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.
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.
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.