I dislike the introvert/extrovert dichotomy, especially in the oversimplified US interpretation that has now become global. I'm for instance gregarious and outgoing with people I like, even if I might have met them very recently. At the same time, I may have an instinctive dislike/mismatch reaction for someone in the first few minutes of meeting them, and then it's a struggle to go through polite conversation (circumstances might force me to hang in there).
The article is a bit short on how "introverts" can improve their interactions, but it would surely help to not label people inside these limited buckets and push everyone to communicate and interact with others better.
Introversion/extroversion is probably the most robust aspect of personality--virtually every personality spectrum includes an introversion/extroversion dimension. However, a lot of people probably misinterpret what it actually means. The best explanation I've heard is that it's essentially about how you "recharge": introverts recharge by being alone, and being in a large social function is draining; extroverts recharge by being in large social functions, and are drained by being alone.
Of course, the annoying thing about US culture in particular is that introversion is often seen as something undesirable--witness all the articles about how introverts should learn to be extroverts, where you don't really see the inverse about how extroverts should learn to be introverts.
> it's essentially about how you "recharge": introverts recharge by being alone, and being in a large social function is draining; extroverts recharge by being in large social functions, and are drained by being alone.
I've literally never heard it explained any other way. There's no real reason to assume that criticism of the concept comes from ignorance of the concept.
I often hear/see it misused as a synonym for various other traits - being shy, or not being comfortable socialising or speaking publicly, for example.
I’ve also seen it used as a shield: e.g. someone believing they’re shy because they’re immutably introverted, and therefore believing that is how things will always be.
> witness all the articles about how introverts should learn to be extroverts, where you don't really see the inverse about how extroverts should learn to be introverts.
As a means to an end, extroversion has a carrot. Introversion not necessarily. It just doesn’t make sense to tell an extrovert “learn to recharge by yourself” because there isn’t much to gain by going against your norm. Extroversion is only pushed because the resulting social connection have real value. That said, all things in moderation is the key and main point of the article. As a leader, you shouldn’t create an extroverted workplace and expect introverts to perform in that environment for long periods of time. As an introvert, it’s up to you learn to manage your own energy and push back where needed as no one else will.
I acknowledge it and value it for myself but find that I’d often would not recommend it to others as a way to create value in a quantifiable way. Things like networking can be more directly linked to positive outcomes.
was gonna say the same exact thing. The comment you replied to is and example of internalizing the idea that extroversion is good and introversion isn't - the values of introversion have had their value stripped away in popular consensus
Those have no value… to the extrovert… because they get it elsewhere, or feel are unnecessary. I’m not an extrovert so can’t speak directly to what their thought process is. But there’s just not a lot of tangible/practical reasons to tell an extrovert “you need to go sit at home and do some self reflection”. Where as, if for example, you’re having trouble fund raising or career pathing the advice of “you should network more” is pretty damn practical.
> Of course, the annoying thing about US culture in particular is that introversion is often seen as something undesirable--witness all the articles about how introverts should learn to be extroverts, where you don't really see the inverse about how extroverts should learn to be introverts.
I think part of this is misunderstanding what it means. I'm very introverted, I'm not shy. No one tells me I should practice being extroverted and it feels like the people who say that really mean "you should try learning to be more social" which is related but on a different axis and might genuinely be a good idea for someone in a collaborative environment even if they need to recover after.
Problem being, 'collaborative environment' is aggressively pushed almost everywhere, even areas where the benefit of being 'highly collaborative' is questionable at best. At that point, they are asking introverts to put in more to compensate than extroverts, for something which cannot be confirmed to be an improvement.
If anything, most places suffer from being too collaborative at the cost of everything else. 'Silence is golden' seems to have been forgotten.
I think the push for "collaboration" is mostly out of interest for the company. They want people to be easily replaceable (for good and bad reasons), which is easier when several people work on the same thing. They also want people to share resources so that they don't have to spend as much, open floor plans are a great example: they are simply cheaper than offices.
What I saw is people are just lazy, they need help because they don't want to do anything, and no matter how much you collaborate with them, they won't become your replacement, they just forget everything on spot. That's what happens when people are not suitable for the job. And if it's not enough, add job hopping to the mix.
Its so true that US society is strongly tilted towards extroverts. As an introvert I feel like I'm forced to live on the edge of everything, keeping my head down while still engaging in performative socialization just to keep the extroverts from expressing hostility towards me. Their culture is often one of pushiness, aggressiveness, and wealth/status competition games and none of those appeal to me on any level.
Meanwhile its very difficult to find other introverts, no doubt because they are also hiding.
The thing is that I recharge by being alone AND by being with friends, and am drained by being with people I don't like. Either I don't fit the standard, or the definition is too narrow.
Then you are probably just in the middle between both. Like with most of these categories it's a spectrum.
Also not all being with social is equal. You may converse less together just enjoying the presence. Have deep passionate conversations or the dreaded forced encounters.
>introverts recharge by being alone, and being in a large social function is draining; extroverts recharge by being in large social functions, and are drained by being alone.
Very few to no people fall into this dichotomy - whether or not I feel "recharged" by social interaction or solitude is not static. It highly depends on my mood, who I've been spending time with lately and and what I've been up to. It also depends on who, specifically, are at the social function.
I was introverted my entire life. I enjoyed it. I never really needed any contact with others except for a small circle of people and that too quite infrequently. I definitely recharge by being alone. Sitting in front of my favorite book, listening to music, watching a movie... doing all of these activities alone were something I always looked forward to. Walking along the beach coast, driving a motorcycle all alone were some of my most memorable activities.
Then.
I got into a relationship briefly for around 6 months. She was extroverted. After 6 months I slowly became gregarious. I enjoyed being around people and going out. I enjoyed building a community of people around me. My entire personality changed. Those who knew me from years back were surprised by my transformation. Previously, I wouldn't say much but now I can talk quite a bit. Its night and day.
The problem with labeling oneself is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It becomes your identity and you start putting limitations on yourself.
My life was good as an introvert but it was great when I became outgoing.
Aaron Swartz had a similar experience.
" I believe fervently that intelligence can change and that talents can be learned. Indeed, I’d say I’m almost pathologically growth mindset. But even I began to notice there are some things I have a fixed mindset about.
For example, I used to think I was introverted. Everyone had always told me that you were either an extroverted person or an introverted person. From a young age, I was quite shy and bookish, so it seemed obvious: I was an introvert.
But as I’ve grown, I’ve found that’s hardly the end of the story. I’ve started to get good at leading a conversation or cracking people up with a joke. I like telling stories at a party a story or buzzing about a room saying ‘hi’ to people. I get a rush from it! Sure, I’m still not the most party-oriented person I know, but I no longer think we fit into any neat introversion/extroversion buckets."
Carl Jung, the first person to create a personality typology and to popularize(create?) the introvert/extrovert dichotomy, insisted that engaging your "opposite" type is important for personal growth. "Live what you have not yet lived."
That said, he also believed that people do have relatively fixed personality types on a fundamental level - you have both traits(introversion and extraversion) but are inclined to express one more than the other. I don't know if he thought it was impossible to drastically change from one end of the spectrum to the other on a fundamental level, but I know he spoke of cases where peoples superior trait was suppressed(e.g an extrovert might suppress their extroversion if they had bad/traumatic experiences interacting with the outer world) - in those case someone can appear to be an introvert and then reclaim their natural extroversion later in life after dealing with the underlying complex related to their suppression.
That's just based on his model of the psyche though - maybe he's wrong and there is no real difference fundamentally, and intro/extrovert is simply a matter of what you express throughout your life without some deeper aspect of the personality guiding it, but his explanation makes more sense to me
I went through something similar in high school and college, my personal theory is that extroversion is very similar in a lot of ways to physical fitness.
Some people are naturally predisposed to a higher baseline, it's easier for them to maintain muscle mass, etc. However most people can significantly improve their fitness level with dedicated effort.
If you are in good physical shape something like going for a short run might be a massive mood/energy boost, but for someone out of shape they will find themselves exhausted very quickly.
Yeah, I also made the switch. It was something like a ten-year process, and I have a lot more relationships and connections from pushing myself a bit to be more outgoing and social. With the changes in behavior my personality shifted as well, and I now like a balance of intro and extro to recharge.
Honestly, I always found this model terrible also. To me it would imply that e.g. introverts would arrive at a social event active, cheerful, outspoken, comfortable and then as the event progressed they would gradually become quieter, less comfortable, more detached. And extroverts the other way around - would arrive tired (assuming they were alone earlier) and gain steam as the event went on.
I can't think of a single person in my life persistently matching either of those.
If anything, it seems to better model person's reaction to alcohol.
Doesn't that amount to the same thing? It's easier to "recharge" when you're among people you like and trust. And it's even possible to not like yourself.
It is yet another easy dichotomy for low quality pseudo-journalism and LinkedIn/medium posts of attention seeking writers. It was the same with the whole millennial, gen XYZ people putting stickers on things and inventing irreproducible rules based on short-sighted observations of non-representative samples.
Would it help? For better or worse, people tend to like having a label that bundles up characteristics; it puts a face on a complex of factors that might be bothering them, and it facilitates communication. It's easier to say "I'm mostly an introvert, but I'm friendly with people whom I like" than it is to go into detail.
Further, although you can push everyone to communicate and interact with others better, there is a large subset of people for whom that's difficult. By pushing them to interact with others "better" without acknowledging that, you could be doing them a disservice. Labels, even imperfect ones, can make it easier to do that acknowledgement.
I see it as a bit of both. Labels can and absolutely do help people in the ways you describe. You might be down about a certain characteristic of yours until you discover others like yourself. What once made you feel like an outcast is now how you are able to maintain a sense of belonging in a community. Everybody deserves that.
However, in my experience, the issue is when that label feedbacks so heavily and so strongly as to become a defining piece of one's identity. It can easily become less about self-exploration and understanding and more about fitting in. The difference between the two is very subtle and I'm intentionally being very non-prescriptive about it as I believe that line is different for everybody.
You can sort of apply Goodhart's Law to it. As it shifts into being a target for who you should be, it ceases to be a good way to measure who you are.
I think the main reason for the "introverts" draining, is a set of preconceived notions about social interactions, they expect certain answers and not receiving them will be frustrating and confusing.
Therefore, the best thing they can learn is to be "outcome independent" in all their social interactions.
The real reason why for "introverts" social interactions are draining is because they would rather do something else that is very nice and comfortable that they are very used to. i.e Staying alone + eating tacos + Watching Netflix etc.
If you were watching the Super Bowl on a Sunday and you had to go out and meet someone for 15 mins you would find it "draining" too. At the back of your mind you want the conversation to quickly end so you can go back to doing your favorite things.
Only when a person genuinely appreciates the advantages that come with making long term long lasting connections and relationships can they even try and make the switch happen. If your social circle is large enough serendipitous things start to happen.. i.e a crazy job opportunity or getting funding or an amazing partner way out of your league etc.
Sounds about right. There is no real introvert or extrovert. Just people who like hanging out with and people we don't. With people whom we like to hangout with we are extrovert, and other then we are introvert.
This is remarkably reductive. Some people -- including me -- would prefer not to hang out with anyone, including people they ostensibly like. For some, the scope of people with whom they'd be comfortable hanging out is quite low. If we can't call such people introverts, then I don't know why we bother making up words for things at all.
Introversion and extraversion are very robustly defined and proven traits. Maybe you don't understand what they are, or maybe you're one of those people who's not strongly one or the other so it seems to you like "everyone" just has both of those, but there is no real question about whether the traits exist.
How would you react if someone came in and said "there is no real gravity; it's just that the earth loves us very much"? Or "there are no viruses and bacteria; we get sick from bad air and evil spirits"?
That's more or less the level of wrong that deepstack is. The Big 5 Personality Inventory is probably the most robust, reproducible piece of psychological science we've got, and while there might be arguments that it needs more nuance in places, the bare existence of introversion and extraversion as traits is not even slightly in question in the scientific community.
Your feeling that it might not be true—or that I'm "overly confident" in its truth—just doesn't hold up to decades of scientific consensus.
>How would you react if someone came in and said "there is no real gravity; it's just that the earth loves us very much"? Or "there are no viruses and bacteria; we get sick from bad air and evil spirits"?
Gravity can be measured more objectively than social science (such as psychology) concept such as introvert/extrovert, which is determined by committees such as DSM IV or maybe now V. Introversion and extraversion are just one thing that is measured within a certain context.
Being extroverted is not a useful skill. Communicating well when necessary is. Extroverts are not necessairily "good at communication" by nature.
I employ a very very introverted individual. When he comes to my desk, one can be absolutely assured you need to pay attention, because what he's about to say is 1. important, 2. well thought out, 3. he wouldn't be there if it weren't absolutely necessary.
The point being: everyone (ex and in) should learn to communicate better; _that_ is the useful skill.
Being extroverted is absolutely a useful skill for certain things. Extroverts are going to talk to more people, which is going to make them better at networking and self promotion. Those things lead to making more connections, getting business opportunity, getting job opportunities, etc.
I'm not saying that you can't be functional as an introvert, but being extroverted is definitely useful in many situations.
But there are far more important skills, like reflection, that trump that trait and an introvert will easily surpass an extrovert that is weak in learning from all those interactions.
The data disagrees with this assertion, to the point where quoting a single source would be silly (a quick search will find dozens of examples). Extroversion correlates with both income and happiness.
Being extraverted is not a skill at all. It is a trait.
You cannot learn to be more extraverted. You can learn to act that way; you can learn to interact and communicate better...but you cannot learn to change how your brain recharges.
>You cannot learn to be more extraverted. You can learn to act that way; you can learn to interact and communicate better...but you cannot learn to change how your brain recharges
I remember being confused about sexuality: I couldn't be gay because I also liked women, so I must be straight. Then I realized there was a word to describe attraction that's indifferent to gender. Also turns out I'm nonbinary, which handily resolved similar confusion over gendered expectations.
Anyway, you might be an ambivert. Society tries to shove us into neat, easy to reason about binaries, but humans just aren't binary. We exist largely on bimodal distributions and most people aren't all one or another of any particular thing.
Right—I perhaps should have been clearer about this in my own post. It's definitely a spectrum, not a binary, though I'm not at all sure the distribution is normal (ie, a bell curve). I don't have any actual sources on that, though, and I'd be very intrigued to see a scientific study giving a population-level distribution of those traits in particular.
So, I’m naturally introverted, always have been. But I’ve realised some time ago that learning to be better at communication with fellow human beings is a very worthwhile activity. And yes, this is something you can absolutely just learn how to do like any other skill. Just because most people seem to be born with better communication skills doesn’t mean it’s something you couldn’t or shouldn’t actively learn. I see too many fellow introverts shooting themselves in the foot by not doing this.
I imagine rather than being innately better at communication, people who are extroverted have gotten better at communication through experience and repetition. If you spend all your time trying to talk to people you'll probably get good at it. Which is to say if you're introverted, spend more time putting yourself in situations where you'll need to form connections to have fun and you'll probably get better at it.
Think of pleasantries as a conversational fuzzer, it's what people do while they try and find more interesting pathways to take the conversation down.
I put myself in situations where there's nothing better to do than talk to people. Absolutely awkward at first, but I learned to revel in it. Most people want to talk.
A little hack for this is picking more extroverted people to chat to. You might think because you're not as extroverted yourself, that they won't want to talk to you. They probably want to talk to everyone, about anything, and you'll start picking up on things they do to keep the conversation rolling. Stuff they've picked up from years of experience.
Step 1: Understand that the social platitudes have an undercurrent that is complex. Be curious instead of arrogantly bored with such pedantry. Learn how to do the dance.
Step 2: If you want to move the conversation into "real" interaction, the cheat code is to be briefly and confidently vulnerable. This signals that they are in a safe space to have a more open discussion.
Ask a lot of questions, try to discover what the other person is interested in, and imagine if there's anything about that thing/activity/place/person/whatever that you might also find interesting. You don't have to fall magically in love with it, just try to find something -- anything at all -- to like. It helps create a genuine emotional connection.
Even if it's just the weather. Some people love snow because of the adventures it represents. Others hate shoveling. Some love rafting in the summer. Others hate having to come into work sweaty. Whatever, point is that gives you a different dialogue paths to go down, almost like an RPG, as opposed to "Yeah it's fine, thanks".
People don't really connect until they find mutual likes or dislikes. The conversation up till then is mostly just a warmup, a silly song and dance that nobody particularly likes... but it helps you discover if you might have things in common.
It's nice that, online, in a forum or similar, you can skip right to the topic at hand. It's a safe space for the purity of intellectual discourse, where minds can operate and interact without the constraints of physical reality -- the body language, the facial expressions, the anxious biological impulse to evaluate strangers before trusting them. But in the real world, a million years of evolution forces us to interact differently, to build rapport only slowly, until both sides are comfortable enough to become a part of each other's inner circles. Sometimes that happens within minutes, other times it takes longer. And conversation is just one way to make that happen... not necessarily the best way, just the one that's often the most readily available. If you can supplement conversation with other low-stakes activity (beer, games, bike ride, whatever) even better!
Yes, wrong way to think about it. You want the conversation to immediately be about something you find interesting. You have to learn to use small talk to get to the big talk, otherwise you won't get to have those interesting conversations you want. There are no shortcuts there, following basic conversational norms are table stakes.
I kinda think of it like exercise. Most of us aren't professional athletes, and much of the time we're tired and lazy and busy. Still, we generally recognize that exercise is good for you, and try to do a little here and there. Sometimes it feels good, sometimes it feels like a chore. And afterward you are often tired. But you do it because it's one of those things that makes you healthier when done regularly, in moderation.
Similarly, you can do extroverted things once in a while without becoming an extrovert entirely. You just have to prioritize and budget for them, picking and choosing the interactions that really matter to you (or your boss or your significant other or whatever) while opting out of other engagements. Nothing wrong with that.
Extroverts have to make the same sacrifices going the other way too. It's not a superset of introversion. It's tiring for them to be alone all day focusing on something, whether it's a codebase or watching TV or whatever. They also have to budget their introvert time because it's not free for them.
As someone who's on the fence between the two, that line can be a bit artificial IMO. Most of us have people and activities we enjoy more than others, and those are less tiring. There are also inevitably chores we don't like, whether it's a business function or in-laws or a boring refractor or whatever. Instead of trying to draw a clear division between "I'm an introvert/extrovert", it's really helped me to learn to budget my energy the same way I budget my finances (which is to say, more aspirational than effective lol, but still). Some activities are more tiring than others, while some are recharging. The key is to know which is which -- for you personally, not by some vague societal construct. Budget and balance accordingly, maybe making a tiring day more bearable by planning something to look forward to later that week.
As someone who can't quite tell whether I fit into an "extrovert" or "introvert" bucket, I appreciate this reframing: different activities require different levels of energy; budget appropriately.
I've been told outright by some very wealthy people that being introverted will hurt my career, and by what I've seen around me, after a couple decades I can say that it is largely true.
I'm starting to believe that accepting this is a key experience that comes along with being an introvert.
> I'm starting to believe that accepting this is a key experience that comes along with being an introvert.
It seems so to me, too. Being introverted is simply less profitable than being extroverted, in a similar way that being good at creative stuff like art is less profitable than being good at logical stuff like engineering. Which is, again, less profitable than being good at social engineering and salesmanship.
If we view career (i.e. profit) as the primary goal in life, then most of us are probably sub-optimal in some ways.
This was my grad school mentor's main advice to me. I'm a quiet sort of introspective, very deliberative person.
He told me that I would have a very difficult time in my field because of it. He said to expect to feel like I was constantly trying to struggle uphill, just because I am a very introverted person. (educational consulting and leadership).
Ooooo boy was he right. I hate it, but being extroverted would've 1000% helped me early in my career to make connections that would help me later in life.
That being said, I wouldn't trade who I am for the world, and understand that, while I may never make it rich and form a massive consulting firm, I can do good work for the people I do help. And that's okay with me.
It's advice they give to working musicians. You need to be good at music, but you need to be fun more than you need to be good at music. You can be the best guitar player in your area, but if you're a drag then they'll just hire the second best guitar player, since most working musicians don't need to be the best.
This is unfortunately advice along the same lines as "be attractive". It's not something that's fair, and it's not something that's universal, but generally speaking if you're fun and attractive, you'll have an easier time achieving success. That's perhaps a bummer to realise, and again not a universal truth, but for most people it's actionable advice.
It depends. I'm extremely introverted, in the sense that I could be quite happy going days without interacting with another person. I'm also prone to minimizing my achievements, such as they are, as well as to avoid risk to the extent possible. This probably harms my career in some ways. Yet I managed to find a position that pays me better than I would have imagined ten years ago, and my reputation among my peers seems pretty good.
I think it helps to have certain traits that are not particularly "introverted". I don't like talking to people and prefer to be by myself, but I'm perfectly content to get up in front of a crowd and teach a class for two hours. It doesn't energize me, but nor does it drain me in any noticeable way. I had horrible stage fright as a teenager and young adult, but it doesn't bother me anymore. I can't say what flipped the switch ... it wasn't practice or exposure, it just sort of happened as I grew older.
What does hurt me is the lack of in-person networking. If people are coalescing into groups and chit-chatting I have no skills at my disposal for breaking into a conversation. And once I'm in a conversation, I find it extremely difficult to keep it going. I hate talking off the cuff and (maybe contrary to expectation) there's only so much you can do to keep the other person talking about themselves.
I recognized this as a career-limiting factor too, and took some steps to rectify the situation. My solution was to study the largely unwritten rules of social interaction as I would any other topic, then fake it. That can be draining, as the article alludes to, especially when you don't have time to recover. However, I did notice that I had been really rubbing others the wrong way with the regular faux pas and general awkwardness, so fixing that made others not actively dislike being in my presence.
Later on, I shifted my strategy to closing the gap even more by mutating my personality to a degree I wouldn't have previously thought possible (upping openness and agreeableness in the OCEAN model). That really changed things a lot, though probably isn't possible for some people (it was only a partial success in my case). That solved part of the energy-draining aspect of social interaction, since I now had wiring that made social interaction more natural.
Thankfully, the bar is lower in tech. You can have what would be a disastrous personality for a lawyer or CEO, but still find yourself as the most socially capable guy in the room on a tech team.
I can't disagree, but there could be selection bias.
The extroverts are the ones who are going to tell you about their success and failure. The successful introverts may keep that to themselves, so even if there are career paths, they're much harder to find without likeminded people who want to be seen as role models.
I'm naturally (maybe unnaturally) introverted, by nature ("on the spectrum" introverted).
You'd never know it, though, when interacting with me. It's been totally sublimated.
But it is exhausting, keeping up the extrovert. When I would get back from business trips, I'd be totally burned out, and it would take me days, to reestablish a baseline.
I'm happiest, and most energized, when I'm by myself, at my desk, working on software.
> I'm happiest, and most energized, when I'm by myself, at my desk, working on software.
Something I've tried to explain to people but it never gets through. Maybe I am unlucky but the last few companies I have been at have been filled with extroverts. Everyone wants to call meetings for the slightest thing. I've tried to enforce boundaries (I would prefer a slack message unless it's hard to communicate what we need) because it is draining being in so many meetings. The boundaries don't work. My "lack of desire to communicate" has ended up on yearly reviews.
I just want to work in quiet, alone, to try to conserve my energy for important things.
carving out alone time is absolutely the most important part of having a healthy balanced energy level.
we're so connected now, being full on extrovert might mean we're spending 16h+ a day engaged with other people, giving away our attention.
realize what's happening and dial it up or down based on your personal limits.
For example, there's no need to spend 8h with coworkers in meetings and then spend another 4h+ out hanging out after work at a bar every single day. I see it a lot at conferences and the toll is very obvious, even the most extroverted people gets burned out after a week long conference.
They didn't invent "the strong, silent type" persona to dissuade individuals from being themselves.
I happen to be introverted by nature and have enjoyed over 20,000 one-on-one interactions, just with work. Probably 60% to 70% was face-to-face too.
Introverts just don't have the mental demands (not quite a co-dependancy) on socializing as a determination of a quality of life metric.
In the 21st century, I can say that I have accumulated 10,000 hours of quality time in several areas, with and without social interactions. Another commenter stated quality over quantity and I totally agree with that. Quality time is more important for wellbeing and something that both personality types most likely strive for/achieve.
With the flood of low aptitude/low quality information on the Internet, its become obvious that 1 dimensional people exist in droves and devolve to inferior quality vocabulary in a feeble attempt to exist. I chalk this up to the culture divide and know environmental factors and lifestyle factors drive conversation/perspective more than any personal attributes. Its obvious that many cultures define quality time in a way that is completely counter to the culture in which I was raised.
It may come down to learning environments where rote learners can only regurge what is in their environments (usually not the least bit relevant in context) compared to the free-thinking learning environments where multiple perspectives exist in most topics and even promoted.
It goes back to 1 dimensional thinking/perspectives, in which religion/politics easily retreat to that rabbit hole as a low-hanging fruit example. Its just the environment that they were raised in. IMO, extroverts show than tendancy more where introverts just don't give an F about minutiae.
Introversion and extroversion are also not just binary traits in my opinion. Some “introverts” are very extroverted with friends they know well and in intimate settings. They are happy and receive energy from these social interactions whereas big groups may drain them.
That describes most if not nearly all introverts, and it’s something extroverts (and many introverts too!) often misunderstand. The thing is though, most introverts still feel socially drained after even those positive-feeling, energizing social settings, and take (or should take) downtime to recover afterwards.
This tracks with my personal experience. I can certainly be extroverted but it's always a draining experience and requires time for me to recover. Being able to switch like that is probably the hardest thing for an extrovert to understand about introverts. We can, it's just costly for us.
But this article is doing exactly that, telling introverts to act like extroverts (just mentioning some precautions). Like, they are not even recognizing the issue. While what we need instead is normalizing introversion.
The article is a bit short on how "introverts" can improve their interactions, but it would surely help to not label people inside these limited buckets and push everyone to communicate and interact with others better.