Rules of Engagement: Talking with Introverts & Extroverts

People seem to feel a need for better understanding between introverts and extroverts these days.  Why else would there be such a proliferation on the internet of introvert vs. extrovert cartoons, comparison charts, and guides like "How to Care for Introverts," "10 Myths About Introverts," "How to Piss Off Introverts" etc.   Not to mention a number of books on the same topic.  (Side note: I can't help but notice the extreme emphasis on introverts as opposed to extroverts in most of these, but that's a topic for another time).   For the moment, I simply want to join this discussion by talking about some key differences I've noticed between the way an extrovert tends to conduct a conversation versus the way an introvert tends to do it. 

When it comes to group conversation, introverts and extroverts seem to operate based on two different sets of assumptions--or we could even say different rules of etiquette.  I notice this difference more with young people (i.e. teens and twenty-somethings), and I especially see it in situations where there is either one introvert among extroverts or vice versa.  As an introvert myself, I've experienced these things a number of times.  I might be generalizing too much--maybe I'm focusing too much on shy introverts vs. extreme extroverts, or maybe there's something else more specific going on--but I've seen these things happen with other people as well, and I've seen it enough times that I'm willing to go out on a limb and say it's a general introvert vs. extrovert thing.  However, I am really curious to know if other people see the same thing, something completely different, or if you just have a different interpretation of these behaviors.  Please leave a comment and give me your two cents! 

So here we go:

Introverts are more likely to wait for a clear opening or look for a kind of "invitation" from the other people before entering a conversation.  By invitation I really just mean that they look for some kind of acknowledgement of their presence, either with a glance, a gesture, a greeting, or a question from the other people present.  This is especially true when the introvert is approaching a conversation that is already under way, and it's doubly true when the conversation in progress is fast-paced or intense.  

Extroverts, on the other hand, tend to assume that if you want to join the conversation, you'll just do it, without waiting for a cue from anyone else.  Extroverts aren't as prone to waiting and reading other people before speaking--they just dive right in, and they expect the responses from other people to be just as quick and spontaneous. 

Women in Game of Thrones

It always kind of disturbed me how the women are treated in Game of Thrones.  As objects really.  As sex toys.  In the show there are countless gratuitous scenes with prostitutes, naked women, and degrading remarks about women.  On the surface, it seems like Game of Thrones is pretty grossly sexist. 

But let's take a step back.  Game of Thrones takes place in a setting that very closely resembles Medieval Europe.  The way women are treated in the show is probably a pretty accurate portrayal of the lives of Medieval women in general.  After all, in those times, women were essentially property, just as they are in Game of Thrones.   Saying that Game of Thrones is sexist is kind of like saying that 12 Years a Slave is racist.  It completely misses the point.

Not that Game of Thrones is expressly trying to spread awareness of the abuse of women or anything like that.  It is still, primarily, just a great fantasy adventure story.  But when it really comes down to it, what saves Game of Thrones from being sexist is that fact that every prominent female character in the story is strong, intelligent, and has such a depth of character that you can't help but empathize with her.

Even a character like Cersei, who I think we all can agree, is a Grade A Bitch, has moments where you really feel sorry for her, and she definitely has reasons for being the way she is.  The scene where the women are hiding in the Red Keep during the Battle of Blackwater and her conversation with Tyrion in the final episode of season three do a great deal to humanize her.  You'd have to be cold as stone not to pity her when she talks about her son Joffrey.  So sad. 

What I really love about the women in Game of Thrones, however, is the fact that they are all strong, and yet all so different.   When I was an adolescent, I read a great deal of fantasy novels, and after a while, it really annoyed me that the only women who were portrayed as "strong" were the ones who completely rejected their traditional feminine roles.  They were the tomboys, the sword-wielding women who dressed in men's clothes and took on a man's role.  When I read Game of Thrones in high school, I was overjoyed to discover Catelyn Stark--a noblewoman who remained completely within the bounds of her traditional gender role, and yet whom no one could deny had nerves of steel, was smart, brave, and fiercely loyal.  How could anyone not respect Lady Stark?  She was the ultimate strong, feminine, dutiful woman.  A true noblelady. 

Catelyn Stark was the one who struck me the most in high school, but after watching the show, I am reminded of how the strong female characters in Game of Thrones really fill the spectrum of possibilities.

Gerrymandering: Destroying our Democracy from the Ground Up

The Root Cause?
It's becoming a fairly common refrain these days that the extreme political dysfunction in the US Congress is primarily caused by gerrymandering.  I've seen it in the NY Times, the Economist, and elsewhere, but I'm not entirely sure how many people are really aware of it yet.  

Just a quick run-through: every 10 years, new lines have to be drawn on every state map to determine which voters will belong to which district.  This is called redistricting.  This is done to balance out shifts, increases, or decreases in the populations of each district.  Gerrymandering is when a certain political party draws the the lines of the voting districts to their own advantage.  For example, Republicans might draw the lines so that all the largely Republican communities will fall in one district, therefore making that a "safe" district--a.k.a. a district in which a Democrat has no chance of winning.  A Democrat would do the same thing with Democratic communities.  That's how you end up with districts that look like this: 

 
Ridiculous, no?  

Okay, it might look ridiculous on paper, but why is this really such a big deal?  I mean, everyone's votes are still being represented right?  What difference does it really make?

The difference is this: when districts are gerrymandered so that they're overwhelmingly conservative or overwhelmingly liberal, you end up electing extremely conservative or extremely liberal politicians.  Politicians from these districts don't need to win over the "moderates" and the "swing voters"--they only need to seriously compete with other members of their own party in the primaries.  Once that vote is secured, it's easy sailing for them in the main election.  In order to secure their jobs, they only have to toe the party line.  If they compromise with the other party, they're likely to lose support in the district that elected them.  When being moderate is a threat to their personal job security, it's in their best interest to stick to extremes.  That's exactly what we have in our Congress right now.  How can we expect these politicians to compromise when doing so would lose them the next election?  This is how our Congress can have one of its lowest approval ratings in history (between 5 and 10%, depending on which polls you look at), and yet most of the extremist politicians who are causing the current grid-lock are in no real danger of losing their jobs in the next election.  Our current political system seriously discourages compromise and makes it almost impossible to put moderate politicians in office.  Getting rid of gerrymandering could undo many of the problems that are paralyzing our country. 

But what exactly are the rules that govern redistricting?  Under what circumstances is gerrymandering allowed?  Are there limits on it?  And who decides who gets to draw the lines anyways? 

I decided to look into it a little more myself, and I found this fabulous little website: 
All About Redistricting: Professor Justin Levitt's guide to drawing the electoral lines

It's chock full of all the basic info about gerrymandering.  Here's the short version:


There are only two federal laws that relate to gerrymandering.  

1)  Each district must  be roughly equal in population.  The exact rules on what constitutes "roughly equal" vary from state to state.

2) Gerrymandering cannot be used to break up minorities into different districts so that their share of the vote in each district becomes insignificant.  On the flipside, "packing" as many minorities as possible into as few districts as possible is also illegal.  
(For a fuller explanation on this, see here).

In short, you cannot gerrymander with minority groups, but you can gerrymander with political parties all you want.  


Aside from these two federal laws, redistricting laws are entirely up to each state.  
In this part of the website you can look up the exact laws about redistricting, state by state.
All About Redistricting - Who Draws the Lines?

For congressional (a.k.a., for the Federal legislature, rather than State legislature) redistricting is done basically one of three ways.  The lines can be drawn by :

1) an independent commission of non-politicians
2) a bipartisan commission of state politicians
3) the state legislature, which then votes on whether or not to pass the new district maps.  In most states, this vote requires only a simple majority (over 50%) in order to pass.  


Currently, 2 states (Hawaii and New Jersey) use an independent commission.  4 states (Arizona, California, Idaho, and Washington) use a bipartisan commission.  7 states (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North & South Dakota, Wyoming, and Vermont) do not need to draw congressional districts because they only have one Representative in the House.  

That leaves 37 states where redistricting is done either primarily or entirely by the state legislature.  That means that whichever party controls the state legislature has complete control over the way congressional districts are drawn.  Obviously, this is not good for creating fair district maps.

An article from Dec. 14, 2012, in the New York Times explains:

“In states where Republicans controlled the [redistricting] process, […] their candidates won roughly 53 percent of the vote—and 72 percent of the seats. And in the states where Democrats controlled the process, their candidates won about 56 percent of the vote and 71 percent of the seats.

An analysis by The New York Times of states where courts, commissions or divided governments drew the maps found a much smaller disparity between the share of the popular vote and the number of seats won in Congress.”

In other words, not only does gerrymandering lead to an increased tendency to elect extreme right- or left-wing politicians, but also a gross disparity between the number of actual votes won vs. the number of seats won by either party.   

The House of Representatives is supposed to be the federal institution which most accurately reflects the will, constitution, and diversity of the people.  With our current system, it does not.  As long as gerrymandering continues, there will be very little chance of electing more moderate candidates or honoring the popular vote in each state.  The U.S. government will be thrown into paralysis again and again, and the world will wonder why the most powerful country on earth can’t accomplish even the most basic things to keep the itself running.   

Unfortunately, this is not an issue that can be resolved at the federal level.  The passage of a federal ban on gerrymandering is basically impossible since many of the legislators themselves would lose their jobs if it passes.   This issue must be dealt with state by state.  Even that will be extremely difficult since our state legislators probably rely on gerrymandered districts to secure their own jobs.  However, 6 states already use independent or bipartisan commissions to do their redistricting.  That proves it can be done.  We need more states to do this.  The power of redistricting must be taken out of the hands of our state legislatures.  

The Petition

I've started a petition to the Governor and State Legislature of Illinois to end gerrymandering by appointing an independent or bipartisan commission for redistricting.  Anyone who lives or votes in Illinois, I ask you to please sign this and pass it on to as many people as you can.  To people who live in other states, I encourage you to start petitions of your own, start raising awareness of this issue, and try to end gerrymandering in your own state.   Please do what you can, even if it's only a little.  Gerrymandering is eating away at the very heart of our democracy.  The ineptitude of our government is harming everyone, and if we want our country to remain strong, democratic, and fair, we have to do something about this.  

Click here to see my Petition to End Gerrymandering in Illinois



Sources of inspiration for this post:

The GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN and REPEATED DEBT CEILING CRISES

All About Redistricting: Professor Justin Levitt's guide to drawing the electoral lines 

"How the Shutdown Plays in Peoria" - The Economist, Oct. 12, 2013
(An article from a British newspaper that, coincidentally, specifically talks about gerrymandering in Illinois)

"How Maps Helped Republicans Keep an Edge in the House" - The New York Times, Dec. 14, 2012

Great leaders

A good friend of mine once pointed out that the entire point of voting in a democracy is to elect someone who can be selfish on your behalf.  Although that might sound like a cynical way of putting it, you can't deny that the whole point of "representative government" is that the government should carry out the wishes of the people and provide for their needs. Basically, you are electing someone to be selfish for you.  If you look at that on a grander scale, then it's easy to see that the government of each nation really exists to look after the people of that nation, and only that nation.  George Washington once said, "It is a maxim founded on the universal experience of mankind that no nation is to be trusted farther than it is bound by its interest."  I agree, and I believe there can be no such thing as a noble government or an altruistic government.  There are, however, good governments and bad governments.  I would simplistically define these as follows.  

A Good Government: One which is selfish on behalf of the nation and the people of that nation.
A Bad Government: One which is selfish on behalf of the people running the government. 

Now, maybe Jesus wouldn't be proud of either one of these, but you've got to admit, living in a country with a somewhat Good Government (say, the United States) is way better than living in a country with an indisputably Bad Government (looking at you, North Korea).  And of course, it would be a lie to insist that any government, the USA definitely included, is completely a Good Government.  There will always be people in every government who abuse their power for their own personal ambitions and desires.  There are certainly plenty of those in the United States government, and I know our country is in a mess right now; but, all things considered, I still think the U.S. is more in the Good Government camp than the Bad Government camp.  I hope it stays that way. 

But I digress.  What I really wanted to talk about here is South Korea.  Not the South Korea of today, but the South Korea of the 1950's, '60's, and '70's--the South Korea of Rhee Syngman and Park Jeong-hee.  

Rhee and Park are really interesting people.  I don't think anyone would say that they were kind or moral people.  One look at their human rights records would dispel any uncertainty about that.  But they did accomplish great things.  They were dictators, but not the kind who use the country purely as their own personal playground.  No, they wanted to make something out of it--and make something they did.   

Rhee obstinately blocked American objectives to build up the Korean economy solely as a support for a greater economy in Japan.  "Korea again to be the hand-maiden of Japan's growth?  Better to be 'another Japan' than a dependency" (Cumings, p. 307).  He set the stage and acquired the props for Korea's industrial take-off.  

"Rhee and his successors [...] wanted a full-blown, self-reliant industrial base with steel, chemicals, machine tools, and the electric energy to run them." (Cumings, p. 305)

Park took power with a coup d'etat in 1961.  "철은 국력(Steel = national power)," he said, and he made it so.  Both Rhee and Park invested hugely in infrastructure and technology.  They sucked in American cold war money for all it was worth (an official total of $12 billion from the America Treasury between 1945-65) and built factories and shipyards.  They insulated Korean companies from foreign competition and allowed them to grow and flourish until they became major world exporters.  

With their consecutive efforts, Rhee and Park industrialized Korea faster than almost any other nation in the history of the world.  South Korea went from a war-torn third world country to being a first world country in barely three decades.  They now have some of the world's fastest internet, best public transportation, astonishingly cheap, yet high-quality health-care, and the world's 12th largest GDP.  Imagine if Rhee and Park had squandered all those resources instead of using them to build up the nation.  Many dictators do simply squander all the gifts they're given--it's no small thing that Rhee and Park chose not to.   (Look at Africa, with its abundant natural resources and pervasive poverty, crime, and violence.  What are their dictators doing with all those resources?)  Rhee and Park make the point that sometimes, dictatorships get more done than the democracies, and that's not always a bad thing.  

But were Rhee and Park good dictators?  Were they running Good Governments?  They jailed and killed thousands of people.  They massacred peaceful protesters.  They brutally oppressed opposing viewpoints.  Their governments were cesspools of corruption, nepotism, and bribery.  So, in many ways, no.  They definitely were not Good Governments.  But if we're going to be totally honest, we have to admit that, in other ways, they were Good Governments.  Whatever their motivations really were, they did use their power to enrich the nation and give South Korea a stronger place in the world.  They got the Korean people out of desperate poverty, and they did it in a fiercely independent way.  I am not pardoning or justifying all the terrible things that Rhee and Park did during their regimes, but at the same time, if Korea had to go through a period of dictatorship, at least they got dictators who accomplished something.  At least, once they finally became a democracy, Korea was left with the fruits of several decades of incredible advancement and ingenuity.  In that regard, South Korea is so much luckier than many, many other countries in the world. 


Sources of inspiration for this post:


Korea's Place in the Sun: A Modern History, by Bruce Cumings 
(Most of the historical information in this post came from this book.)

The 2012 presidential race in Korea and the election of Park Jeong-hee's daughter, Park Geun-hye.  

Talking with Koreans and hearing the extremely mixed opinions that people still have about Park Jeong-hee.  

My friend, Paul. 

Racial integration in Korea

What do you all think of this?

http://asiancorrespondent.com/69672/seoul-has-nations-first-high-school-for-mixed-race-students/

For more background info, I also strongly recommend reading this:
http://asiancorrespondent.com/66424/skorea-too-many-bi-racial-kids-not-getting-an-education/

When I first heard about The Global School and the Seoul Dasom School, I thought, "How ridiculous.  That's racial segregation.  Those Koreans really don't know anything about eliminating racism."  However, after I read the article, I began to see a lot of very viable reasons behind this.  First of all, the goal is not simply to segregate students of different races, or even to just protect them from bullying.  The main goal is to keep at-risk students from dropping out of school.  Of course, it's no coincidence that so many multiracial children are at risk.  In the second article, they cite the reasons of poverty as well as cultural and language barriers, and bullying.   But when dealing with students who are at risk, it takes a lot of skill and effort, and you need to maximize your resources.  This brings me to my second point. 

Multicultural families in such high numbers are a relatively new thing in Korea, which means that those 'high numbers' really aren't very high.  If you need bilingual teachers to help these students get through school, you'd have to hire some for every school in which there are even a couple or a handful of these children.  In America, the secondary language of the country is Spanish.  In so many communities (like where my dad teaches), 30 or 50 or 90% of the kids might be coming from Spanish speaking homes.  So OF COURSE, it makes perfect sense to hire a significant number of bilingual Spanish-English teachers to help those kids.  But in Korea, I'm betting that the percentage of multiracial kids in each school is still fairly low, and they're not all coming from the same linguistic or cultural backgrounds either.  There are kids who are half-Japanese, half-Vietnamese, half-Cambodian, half-Filippino, just to name some of the more common ones.  There is no dominant secondary language in Korea (well, except English).  The point is, it's simply not practical to hire so many bilingual teachers and spread them across so many schools to help such a small number of students.  I'm sure that the Department of Education can't afford that.  Especially when you start thinking about middle and high school, in which there's a different teacher for each subject.  Can they really hire biligual teachers for every subject?  Bilingual teachers for the Japanese, and the Filippino, and the Vietnamese, and the Cambodian students, who probably number in the single digits at each school?  It's impossible. 

If they're going to address this problem right now, and address it well, I think it makes more sense to do what they're doing.  They are trying for some integration (80% multicultural and 20% pure Korean), and it seems that they are trying to make it a great school where the students can get the extra help and attention they need.  I mean, come on, 15 students per class?  That's awesome.  Who wouldn't want to go to that school? 

Even if this isn't a perfect form of integration, and even if you could accuse them of failing to teach Korean children racial tolerance by mostly segregating the multiracial kids, they are helping the multiracial students to succeed and move forward in life--to move up in Korean society, rather than continually falling to the bottom, generation after generation.  Just look at the 2nd and 3rd generation immigrant children in France.  How many times have we heard of them rioting, burning cars, turning into criminals because they keep failing in school, and can't find jobs, and don't see any opportunities for themselves, anywhere?  Success and upward mobility is in itself is a kind of integration, and if it keeps the multiracial children from falling to the bottom of the heap, over and over again (as poor children often do in America), then I am all for it.