text:
- Adrian Malpass
- Cheltenham, Gloucestershire
- United Kingdom
Business Developer (Emotionally Intelligent), The Experience Group
This conversation is closed.
Do introverts make better leaders?
Part of what I do is involved in developing emotionally intelligent businesses, leaders and teams.
Having recently seen Susan Cain's video on TED.com on 'The Power of Introverts' and listened to her in a recent radio interview here in the UK, I am increasingly finding my mind occupied by wondering about any link between being an introvert and being a successful leader.
My experience tells me that introverts quite possibly, or even probably, make better leaders than 'extroverts'.
What are your thoughts?
Apr 3 2012: Extrovert leaders I think tend to follow a simple, linear direction, following their own individual judgement of where that direction should go, and usually with great speed. This looks like strength and competence, particularly to those who themselves are ill at ease with the responsibility of leadership.
Introvert leaders are collaborative and empathic. They are genuinely interested in the views of others, so the direction in which those others are led, is more likely to be democratic. But it is definitely a slower process, and thus incompatible with the way businesses are run.
i think it depends on the end goal of the group being led. Each leadership style has value, depending on whether the end goal needs quantity or quality.
Apr 5 2012: Well said sir. I consider myself an introvert and I am a leader of people. You described me to a tee.Apr 7 2012: You have described what I have always thought about myself, I am also a leader of people and always seek collaboration from my team. I feel that if I can get their point of view and make plans together they will by into the end result and we all become successful. I am someone who empathizes and takes seriously their concerns, I help them out whenever I can and I teach them how to do things. This type of leadership I believe is beneficial for the long term viability of an organization. Unfortunately we are in an age of needing results fast and when we can't see the forest for the trees the slower process isn't as valued. I am motivated by the growth and learning my staff achieve from my coaching it is very satisfying to believe in someone even though others don't, work with them and have them succeed. I believe that quality is always better than quantity because quality will eventually give you quantity. I have sacrificed my own success because I truly believe in the long term success of a team. I believe a good leader needs to listen to their staff, gain their trust and respect and work with them and not above them. You need to understand the challenges they face, celebrate their successes and support and help them when they are struggling. I don't believe there are a lot of leaders who are solely focused on the success of their people. My experience shows a lot of managers focused on themselves and their success and will most times not be honest about the obstacles their staff are experiencing just to make themselves look good. It is in everyone's best interest that we talk about those challenges because in today's environment of do more with less productivity is suffering hugely.Apr 7 2012: Really well said, Allan. People tend to think that extrovert leaders are more powerful and competent than introvert leaders. But the former one can be shallow even though they may look like the people with charisma . We should not judge people by their mere personalities or behaviors. Introvert leaders can definitely be better than extroverts.Apr 10 2012: I was in engineering management for many years and was always an introvert. I had to learn through experience and patience to work productively with peers, bosses, and engineers. It was not always working in the beginning so a lot of practice was required, which I got! I found that my introversion made others feel safe to express their ideas to me and this ended up producing superior solutions to the technically difficult problems we had to solve on a daily basis. I especially liked (after a while) working with peers who were extroverted, since we had an interesting back and forth, especially in group settings, that moved us both to the behavioral center (ambivert?). Working with an extroverted boss was much more difficult and often resulted in wasteful clashes over management style: "you need to TELL them what to do!" "I feel it may be better to work together to find the best solution"...
Rob Appleby
Apr 12 2012: A definition of extrovert and introvert...
- +6
An extrovert leans towards needing external stimuli to occupy their minds.
An introvert can occupy their mind with very little external input.
I'm not sure about the idea that all introverts are shy and all extroverts are social studs!
Apr 13 2012: From all the comments I have read, I think I read them all, this is the first comment towards the right direction. The second possibility with shy and social people, that you exclude, is the one that comes to someone's head first (including my own). The majority of people, I think that this is how they define introverts and extroverts. Some others believe that it has to do with yelling.
The final conclusion is that most of the people, in this debate, are confused. The author should provide accurate terms. That would be an extra motive to buy the book and to participate in a conversation that would provide useful results.
Apr 14 2012: Look what I found on line about introverts.....maybe this helps you:
- +3
Basically, an introvert is a person who is energized by being alone and whose energy is drained by being around other people.
Introverts are more concerned with the inner world of the mind. They enjoy thinking, exploring their thoughts and feelings. They often avoid social situations because being around people drains their energy. This is true even if they have good social skills. After being with people for any length of time, such as at a party, they need time alone to "recharge."
When introverts want to be alone, it is not, by itself, a sign of depression. It means that they either need to regain their energy from being around people or that they simply want the time to be with their own thoughts.
I personally have acted like an introvert at times, and other times, as an extrovert. I think that is why the presenter of the TED talk closed with the fact that we don't have total introverts and extroverts. Balance is key....
Apr 16 2012: Introverts get drained by being around people too long because in most social situations people do not act true to themselves, they put on a front, or a projection of how they think they should behave, a form of political correctness or self-monitoring in psychological terms. Introverts can see through this (speaking about myself as an introvert on the myers-briggs test) and so this type of environment becomes unpleasant in long durations. Of course if the social setting is a true reflection of people projecting their true personalities, then introverts do not get drained and gain satisfaction from the experience.Apr 13 2012: Rob --
A good analysis. And, I agree. I know extraverts who are actually somewhat shy and introverts who are anything but. It simply has to do with where their energies are stimulated.
AndreaApr 12 2012: Introvertness is just a small portion of ones character, it alone doesn't defines a person as whole. ofcourse, introvertness can be regarded as sign of weakness, but then we must also think that there were no such great leaders in the history without even a small sort of weakness in their personality.
anyway, introverts can definitely think like a non-introvert person or can even think better, and as i know,beeing extrovert is not the most essential or supreme quality of a leader ... so why don't we just concentrate on other things to judge leadership.
Apr 16 2012: Being an introvert does not necessarily make a person weak, because like you stated many other elements make up personal characteristics. For instance, I am an introvert, but I also have a dominant personality (blanchard assessment), and am Type A on the Type A/B personality scale (organizational behavior test). If anything, I am overconfident, too outspoken, stubborn, too much of a perfectionist, and too demanding. However, since I know my strengths and weaknesses, I have the ability to enhance my strengths and limit my weaknesses. To know thyself creates the ability to improve thyself. However, I should also add that my personality is very rare according to myers-briggs (less than 3% of the population). I also think everyone should take the personality assessment tests to find out who they truly are for self-improvement purposes.Apr 5 2012: I watched Susan Cain's Video as well. I found it quite enlightning and motivating. As an educator it solidified my belief that each child is special and unique with their own learning style. Susan Cain's video was an invitation to celebrate diversity and encourage it at various levels in our daily lives.
To ask the question whether introverts make better leaders is really to generalize and risk stereotyping. I believe it depends on the disposition, inclination and expertise of that particular person in a given profession. Leaders, introverts or extroverts must be visionaries always mindful of the big picture or destination and the means to accomplishing the end.
Linda Taylor
Apr 3 2012: I think introvert/extrovert is simply a personal preference. Much like I prefer broccoli over cabbage. That does not mean I will not eat cabbage, I just don't prefer it. I am not sure that either one predisposes a leader. It is simply a style. What the leader needs to do is to understand and acknowledge the preference and understand how to leverage the strengths and address the weaknesses of the preference. (Find somebody else to eat the cabbage). It is just such a teeny piece of what it takes to be a leader anyway.
- +3
Apr 4 2012: Linda.....balanced well-thought out, practical answer.
- 0
Well said.Apr 7 2012: I echo Linda's view.
There's a tendency to oversimplify introversion or extroversion as absolutes when the majority of people sit on a spectrum and exhibit more of a preference for one or the other (as you state). In addition, I'd argue that the context of the situation will be important in deciding whom the best leader would be. Depending on what the issue is, what the goals are and who the audience might be may, will all influence the optimal leadership qualities needed. Leadership in of itself is not easy to define - hence the ever growing literature on that subject.
Moreover, extroversion and introversion are not the only elements of character/personality that should be taken into account. Using Myers-Briggs as an illustration, intuition versus sensing, thinking versus perceiving and feeling versus judging are all important too. A leader in a science lab may need to be someone who is an introverted, sensing, thinker whereas someone leading a group of activists on a march for a social cause may need to lean towards an extroverted personality. However, these too may be overly simplistic!
Kris Rosvold
Apr 13 2012: Introverts ( I am one) are among other things: Precise, thoughtful, not in (much) need of the approval of others. Because of these tenancies, I have been told that I make a great leader; Problem is.... I don't (generally) want the job. Yes, I may be good at it but I value my time to "just think" more than I value the kudos of others. One of our statesmen (I don't remember who) said that "in order to find a great leader, look for the man who does not want the job" . Also The introvert, because of their need to be congruent with their morals FIRST, will do the best job that they know how to.
- +2
Apr 14 2012: Well said Kris.
Wendy Howes
Apr 12 2012: Hello,
- +2
I believe Andrea has it right. I am not an introvert by any means, but I feel I am emotionally intelligent, or as I have learned it to be empathetic. I feel, in a very real sense, what others are feeling to some extent, which (if paid attention to) has helped me relate well and often lead other by allowing me to encourage them when they need it. Being empathetic is kind of being given a boost in that emotional intelligence, but true maturity with a mindset for others as equals is the best way to achieve emotional intelligence, I think.
And as far as introvert/extrovert they both have needed qualities for good leadership. As an introvert you have the natural talent of the behind the scenes observation and taking everything in before taking action, but usually lack the ability to communicate your observations and plans, as well as motivating others to get behind you. As an extrovert you have the natural talent to communicate with others making it easier to communicate your plans and motivate them to get behind you, and encouraging them to take action, but usually lack the ability to sit back and observe before making plans and taking action, tending to jump the gun. But the areas that each lack are abilities that are totally teachable and can be learned and practiced to make you a better leader if you so desire.
Thanks for asking and making conversation on this topic.
WendyApr 6 2012: As an introvert myself and from my past experience I have been regarded as a decent-to-good leader. Perhaps, what would lack the most would be the communication matter, as mentioned by Salim, as well as in the human-relationship matter; however, I do believe that introverts communicate efficiently but restricting their communication to exactly what they need, want and barely anything more.
For example, when I need a colleague to fill a report, I am more likely to make my request in 3-5 words (taking into consideration my mood and my relation with the person), which may sound "robotic" but not exactly rude - I call it a different way to express myself.
All the projects under my leadership, both individual or in group (which I don't really like, as Susan Cain proved to be common) have been successful - and even some school projects were a massive success (which would not be possible without the special contribution of every member). I am very organized, very detailed and an annoyingly perfection-seeker, as well as very careful regarding human resources, time, motivation and all other issues present.
To finish up, from my own experience, whether being an introvert or an extrovert does not determine whether we are good leaders or not. My dad is the most annoying-extrovert kind of person, but I have learned a lot with him, and learned a lot with me (for example, that the rarest the compliments, the more special and motivating they become - but they should exist, in the right time and in the right place), despite having very conflictual points with him. He worked in a banking institution for over 25 and was regarded as an excellent leader. There are many traits needed to a good leader, extroverts and introverts just have different leadership and managerial styles, along with different POVs, reactions and ways of thinking.
Ben Crause
Apr 12 2012: "I do believe that introverts communicate efficiently but restricting their communication to exactly what they need, want and barely anything more."
- +1
With this you put it down to the pure essence. Bravo!
I am the same (except for the perfection-seeking). ^^Apr 3 2012: i think if we take our social expectations of what a leader is off the table and accept that the quietness of an introvert embodies power, deep thought and careful planning and can in fact result in a great leader. There is no need for the 'gung ho' attitude and americanisms of loud brash leaders to equal a successful leader. I personally know in the past that being an introvert was seen as 'room for improvement' in a perfomance review. Thank goodness for people like Susan Cain highlighting the attributes of being an introvert - such a shame schools and industries don't think the same. It's interesting when you look at other cultures, such as Japan, where quiet resolve and calmness seem to epitomise their strength as world leaders in a variety of industries.May 1 2012: Extroverts tend to go with their idea and push it onto everyone else, I think, even if the plan might ideally need a bit of rethinking before being carried out. Whereas the more introverted types don't want to be so 'invasive' in the group. Hence them not taking the lead so much, even though their ideas are often the most logical and, as someone else said, the most moral, or considerate, of the group.
I reckon extroverts are the best leaders if the thing they are leading is worth leading. They have more passion and power to bring people together. Whereas for more 'general' leadership, introverts would normally do a better job because they are more considerate of the whole situation, as opposed to anybody's individual ideas or motives.
Kenneth Shaw
May 1 2012: I strongly believe being a great leader is a state of mind. You don't necessarily need to be the most outgoing person in the room but you do need to be able to capture your teams attention. When trying to inspire others you need to know your audience and be able to inspire action. Yes, this is easier said then done but if you truly believe in your message and convey it through your words. Then your going to be able to generate followers. Remember its not what you say but how you say it.
- +1
Many different great leaders throughout history haven't been the smartest nor the most outspoken of their time. What do these great leaders have in common? "They believe" when you believe in what your saying no matter if your an introvert or not you will be able to generate followers. People are drawn to passion and everyone wants to believe in something. No one wants to be told what to do but rather we want to believe in what we do.Apr 26 2012: Interesting that I am reading this topic here after having read an article in HBR on "How Introverts Can Become Better Innovators"
Francesca Gino from HBS writes, "But compared to extroverts, introverts may be more open to others' creative ideas. Adam Grant of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, Dave Hofmann of the University of North Carolina, and I conducted some research that shed light on this possibility. We asked managers and employees at 130 franchises of a U.S. pizza-delivery company to fill out a survey, and we obtained data on each store's profitability. Managers answered questions about their own personality. Other employees answered questions about their attempts to introduce improvements in job procedures. We found that in stores where employees tried to proactively introduce their creative ideas for improvements, introverted managers led stores to higher profits than more extroverted ones did. In franchises where employees stayed quiet and didn't offer their ideas, extroverted managers led stores to higher profits than more introverted managers did."
Full article here: http://blogs.hbr.org/hbsfaculty/2012/04/how-introverts-can-become-bett.htmlApr 19 2012: I feel its contextual.There are organisation situations where extroverts are required to propel the organisation.In certain situations where the organisation is mature, introverts may be better suited since a " maintenance" role is required. There are certain roles where the introvert is a better leader and other situations where the extrovert is a better leader.Leadership qualities needs to be viewed bearing in mind the context.Apr 17 2012: Being Introvert or Extrovert is not how you define leaders.A short and precise definition of a Leader is one who is able to better the lives of people around him.There is no particular trait which can be attributed for a person to be called a Leader.
A person who is introvert need not necessarily be some one who cannot manage people or things around him.In the same way,an Extrovert need not necessarily be someone who is able to manage gamut of things.
Jaime Lubin
Apr 13 2012: Why we dont see in a deep review some historical leaders, and find their abilityes to leadership?
- +1
Some examples:
Marco Aurelio
Saint Francis of Asissi
Sain Ignatius of Loyola
King Richard Lionheart
Leonora D'Aquitania
Cesare Borgia
Pope Paulus III
Amerigo Vespucci
Napoleon I
Adolf Hitler
Mao Tse Tung
John F. Kennedy
Emiliano Zapata
Angela Merkel
Evita Peron
Francisco Franco
Fidel Castro
Che Guevara
Charles de Gaulle
Noam Chomsky
Albert Einstein
Pablo Picasso
Teresa de Calcuta
Dalai Lama
Vladimir Lenin
Jules Verne
The list is so big but this are just a few real leaders to research their introvertion or extrovertion.
But no the gray "office and corporation "leaders".Apr 13 2012: In her prologue, the author described that she was an introvert and had some issues with extroverts. In her epilogue, she neutralized her initial statement, by admitting that we don't have total introverts and extroverts. Then what is the point in categorizing people?
If any person can judge to change its behavior, from an introvert to an extrovert according to the surrounding needs, what is the exact purpose of this debate? It is a tactical behavior of the average person to shift between these two roles. Is there anything more in it? Maybe it comes in phases and it is not a tactical but a strategic behavior. And this is something to debate about.
Anyway, I can't recall any known psychological disease connected to introvert and extrovert behavior solely. I would say that behavior patterns are "symptoms" rather than "reasons" for a psychological disease. And most of the times we will meet both in the same patient.
Leaders also use both behavioral patterns accordingly. So an issue like "introvert VS extrovert behavior in applying leadership" sounds more accurate. In any case, the author talks about introverts and extroverts (people) and not about an introvert or extrovert approach in leadership. That sounds like a mistake to me rendering the entire positioning useless. Probably I am making an error, that I can't detect since I am not an expert in this. But it is a very vivid impression.
Apr 16 2012: Because humans are complex creatures. That being said, we still need to explore the nature of humanity to gain a better understanding of what makes us human. It is in our nature to explore and be curious about ourselves and everything around us, and categorization is just a tool in the research and examination process.
Apr 17 2012: It has really been interesting learning about introverts in this conversation ....I had a totally different concept of what an introvert was....I thought introverts were, according to how people have used it around me before, someone shy, and not open to communication........but, according to what you said in your reply to me, introverts dislike social situations because people do not act true to themselves. I am thus an introvert..............by this definition.
- +1
I do not get satisfaction when I interact with the people around me.....most of whom do not share my enthusiasm for learning and growing. I guess that is why I enjoy TED so much. I have an intellectual escape when I participate in these wonderful conversations.
Thanks Edward.Apr 17 2012: I do understand the need of exploring human nature and categorizing as a tool. But I also say that the categorization "set" we use here, might be the wrong set. The debate's question-approach, that we all consider as a "fact" it can probably be wrong.
So, according to my opinion, the answer to the question: "Do introverts make better leaders?" is this:
Behavioral patterns, cannot be linked with "leading capability" and its various forms and needs in any way. The reasons of introvert and extrovert behavior, vary from person to person and they don't reveal the characteristics and potential of their personalities. We cannot talk about introvert and extrovert persons (personalities). We can talk about behavior (introvert or extrovert).
This is the "set" of categorization that I propose and the definitions we should have used.
Apr 17 2012: Philip, for what it's worth, I totally agree with you.Apr 17 2012: I disagree Phillip. These definitions are based on self report. Not observed behavior.So they are intrinsic reports of the tendency for introvert or extrovert preference. Not behavior that someone else observes. Just sayin...Apr 17 2012: Exactly, introverts and extroverts are defined through self-assessment, not a behavioral research study/ Only you truly know what is going on inside your head. However, it is possible to lie and be dishonest in assessment, but it is difficult because you get asked the same questions over and over again throughout the test with different wording and slightly different twists and spins, which is the genius behind self-assessment. Someone else is not determining who you are, you are just finding out who you already are.Apr 12 2012: I reckon introverts would make a better leaders only if they have other leadership characteristics to back them up (OR if they have extroverts to assist them in where they lack).Apr 12 2012: Adrian,
- +1
Successful leaders, in my experience, come in a variety of intelligence- and "Meyers Briggs-" types mixes.
I think it is always dangerous to proclaim any one style or personality as the be-all. In fact, I think a key characteristic of great leaders is their inability to not "be themselves." Authenticity can be an exceedingly powerful factor in one's personality. As a model for the organization, it's stakeholders and, even clients. And, it implies integrity, which can't be determined by introversion or extraversion, but builds trust and commitment with collaborators, co-workers and, sometimes even community.
That said, I do think the tendencies towards reflection, self-awareness and seriousness introverts often possess affords them some depth that can, if communicated verbally or non-verbally, be very constructive. These characteristics can insure thoughtfulness in plans and behaviors, insight into ones ego and its impacts on leading, sincerity about the work and co-workers, etc. and space for others to find their voices, strengths and capacities for shared leadership.
On the other hand, introverts need to develop sufficient emotionally intelligent communications styles that they can rally the troops, inspire confidence with stakeholders and shareholders and convey the vision and direction of the organization, in both micro and macro scenarios. These are important skills because, in the absence of them, an introverted leader and her/his leadership can be misconstrued, if not ineffective.
Though I'm an introvert-type leader and the odd-ball INTP type, no less. I'd have to say that the most critical factor in any leader is related far more to their emotional intelligence (and this is not inferred, in my mind by the introvert label) than anything else. And, this emotional intelligence, by definition means that the leader has adapted his/her psychology to accommodate all styles, not only their own, but others quite different from them.
Jeff Cable
Apr 9 2012: A single characteristic such as introversion or extroversion is hardly responsible for making a 'better' leader. Leaders are those who take the reins of power (or have them thrust upon them) and it is often the case that people who desire say... political power, should never be permitted to take it. The quality of leadership is judged in hindsight, when all of the actions of a particular leader are known.
- +1
History has not been kindly to Margaret Thatcher but mention Mahatma Ghandi and the picture changes to a positive one. Abraham Lincoln stands up to historical scrutiny whereas Richard Nixon does not.
Leaders of companies have been both reclusive and outgoing. Howard Hughes was known as a hermit and Steve Jobs was frequently branded as mercurial but he was the visible face of his company.
Leadership of the kind we desire (and which we all recognise when we see it) requires empathy, common sense and a light touch. The trappings of high office and power tend to corrupt those who take up a leading position and so we end up with leaders with vision, who are all too human when it comes to practicalities. The higher you rise, the more people notice you and want to bring you down.
Collaborative leadership by consent can be so democratic that nothing is ever decided. Benign dictatorship is thought to brings benefits to the greatest mass. Winston Churchill was thought to be a great leader. I have heard it said that he was a bad man because it was so easy to send soldiers to their deaths. He is credited with saying: A man does what he must - in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures - and that is the basis of all human morality.
This appears to be why he was considered to be a good leader. He had a difficult job to do in a time when it was probably far easier to surrender. A prime example of an extrovert becoming prime minister and taking decisions which mattered.
Humans are too complex to be reduced to a single character trait.Apr 8 2012: I believe you have to have a balance between the traits of an introvert and an extrovert to make a great leader. Extroverts get more exposure to people which is important in the leadership role. Nevertheless many extroverts remain superficial and care more of pleasing a crowd than to carry out their own points of views or ideas. Introverts on the other hand may reflect more, analyze more and probably make a better decision than an extrovert. The problem is that they have to much trouble in getting it out of to the rest and as a leader you need to take quick timely decisions.Apr 6 2012: effective communication with the rest and beeing open to the group which they lead will include among the qualities of a leader. introverts might judge things well, but can the inspire and motivate a team?
Apr 7 2012: I believe they could definitely inspire and motivate better. In a world where words are rapidly losing the strength of there meaning due to overuse an introvert is a gem. A silent person who says one sentence makes a more profound impact than someone who communicates more because the rarity of their speech gives the worlds more substance ( or at least the illusion of it).
Bob Valdez
Apr 5 2012: Ones personal traits determines how we act around people, we can choose to be silent or very out going.
- +1
Leadership is learned and is not a trait. Understanding how to work with people and what people need and want will
make you a good leader. Someone who doesn't care about people will make a poor leader.Apr 4 2012: Well to me leader is someone who makes things to happen through people, where communication is pivotal. Generally speaking and also from examples around it seems extrverts being extrovert are frequent communicators so are successful leaders.
That's being said frequent communication does not mean effective communication so introverted people also can be successful leaders if they communicate in right time , in right way to right person in right amount to make things happen......
Leader should watch more reflect more and talk less that's another thought around so again introverted people also can be good leaders...... well can't find an example though of any introverted leader........any example from friends here will be great
Last not least to me introversion or extroversion does not matter if one can influence to make things happen.Apr 3 2012: First of all you forget the 3rd one mentioned, ambiverts: "Those who have best of both worlds". Both extremes are no good, but are these terms such as intro and extrovert really that relevant? The good aspect of being introvert is that you have a lot of time for contemplation, the time is spend reading and thinking instead of socializing, which gives the individual the time to ponder over life's mysteries and gives him the opportunity to know more about himself. However, leaders are those that inspire those around them, it is not just a role of a figure head it is also a role which must be tend to by socializing with ones peers. This opportunity paves not only a way to know ones "subordinates", but it also gives access to the sharing of ideas which several occasions are created through disorder and turbulence.
I think it's not so much the matter of introversion or extroversion, but rather the aspects of both and their share towards good leadership. I'd rather go out with everyone and have a deep turbulent discussion and after enjoy my free time to let those ideas simmer than be locked off from the rest of the world with a couple of books, if I did I'd end up unrealistic extreme idea/ls.May 1 2012: Who better to lead the flock than the one who already watches over it vigilantly?Apr 30 2012: I'm not so sure the classification of people as introvert or extrovert is relevant. Its like classifying people as tall and short. I'm 186cm (6ft 1inch if you prefer). Am I tall or short? It depends on who I'm with. Being extroverted can help with gaining the attention of the people you are leading but good leaders also need to be independantly motivated. Perhaps the best leaders are those that can utilise both sides of their personality when appropriate.Apr 30 2012: Do introverts make better lovers? Possibly. You never know until you see them in action...Apr 26 2012: Actually this can not be determined unequivocally, but this is just based on what is considered to be most strongly in a problem.
There are two types of leadership. The first leadership comes from mastery of meditation, and second, the leadership that obtained with very few involving the mastery of meditation.
The first type of Leadership by meditating, giving us less control in the use of introvertness or extrovertness.While the leadership of the second type gives us a strong alignment.
Although in theory we know nothing of the most important of the two types of leadership, but in practice, we always choose strongly with one of them.
So, in answer to the question: Do introverts make better leaders? I responded by stating that the best leadership does not come from an introvert or extrovert mastery, but how one or both working together to be able to connect us to a higher source to gain wisdom.
Perhaps, people tend to say introvert will make our leadership better, because the fact that introvertness will make us easier closer to spirituality or having wisdom at higher level, such us sharpen intuition etc.
Extrovert or introvert is not a better or best solution to a decision-making process or the like, but extrovert or introvert must be a solution for us to be more connected to the source of the solution itself.
Do not let the extrovert or introvert playing at the branch for us, but let it take us to the root or source of wisdom.
Less or more ...Apr 26 2012: If we are talking about true leadership,that surely doesn't have anything to do with extrovertness or introvertness,but everything to do with Decision making power.However,these days,votes are required to make you a leader,one that can act with authority.so some degree of extrovertness is necessary too.I mean people generally like extrovert,open people more.Apr 20 2012: Better leaders can either be extroverts or introverts.it doesn't matter..at the end of the day all it matters is how they have pursued there leadership skills and what they do in order to improve there skills and get out fruitful results from there work.
so i cant precisely say introverts make better leaders.
M Tan
Apr 19 2012: I think being a good leader, whether introvert or extrovert, has to do more with how you handle peopleApr 19 2012: No . Leadership has nothing to do with this aspect .Apr 17 2012: To Linda Taylor
- 0
We agree about Jung and it is my mistake that I didn't say that he define personalities by describing behavior. Yes he didn't try to explain personalities by recording behavior. He proposed the psychoanalytical method. The rest that I say remain exactly the same. Since we define a personality type by describing its behavior but then admitting that we can see the same behavior from other personality types, categorizing personalities that way is useless. Another model is needed (they already exist though).
My personal approach about behavior in leadership is not an effort to explain personalities. My simple approach is the effects in leadership that behavior has (introversion or extroversion). In fact there is research in that area that has already produce rules of leading and types of leadership and management.
Apr 17 2012: Rules of leading. Hmm. You're already out of my ballpark because I do not play by the rules. But you bring up a point that measuring behavior is just output. Not much information. You need to also look at the input and thru-put to really understand true leadership. Ergo personality traits. Too many people making too much money selling too many books full of junk science. Yeah, I read those books too.
Apr 18 2012: I sense that you sense some of my worries. Ballpark? To bad sounds like fun.
Behavior is output, it is a tool, it is a symptom and it can be other things too, symbolic for instance. Ι think I've made my points clear.
To debate I need clues, evidence, data. If no one can provide "valuable basics", I dispute the original claims, or at least I worry that something fundamental is really wrong or missing. That was my action plan here.
I am aware of the things that you suggest that I should look for (some of that). But I can only propose things that, as no expert, are acceptable for my field of expertise. Still I've made the mistake to provide "solutions" and introduce other approaches. It is a mistake because, as no expert, I cannot guarantee valuable information or knowledge. Not because I believe that my overall position is wrong.Apr 17 2012: To Edward Bolton
I can say "someone is a happy person" (it is really a state of being, not a personality). With that I can possibly mean he is optimistic, he is cynical and doesn't care about nothing or he is a sensitive person in a good period e.t.c. In everyday speaking I can say "he is a happy person" or "personality" if you like. But when I approach the term "happiness" I must put it in the right context. I can't drag people in a conversation like "are you a happy or a sad person?" because my capacity to comprehend things ends right there. It is WRONG.
I will not feel guilty if I say tomorrow "I am an introvert" in a personal conversation. If there is no motivation, money, good salary, a challenge, helping people or gaining real knowledge I can be an "introvert" in no time.
My introvert character can be "translated" as lazy, a hard liner that doesn't change his opinion, as a shy person that he got scared from his opponents or simply a person that reserves his powers and strength. Maybe it is all that or some of that. Or maybe I don't want people to dislike me and increase tension. We need more data to come to a conclusion. But what ever my reasons are, my introvert behavior is a conscious choice that serves my purposes. And I am not pretending or feeling dishonest. I cannot make it more clear than that.
Maria K
Apr 17 2012: I wouldn't say that either extroverts or introverts make better leaders because they are both extremes on a continuum.
- 0
To gain competitive advantage firms need to be ambidextrous pursuing often conflicting priorities e.g. cost and differentiation, integration and localization. Leadership then means being both an introvert and extrovert at the same time and trying to reconcile these in any particular situation. Extroverts may have a tendency to talk to much and stifle others but they also can energize people and communicate well, while introverts do the opposite- let other ideas come through. But both are necessary for successful operations.Apr 17 2012: Walking the talk is easier to do if you talk less. Chances of hurting other's feelings are less if you speak less.Leaders need to exhibit integrity before anything else. Introverts tend to have an edge in this because of their inherent personality trait.
Mr K
Apr 17 2012: Is and Es differentiate not only in their interaction out to the environment but also in the input taken from it, because of their own different perceptions.
- 0
Each unique person will respond differently to outer stimulations, and, in the non existing ends of these two different personalities, while Is analyze, Es act.
Therefore, and without being exactly at these opposite places, each one develops a unique set of skills as a result for their behavior and responses got from those behaviors.
Every I or E responses to any and all situations potentiates that difference, increasing the gap in between, making them more defined on their stance and each getting "perfected" with your own interior feedback. You get into a loop where you praise what makes you so you conditioned by your unique point of view.
Distance might get attenuated in face of negative reactions towards your ways, but other than that, if you do not feel a need to change, you will remain at your comfort zone, and, in my belief, both Is and Es humbly sure to have the better set of skills.
Over time, if you become or are made aware of the separation to your opposing end, you might try to break the distance, being this conscious act the way to better yourself adding that what you feel you were in lack of.
Which is best to lead? I honestly can't tell.
In my opinion, introverts are more and more analytical, reserved and measured, while extroverts are more spontaneous, communicational and vivid.
I picture an introvert in an ongoing internal dialogue seeking for answers, while extroverts tend to provide answers without that much thought. And while sometimes it's time to act, on other occasions it is best to think it through.
An introvert needs self assurance before taking the leap to exposure; an extrovert needs a crowd, and on many times the crowd needs him and no situation is better than the other without a context.
Introverts are masters of their silences; extroverts are prisoners of their own words.Apr 17 2012: To Linda Taylor
Everybody knows (simply from high school years), that someone can fake and pretend introvert behavior (which directly proves it is a BEHAVIOR). But the person that performs the act, is extremely outgoing and fun. So if we don't know that this person is faking its behavior pattern, (only his friends know) how can we derive conclusions about his personality and his capacity to lead? And what short of team and for what tasks this person would be a good or bad leader? I would like an answer to that.
The only think we know about this person is that is a teaser. LOL
Diplomacy is another great example. A diplomat uses introvert or extrovert behavior according to its orders and the cause that he serves. Exactly the capacity of diplomates to change BEHAVIOR according to needs, without second thoughts and remorse, makes them excellent in leading and some of them have make it to prime ministers (LEADERS). They use calmness and talking but they can deliver threats as well. They use hi profile or a low profile, according to the circumstances. When you want to convince, you adjust your BEHAVIOR. But your personality remains the same.
Apr 17 2012: Oh I agree with all of the above. But you are talking how we judge other people as leaders. Some of the discussion is about how we as leaders leverage these preferences. But I really like the distinction because it clarifies a lot.
But behavior is not the definition of introvert/extrovert. The characteristic may or may not be manifest in the behavior as you so well pointed out. It can be measured by self-report instruments that target an individuals preference for certain social situations. So really the only person that can say if you are an introvert/extrovert is you.
Apr 17 2012: The fact that this topic is very interesting to me is because the first time that someone characterized him/her self as an introvert or extrovert appeared here (for me). Or because of that TED video I watched here.
Before, I characterized people that have a low behavioral profile as shy, or scared, or wise (thinkers), cool people, calm personalities if you want, discreet philosophers possibly, silent workers maybe. All these people have totally different personalities. I "learned" here that all the above are introverts (maybe). The definition replaces-covers a huge variety of terms that are very descriptive with one that means actually nothing and gives no clues. Experts can't agree, probably because they mixed philosophy with psychological elements (wrong).
Carl Jung's definitions indicate it is a behavior (tension). He defined the behavior. He said nothing about personalities. The definitions in wikipedia define extraversion and introversion as a state (of mine), act or habit (behavior again). But the actual definitions they create more questions than answers (very abstract). They also point that introverts and extroverts behave different from their personality type (What else is new?). Nobody mentions ambiverts here(why?). Nobody here claimed that he is an ambivert. Yet they are approximately the 68% of the population.
Yes you have the right to call yourself as you please but it is a useless action. The behavior is something that can be discussed and provide something useful. Everybody seem to fight that idea.
Linda Taylor
Apr 17 2012: These are Jungian personality types (kinda a subset of Jungian personality archetypes). Introversion/extroversion refers to how energy flows for the individual. There are others, how we take in information etc. Jung believed that you needed to understand the personality through psychoanalytic techniques in order to understand the resultant behavior. Not the other way around.
- +2
When you take personality types (categories) and turn them into personality traits, people fall along a continuum. Then you get closer to the domain of ambivert.
The behaviorist were people like Watson, Skinner who didn't care as much about the why, they just adjusted the behavior.
All this is so last century anyway.
This century they are linking these tendencies with brain structures, dopaminergic and serotonin receptors in the brain and seeing if there is a biological correlation to these descriptors of personality or is it, as you say, just a category. Treatment options would of course be different and you can bet the pharmaceuticals are all over this. I don't mean this in a bad way, but you could imagine the addiction treatment options.Apr 17 2012: I am super introverted, but for some reason, with my team at work i dont operate as an introverted person. Maybe its because i must transmit to them self confidence. I think that someone can be basically introverted or hyperactive but according to the situation or the setting we adapt "change gears" in order to accomplish the job that has to be done.Apr 16 2012: Edward,
Interesting analysis. Who knows? More thoughts --
Regards the "E," I don't know that Obama's oratory skills qualify him for an automatic "E." I often speak in public (though no stadiums yet). And it is next to impossible for people who don't have similar "Introvert who is comfortable in social settings" energies to believe I'm not an extravert. Needless to say extraverts are those who find this hardest to understand.
Regards Obama pursuing Law, I wonder if this wasn't a case of an INTP's drive to break usual models. A black lawyer at Harvard is an innovator, by this line of thinking.
And regards his policy style. My understanding from a few I know who've worked with him, is he is a stickler for democratic equity. Which tracks with the analytical that INTPs are.
So what looks like "giving in" to many on both sides of the aisle, I'm reading as yielding to the truest and more inherent ideals of democracy, which requires progress through negotiation. If I'm getting this right the principle related to his integrity is his commitment to the integrity of a true democracy. I suspect, he, as INTPs tend to, questions his own take on principals as much as others. And isn't willing to give his principals a bigger "vote" or influence than others. Including people in his own party. This is where his integrity to the process of democracy seems present to me.
My theory on political leaders is, if no one is complaining, nothing is getting done. Democratic progress doesn't come without rapids. It comes with progressing through them, in productive relationships. If a leader is riling up roughly equal sides of the political spectrum in the rare balance where democracy can and should emerge from.
Regards your point on campaigning. This is tougher to debate. But, consider how Obama goes into places like South Carolina and Arizona. This suggests creativity, vision and analytical tendencies of an INTP. And, may - we'll see - be genius.
Apr 17 2012: You present a good argument that is for sure. But speaking as an INTP, I have analyzed all of the major issues in our society, and the failed policies of government, and my conclusions present winners and losers in all cases. In real reform, lets say in healthcare or the war on drugs for instance, policy changes that would be best for the people will not be beneficial for big business. There is no silver bullet to appease all sides of the issues. So I guess there may be a thin line between delusional and genius if Obama thinks he can have his cake and eat it too so to speak. If he was like me in any fashion (in character as an INTP) he would at least attempt to push through the better solutions for society instead of thinking he can make everyone happy. Logic and analysis would impact the reality of the situation. I know he realizes to severity of each issue, but I do not believe he is willing to take the political risk (true leadership over self-interest) to enact policies that are for the greater good of society. His actions reflect my statements. Maybe he has the correct intent, but it takes a lot more than that to make major changes. Plus he has to realize that no matter want he does the republicans will twist it negatively since they want him out of power so they can control the office again. So I am not sure of his level of complexity and whether or not it can compare with INTP traits based on what I have seen so far. That being said, I still have tremendous respect for Obama and wish him the best.Apr 16 2012: Many qualities are needed to make a truly great leader. And the topic is not as simple as classifying people into an either/ or scenario. If you have taken the myers-briggs or blanchard DISC assessments or the type A/B personality test you will come to better understanding of personal character design. Introverts and extroverts exist in varying levels of the defined terms. There are high level introverts and low level, and many levels in between. Obviously the same goes for extroverts. That being said, I believe introverts in a general sense are less subjected to being influenced by group think than extroverts. If a person wants or needs to fit in a social order or desires to be popular, that person is more likely to adjust his/her behavior to gain acceptance instead of sticking to a high level of internal principles, a trait normally found in extroverts. True leaders strongly believe in thier principles and are unwaivered in resolve, a trait necessary to make tough decisions that may not be popular, but are better solutions for difficult problems, since major societal issue resolutions will result in winners and losers in most cases. I firmly believe that an introvert is better suited to make tough decisions at the risk of being unpopular because introverts do not need popularity to build self-esteem. However in society a dilemma exists because of the nature of elections. Introverts do not fair well in selling themselves to raise campaign money or votes. Extroverts perform better in this task. So we end up getting great pitch men/women or great salesmen as our elected leaders, instead of true leaders who could inact sound policy for a society.Apr 15 2012: I don't see why researchers and people try to seek out what is better as a leader. I'm a college student, and there's much for me to learn, but in every management class I've taken to date, we've seen at least one research study which tried to explain how this makes a better leader.
I'm not trying to refute research, far from it. All I'm saying is that all personality types have their good points when it comes to leading a group. Like many before me, it's where they get the most energy, so I'll assume that introverts would be better in independant or individual efforts in leadership, and extroverts in more cooperative ones.Apr 14 2012: I am an extreme introvert and I assure you, I am not a good leader!
I´m retired now, but had generally better ideas on the fields I was working, but being a leader requires selling your ideas to others and that is generally a weak point of introvert people.
Apr 16 2012: I think you are examining the issue from a definition that describes who usually ends up being leaders instead of what characteristics make a great leader. People who pitch their ideas and convince others to buy into those ideas are salesmen, but not necessarily good leaders, they may be great conartists at best. Being a leader is not something that you can push on people. A great leader is defined by his or her actions and people then choose to follow of their own free will. Just because someone is in charge does not make them a leader either, only a boss.Apr 12 2012: If we have a very successful man with status, that reacts very carefully and thinks a lot before speaking, can we say that we have an introvert or a wise person? If wisdom equals introvert behavior, in this case, and wisdom comes with experience and aging, how can we justify that behavior in a very young person? It is obvious that we have different origins for the introvert behavior of these two individuals. In addition can the behavior of both be considered as "healthy", since the reasons for behaving as introverts are different?
Are "extrovert" and "introvert" terms with clear definitions? If we don't have clear definitions, we cannot make comparisons. Also, are there any pathological reasons behind introvert or extrovert behavior? If someone, from time to time, appears to have both kinds of behavior in what category falls?
Can "snobism" for instance, be considered as introvert behavior? Or is a hysterical and extreme extrovert behavior? When someone confronts drunk people on the streets, by not reacting, can be considered as an introvert? Wise? Coward? Not in the mood?Apr 12 2012: Adrain,
After weighing in here regards Meyers-Briggs Typing, I began to think of my own as an introvert. When I Googled, up popped a piece on Barack Obama. He possibly shares same MBTI as I do: INTP.
It makes interesting points about Obama and leadership styles:
There is some debate whether he is an introvert or not. But I'd bet good chocolate he is. Actually I'd bet a lot more than, that's how sure I am.
This all reminded me of a Harvard Business Review piece on topic of "Command and Collaborate" leaders: http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/02/is_command_and_collaborate_the.html#comment-432402627 It and my comments to it get at my points earlier here on your Q regards emotional intelligence. Which for peak performance requires higher-order thinking.
I do think, given they are thinkers there is some evidence that introverts have meaningful abilities for this fairly rare pinnacle marked by the ability to integrate soft/hard and all in-between information and assets. How I tried to explain in HBR comment:
"Demonstration of higher-order thinking skills synthesize what is most salient, taking in both hard data and hidden realities."
Introverts thinker skills, if balanced with extraverted in-put and out-put can help them challenge even expert and granular analysis—provided they pull noses out from behind spreadsheets long enough to engage. Thus, what separates the strongest leaders from those who can cite theory chapter and verse, but, can't meaningfully integrate it with their corporation's vision and market iterations, is higher-order thinking.
An example:
Steve Jobs, an introvert. He struggled when he turned too far inward. But his wins far outshined his moments of navel gazing because he was highly attenuated to the complex landscape of human psychology, including his own ego.
Apr 16 2012: I also am an INTP and write left-handed. No wonder I voted for him. I knew I liked something about him. But, honestly, I think he is more likely a ENTP because he can sling a speech as good as anyone. He may have great leadership abilities, but I understand that getting policy changes through Congress is next to impossible. So unfortunately his potential is somewhat limited. Plus most INTP's don't usually go into law, they are usually more creative and analytical. Plus I am not sure of his resolve and integrity. HIs actions display to me that he is more concerned about being re-elected than sticking to the principles he projected in his initial campaign. He has towed the status quo line more than not in most cases. True leaders do what's best for others, not themselves. Lastly, INTP's are really rare, less than 3% of the population, so the odds stand against the propability of Obama being an INTP.Apr 12 2012: I am myself an introvert. I believe us introverts do not lead or manage better, we just do it different.
While I love my current position it brings up new challenges. I am the type of guy who doesn't like chit chat. I get to the point. But because of that my team is perceiving me as a person much different than I anticipated.
The point is: The people around us need to understand how we tick and why we lead the way we do.
Once they understand how we tick it is no longer a matter of being extrovert or introvert.


text:
- Jah Kable
- Troy, NY
- United States
Thinker ready to be unleashed upon the world,
This conversation is closed.
Is the world really going to sit back and watch as these peaceful protesters in Turkey are attacked by police with chemical weapons?
Peaceful protesters are being attacked with chemical weapons and RUN OVER by swat vehicles. Is this not worthy of help from the world? Is it possible that respect can be worth more than a resource that we readily fight for at the drop of a hat? Why are human rights being ignored? Peaceful protest meets non-peaceful police and the world just stands by and watches. Where is this right? Do our leaders have any morals? We intervene whenever a resource is in the equation.
Jun 8 2013: Well, what did you do when peaceful protesters in Montreal were treated in a similar way by police? BTW, this picture is not from Turkey, but from Montreal: http://500px.com/photo/5826643
Jun 9 2013: I was not aware of these events otherwise I would have done the same thing I did for the Turkish people. No one should be treated in such a manner and the fact that anyone can do these things to another person is very unsettling to me. What the world needs is cooperation, without that we are all doomed.Jun 9 2013: No one will tell something about it because the media won't amplify it, why ? Simply to keep that nice and sharp picture of the civilized occident who respects humanrights ! SAD
Some Anon
Jun 6 2013: Why are the Turkish people fighting?
- +2
Jun 6 2013: I just watched the video here: http://youtu.be/aEapNRakzDI and I was deeply moved. Clearly the Islamic leadership in Turkey is trying to take that nation backwards into a more conservative state; one that is more consistent with the misguided ideals of totalitarian control. Here is a link to a document that remains quite revolutionary to this very day. Read it first before you worry about where it comes from.
The ideas within this document remain revolutionary. Totalitarian governments hate these ideas. But they tend to be clueless as to how strongly and positively most U.S. Americans feel about it.
I know little of the actual political forces at work in this conflict, but I am aware of where, when, why, and how student-youth movements have been both influential and successful in effecting significant change. Now is the time for great care and even greater vigilance. Because now is the time when a totalitarian regime, in both perceiving and FEELING the threat --begins to search for justification to increase control. In fact, this process is already a decade old now. So your opponents have a head start.
And here is an idea for you. Who is it that the State Police of Turkey need fear most? The young man who made this video referenced here? Or the mysterious woman with a bottle of vinegar who helped the young man?Jun 16 2013: Some more ponderings.....................
Why Turkey's PM is the envy of the dictator class!
Jun 16 2013: Nice article. THAT seems to explain things. And that seems to answer the questions I asked above. But to what degree do you support the Turkish government, as it is described in this article? And how do you balance that against the right of peaceful protest in a democracy?
I know it can be annoying for someone to ask too many questions. That annoying habit I retain after 50+ years of hard experience w/it. I learned how to ask (WHY?) when I was about two years old. My late parents were school teachers. And strangely enough, they ALWAYS had answers.
You've really provoked a deep response here from some of the Muslim observers. I'm curious about that.Jun 16 2013: I'm PUMPED that you posted this Blade Runner!Jun 13 2013: Why would I do anything that could effect my already comfortable life?
What have the people of Turkey (amongst Libya, Syria, Egypt...) ever done for me? What am I going to get out of helping complete strangers?
They are Muslim, who cares about them?
Putting aside the common and normal attitudes of the brain-washed masses...
Now that the news of Turkey is even being publicly shown on our corporate news stations says something, but nothing from the actual station should be accredited as being true. (As using phrases like conservative and liberal to explain a middle eastern countries politics is adequate coverage.) What it says is "the power of the internet is real" and this power allows everyday citizens to be informed.. And while most Westerns pride themselves on believing they are well-informed about global and local issues, the contrary is more evident.
An outstanding difference between west and [middle] eastern attitudes is the fact westerners are far more individualistic with thinking. Middle Eastern countries have been able to organize and revolt recently because they trust their neighbors far more commonly than we would here in the states. If the U.S ever revolted like one of these countries, more civilians would probably harm other civilians than the military-police would get a chance to - we are a very selfish culture: our entertainment and education system is enough to note here. This attitude needs to be recognized.
Ignoring Turkey for a moment to look at Syrian Terrorist ("protestors" with guns)... Who happened to be formed by the CIA (who Osama was a member of) like Al Qaeda. There is shadow-government behavior in this world, and it is not bound to American soil. Although protesting is now 'low-level terrorism' right here at home.
The issue of Turkey, whether you can or cannot help, should be noticed and investigated on one's own terms. In fact, look into why all of the middle east is revolting slowly...
Jun 16 2013: OK, I admit to being brainwashed. It keeps things cleaned up inside that vacant space between my ears. I don't consider my cranium to be the equivalent of a hollow tree -- neither bugs nor birds, nor squirrels, nor owls enter to take up residence, uninvited.
I think there are a great many U.S. Americans who care a great deal about 'Muslim' issues. The events of 9/11 did that for us. The Earth is a much smaller planet these days. In part, 9/11 was a consequence of that.
Are you informed? Do you claim to be informed? Better to maintain a healthy skepticism and observe events as they are. Draw your conclusions later, when you have more information/facts upon which to decide. Part of my appreciation/debt to Blade Runner (here) is the degree to which he provokes informative responses from others. I see (at least some) of what he sees, here.
Are you criticizing the U.S. media? Or do you criticize your fellow citizens? If so, on what basis? And if on the issue of "ignorance," I can afford to agree (to a point). But will you offer us an alternative to illuminate that point?
Who told you that the U.S. is a very selfish culture? And why were you willing to believe them when they said it? http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/15/opinion/bennett-generosity Bill Bennett is a friend of mine. Smart guy.
Who told you that middle east countries trust their neighbors? And who told you that "more civilians would harm other civilians than the military police?" How old were you when 9/11 happened? Go ask some older person you trust just how MUCH U.S. Americans support one another when confronted by a common threat or shared tragedy! U.S. Americans stand together in ways that I find admirable.
Watch out for idiots on the internet who will try to get you to believe that the CIA is responsible for 9/11. The hijackers on the plane wanted to kill us. You too if you'd have been there. Check your facts/attitudes and talk to some older folks in your life. Examine all
Renee kalfa
Jun 11 2013: Yes, it always did...
- +1
The world is not any one specific...
The world is I and you and he and she and we and they and all of us.
So ask yourself: "Self, are you going to sit back and watch ???"
Jah Kable
Jun 12 2013: I'm doing what I'm capable of. My voice will not be heard the same as leaders that should be speaking. All I can do is inform. I agree with everything you said too. We need to realize that we are all connected. What happens to one will happen to the next, eventually. Turning a blind eye solves nothing. Picking up weapons solves nothing. I believe helping to understand solves everything.
- +2
Renee kalfa
Jun 13 2013: Yes you do, by raising your question here, letting others the opportunity to think and react. Thank you for that.Jun 9 2013: Here we are again Jah with me catching up on your '19 hours ago' which had no reply option...............
- +1
Firstly, suggest we both know that your 'fave' bleeding heart made up fantasy tale is not what I was referring when I quoted Islam's '"Taqiyya and Kitman" and the condoning of lieing to further the cause of Islam. Accordingly I suggest your analogy is a joke.
And as for your fantasy question...'Do you lie to her or tell her the truth?'.................Begs.....Why do you have to tell her anything at that point?
And boy is this one piece of dishonest hypocrisy................"Don't tell me about my morals. You are not "God" or anyone that has earned respect from me so you have no right to judge me or any other person here."
That from the Guy that came on bragging about his 'high morals' now tells us his morals are beyond questioning or discussion.
Moving along...........................And a 'god' has what to do with this?
Further Jah...........I don't recall asking for or seeking your respect, nor am I seeking it!
Also suggest, we ALL have the right (except maybe under Sharia Law) to make whatever judgements we desire just like you have done right here and now and on the events in Turkey.
And as for this :)...........' I don't think I'm even going to respond to you anymore honestly.'...............Hey Jah, I've had my doubts about you responding 'honestly' ("Taqiyya and Kitman") from the start! :)
Also suggest that walking away doesn't automatically mean/guarantee/prove that somebody is a 'bigger man'..........could be nothing more than a bit of self serving political maneuvering to save face and try and collect some brownie points from the naive.
Cheers...............Jun 9 2013: Jah,
It is such a travesty.
I came across this just now, a photographer is seeing the mayhem and violence on a daily basis, as it's going n more or less in his backyard. He has shared an incredible number of photos and encourages people to share them, to raise awareness.
Jun 11 2013: It is a shame. As modern and intelligent as we are, most people get some power and all sense and humanity goes out the window. They return a caveman way of thinking "I'm leader. You listen or else. UGH UGH UGH!" We are not naturally aggressive. I don't care what anyone says. Kids don't go around hitting other kids unless they saw it before. Kiddie see, Kiddie do. The cycle of violence and pain just has to stop. It's up to our leaders to make that happen. Citizens have been trying for a long time and always get crushed by gov't or the majority of citizens(who are brainwashed to believe these things are necessary for their survival). World wide cooperation WILL be much more beneficial to us as a species, no matter what corner of the world you're in. I think that the case is, They don't want to listen to a bunch of "hippies". They're too "good" for that. Almost constant war since civilization has modernized is proving that this way isn't working. Everything belongs to everyone. It's just that simple. When that thought is common between all people, We will truly know peace and prosperity.
Jun 11 2013: You said it, Jah. "It's up to our leaders to make that happen."
And when leaders go nuts, the people suffer.
I heard some updates on the radio this morning, what the people in Istanbul see on the media paints a very different picture than what is going on in reality.
Propaganda needs to stop!
This whole thing aggravates me to no end. Ever since 1987, Turkey's membership bid to the EU has been controversial, at best. Clearly, there is polarity in what the people want, and what the leaders want, or rather, are clinging onto, at the expense of the people.
Have you seen this?
Jah Kable
Jun 11 2013: What bothers me even more than the lies about whos attacking who is the fact they keep saying its over a park.... It's over plenty more things than a park. The people just drew the line there. This is all from what I've read from people in Turkey. They are just crossing the line. I don't understand why no one in NATO/UN is looking at twitter or facebook or anything with living people communicating. ALL THE EVIDENCE IS THERE! I think they are waiting for a confession from Erdogan before they do anything or maybe they are waiting for permission from the oppressor Erdogan to come and protect his enemies "the looters". Which were college students and firefighters and librarians and every other job before the protests but now they are looters. If that obvious of a lie is accepted without question I guess I'm Bill Gates son and he hasn't been paying support. That's a logical metaphor. Both are completely ludicrous and are nothing but words out of one persons mouth. Erdogan is going to cause a civil war in Turkey. People say the protesters are 30,000 strong and the city has millions of people. Yes, that may be true. When the real bullets start flying do you think 30,00 is going to increase or decrease? They are fighting for their homes, their city, their country, and their future. The police are fighting for.... pension? I don't even know because they are puppets. They are just doing what they are told like good little pets. Be a man, all of them need to remember they are men NOT SLAVES. Then again they were pepper spraying female students sitting in parks and shooting tear gas at women in dresses.... I don't think she's protesting in this warzone in a dress bro calm down. If I was there watching that firsthand I would be the first to toss a brick because those are all scumbag moves. No excuse for it at all. Orders? Do you have free will? Ok, now have fun rotting in prison for 30k assualt and battery charges, a few murders, attempted murder with tear gas container, ect!Jun 11 2013: The true travesty is indeed, that the people are fighting against the people. The police are brainwashed! Convinced by their superiors, that what they are doing is 'good'.
- +2
Civil war can lead to change, but at what cost??
Jah Kable
Jun 12 2013: Erdogan have proven that he will not tolerate criticism. He says he openly welcomes it but if he feels it's insulting he will not. He loaded the gov't with his like minded friends and all that opposed him were punished when he got to a level where he had the power to do so. He made examples out of those who opposed him. They lost their jobs, at the least. Some were jailed for their opposition. That is not democracy in any sense. He has let his personality cloud his democratic judgement and actions. Democracy does not rule with an iron fist. Democracy rules with compassion and understanding and a willingness to heed the opinions of those who disagree. I just watched some JFK speeches and he nailed it. Over 40 years ago JFK nailed it. What he warned of is here and in full effect. If we do not act soon, we will all pay the price. All for the wants of a few terrible "people". These "people" are a plague on the world and the examples they set are only spawning more like them. I have hope that good can prevail but like you said "at what cost".Jun 11 2013: Jah . . . I can't get all the way there with the solutions you propose.
- +1
But your basic observations are Right on point! Please do not give up hope. Change is possible. And change will come. Everyone must work together. And everyone must understand the value of peaceful protest. In my lifetime, Dr. Martin Luther King changed an entire generation of indifferent, white, racist men & women (my parents and their generation) into reasonable, concerned, law-abiding citizens. It still took Affirmative Action and other, similar, laws to ensure that racism and prejudice were/are unacceptable. But change did come. And violence was not the way.
Other than by posting here on TED, and by keeping myself informed on events, I have to admit that I am unsure as to how I might help. Participation in the Vidalia/TOR project surely helps at some level. But beyond that? Who knows? I could write to my Congressman or Senator and hope for something better. But is military intervention really the answer?
It is very easy to say that this is not my struggle. It is. But as an ignorant foreigner, how likely am I to choose the wrong side? There are nuances and consequences and personalities involved. I know. I have seen that first hand.
No, on the day that about 500 million people or more all AGREE that change must come, change begins. And change completes very quickly when that many people agree. We just all have to find the one idea to agree upon . . . that makes the change inevitable.Jun 9 2013: Check out this link from Blade Runner. The Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the Obama White House
Well, if we just changed one thing on all their resume's: their religion -- they'd all sound like pretty good civil servants. If we changed Islam to "Southern Baptist" across the board then both liberals & conservatives would have no complaint. Then if we made them all white folks from Greece, then none of the tea party would have a second thought about any of them!
So maybe there is some racism involved? I don't know. You gotta have more to make that kind of accusation stick in any meaningful way. I know, I learned about that the hard way.
When I was in the military they taught us about spies & stuff like that. But I learned the hard way that you leave that intelligence stuff alone! Trained professionals do that! Both inside and outside the military. Your job in the military is vigilance and doing your duty carefully. No more & no less. Investigation is something else; that's a different animal. And that is where all the questions have to end for me! If they are all hard workers and do a good job, that's fine. And if the FBI checks them out w/all that NSA telephone & internet surveillance, then that is even better. If they go terrorist or anything and start building bombs; I'd bet the FBI would catch them quick!
Jun 9 2013: Well Juan................suggest we can't turn them into what they are not and leaving the race card out of the slot and when one stacks the undermentioned on top of each other is there some room for concern............
Would it perchance beg the question of who's side they are on and which masters they serve?
Curious...................just asking.
Jun 9 2013: Blade Runner, we may agree more than disagree. I wrote this earlier today.
Is TERRORISM RADIOACTIVE? Is TERRORIST Islam making itself RADIOACTIVE? Will Islam invite its own destruction? Can we avoid WAR?
I see no fear in the hearts of my Comrades. To quote Vladimir Putin, "They see us as dust."
They lie to pacify us. Islam permits that. We in all Civilized Nations; We despise liars. If they cannot speak truth as men, & accept TRUTH' as the price of membership in worldwide civilization; I see a very difficult future for them.
Furthermore, they misinterpret their own willingness to engage in deception and violence as strength. There is a familiar solution for that kind of 'Jihad.'
There is no longer a legitimate NAZI (Aryan-national socialist) party left anywhere on Earth. There is no conservative 'wing' or liberal 'wing' of the Nazi party anywhere. Adolph Hitler and his ideas were TERMINATED! Japanese Imperialism was TERMINATED! Saddam Hussein & his sons were TERMINATED! The Ba'athist party has been TERMINATED!
We have proven ourselves. We are NOT the cowards they suspected us of being. We will fight. And for as long as they think they can 1) lie to us; and 2) kill us -They make a serious mistake. Everyone agrees with me on that point. We do not fear death. We will not submit to insanity. And we will fight.
Only ONE nation on this Earth has ever used Atomic Weapons to end a military conflict. Only ONE. That nation built/tested one nuclear bomb to prove that it could be done. The next two bombs built were used to TERMINATE a conflict. Over 200,000 killed without remorse-2 bombs on Japan.
The above is horrible to think about: But to quote Rodney King: "Why can't we all just get along?" If things continue as they have thus far, one day we will either 1) run out of options, or 2) just flat-out run out of patience. Think about that! Every leader of every Civilized nation does. They do. So should we! Terrorism is Radioactive & poison to all.
muhammad ali
Jun 7 2013: USA has been doing the work of World Police for decades now. It attacked many countries and killed millions of innocent people. It has in fact acted like an international terrorist. Some demonstrations somewhere should not bother us any more except when crimes against humanity are being carried out. In that case we must first ask for the international trial of American Presidents and members of the Congress who eliminated the Humanity in millions without justification from President Roosevelt to President Obama. Leave Turkey alone, they will resolve their issues amicably. We should trust the democracies of other countries as well.Jun 6 2013: By Jah.....
- +1
10 hours ago: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_Jihad_mean
"The greatest tyrants today are those who prefer the rule of man over the laws of God (Sharia law). Jihad and the establishment of Sharia law on earth are the only two things which will unite all people, of all races, and rid the world of oppression, poverty and corruption for good."
Well Jah..................read the Islamic 'propaganda' on that link you put up and the aforementioned is the last para of the post on the link page and as far as I'm concerned Sharia Law is the biggest growing tyranny facing this planet today and anybody advocating Sharia law via Jihad is a terrorist in my book!
And further suggest your link only gave the 'sugar coated' version of Jihad as opposed to the 'hardcore' version.
Comment deleted
Jun 8 2013: Hi Juan......................suggest this covers your concerns ...................
.."Taqiyya and Kitman"
Jun 8 2013: I see your point. To quote Vladimir Putin, "They see us as dust."
They have no concept of how seriously we in the west despise liars. If they can't see at least a 'measured-diplomatic TRUTH' as the price of membership in worldwide civilization; I see a difficult future for them.
I say more in my post below.Jun 7 2013: That was simply to point out that the meaning of the world is not commonly known and is generally misused and misunderstood. I struggle trying to teach people. That does not mean i hurt or kill them when they do not learn or refuse to listen. I don't commit jihad as you would say. Jihad is simply a struggle outsiders of the religion associate with violence when it is a personal struggle. Psychically, mentally, and emotionally.
Jun 8 2013: Well Jah.....I beg to differ with you on that point and suggest the word 'jihad' is quite well known and understood in the West and the West has felt the brunt of Jihad many a time.
And lets be clear about this.................yes, there is the personal NON violent jihad struggle and then there is also the TOTALLY violent jihad struggle against the non believers.
Oh and then we have.....................Taqiyya and Kitman..................
Like to enlighten our boys and girls herein as to what that entails..............???
Seeing I detect a hesitancy on your behalf, so let me help out with this link...............
Isn't education great! :)
Jah Kable
Jun 8 2013: "Seeing I detect a hesitancy on your behalf".... I believe YOU took a whole day to respond. That is not my hesitancy sir.Jun 7 2013: I agree. They just never give up.
- +1
The recently released NSA order to collect all data and filter it to find these terrorists will work. It's been going on for over 7 years now and they haven't come to get me yet. I guess I passed the test. :)
Without communication, there is no Jihad. Without bank accounts there is no Jihad. Without weapons, the terrorist will simply have to go back to beating their wives and rattling their sabres in order to exhort how strong and manly they are.
The one thing that Islamic don't understand is our commitment to preventing their violence and wife beating from becoming part of the social structure of western democracy. Democratic Jihad is stronger than terrorist Jihad.
The democratic Jihad being launched by NSA at this moment will demonstrate our commitment, motivation and ability to bring them to their knees.
Decent honest folk have nothing to fear from this battle that is in full swing and picking up the pace.
Jun 11 2013: This is the one i thought was correctJun 11 2013: This one I KNOW is correct! Thank you John Moonstroller!Jun 8 2013: I see your point. So really? Why should we hesitate? I've always found FEAR to be a great virtue in those who deserve to feel it. And I see no fear in the hearts of my Comrades.
To quote Vladimir Putin, "They see us as dust."
They have no concept of how seriously we in all Civilized Nations -- despise liars. If they can't see at least a 'measured-diplomatic TRUTH' as the price of membership in worldwide civilization; I see a difficult future for them.
Furthermore, they misinterpret their own willingness to engage in deception and violence as strength. There is a solution for that. Yes, I see!
If you will notice, there is no longer a legitimate NAZI (Aryan-national socialist) party left anywhere on Earth. There is no conservative 'wing' or liberal 'wing' of the Nazi party anywhere. Adolph Hitler and his ideas were TERMINATED! so-to-speak. Saddam Hussein and his sons were TERMINATED! The Ba'athist party has been TERMINATED! in Iraq.
We have proven ourselves NOT to be the cowards they suspected us of being in Afghanistan. And for as long as they think they can 1) lie to us; and 2) kill us -- I perceive that as a serious mistake. And I think that everyone agrees with me on that point. Although not everyone will say it --
Only ONE nation on this Earth has ever used Atomic Weapons to end a military conflict. Only ONE. That nation built/tested one nuclear bomb to prove that it could be done. The next two bombs that were built were used to TERMINATE a conflict.
The above is a horrible way to illustrate my point: But to quote Rodney King: "Why can't we all just get along?" If things continue as they have thus far, one day we will either 1) run out of options, or 2) just flat-out run out of patience. And we all need to think about that! I can think of a solution for that. So can every leader of every NATO allied nation. They all see the same problem. Might they one day all see the same SOLUTION!
Jun 8 2013: Does this help you any to see the big picture?
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/m/muslim-brotherhood-in-white-house-050813.htm#.UbM8N9g2CEQJun 11 2013: "...We have proven ourselves NOT to be the cowards they suspected us of being in Afghanistan. And for as long as they think they can 1) lie to us; and 2) kill us -- I perceive that as a serious mistake. And I think that everyone agrees with me on that point. Although not everyone will say it -- And I consider myself 'Liberal' in most of my political ideas..."
There is no mistake if you kill everyone. That way there are no distractors to the event. the winner gets to rewrite history and leave out your part in it
Of course such mindset could arise again in the future unless satisfactory cleaning methods are used to complete the total extermination.
Going another way, require we take into our bosom, the ideas and philosophies of the other side. Merge them with our own. Make them brothers and sister of a different ideal.
Jun 11 2013: John Moonstroller,
I reply to your comment at the top of the page. I like your picture. It makes my head itch.
Kareem Fahim
Jun 6 2013: You can rob (as bankers have done to all of us), invade other countries (USA in our times), kill (drone attacks also by USA) and genocide (e.g.: as Nazis to Jews and same decade Jews to Palestinians which they STILL are doing) as long as you have the power to JUSTIFY it.
- +1
I'm sorry to say but 'human rights' and 'revolution' are alien worlds to the place we live in.
Jun 7 2013: Yup as long as you do it wearing a suit. Sadly, yes those two things are alien to most of us.Jun 6 2013: I find it odd that nobody has pointed this out yet:
Turkey is a member of NATO.
And Turkey holds a strategic location in the various ongoing conflicts in the Middle East.
Given the larger geopolitical environment, I think it's very unlikely that the US or the Europeans are going to take any overt or official action in this situation.
Jun 7 2013: Kudos Kevin! A very sad yet valid point to a debate that would not exist if Erdogan police did not attack peaceful protesters. Would you agree that Erdogan needs to be removed?
Jun 7 2013: I am not a Turkish citizen, so it is not for me to say.
A little research shows that he has been democratically elected by the people of Turkey for three consecutive terms. It would be presumptuous of me to say that I know what it good for the people of Turkey better than they know themselves.Jun 7 2013: I think that's a pretty clear picture of things Kevin. No one is going to get involved. Turkey is a modern western thinking country. They have to deal with their people. I assure you if the same thing happened here in the US, no one would invite themselves into our disagreements.
I wouldn't want to see my country go up in flames in that way. I would want the government to do something about it. The whole purpose of Democracy is to work things out without violence. Let he who would throw the first stone beware.Jun 6 2013: http://youtu.be/t9gsTr0BcOU
Jun 6 2013: I confess my ignorance of the language being spoken. But clearly something is happening here to which the U.S. must respond. I'd advise anyone visiting this thread for any reason to watch this video first!Jun 7 2013: Thank you Anon.Jun 6 2013: http://youtu.be/dksWliwLbvs
Jun 6 2013: My theory is that any government that at least claims to be a democracy cannot allow public unrest to reach this level. There will always be malcontents who choose to protest. And that, with varying levels of justification. In the most successful democracies, access to the courts and access to a legal system that can and will act to effect change is critical. For example, the Civil Rights movement as led by Dr. Martin Luther King used both the power of public, peaceful protest AND the power of a just and impartial court system and criminal justice system to force change to benefit all U.S. Americans and African-Americans in particular. I think that President Barak Obama would agree w/me (or I with HIM) on that point..
In any democracy, the police are obligated to act in the public interest and keep things sane, if not 100% safe.
By way of one example I've offered elsewhere; here is one example of why governments must occasionally fall. The Romanov dynasty had ruled Russia for over 300 years. At the time of the Communist Revolution in 1917 that dynasty had obsessively preserved an oppressive, feudal system. And that system was a relic of an archaic and primitive past. The Romanov dynasty had simply ignored the democracy movement that had successfully swept across Europe in the preceding 200 years. People just got tired of it. And the rest is history.Jun 6 2013: http://sivildirenis.org/fotograflar/
Comment deleted
Jun 3 2013: Yes i understand we can't overstep. People are dying in the streets because of excessive violence by the police. I say that's asking for someone to intervene. The UN needs to apply that pressure because the people are being violently and illegally brutalized in plain sight. There are many videos of a single man being beaten by 3+ officers with night sticks! The man is not even resisting. He is simply trying to escape the beating. This is no longer riot control, THIS IS AN ATTACK ON THE PEOPLE! It has gone on long enough. We are not barbarians and no one should be allowed to act as such!
Comment deleted
Jun 3 2013: That's very true! The people of Turkey and the world will not forget these events though. They have committed their crimes and must answer for them. I just hope "I was just following orders" doesn't excuse their actions as it has before in history.Jun 5 2013: A single man being beaten by 3 officers with night sticks is a far cry from what's happening in Syria.
Heck, it probably even happens in the United States every day too...
Jun 5 2013: That sadly is one of the less violent things they are doing and Yes those events are tragic as well. I suggest you start a conversation about them and ask for ideas. Thanks for the comment though Mike.Jun 16 2013: Well folks .......................just finished watching the news............
Looks like the protests are over for now.
Looks like the park has been cleared of the protesters.
Saw a public meeting addressed by the prime minister and attended by thousands of Govt supporters.
And Guys..............lets not forget this is a democratically elected Govt and all the dissenters/protesters can cast their vote at the next elections.
Isn't that how democratic change works???
Jun 16 2013: Which news was that?
Do you believe that this was the final say on this, it's going to re-surface again and again until basic human rights and democracy principles are followed.
Lets not forget what that government is doing against democracy in it's own country.
There is also (or should be) the democratic option of removing an elected leader if that leader is out of bounds.
Jun 16 2013: 1. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57589507/riot-police-rush-to-crush-renewed-turkey-protests/
2. ?????????? Time will tell as it always does.
3. Appears 'quite a few folk' in that country are quite happy for how that Govt is conducting itself.
Appears as per always................. 'You can't please all the people all of the time!'
4. Last time I looked it was called an Election.Jun 16 2013: Revolutionary youth movements are always much more fun than not. That is to say, the participants seem to think so . . . but the Police tend to have another opinion entirely.
And Blade Runner . . . you seem to evidence a great faith in the government of Turkey. Would you care to share with us why?Jun 16 2013: Hi Nicholas lukowiak
you dont know anything about moslems,as ,when you were born, you didnt know any thing.
Im moslem and I dont see any difffrent between you and I.
and you must know that your government make this bad situation for moslem people,so we dont need the help of humans like you,just perevent your government that they doing.
we are Iranian and so soon that you cant think it, we will become powerfull,but not like you.becaese my religion said :each human is respectable.
Jun 16 2013: Curious here Haman............are you per chance claiming that the US govt organized the Turkish protesters in the first instance to carry out the park protest or are you perchance harping on about the Iranian nuclear program????
Jun 13 2013: Right now I doubt your country has a fat lot of resources, you already have one war going!
- 0
Jun 13 2013: Did i say military? I don't think I said anything about people with guns doing something. :/Jun 11 2013: "I reply to your comment at the top of the page. I like your picture. It makes my head itch."~ Juan
Это делает мою голову чесаться тоже. lol.
Jun 12 2013: I love Google Translate! Not sure how good the grammar or syntax really is. No Russian might EVER say ANYTHING this way. But for the sake of further discussion:
Некоторые моменты, когда что-то чешется, хороший нуля то, что мы почти все должны помочь себе. Поэтому давайте не будем мир на Земле!
Jun 12 2013: It's okay for some languages. Korean and Chines work pretty well. I'm not to sure about Russia. I tried one of those websites where you interface with real people to learn a language. The problem with the Russian sites is they try to get you to marry their sister first. It's the same with people from Turkey, they want you to meet (and, hopefully, marry) their sister. I have a friend who fought in the Turkish, Greek war, around 2009 or so. I think the Turks are cool. Love their ideas about baths.
Speaking of Turkey, I hear they are talking some sit down and talk about things. Do you think the young Turks will take them up on it?
Where are you from Juan?
Jun 12 2013: I added my location to my TED profile. But don't look for me there. I live in the year 2037 when the asteroid Apophis is parked at the Earth/Moon La Grange point. There is a gold rush to get there & mine. There's platinum & rare earth elements in there. You can buy a good, working Space Suit at Walmart. I wouldn't recommend the Walmart suit for durable use, though it is better than nothing.
I am from the future, where human cloning is a reality. We have fusion power and AA penlight batteries that are so powerful they put power back onto the grid!
I know about marrying someone's sister. I only wish polygamy were legal . . . In a world of ten billion people, maybe it should be! Oh wait! In the future it IS legal! Sorry, I forgot!
There was a Turkish/Greek war back in 2009? Where the hell was I? And HOW could I miss that! I mean -- I'm up here in the future after all! Did you know that Google now has its own Congress . . . . ooooooh!Jun 11 2013: Hi John, I quote you here:
"Going another way, require we take into our bosom, the ideas and philosophies of the other side. Merge them with our own. Make them brothers and sister of a different ideal."
But there is another problem afoot here. 'Islam' means 'submission.' 'Islam' REQUIRES submission. And the terrorist faction uses fear to achieve exactly that! They are willing to kill, and they have. That makes them criminals. And it is incumbent upon the rest of Islam to reject the Terrorism and murder. Otherwise their religion is fit only for criminals! What other conclusion is there?
From what I understand, many already have. But to do so vocally or publicly can risk making one's self a target.
You say: "Merge them with our own. Make them brothers & sisters of a different ideal." I find that comment very appealing, except that it will never fly with the terrorist faction. They want to inflict Sharia law on all of us and subject us all to an Islamic theocracy. I guess in some ways that is little different from the racist fascism of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. And it took a World War to rid humanity of an entire generation of tainted, poisonous leadership that espoused those ideas with religious zeal. That's a potent analogy to where we are right now!
Because I am obviously an 'Infidel' . . . or a non-Muslim from birth, I am just another face in the crowd. And were I not 'elsewhere,' I might have been in Boston @ the Marathon in April when the bombs went off. Or I might have been inside the towers when they fell. All of the victims were no different from me. We are all just people, living our lives. And we'd like the opportunity to do that in peace!
But thanks to that set of peculiar, and insane set of ideas that motivate the Terrorists -- Peace is impossible. Not when a major world religion of 1.6 Billion adherents, espouses the idea that God gives a "Get into Heaven, FREE!" ticket to anyone who commits murder as a suicide Terrorist.

subset: commoncrawl