LW: "While extroverts have the option of never being alone if they don't wish to, the introvert must always deal with people on some level."

You could just as easily, and accurately, say "While introverts have the option of being alone should they chose, the extrovert will always struggle to have the kind of constant high-quality interaction he/she craves."

In other words, it's a burden if you make it a burden. Now, this is not Pollyanna-ish "wishing your troubles away" because, frankly, introversion is not some terrible curse!

In many jobs, in fact, it's a core skill! Who wants an extroverted librarian, for one obvious and slightly silly example? In a former job hiring graphic designers, I would steer away from overly social types -- we favoured reliability over flash at that company. (Yes, I know that's only one aspect of extro/intro -- that's my point).

Beware, also, the pop-psych introvert Cary references in his reply. Concern about the ethics of "gaming" the personality test is in no way an "indicator" of introversion. Extroverts are unconcerned about ethics then, I take it? Bollocks.

The real truth about personality tests is that everyone games them. They paint a picture of who we wish we were, and the skill of the test creator is then attempting to infer who we are from that.

"I am the kind of person who is often late." Strongly agree or strongly disagree? Even people who ARE often late and who are answering the test honestly will think "But I'm never late without a good reason..." and tick, you guessed it, strongly disagree.

Personality "tests" are a field fraught with false positives and dodgy science. Which is why, of course, they're wildly popular in the US. We've known for 30 years that polygraphs are wildly innacurate, but American intelligence agencies still use 'em every day.

Game on -- and don't feel guilty for a second.

Do think about this angle, however: if a company uses a dubious test to disqualify you from a job, do you really want to work there?

"...they scoffed. Better to design for reuse, to work on life-cycles that do not result in landfill waste..."

Designing for reuse. Let me see. How do we achieve that? With high-powered computers and extremely low-waste manufacture driven by high-tech CAD/CAM systems, of course. No point designing something for "reuse" if it can't actually be reused. No point in "designing" anything if you're going to use lots more materials making it.

Technology 1 : Wishful thinking 0

Life-cycle mapping, including understanding how things break down and under what conditions and what effects those chemicals might have in combinations. OK. How's that done? With extremely high-powered statistical computation and very expensive machines tracking parts-per-billion interactions, of course.

Technology 2 : Wishful thinking 0

Dealing with existing landfill waste, and making existing critical infrastructure less polluting. Yes and yes. How do we achieve that, I wonder? With complex filter-chemistry, and sophisticated recycling technology, both inseperable from the high-tech world that enabled their creation.

Technology 3 : Wishful thinking, surprisingly, still 0

I'm waiting to hear what these "non technological" solutions are.

I'm not saying they don't exist! I'd just really love to even up the score a bit, is all.

Anyone?

This kinda reminds me of people going "off the grid" -- and relying on a high-tech natural gas frige, clever "plug together" low-voltage lighting systems, a solar panel, and a huge acid-battery array.

More power to 'em, I say, but they do know those things don't grow on trees, don't they? They're born in a factory which gets its metal from a mine, and its power from the grid just like everything else.

You don't get to be in a situation where you can diagnose the biosphere's ills without technology, and you don't get to fix the problem without technology either.