Introverts may be able to fit all their friends in a phone booth, but those relationships tend to be deep and rewarding. Introverts are more cautious and deliberate than extroverts, but that means they tend to think things through more thoroughly, which means they can often make smarter decisions.
Like Saydrah, I hate generalizations, especially about people. I agree with the author that people exist on a spectrum, with some people smack in the middle deeply enjoying both solitude and company. The problematic and deeply flawed Myers-Briggs test (explanation of my negative opinion of M-B if asked) says that I'm aware that this article does not mention Myers-Briggs, but that definition seems to describe the author who said he got so exhausted socializing that he passed time in the bathroom until he felt energized enough to venture out again into the reception. I found this passage interesting:
Another line that interested me was this one:
People who prefer extraversion draw energy from action: they tend to act, then reflect, then act further. Conversely, those who prefer introversion expend energy through action: they prefer to reflect, then act, then reflect again.
This definition comes from Myers-Briggs.For all these groups (chess grand masters, athletes and even ordinary college students studying for exams), solitary training allows for a level of intense and personal focus that's hard to sustain in a group setting. "You gain the most on your performance when you work alone," says Ericsson. "And the introverted temperament might make some kids more willing to make that commitment."
So it would be more difficult for a highly social person to focus for an extended period on practicing their skill/art. I agree with that. It is very hard to tune out the world if we get our joy and energy from external stimulations. Couples, also might run into trouble, if one part of the pair prefers a lot of external stimulation while the other prefers one-on-one conversation and their own meditations in response to nature or art.There's our mostly inborn personality, the one that wants us to be introverted or extroverted; that's the biogenic identity. There are the expectations of our culture, family and religion--the sociogenic identity. And then there are our personal desires and our sense of what matters--the ideogenic identity....An introvert like Little could live in a way that satisfies his nerves, never leaving the library, but then his ideogenic self would starve.
yes, if we hide in the library being happily energized by books, we might be starving another part of ourself that wants to/needs to contribute to society in a more hands-on way. These are some of the reasons understanding ourselves might take a lifetime.
I also found the Myers-Briggs definition of introversion/extroversion to be amusingly arbitrary and vague. I was surprised to find that it's the officially accepted definition. It works under the assumption that your personality works like a battery that can just be charged/recharged, which seems uncalled-for and odd.
I don't see why it's necessary to categorize people into introvert/extrovert. (Then again, I don't agree with binaries in gender or in politics, either.) I have traits of both, and I think most people do. If I describe myself to someone who is sold on the "upsides of being an introvert" thing, they'll use the fact that I'm sometimes awkward one-on-one but totally comfortable working a room or speaking to a crowd to tell me I'm an introvert. Anyone else will use the same thing to tell me I'm an extrovert. As far as I can figure, I'm a person who is sometimes awkward one-on-one but likes public speaking and networking.
The author didn't see the need to speak about binary categories either. He said he was speaking about a spectrum that is described by two sets of traits:I don't see why it's necessary to categorize people into introvert/extrovert. (Then again, I don't agree with binaries in gender or in politics, either.)
Introversion and extroversion aren't fixed categories -- there's a personality spectrum, and many, known as ambiverts, fall in the gap between the two traits -- but they are vital to our personality.
"Ambivert" is such a terrible term that I'm discouraged to even repeat it. If most people tend to fall in the middle of a spectrum (according to a normal distribution) why is all the attention on the extreme cases of exclusive introversion and extroversion?
He didn't say most; he said many. He also said introversion is common: One of the researchers he spoke to, Susan Cain, puts the estimate closer to 50%. Of course, this depends on when you think someone is mostly introverted and when you think someone is both significantly introverted and significantly extroverted (and when you think someone is mostly extroverted, but the article doesn't address that). The reason he says he wants to pay attention to introversion is because its complementary trait, extroversion, is:If most people tend to fall in the middle of a spectrum (according to a normal distribution) why is all the attention on the extreme cases of exclusive introversion and extroversion?
By some estimates, 30% of all people fall on the introvert end of the temperament spectrum
the unstated norm, and against that norm introverts stand out as seemingly problematic.
Perhaps we should be using this effort to increase awareness of the moderate position between the two extremes, not elevating introverts at the expense of extroverts. As a spectrum, it's unlikely that most people lie at the far extremes. Continuing the discussion of introverts vs. extroverts just perpetuates this false dichotomy.