How to control what's in your Facebook feed

Putting some sanity around social media

On February 21, 2026February 21, 2026 By StormyIn social mediaLeave a comment

Level Set: Before we begin it’s important that you understand a few things about Facebook…

First and foremost—Facebook doesn’t exist to make your life better or even to give you a good user experience. It exists to make money for Meta. It does this by learning as much as it can about you, and then selling access to you (via the platform) to other entities that want to reach someone with your perceived attributes.

These entities are usually businesses that want to sell you products or services, but sometimes they are organizations that want to sell you their ideology.

The platform is designed to encourage interaction to keep you on it longer in order to learn about you and have more opportunities to sell things to you. This means that it has no qualms about intentionally manipulating your emotions if getting you angry will keep you on the platform longer. Just like Phillip Morris, it wants you to become addicted to its product.

Successful FB accounts often create fake content to get people to engage. This can be heartwarming stories that simply aren’t true, to those posts that make ridiculous claims like, “Only a genius can name two cities that start with an A” (Spoiler alert, you’re not a genius for coming up with Annapolis and Anchorage), and outrageous “AITA” scenarios. They also will occasionally post things that everyone knows are false or incorrect, merely to get people to correct them (thereby engaging with their content and pushing it out to more people).

AI is also used to create fake stories and fake photos that drive engagement. Don’t comment on them and they will eventually disappear. Only tactics that people “fall for” will continue to get engagement, so if we all only engaged with legitimate content from people we know first-hand, a lot of this BS would just fade away. But as Stormy & KitKat know, that’s easier said than done. (Actually, KitKat is one of the smart ones that never adopted FB.)

NOT THE

BOUNDARY WATERS

There are also fake accounts (bots) and professional trolls whose “job” it is to drive content by engaging other commenters (sometimes by being very nasty). There are also very real trolls (maybe even friends and neighbors) who find themselves so provoked by this content that they lash out in ways that they wouldn’t in real life.

Here’s an example of that last point: While I was doing some research, I came across an old article (dated 2018) informing people that FB had them categorized by political view. If you follow the instructions in the article, you’ll see that this categorization has disappeared—no doubt due to pressure over social media algorithms skewing information during the 2020 election. (I have a ChatGPT conversation that I’ll include at the end of this article, if you’re interested in learning more. It basically confirms what I already suspected. It’s no longer an option, but we’re all still being categorized politically.)

Following are step-by-step instructions for gaining a little more control over what’s in your feed.

Note: These are instructions are for those using Facebook on a desktop (as it’s much easier to work on a larger screen). If you don’t have a desktop, I’m sure you can do these same maneuvers on a tablet or mobile, but the experience is likely different, so you’ll need to experiment.)

Clicking on “Content preferences” will bring you to the screen below. Here you can click on “Political content” and toggle it OFF if you don’t want to see so many political posts in your feed. (YAY!)

Next, click on Content Preferences and toggle off Political Content.

Likewise, you can also toggle “Sensitive content” off if you don’t want your feed to include other disturbing content. Note: If you DO want to see political posts from certain trusted sources, just include those in your Favorites, which you will learn about next.

Bypass the System… for real

Remember the viral FB hoax about how you could “Bypass the system” by copying and pasting some verbiage into your post in order to stop seeing the same 25 people in your feed? (Note: Anything instructing you to copy/paste words in order to either change your authority over or privacy on FB is completely bogus. That’s not how the platform works.)

Well, the post was right about one thing: There is an algorithm at play that is controlling whose posts you see most regularly, but the magic number is actually 30. You can find out who these 30 are by clicking on “Favorites.”

You’ll notice that these are the same people or pages that pop up in your feed most frequently and that they change slowly over time. Here’s why: Facebook, by default, “chooses” these based on how frequently you interact with their posts (like, comment, etc.) and—this is important—also how “new” of a FB friend they are. (This is because FB is trying to “cement” your new relationship. Isn’t that thoughtful? 🙄)

If you’ve been on FB a while, you likely have old friends and family members that you added years ago. Unfortunately, if you’re hoping to keep up with what’s going on in their lives via social media, FB is going to instead show you posts by the woman in your yoga class whose friend request you accepted last week.

Click on Favorites to see which pages and people FB is prioritizing in your feed.

Here, under “Favorites,” you can legitimately bypass the system by designating your own favorites.

I’m not sure how long FB will honor your choices, but this should work at least temporarily. However, (because I don’t trust FB and neither should you), I would assume that as you add new friends or interact with new pages, they will incrementally be added to your Favorites and some of your previously designated Favorites may fall off.

And now, let’s tackle those pesky ads…

Okay, now you should still be in the “Settings & privacy” section, but instead of clicking on “Content preferences,” we’re now going to click on “Settings” at the top of the menu.

Now, go out of Content Preferences and click on Settings at the top of the menu.

This brings us to a more extensive “Settings & privacy” section. Note the “Meta Accounts Center” box at the left. Click on the blue link.

This will bring up the Settings section. Look at the menu on the left and click on the blue link.

Here is where it gets interesting. Click on “Ad preferences” and look at the tab labeled “Customize ads.” Scroll down on this page and you’ll see what FB has designated as your preferences based on past interactions with ads. There is also a list of “Ad topics,” and you can individually select whether or not you want to see “less of” products related to each category.

Note that you have to select them one at a time and it’s a long list. You also can’t opt to not see them at all…just less. (Two more reasons I hate FB.)

Click on Ad Preferences and then Customize Ads

Now we’re going to click on the “Manage Info” tab. This will bring up a long list of all the categories used to target ads to you. You can opt out of these categories (again, you have to do it one-by-one).

Below are all the categories I removed myself from!

Next, go to the Manage Info tab. Here you can opt-out of targeting by various topics.

It’s also worth noting that FB gets a lot wrong in its assumptions. For example, it had me in categories related to “living away from my family” and “away from my hometown.” Both Oskar and I are originally from the Twin Cities area, and neither of us have ever lived anywhere else!

Lastly, you can click on the “waffle” (menu), which will bring up this screen.

Click on the waffle on the top menu and on the left you'll see an option to view your Feeds.

If you then click on “Feeds,” you can see the one marked “Friends.” This is where you’ll see ALL of your friend posts (beyond just the “Favorites”) without all the random posts for groups or pages that FB thinks you might be interested in.

However, you’ll notice there are still ads/sponsored posts mixed in among them. (Sigh.)

What now?

If you’ve followed these instructions, you should now have a little more control over your feed. Although you probably realize that your control is limited and possibly temporary. The best advice I can give you is to revisit these pages occasionally. See what’s new and what has changed. But even better advice is to retain some healthy skepticism when using FB and limit your use.

A deeper dive – A conversation with ChatGPT about Facebook targeting

Prompt: A 2018 Thrillist article (https://www.thrillist.com/tech/nation/facebook-ads-classify-users-political-views-how-to-change) cites Facebook classifying users but the designation mentioned in the article no longer exists. When did Facebook change it and why?

Chat GPT Response: Here’s what happened with the “you’re labeled as liberal/conservative” political-view classification Facebook used to show in your Ad Preferences — the setting Thrillist described in 2018 — and when and why it changed:

📉 What the Thrillist Article Was Describing (2018)

In 2018 Facebook did infer users’ political leanings (e.g., “Very Liberal,” “Moderate,” or “Conservative”) and put those in a user’s Ad Preferences page based on activity and inferred interests. That let advertisers see and (in some cases) targetusers using related interest categories.

That inference category was part of a broader set of “Detailed Targeting” attributes Facebook assigned to user profiles based on their behavior, likes, page interactions, and inferred interests.

🗓 When Did Facebook Remove That Type of Classification?

Facebook (now Meta) began removing the ability for advertisers to target users based on inferred political views and other sensitive categories in late 2021 / early 2022.

Key points:

In November 2021, Meta announced it would eliminate ad targeting options related to “sensitive” characteristics— including political affiliation, religion, sexual orientation, race, and health issues.
These changes went into effect on January 19, 2022. Targeting options tied to interests like political ideology and beliefs were removed from the Detailed Targeting menu in Meta Ads Manager.
Ads already running with those targeting options continued for a transitional period, but after March 17, 2022, Meta fully stopped serving ads using those removed categories.

This means by early 2022, the political-leaning interest categories that Thrillist showed users how to find were no longer available for advertisers, and related profile labels were no longer displayed in the same way.

🤔 Why Did Facebook Remove It?

Meta said the change was intended to reduce the misuse and abuse of ad-targeting features — especially categories that could be perceived as sensitive, discriminatory, or open to manipulation. Advertisers could discriminate or spam users by targeting too precisely on topics like politics or religion.

The company responded to input from:

Civil-rights groups
Policymakers concerned about discrimination
Media reports like ProPublica showing misuse of targeting tools

Meta’s official reasoning was that removing these targeting options would protect users and avoid the negative externalities associated with overly granular targeting based on personal attributes.

📌 What This Change Means Today

Users no longer see political-view labels (like “conservative” or “liberal”) in Ad Preferences the way the 2018 article described.
Advertisers can still run political ads (in most regions), but they can’t target audiences based on inferred political ideology or other “sensitive” categories using those old interest flags.
Meta has instead shifted toward broader targeting and algorithmic delivery, relying more on machine learning signals rather than explicit detailed categories. (This shift is ongoing, and many advertisers notice that “interest” categories have faded in importance or been consolidated.)

Summary:
Facebook’s ability to classify users by a political-view label that advertisers could see was effectively phased out starting in late 2021, with the changes fully implemented around early 2022, because Meta removed “sensitive” Detailed Targeting options (including political affiliation) after concerns about abuse and discrimination.

If you’d like, I can also explain how Facebook/Meta still infers user traits today (even without explicit targeting options) and what that means for ad delivery and personalization.

Stormy’s Prompt: Yes, please do.

Great — this is where it gets more nuanced.

Even though Meta removed explicit “sensitive” targeting categories (like political affiliation) from advertiser menus in early 2022, that does not mean Meta stopped inferring user traits. It changed how those inferences are used and exposed.

Here’s how it works now:

1️⃣ Explicit Labels vs. Machine Learning Prediction

Before 2022:

Advertisers could select categories like “Very Liberal” or “Conservative” in Detailed Targeting.
Those were explicit interest buckets visible in Ads Manager.

After 2022:

Those explicit categories were removed.
But Meta still uses machine learning models to predict user behavior and engagement patterns — including political engagement tendencies — for ad delivery optimization.

In other words:

❌ Advertisers can’t select “Conservative voters.”
✅ Meta’s algorithm can still learn who is likely to engage with a given political message.

The classification hasn’t disappeared — it’s just moved from a manual targeting tool to a black-box optimization system.]

2️⃣ How Meta Infers Traits Today

Meta builds predictive models using signals such as:

Pages you follow
Posts you engage with
Videos you watch (including how long)
Groups you join
Ads you click
Off-platform browsing data (via Meta Pixel / Conversions API)
Demographic and geographic data

From those signals, the system predicts things like:

Likelihood to click political content
Likelihood to donate
Issue interest (climate, immigration, gun rights, etc.)
Likelihood to share partisan content

Even if “political affiliation” isn’t a selectable targeting category, the delivery system can still optimize ads toward users who historically respond to certain political themes.

3️⃣ The Shift: From “Targeting” to “Optimization”

Meta has publicly framed this as a move away from “sensitive targeting.”

In practice, what changed is:

Old model (pre-2022):

Advertiser manually picks interest categories.
Targeting is transparent and discrete.

New model (2022–present):

Advertiser chooses broad audiences.
Meta’s AI decides who within that audience sees the ad based on predicted response.

This is called algorithmic delivery optimization.

So while a campaign can’t say “show this to conservatives,” it can:

Upload a donor list (Custom Audience)
Ask for a “Lookalike Audience”
Optimize for “engagement” or “donations”

The system then finds people who behave similarly — which can strongly correlate with political identity.

4️⃣ What This Means for Political Advertising

For political advertisers specifically:

Meta still allows political ads in the U.S.
Advertisers must go through identity verification.
Ads are stored in the public Ad Library.
Detailed targeting based on “sensitive” interests is prohibited.

However:

Broad targeting + optimization often recreates segmentation patterns.
Researchers have found algorithmic delivery can produce partisan sorting even without explicit targeting inputs.

That’s a key distinction regulators are still wrestling with.

5️⃣ Are Political “Scores” Still Assigned Internally?

Meta has not publicly confirmed maintaining explicit ideological labels like “Very Liberal” in the same way users once saw in Ad Preferences.

But:

The system must internally model engagement likelihood.
That modeling necessarily involves behavior patterns that correlate strongly with political ideology.
In machine learning terms, ideology may function as a latent variable — even if it’s no longer a visible category.

So while the label disappeared, predictive inference likely did not.

6️⃣ Why Meta Made This Shift

There were three main pressures:

Civil rights concerns (discrimination via targeting)
Political backlash after 2016 and 2020 elections
Regulatory scrutiny (U.S. and EU)

By removing explicit “sensitive” targeting options, Meta could argue it reduced the risk of discriminatory ad targeting — while preserving performance-based ad delivery.

7️⃣ The Big Structural Reality

This is the core tension:

Removing explicit categories does not eliminate predictive inference in AI-driven advertising systems.

Modern ad platforms don’t need labeled buckets — they predict behavior directly.

Troll Control: Don’t feed the algorithms!

On July 24, 2020January 11, 2024 By StormyIn Attitude, Politics, Random, Relationships1 Comment

Have you ever known something but also not known it at the same time? That is, you intellectually know the facts around a subject, but emotionally or philosophically it takes you a while to connect the dots? I had that experience last week and when the realization hit me it was a revelation, so I thought I would pass it along to anyone else who might be struggling with this same issue.

Social Engineering via Social Media

I’ve had a love/hate relationship with social media since its inception. I have a very large family, as well as a network of friends and acquaintances that span the globe, so I love the ability to stay in touch via a simple and cheap communications tool. Cute baby photos, friends on vacation, funny memes from old classmates… that’s all lovely. I’ve also created group pages for my church, my condo association, and other families who have adopted from Blossom’s orphanage in China. I enjoy having a way to communicate with members of these various groups on topics of mutual interest. Lastly, as a marking professional, I also appreciate social media as an inexpensive advertising medium that lets you target specific audiences with ease.

However, what I HATE about social media is the way it turns seemingly rational human beings into abusive bullies and allows horrible people to connect with like-minded dirtbags who validate each other’s twisted views. And, when you add in Russian trolls and others who are actively and intentionally stirring up trouble in our country to divide the populace…well, let’s just say that checking one’s newsfeed becomes an exercise in blood pressure management.

If you click on the Haha emoji in response to anything but an obvious joke, chances are, you’re a Troll.
Tips by Stormy

Thankfully I have naturally low blood pressure, but the anger and vitriol spewed forth on Facebook have caused me to abandon my account several times in the past. I find it very difficult to not confront those spreading misinformation or abusive, racist statements, so I often find myself in a protracted online debate with someone whose mind I know will never be open to reason or facts. Yet despite this, I feel compelled to try. (Nevertheless, she persisted!) I feel that to leave these statements unchallenged is to appear to agree with them—the last thing I want.

These online conversations usually end with the other party giving me the “Haha” emoji (which I’ve concluded is the universal response for ignorant trolls who can’t think of any other way to counter a sensible argument). Invariably, these exchanges always leave me feeling drained, discouraged and, frankly, hopeless about the state of our country. At times it seems like the bad people far outnumber the decent people, which is a very depressing thought indeed.

And of course, that’s the point.

It was during one of these threads—about whether to mandate masks in our state—when a commenter posed a seemingly innocent question, “Who decides which comments are ‘most relevant’?” I believe they were noticing the default Facebook setting that displays relevant comments and implying that relevancy was determined by the “liberal elites” who manage our governor’s Facebook page. So, I ignored the implication and replied literally: “The Facebook algorithms.” This was followed by another baiting question, “But who designs those?” So I went into a high-level explanation of how the algorithms work. Now granted, algorithms are more complex than the explanation that follows, but I think it’s important for all Facebook users to understand the basics:

They’re in it for the money, honey…

Facebook is not free to use because Mark Zuckerberg is a philanthropist. The company makes money by selling ads to marketers (like me) to get them in front of potential customers (users like you). The beauty of the platform is it lets marketers target certain personality profiles and keywords based on information provided by the users—the groups you belong to, the pages you follow, the businesses or locations you “check-in” to, hashtags you use, things you post about, the comments you make on others posts, etc. The more specific the targeting, the more effective it is (and the more valuable it is for the advertiser).

If this strikes you as an invasion of privacy, you really shouldn’t be on Facebook. It exists to monetize your personal information. I know that and it doesn’t bother me. I don’t post truly private info, and if I’m going to be bombarded with ads online anyway, I would rather they be relevant.

Wallflowers need not apply

In order for Facebook to understand who you are, it needs you to engage. In other words, if you log on to Facebook and scroll through your feed, but never join a group, never like or comment, etc., Facebook has no real way to know who you are and subsequently can’t market effectively to you. (In other words, it won’t know what kind of ads to show you.) It’s the social equivalent of standing in the corner at a party.

Some people—KitKat for one—take this wallflower approach (ironically, in real life she is the first one on the dance floor). Because KitKat is also a marketer, she needs to understand Facebook, but she’s chosen to only observe on Facebook and never engages personally. Consequently, KitKat doesn’t stress out over social media the way I do. 😉

How to be relevant

Facebook wants and needs you to be an active participant in order to create the targeting data it needs to feed the algorithms. One way it does this is by trying to serve up the most interesting information, so you keep coming back for more. This is where the “Relevant Comments” come in. Although my troll friend wouldn’t believe it, there is no Democrat sitting in a Facebook cube that is marking every left-leaning comment as “relevant.” However, each time someone “likes” a comment, replies to a comment or tags the poster of a comment, it increases the relevance of that particular comment.

As I mentioned in the intro, I knew all of this already. But when I was explaining it to the online troll the understanding suddenly hit me like a ton of bricks: I had been making the problem worse!

Each time I replied to a negative comment or misinformation, I actually increased the relevance of that comment. In other words, I was directly contributing to the process that prompts the Facebook algorithms to deem a comment “relevant.” As a result, I was causing it to be shown to more people via their newsfeeds—which is the exact opposite of what I wanted to be doing.

If you’re an 80s kid, you might understand this analogy: “Feeding the trolls” is like feeding your Gremlins after midnight. It causes all hell to break loose.

But as the lightbulb went off in my brain, an even brighter realization occurred: I was overestimating the number of bad guys! There were far more “good guys,” but the nature of our collective interactions were giving the bad guys more visibility than they deserve! So, the question then became: Should I be addressing trolls at all? And if so, how? It turns out there’s an easy way to work around the relevancy algorithms and still fight for truth and democracy…

Slaying Medusa

Never directly comment on a negative post. (I would make an exception for dangerous misinformation, but then only comment to discredit it—by linking to accurate information—not to start a debate.) If you see a negative comment on an otherwise positive or neutral thread (particularly if it’s a news source), don’t click on the angry face, sad face or the aforementioned “Haha” emoji. Also important: Don’t tag the person who made the negative comment so you are replying directly to them. All that will do is increase their comment’s relevance. Instead, click like/love on as many of the positive comments you can to increase their relevance and thereby drown out the negative voices.

Here’s a simple example:

Misinformation Marvin: Masks don’t prevent COVID-19. They increase transmission by 50%! Health experts agree!

Concerned Carly (clicks angry face on Marvin and tags him in reply): Misinformation Marvin, They actually DO help reduce the spread…Do you have a source for that statistic?

Having participated in conversations similar to the above, I can tell you that chances are Marvin’s next comment will cite a blog post by some obscure ex-professor who was fired from his teaching job for being a rabble rouser. Then, Carly will try to point out that it isn’t a credible source, and the exchange will go downhill from there until Marvin ultimately resorts to clicking on the “Haha” emoji.

A better approach…

Misinformation Marvin: Masks don’t prevent COVID-19. They increase transmission by 50%! Health experts agree!

Concerned Carly (does not click on Marvin’s comment or reply, but posts a new comment): I see that some people on here (like Marvin) are spreading misinformation; however, here’s a legitimate source that explains how masks actually DO help reduce the spread…[Links to reputable source]

As mentioned earlier, in addition to not commenting directly to Marvin, Carly should also click on every comment that supports her argument and/or cites credible sources. This will raise the relevance of those comments which, in turn, will increase the likelihood that they will show up in others’ feeds.

I call this approach “slaying Medusa” because the essence of it is to attack from the sidelines and not look directly into the eyes of the troll. It may be true that “eyes are the window to the soul.” But in the case of the typical troll, that soul is a black void—and you don’t want to view it directly, lest it turn your heart to stone. Commenting indirectly to trolls and reinforcing the positive posts directly is a simple way you can keep the focus of the conversation on fact-driven, compassionate, democracy-loving people and take the microphone away from those who are trying to damage our country and sew divisiveness.

By elevating the positive conversations and shining a light on true, factual information, we can inspire those who are on the fence about the next election to do the right thing for America. There are three critical months left before November 3rd. Let’s do everything we can to control the trolls—and particularly to get the “Troll in Chief”—out of office!

Lions and soldiers and refugees, Oh my!

On September 5, 2015September 6, 2015 By StormyIn Attitude3 Comments

This past week, my sister made the type of comparison that is becoming all too common, particularly on Facebook. She had posted an article about the crisis in Europe related to the overflow of Syrian refugees. A photo of a small child who drowned while his family was trying to flee to Greece had touched her heart and she was asking her FB friends where the outrage was for this situation—comparing it to a month earlier when a Minnesota dentist’s slaying of a beloved lion had sparked outrage in the FB community that went on for days and days.

I'm just as saddened by the death of what's-his-name with the cool spots. — I’m just as saddened by the death of what’s-his-name with the cool spots.

If you don’t live under a rock, you probably heard about Cecil the Lion. And if you live in Minnesota, like us, you literally couldn’t escape the story because it featured a local villain. My sister had gone to Dr. Palmer for dental work. My coworker lives in the same neighborhood and gave first-hand witness of how the vilified dentist was being stalked by the media around the clock. His crime was illegal trophy-hunting and when the story broke, it appeared that most Americans didn’t realize trophy hunting was a pretty common occurrence among a segment of hunters with the means to pursue it. I was a little perplexed at the sudden outrage myself. I don’t approve of trophy hunting, but it’s been going on for years. Was the game changer the fact that he killed a lion with a name? Why didn’t anyone protest over the 40+ animals (lion, rhino, polar bear, etc.), that he had shot earlier? Or how about the other rich “sportsmen” doing the exact same thing, legally, every day?

However, while I agree that my sister’s point was valid (i.e., that many Americans’ values are out of whack), she made a grave error in how she posed her concern. By drawing a comparison between the toddler’s death and the lion’s death, she actually diverted focus from the refugee situation—because commenters immediately started defending their outrage about Cecil the Lion.

The situation was a classic example of a scarcity mentality that seems to be taking root on Facebook. That is, living as though there is a scarcity of outrage, a scarcity of common sense, a scarcity of compassion. In other words, assuming you can have compassion for a lion OR for Syrian refugees, but not both. Applying a “This OR That” logic.

In this, she’s not alone, and there’s nowhere it’s more apparent than on Facebook. A few recent examples:

When the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, the White House displayed some colored lights to celebrate the ruling. Immediately the posts criticizing the action started popping up: “Why didn’t the White House shine special lights on Veteran’s Day to acknowledge the sacrifice of our troops?!” Hey, that’s a nice idea, too. Let’s do that. But you don’t need to take away something nice for gay rights in order to do something nice for our military. You can do both!

Granted, not your typical American hero... — Granted, not your typical American hero…

Another example, Bruce Jenner’s transformation to Caitlyn Jenner and some articles that lauded her gender transformation as “brave”… The scarcity crowd immediately started posting photos of combat veterans and countering, “Caitlyn Jenner isn’t brave, these guys are brave!” Well, can’t they BOTH be brave? A different kind of braveness, to be sure, but really, can’t they both be considered brave for their respective actions? Why do we have to belittle one to applaud the other?

And don’t get me started on the whole Black Lives Matter/All Lives Matter/Cop Lives Matter issue. Of course they matter! They all do! But trying to raise awareness about serious issues facing the black community does not mean that those raising the issue are against cops* or dismiss the value of “other lives”… Those aren’t mutually exclusive positions and as Americans, we don’t have to subscribe to the notion of limiting “whose lives matter.” Or rationing how much outrage we can apply to an injustice. Or meting out the level of support we’re willing to give someone going through difficult times. It’s time that we stop these divisive arguments that diminish us as a society and embrace an abundance mentality.

Yes, it’s awful that Cecil was slaughtered AND yes, we should try and provide aid for refugees in Europe. Yes, it’s great that gay people can finally marry AND let’s give a little more recognition to the soldiers protecting our freedom. Yes, Caitlyn Jenner did a brave thing in acknowledging her inner struggle AND yes, let’s make sure our combat veterans have all the support and medical care they need when they return home. Let’s say yes to ensuring black people are treated fairly in the justice system AND yes to ensuring the safety of the cops who are doing their best to make that happen AND yes to protecting you and your loved ones as well.

Ultimately, all a scarcity mentality will get us is a shortage of everything we need as a society, because scarcity tends to feed upon itself until it eats away at everything good. Our ultimate redemption will only come in our ability to embrace an abundance mentality that says, YES. We have enough compassion for all—both This AND That!

*I acknowledge that there will always be some wingnuts who genuinely mean harm. My stance on that is to monitor them closely, but don’t fan the flames of their obsession.

Reflections of an “innie” in an “outie” world…

On October 15, 2014November 4, 2016 By StormyIn Attitude, Random, Relationships, Work/careers6 Comments

I just got done with an 11-hour strategic brainstorming session with a client and my brain is mush. Now, let me explain that I’ve met all of the attendees before, this is a client I like, and the ideas we were discussing were interesting to me. Nevertheless, I’m completely exhausted.

Why? I’m an introvert. And trying to be “on” all day has resulted in the depletion of my energy. Worse, I had something on my mind that was troubling me—nothing to do with anyone in the room—but for someone who wears her emotions on her face, it required overcompensation to not look as though I was bothered by any of the topics we were discussing.

This introversion comes as a surprise to a lot of people, because I’m not necessarily lacking in self-confidence and people don’t think of me as “shy.” For example, I once gave a sermon at church—something I know many people would be terrified to do—and was fine with getting up in front of a bunch of friends and strangers and expounding on the topic of faith. Yet, this sermon was delivered by the very same person who religiously avoids going to parties if I don’t think I’ll know anyone but the host.

I’ve been this way for as long as I can remember. As a kid, I wanted to be invited to my friend’s slumber parties, but I didn’t really want to actually go to them. I remember one time when I was trying to leave a friend’s house after an afternoon of playing together. She wanted to continue our games, but I was completely drained by all of the togetherness. I needed to go home and read a book or something and literally begged her (an extravert, clearly) to let me leave.

Because of this tendency toward introversion, people who don’t know me tend to think I’m aloof and unfriendly. That’s not true, however. I just detest small talk and polite conversation for the sake of filling the silence. Cocktail parties find me either talking to a small group of people I know or staring at my phone pretending I just got an important text or email to which I must respond.

On the other hand, once I know you and trust you, you’ll have trouble shutting me up. Heck, if I’m comfortable and in a sociable mood, I can be downright chatty. (My dad lovingly called me “Motormouth” as a teen—a name that I’ve used to describe my daughter Lucky once or twice.) However, even in these discussions I disdain small talk and usually prefer talking about Things That Matter over sports and weather.

In fact, those who know me well can attest to the fact that I rarely hold back my opinion and enjoy engaging in a lively debate. This can make people uncomfortable—particularly when you come from the land of Minnesota Nice. However, there’s usually no hostility involved. I just appreciate a well-articulated argument. In most people, these traits add up to an outgoing nature, so many of the people who have observed me in these situations are surprised to learn that being in groups for too long can suck the life out of me if I don’t get a chance to recharge.

As a working parent of young children, I’d try to step outside of my comfort zone and chaperone a field trip once or twice a year. (Here’s a tip for the rookies: Choose a play over the zoo, it’s much easier to chaperone kids when they’re sitting still.) But as much as I enjoyed getting a peek into my child’s school life, these outings always left me horizontal on the couch for several hours afterward, lying in the dark with a glass of wine, repeating to myself: “Must…recover….sanity…”

But part of being an introspective, introverted grown up is realizing these things about yourself, so I know when I’m being “taxed” by too much extraversion and need some alone time to recharge. My husband understands this, too. For example, there was always a predictable point on a family trip—the epitome of togetherness—where I’d declare “I need to be by myself for a while.” (In my defense, we didn’t have cable TV at home, so my kids viewed any stay in a hotel room as their chance to have a Nickelodeon marathon. By the third day of this cartoon smorgasbord, I felt like an Animaniac myself.) But my patient, indulgent husband would grant me temporary asylum and hold down the fort while I abandoned him at the Embassy Suites with three squirrelly kids watching Pinky & The Brain.

One of the most challenging places to deal with an introverted nature has been at work. Marketing and Sales teams are heavily comprised of extraverts. So, since that’s where I’ve spent most of my career, I’ve had to convince each new set of coworkers that I’m not unfriendly or stuck up, I just work more effectively on my own (with input and review at appropriate intervals, of course). Just don’t ask me to create a PowerPoint while a group of sales people sit around me throwing out ideas. These same folks can toss ideas back and forth all they want and I’ll sit and patiently listen. And, then I’ll go back to my quiet little office and try to make sense of it all. Trust me, you’ll have a better end product letting the introvert get her way. Being a manager of people has been challenging as well, since most introverts gravitate toward individual contributor roles. My marketing team may tell you I’m not the most nurturing boss, but (I hope) I make up for that by working very hard, looking out for their best interests and advocating on their behalf.
While I am probably a bit atypical as an introvert—I think most of them are “quieter” than me—I’ve noticed that Facebook gives introverts a way to recognize and acknowledge each other in a heavily extravert-oriented society. The Internet has numerous “quizzes” a person can take to determine where they fall on the introversion/extraversion scale, and it’s been interesting to learn via Facebook just how many friends and acquaintances are introverts trying to adapt to an extraverted world…like me.

In my family, four-out-of-five of us are introverts (on the other hand, my youngest daughter, Blossom, could be the Poster Child for Extraverts), so adaptation is the name of the game. But I’m encouraged by the increased awareness around the differences of introverts and extraverts. It’s a positive step toward gaining acceptance—or at least understanding—for those of us who are otherwise too easily misunderstood.

Easier Said Than Done

Tag: Facebook

Lions and soldiers and refugees, Oh my!

Reflections of an “innie” in an “outie” world…