I don't think being introverted is a good reason to not participate in discussion. I'm not sure if this is the official definition, but my understanding of introverted vs extroverted is that introverts get their energy from themselves whereas extroverts get theirs from others. It makes me think of introverts having some quality alone time to compose themselves and re-energize, and extroverts hanging out with others and feeding off the crowd energy and spirit to get their mojo. (Blogger doesn't think mojo is a word. What's up with that?!)
      I do believe I'm introverted. But sometimes I feel really energetic and talkative. It depends on my mood. I'm not likely to be super chatty with someone when I first meet them, but that's just how I am. Once I get to know you you'll probably have to tell me to shut up at one point or another. I may not contribute to the discussion much in Scholars, but that's because most of the time we've been talking about politics, and my last post describes how I feel about that. But I contribute in Psychology because that's a subject I find interesting. Sometimes I talk just because I hate it when a teacher asks a legitimate discussion question and everyone just sits there staring blankly back.
     Even if you feel more comfortable hanging solo, you can still contribute to the conversation. And often times I've seen the most bubbly, outgoing people become completely mute during class discussions. Sometimes it's not about how talkative you are; it's about how much you actually care about contributing.
    Why do we spend all this time classifying people by being introverted or extroverted? Isn't that just generalizing? Aren't we supposed to get to know people for who they really are? It's easy to just assume that someone is quiet during the class discussion because they're introverted, but that doesn't make it true. Maybe that person just doesn't have anything interesting to add to the conversation. Maybe they just don't care about the topic. Maybe they want to listen to others' thoughts. Maybe they didn't do the reading that the discussion's over. I think those are more likely reasons than just being introverted.
     But if you are too quiet to feel comfortable talking in a discussion, I guess my advise is to listen to what others are saying and start off by agreeing or disagreeing. Personally, nothing gets me into a conversation more than hearing someone say something that sounds dumb and or completely opposite to my beliefs. But maybe that's just because I'm an argumentative, stubborn person.

Can We Please Civilly Discourse About More Than Politics Already

     I had actually forgotten the theme of the Scholars IS. I was pretty sure it wasn't politics though, because I would never have knowingly signed up for a politics course...then again, it had been a pretty late night when I applied for the program...I've never been all that great at making sure to read the fine print...oh dear, what had I signed up for?!
     After the first couple of classes I was pretty convinced that the theme was hating America, or hating people, or hating "the man," or something along the lines of hate and grey and blah. I'm not a completely naive person; I don't think the world is all rainbows and bubblegum and kittens, but the Firefly and Buffy IS classes were starting to look pretty good. (Watching the first episode of Firefly with my friend for his IS homework didn't help; space cowboys?! brawls?! train heists?! WHY WASN'T I IN THIS CLASS?!)
     And then back in my class, we were talking about politics. I don't really like talking about politics. Not because I don't have an opinion or don't care about how the country is run, but because people NEVER amiably disagree about politics. They never think about the others' thoughts and actually consider them, not at least during the conversation. They just argue. Not civilly either. It gets nasty. I'm not a fan of nasty.
   I shared my dislike of talking politics in class and someone mentioned how the class is about civil discourse and so of course we're talking politics. So just now I refreshed myself on the meaning of civil discourse. Turns out Civil Discourse is
 "the language of dispassionate objectivity", and suggests that it requires respect of the other participants, such as the reader. It neither diminishes the other's moral worth, nor questions their good judgment; it avoids hostility, direct antagonism, or excessive persuasion; it requires modesty and an appreciation for the other participant's experiences"

     Now I remember all this civil discourse business! I remember telling one of my high school teachers that for my Scholars application, I had to describe how a book could be discussed using civil discourse. I remember thinking, civil discourse, huh? So...I just have to be able do discuss something...civilly.
     Note the "something." The class's theme is "civil discourse." Not "civil discourse of politics." So all I have to do is hang onto the hope that we might eventually discuss something besides politics. And it's not like we've been actually using civil discourse anyway. The opposing sides haven't been deeply considering each others' points, they've just been shooting them down.

On a different note, I fed my ice cream cone to a squirrel today. I just set it down in front of him and he started nibbling away. I may or may not have squealed in excitement. Don't judge; it was just cuteness overload. I composed myself...eventually.
    

     When I first read the article about Emory providing false data to gain better rankings, I thought, "Well, people lie. How's this new?" The little I know about statistics includes the fact that many studies skew data to prove a specific point. This didn't seem that different to me. Sure, Emory was actually lying, but either way, people got false information.
     I guess it's worse that Emory was outright lying. It's wouldn't have looked good if they'd claimed they didn't understand the questions and didn't know they were providing false information. I mean, an esteemed private college claiming not to understand a survey's questions? Wouldn't have made them look too good...
     And after all, they did the right thing eventually. Emory's president admitted to the deed. Emory fired those responsible. What more could they do besides refund tuition for everyone whose choice to go to Emory was solidified by the rankings? Yeah, that's completely realistic.
     Did anyone actually decide to go to Emory just because they had good rankings? Do people actually do that? They might've become interested in the school because they saw the rankings, but surely they did more research than that. Or visited the school? If anyone was duped by the false rankings because they saw the school's place on a list and made the choice to attend without looking into the programs or seeing the campus, well, I don't feel sorry for them. My point is, I hope there was something else appealing about Emory besides it's place on a list.