a disability like blindness if the drawbacks vastly outweighed the gifts. I believe introversion, overall, to be a gift rather than a disability for reasons I have enumerated. It is worth it alone for the perspective it allows and the ability to focus, but naturally every strength has its drawbacks.
I wouldn’t want to be any other way even if I could get advantages by changing because I am pleased by the advantages I already enjoy. Why is it ‘dangerous’ to think in this way?
In general, introversion, even in more extreme forms, is understood to be a personality profile within the spectrum of ‘normal’(non-insane) human behavior.
We could point at uber extremes.
You at a bad case of autism.
Me at a sociopathic ultra-narcissistic master manipulator.
But that doesn’t really get us anywhere.

I’ve never yet seen one blog, let alone a community of blogs, that promotes introversion as the master personality trait.(That’s because it isn’t) So far as I know, I’m about as extreme as it gets.

I would say that I am less about blaming than I am about explaining.
Less about ‘fault’ than I am about ’cause’
I’m interested in delving into why things work the way they do and how change might be implemented.
There is of course deep bias and emotional charge in everything I do, but that is a very different thing from actively seeking to blame, fault, and defame others. I readily acknowledge that almost no one goes out to ‘get’ other people and make their life miserable. I see the present state of affairs as the product of a larger system and of human nature.

Who professes this ‘introverts are superior bias?’ I am mostly concerned with an ‘introversion is acceptable, an asset, and a strength’ bias. Because one assesses a certain trait as a strength does not mean one promotes it as the ultimate, superior way.
What on earth makes you believe that my online writings are going to inspire a cadre of ‘unstable’ persons? Millions of people every day put their personal writings and beliefs on the internet. I honestly cannot imagine what makes me so special.

Any divide between introverts and extroverts exists mainly because of a lack of affinity and common interests, not some kind of almost ethnic divide as you describe.

You give this operation way too much credit. I see steady traffic on this blog but I’m not exactly an earthshaking cyber pontiff. I’m writing about my perspective about a particular issue on this blog. When I was growing up, I would have loved to find writings like the ones I’ve posted. I was surrounded by disapproval in my life and I wish I’d had another voice to listen to however small. I want to help people out there who are running into the same kinds of problems I’ve run into. I’m not exactly getting money and power out of this.
Consider it this way:
If I was looking for a mass following or entourage of ‘unstable’ devotees would I be writing for a niche audience known for caution and restraint to the point of excess?

The more extroverted a person, the more assertive and aggressive they tend to be. I don’t mean ‘aggressive’ in the sense that they’re out to beat other people up. More that they go out of their way to put themselves at the center of attention and become the dominant social force in the room. They are competitive people who will struggle to keep their coveted spot at center stage. They are not thinking things out as much as they act without thinking. They’re rarely connivers or schemers. But because they are not highly reflective or introspective persons they tend to grab for ever more power without putting a lot of thought into what they are doing and how it affects the social unit as a whole.

You think we are dangerous, delusional, and full of animosity? Why? There’s millions of people blogging about their personal causes/misgivings/grievances/whatever on the web. I really don’t understand what gives me the special distinction of being ‘dangerous.’

As for selfishness:
Children are selfish and self centered. As are animals. Most all adults are focused on themselves more than any other person because there’s this matter of survival one must attend to: Yet we generally don’t see any of these as examples of everything ‘negative’ or maladjusted.

A Buddhist monk meditating in a mountain monastery is supremely self-centered in his life of contemplation. As is anyone of an introverted or contemplative nature.

So yes, we are selfish and self-centered in a literal sense of the word. Spiritually, we literally center upon ourselves. You misunderstand me if you interpret my words as an endorsement or glorification of psychopathic behavior.

Many of the comments you make may, for you, be mild hyperbole or occasional slips into emotional bias. But you really don’t know who’s out there reading your blog, and constructing their own realities and personal theories with parts of what you write as building blocks.

Introverts are by nature more selective about what information they bring in. They talk to fewer people and read more selective information and opinions. While this sometimes allows for a great expertise in an area, it also can lead to a relatively narrow world view which goes unchecked by contrary opinions.

I see online a growing “introvert community”. Some of this is good and healthy, but other parts strongly resemble the Pro-Ana movement which promotes anorexia as healthy and everyone else as inferior beings.

Strong introversion in most forms is a disability, and to pretend otherwise is, I believe, a bit dangerous. Disabilities can have great advantages – the blind are on average much bet musicians than the sighted. But you don’t see thousands of discussion boards promoting the superiority of blindness and the idea that it’s just another trait (I’m not saying your blog does this, but many do).

And the difference in approaches is at least as much the “fault” of extroverts as introverts. Or the fault of a society that believes in primitive ideas of free will – the idea that people can change if they just put their minds too it. This leaves extroverts to blame introverts for their behavior and introverts to turn even more inward in reaction.

But I don’t think that means that you have to promote the introverts-are-superior bias to survive, or that it is what is best for any component of society. The short term risk of creating fodder for an unstable introvert (not linking those two words…but its introverts we care about here) is real, as is the possibility of exaggerating introverted traits of community members and widening the divide between introverts and extroverts.

On the other hand I guarantee if you tone down your rhetoric you’ll see your readership drop…because this kind of rhetoric is what people like. I’ve written a couple of blogs and I know how the numbers run. I think it’s a moral and practical question though of just what it is you want to achieve.

I’m afraid I just got back here yesterday, but thank you for your detailed response of October. I agree that at one level your arguments are objective as you describe and self preservation calls for special measures.

However, when you use lines like “The extrovert on the other hand grabs for ever more power” you show yourself slipping into the kind of paranoia and distortion which I was addressing. You may want to be, and see yourself, as the voice of reason and balance but the bias slips in, as I mentioned yesterday on one or two of your other posts. The danger of a group of introverts breeding this kind of delusion and animosity is, I think, quite real.

“You tell us we are self-centered and you are right in the literal meaning of the word, but wrong concerning the strong negative connotations of selfishness.”

To me this is like questioning the “negative connotations” of assault and murder. In most of society selfishness is, in and of itself, a negative – like insults or greed. All of these negative come from somewhere – a personal history or brain state. But a neurological explanation for psychopathic behavior or pathological lying (for instance) does not make their realities any less negative.