On one interview, a manager actually told me that I wasn't fit for the job because I was too innovative. They were looking for people to do more of the same, even if they had a lot of room for improvement, they didn't want it.
The problem is a misunderstanding in the objectives of education.
While people usually (and wishfully) think of "education" in the Trivium-like meaning (also sometimes called Medieval Education, if one is unabashed by the now-negative "Medieval" adjective) instead of what governments want, which is "national, compulsory general-knowledge education" (sometimes also called Prussian education system).
As is usual, both education systems have their advantages, but emphasis in the former is dwindling. Myself I believe that we should focus on the former but pass a little in the latter to let students have contact with all types of knowledge and then choose what (and how many) they like most.
As a teacher I had said once: "If a student is good at something and bad at something else, should we focus on what he's good at to reach maximum potential or should we focus on getting better where he's deficient, so he'll have a broader set of skills?"
While I agree that there is a minimum workable level to learning to deal with both sides, I believe your position is a little biased by the fact you are not in the extreme.
Extreme introverts are in a big disadvantage in the days of "social everything". This is caused by a change in the values of our society which now believes that interacting with others is more useful than actually doing work. Now, as it has always been, far-spectrum introverts (nerds) are discriminated against by the extroverts. However, extroverts pretty much own the world right now because of cumulative effects due to teachers and employers liking extroverts more. This "likeness" is only natural, due to usually greater empathy and "communication skills".
One key point which is usually overlooked is the origin of the value change. As I see it, it is actually beneficial to employers to keep people with good relationships at hand. However, the extreme increase in importance seems to be the increase in the need to circunvent bureaucracies, which only a corrupt system benefits from
I once delivered the "group" report with only my name on it, since I did all the work. I actually warned the other guy in the group that I'd do this if he didn't help, and he said "go forward and do it".
In the end both me and the other guy were sent to the dean's office and we both got a sermon on how we were behaving like kids (this was in college). The grade was the same for both anyway.
Lesson learned: the world actually works like this. Only a few in a group (or a company) do the actual work and the others just share the glory (and some keep the whole glory to themselves).
Interacting with most sane adults is generally the best practice
Good luck finding those!
There's no such thing as "Common sense". It's just a myth to oppress those with different opinions.
And if you actually depend on people's common sense for things to work, you're doing it wrong./p.
Agreed.
What he's proposing is simply to ignore the rule No 1 of network security: never trust anyone, specially you users.
This reminds me of a place I worked where one of the computers kept getting infected with a virus, even when their files were on regularly scanned network storage. After some time I found out that everytime I cleared the virus (which could not be repaired by my AV, so I had to delete the file) someone that used that computer restored the infected file from a floppy disk, which they never bothered to scan!
Adding features does not necessarily increase functionality -- it just makes the manuals thicker.
