<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Readers &amp;&#160;Skimmers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.soulshelter.com/uncategorized/readers-skimmers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.soulshelter.com/uncategorized/readers-skimmers/</link>
	<description>Live. Work. Thrive.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:54:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://www.soulshelter.com/uncategorized/readers-skimmers/comment-page-1/#comment-343</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 19:16:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.soulshelter.com/2008/04/27/readers-skimmers/#comment-343</guid>
		<description>Michael, Thanks for the comments. I must emphasize that nowhere in this post, or in this blog, have I advocated that one ought to become something one is not. That&#039;s simply not a part of the Soul Shelter vision. (See Tim’s &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.soulshelter.com/2008/03/26/can-we-really-change-yes-and-no/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;post on this very subject&lt;/a&gt;.)

In &quot;Readers &amp; Skimmers&quot; I never intended to bifurcate humanity at large, and am sorry to learn that this wasn’t clear. I merely intended to take up the subject of networking, and posit an observation relating to this blog&#039;s theme of fulfillment: that networking, if practiced in a holistic and humane manner that values people and their unique stories over “social capital,” or relationships over “connections,” can serve as a means to broad personal fulfillment rather than gross personal advantage. 

I&#039;m what might be called an extreme introvert. In fact, I would side with Einstein as you characterize him in your example, in that I would generally rather spend my days toiling in my writer&#039;s studio than socializing.

I&#039;ve never been a networker, having bumped into and been repelled by one too many folks who practice networking&#039;s less appealing, and, as I see it, shallow form (here dubbed &quot;people-skimming&quot; for convenience). Actually, it’s these kinds of folks (and I would never suggest that they comprise a full half of humanity; perhaps they’re only a tiny 4% of us, but we’ve all run into them) who do categorize the human race into two types: 1) those who can get me what I want and 2) those who can’t.

But my friend Penny’s comments shed some light on the fact that, for those who would be ashamed to people-skim, or forage for “connections” thusly—and I would venture that individuals who seek fulfillment ahead of fortune are generally of this disposition—there’s a whole other style of learning about people, forging relationships, and finding a nice dose of fulfillment in the meantime.

A somewhat obvious observation, perhaps. But not being a networker in any sense, I’d never quite thought about it, so figured it was worth sharing.  

Thanks for reading. ~Mark</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael, Thanks for the comments. I must emphasize that nowhere in this post, or in this blog, have I advocated that one ought to become something one is not. That&#8217;s simply not a part of the Soul Shelter vision. (See Tim’s <a href="http://www.soulshelter.com/2008/03/26/can-we-really-change-yes-and-no/" rel="nofollow">post on this very subject</a>.)</p>
<p>In &#8220;Readers &amp; Skimmers&#8221; I never intended to bifurcate humanity at large, and am sorry to learn that this wasn’t clear. I merely intended to take up the subject of networking, and posit an observation relating to this blog&#8217;s theme of fulfillment: that networking, if practiced in a holistic and humane manner that values people and their unique stories over “social capital,” or relationships over “connections,” can serve as a means to broad personal fulfillment rather than gross personal advantage. </p>
<p>I&#8217;m what might be called an extreme introvert. In fact, I would side with Einstein as you characterize him in your example, in that I would generally rather spend my days toiling in my writer&#8217;s studio than socializing.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve never been a networker, having bumped into and been repelled by one too many folks who practice networking&#8217;s less appealing, and, as I see it, shallow form (here dubbed &#8220;people-skimming&#8221; for convenience). Actually, it’s these kinds of folks (and I would never suggest that they comprise a full half of humanity; perhaps they’re only a tiny 4% of us, but we’ve all run into them) who do categorize the human race into two types: 1) those who can get me what I want and 2) those who can’t.</p>
<p>But my friend Penny’s comments shed some light on the fact that, for those who would be ashamed to people-skim, or forage for “connections” thusly—and I would venture that individuals who seek fulfillment ahead of fortune are generally of this disposition—there’s a whole other style of learning about people, forging relationships, and finding a nice dose of fulfillment in the meantime.</p>
<p>A somewhat obvious observation, perhaps. But not being a networker in any sense, I’d never quite thought about it, so figured it was worth sharing.  </p>
<p>Thanks for reading. ~Mark</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://www.soulshelter.com/uncategorized/readers-skimmers/comment-page-1/#comment-341</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2008 21:24:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.soulshelter.com/2008/04/27/readers-skimmers/#comment-341</guid>
		<description>Nice article.  However, you would do well not to categorize people into &quot;People Readers&quot; or &quot;People Skimmers&quot;.  There are people who enjoy social interactions, and there are people who don&#039;t.  There are people who use other people, and there are people who don&#039;t.

Would you call Albert Einstein a &#039;people skimmer&#039;?  How about Howard Hughes?  Or any number of great engineers, scientists, financiers who loved their work, who would rather spend all day working with a new concept of science or mechanics rather than talking to people.   

My point is, there are people who do, there are people who don&#039;t, and there are people who do and don&#039;t.  Courtesy, kindness, and the art of listening?  Those are either learned, or they are innate to our being, or they are stamped out of us when we were young.  To imply that we should suddenly &quot;open our ears&quot; to people is to ask that we become someone we are not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice article.  However, you would do well not to categorize people into &#8220;People Readers&#8221; or &#8220;People Skimmers&#8221;.  There are people who enjoy social interactions, and there are people who don&#8217;t.  There are people who use other people, and there are people who don&#8217;t.</p>
<p>Would you call Albert Einstein a &#8216;people skimmer&#8217;?  How about Howard Hughes?  Or any number of great engineers, scientists, financiers who loved their work, who would rather spend all day working with a new concept of science or mechanics rather than talking to people.   </p>
<p>My point is, there are people who do, there are people who don&#8217;t, and there are people who do and don&#8217;t.  Courtesy, kindness, and the art of listening?  Those are either learned, or they are innate to our being, or they are stamped out of us when we were young.  To imply that we should suddenly &#8220;open our ears&#8221; to people is to ask that we become someone we are not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
