It's only been a few years. Not everyone can churn out smash hits like clockwork, even if they are really talented.
If he ever does create another big game, I'd expect it would be many years down the road, after he's toyed with a lot of ideas and had more than a few false starts.
If you don't feel like reading the link above, what the author is basically saying is that if a tournament structure is so badly designed that it sometimes incentivizes losing on purpose, then that's the fault of the organizers. The players are just playing to win within the rules given to them and shouldn't be blamed.
I agree with your last sentence. The post has a vibe that I've noticed from some more socially awkward/not-totally-self-aware people, where they'll go to an event that pushes their comfort zone (usually a party or a club), talk to some strangers, get in some mild antics, then later they'll report on it like it was this totally crazy, daring adventure they had.
To them it was totally out there. A more socially comfortable person may do the same kind of thing, but it feels normal to them and they don't see it as any kind of big deal or accomplishment.
Actually, what this blog post really reminds me of is a breathless 'Field Report' by a clueless but eager beginner in that whole Pick Up Artist subculture. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if the guy was into that stuff.
Gotta disagree with your statement that extroverts all care about what people think of them. Just because someone is outgoing and energized by interpersonal interactions, it doesn't automatically mean they're a mindless slave to other people's opinions and social conventions. It's just a negative stereotype, and comes across as a bit bitter and "Us vs. Them"
The implied positive stereotype about introverts isn't necessarily true either, that they're all independent thinkers and unshackled from social trivialities.
I could make a really strong case that I'm introverted deep down and I get nervous about public speaking.
I think what this really speaks to is that we should talk about specific traits one at a time, instead of trying to lump a million things under terms like 'Introvert'
I agree. I've been following Hacker News for a while, and I've noticed whenever one of these, "Introverts are actually misunderstood geniuses, Extroverts are really shallow and stupid"-type articles appears in a magazine, it'll probably appear on this site.
Still, while I don't agree with the Us vs. Them attitude, it does seem like a big concern that there's such a big well of introvert resentment out there, that these articles can so consistently tap into.
The comments to these stories are always pretty predictable too, on this site and others. There will be a ton of disgressions on what the word introvert really means. Some people will talk about how it's a false dichotomy. A couple of bitter people will agree with the anti-extrovert sentiment of the article. Some posters will share their story of how they changed their supposed core orientation, etc etc.
I live in Waterloo and also think it's a stretch to call it rural. Sure, it's not a metropolis, but there are about 500,000 people in the immediate region. Toronto, the country's largest city, is also only an hour-and-a-half drive away, along a well-worn, built up commuter route. Overall, South-Western Ontario is the most populous part of the country. I rarely feel like I'm out in the middle of nowhere. There's a definite sense that the city is in Toronto's sphere.
A site I read on social skills has a post explaining why it doesn't use the words Introvert and Extrovert. The main points it gives are:
* There are no agreed upon definitions of the terms
* Just bringing up the terms can derail conversations and turn them into debate on what the words really mean (e.g., like what is happening in this thread)
* The terms cram too many sub-concepts into one
* False dichotomy
* Tends to ignore context (i.e., people act differently in different situations)
* Associated with a bitter Us vs. Them mentality
* The terms can make people feel defensive and closed off
Yeah that's me. An insignificant monthly cost to watch movies from the comfort of my couch, all with a handy recommendation system to turn me on to things I never would have found otherwise vs. the comparative hassle of having to hunt around streaming sites, or waiting for giant downloads to complete.
For what it's worth, in the case of this article I found it very interesting, but since I only have a passing knowledge of the topics it's discussing, I don't feel there's anything I can personally contribute to a conversation about it.
It's still a great article though, and a lack of comments doesn't detract from that.
"For their part, the British have what House calls the "etiquette of simulation". The British feign an interest in someone..."
Or sometimes you're making small talk with someone because you actually are interested in them, and just want to keep the first minute or two of the conversation light for whatever reason. Maybe you haven't seen them in a while and do want to catch up on really general things, or the weather really has been odd lately, or you can't think of anything to say right away and having some stock questions gives you a chance to get your bearings.
Just because it's a bit formulaic and routine doesn't mean all small talk is insincere.
Another critique you can level against CBT comes from the thinking behind Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). I've read books on ACT that argue that trying to rationally challenge and control and manage your thoughts often has the paradoxical effect of making them stronger, and making them more prominent in your life. A common comparison is that a person trying not to have negative, depressed thoughts is like someone trying not to think of a red lion; you can't make yourself not think something.
The ACT approach to negative thoughts and behaviors is more mindfulness based and is about accepting the things that come from your mind without necessarily getting sucked into them or being controlled by them. Personally I think bits of several approaches can help.
In my experience I haven't seen much link between gifted students being with their peers and their social awkwardness.
I knew people in the program at my school, as well as several kids who qualified for it but their parents kept them in the regular stream. There were awkward and non-awkward people in each category. The biggest determinant seemed to be what their personality and interests were already like going in.
>I'd really love a guide for social situations that would >actually be of use.
You may want to check out http://www.succeedsocially.com. It's helped me more than anything else with my own awkwardness around people. It's free and has a nice no-bullshit attitude to it.
I think what the article is saying is not that never correcting a mistake is bad, but that pointlessly correcting people about minor things in the wrong context can be annoying.
For me it's the comfort factor. I stream Netflix through my Wii, so when I watch movies that way I get to sit on my couch and watch my big screen TV.
When I watch stuff on my computer I have to sit in my uncomfortable desk chair and view my small-ish monitor. Getting my whole computer hooked up to my TV seems like a hassle at the moment. On the other hand, Netflix is always ready to go and that usually wins.
I'm not a huge Facebook user, but I don't get what the big deal with the change is. They just made the news feed a little more prominent. The older design from a few weeks ago emphasized that already.
Whenever I logged on, that was the main thing I checked anyways - updates about what my friends were up to.
If anything, I think it's good. It'll give me more opportunity to keep in touch with people in little ways hear and there.
If he ever does create another big game, I'd expect it would be many years down the road, after he's toyed with a lot of ideas and had more than a few false starts.