I’m not a psychologist, and you probably too.

The article is good. Tell me using your own statements, experience or another support, where Penelope was wrong?

I believe that:

- using sarcasm is not a proper tactics, this will sooner hurt the listener than will make him love you;

- not revealing emotions. Do you imagine a person saying yes or no in response, sitting in it’s corner quiet, without mimics all the time? It’s too suspicious, isn’t it?

- being bored by others. Do you like people telling you are boring writing your comments?
Or maybe you like people telling you’re irresponsible at your own blog? I don’t;

- irresponsibles. If one blames you here that this is your fault that Penny wrote the article the way you disliked?

- being obsessed. OK, I believe that you like people not paying attention to you!

Penelope, pls don’t pay attention to ungrounded blames, they are obsessed by their own ME, despite other readers praises, and let them read the Objective Feedback )

I have to agree with Elena. Penelope doesnt have enough support. The research study that you pointed out only supports her claim about what type of people one prefers to work with. It gives no support to her 10 ways or other things that she wrote.

As for your corporate America, Penelope has reduced it to a corporate playground where middle school children fight for their popularity. If you feel offended here, you probably shouldnt go on http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/careerist/34834
because it aint too pretty over there.
And no, she doesn’t have to defend herself, her company went bankrupt.

Penelope writes about corporate America and how to thrive there, she doesn’t delve into any psychological insights that I can see, just smart, common sense that people who actually WORK in a large company can use.

I know, because I work for a large company and her sense of office politics is very saavy. Not that she has to defent herself… she has started three businesses not to mention numerous other ventures.

And as for your “constructive criticism” dare I say it was hardly constructive at all. You don’t attack someone’s character and call them immature and childish when you are being constructive.

“You probably don’t know if you’re using sarcasm as a defense mechanism, but if you use it a lot, it’s a safe bet that it’s in a defensive way.”

“But if you do have things to say but don’t say them, then you’re not likable only because you’re so insecure that you believe you’ll sound stupid when you talk.”

“Most people who talk but don’t reveal emotions are out of touch with their emotions. You have to know them yourself to share them with other people.”

“To show no gratitude or no need for others…You might think that you make yourself look like Superman, able to do anything in a single bound.”

Right now you’re just an irresponsible writer who states whatever she likes online. Do more research so you can present a more valid article. Otherwise, I suggest that you do not assume the psychologist’s role that you’re not qualified for. As a supporter of objective feedback, you should have no problem taking
constructive criticism.

As an old Gen X individual (40) I’d have to agree with your statements about money, and how the different generations view it. How do you think the millennials, those in the 16-25 age group, view work and money? This is the first group to always have internet, cell phones and cable T.V.