springerlink.com

Shy + Introvert = book smart, but not successful? I am thinking aloud here, not trying to debunk any long held scientific theories here. The other day I posed something regarding some social behavior that I had experienced and that I fond weird](http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/zbz4q/why_do_people_get_angry_at_math/). No need to check the original post, unless you want to. What was interesting to me, is a comment made by **kiadel** where s/he said ***this paper explores people's tendency to defend their position in the face of evidence: http://www.springerlink.com/content/064786861r21m257/fulltext.html In short, when faced with evidence, people usually just argue their own pre-existing point of view louder rather than learning something new.*** Which blew me away. The study highlighted and confirmed what I had observed: people would vocally defend their wrong position, and if they confronted with evidences that they were indeed wrong, they don't change their minds and actually strengthen their original position. Wait, there's more! From the paper itself: *We also document several instances of a “backfire effect” in which corrections actually increase misperceptions among the group in question.* Of course I see this though my own lens, and it makes no sense. Does it? I grew up introvert and shy, from what I see it's a pretty common occurrence. As a byproduct of that, as if introvert and shy was not enough, I was also insecure; actually I believe that shy if a form of being insecure; so I should say that I grew up introvert and insecure. I am still introvert, but not that shy anymore, and not that insecure either, probably because I know a lot, and... I don't talk about stuff that I don't know. And that's what puzzles me about the incident that I observed, people who didn't know what they were talking about talking out of context, being wrong, and very loudly defending their (wrong) position. I have seen it happen a lot in business, wher

Shy + Introvert = book smart, but not successful? I am thinking aloud here, not trying to debunk any long held scientific theories here. The other day I posed something regarding some social behavior that I had experienced and that I fond weird](http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/zbz4q/why_do_people_get_angry_at_math/). No need to check the original post, unless you want to. What was interesting to me, is a comment made by **kiadel** where s/he said ***this paper explores people's tendency to defend their position in the face of evidence: http://www.springerlink.com/content/064786861r21m257/fulltext.html In short, when faced with evidence, people usually just argue their own pre-existing point of view louder rather than learning something new.*** Which blew me away. The study highlighted and confirmed what I had observed: people would vocally defend their wrong position, and if they confronted with evidences that they were indeed wrong, they don't change their minds and actually strengthen their original position. Wait, there's more! From the paper itself: *We also document several instances of a “backfire effect” in which corrections actually increase misperceptions among the group in question.* Of course I see this though my own lens, and it makes no sense. Does it? I grew up introvert and shy, from what I see it's a pretty common occurrence. As a byproduct of that, as if introvert and shy was not enough, I was also insecure; actually I believe that shy if a form of being insecure; so I should say that I grew up introvert and insecure. I am still introvert, but not that shy anymore, and not that insecure either, probably because I know a lot, and... I don't talk about stuff that I don't know. And that's what puzzles me about the incident that I observed, people who didn't know what they were talking about talking out of context, being wrong, and very loudly defending their (wrong) position. I have seen it happen a lot in business, wher