Although I can see how these traits might add value to society, that doesn't actually mean they're not maladaptive or to be accepted as normal human variety traits. I think I have a personal agenda against introversion, so I'll admit as much. I'm just not buying these arguments. Just because something can be useful doesn't mean it's ideal or that it should be encouraged. You can have Robinhood criminals who steal from the rich and give to the poor, that's still a crime. Just because introverted individuals have found a way to make their maladaptive traits valuable to society doesn't change the initial behaviors. I think it's much easier to be an introvert, in terms of giving your permission not to try hard in socializing, allowing yourself slack to not have to adjust to societal expectations of being involved in social activities and community building.
Well, then let us acknowledge first that we have different conceptions of adaptive as I lean towards naturalism and pragmatism and not an idealism; thus, I do consider the fact that the temperamental division between introversion and extroversion existing in multiple species of animals they being mammals, birds, fish, lizards, fruit flies, and some species of flat and tape worms with introversion and extroversion being defined by nervous systematic orientation to be a reason to discredit the notion that introversion is maladaptive. Basically, introverts are organisms whose neurological orientation weighs more on the parasympathetic nervous system's functions where extroverts are organisms whose neurological orientation weighs more on the sympathetic nervous system's functions. More simply put, more animals besides human beings show introverted and extroverted attitudes, with introverts prone to observation, intense sustained attention, and rest states and extroverts prone to exploration, excitation, and stimulation seeking. So, for me, as much as you may have a personal agenda against introversion, there is a lot of evidence to support that introversion is a natural neurological disposition for animals with sufficiently developed bi-parted nervous systems which human beings just happen to be one.
I'm just not buying these arguments. Just because something can be useful doesn't mean it's ideal or that it should be encouraged. You can have Robinhood criminals who steal from the rich and give to the poor, that's still a crime. Just because introverted individuals have found a way to make their maladaptive traits valuable to society doesn't change the initial behaviors.
Well allow me to sell them differently, myself being an extroverted thinker, sees this matter of functionality differently. I'm of the opinion that since human beings are social creatures we select and develop our ideals through historical and social processes, contest being among them, so I don't think an ideal is something that exist independent a set of social and historical conditions. Sure, given in western cultures we've predominantly ascribed to Christian morality and beliefs, western people generally believe in absolute morals and the commandment thou shalt not steal, so, Robinhood criminals are not seen as ideal no matter what good they might achieve, but that doesn't mean that an ideal of how people should act exists in some world of forms that we can just observe with pure reason and arrive at this is a right or wrong way for people to be. I think we're actively inventing and discovering this through relating to and interacting with one another. Okay, human beings aren't introverted and extroverted because they choose to be, but because of millennia of evolutionary processes on nervous systems, if you ascribe to such a way of seeing things, then since humans are social, then introversion and extroversion will influence how the two humans socialize, but introversion and extroversion are not strictly about how people socialize or their willingness to socialize which is why in
Psychological Types Carl Jung discusses the two as the direction of libido or psychic energy flow in the psyche and doesn't ascribe specific behaviors to either introversion or extroversion.
I think it's much easier to be an introvert, in terms of giving your permission not to try hard in socializing, allowing yourself slack to not have to adjust to societal expectations of being involved in social activities and community building.
I agree, yet I would not blame why this occurring in some introverts, on introversion specifically though it may not help, but cultural conditions and changes in western beliefs across the last century. Whether you're talking about extroversion or introversion, feelings of isolation, depression, and loneliness, as well as a lack of civic and social engagement is becoming more typical in most Wetsern and Eruopean societies. The decline of trust in institutions, the decline of religious belief, the decline of marriage, the decline of extended families, wage stagnation, inflation, the rise of global capitalism, the era of deconstructive thinking, and social media is where I would place the bulk of blame for introverts and extroverts being less motivated to participate in social and community activities, because recent developments in society have levelled or destroyed the incentives that once inspired people to engage with one another in good faith socially and civically, introverted or extroverted, subsequently leading to less socializing for western people period.
I will give the caveat that, if somebody is saying they are an introvert but they are forcing themselves to participate in these activities and not allowing the identity to justify social withdrawal, it doesn't really matter and that's fine. I think the point of the label is mostly to give people a framework to excuse their social behavior and "be themselves" and I don't think that it is actually an identity, it's somebody who hasn't developed skills necessary for life and still needs to do so.
Well, a personality dimension or personality type isn't an identity---that I can agree with, and human beings can be lazy and more antisocial than not. Yet, I don't think you can say people share the same set of social behaviors across all social contexts, thus a large part of being social is knowing which behaviors are appropriate across different social contexts and this is something that's more missing in contemporary times, because different spaces exist for different reasons and certain spaces are more ideologically driven than others and predominate the way people relate to one another across all spaces. I also do think that young people generally are less socially sophisticated in contemporary western cultures, but I again I wouldn't blame that on introversion but more on social media and economic realities.
Now, on "being oneself", authenticity is something that people should value, yet it's not the case that authenticity should predominate all of one's considerations when it comes to dealing with and relating to other people, so I understand your frustrations, but again I would not level this at introversion. Instead, there is a greater diversity of values among western people these days and this is what is behind the friction, acting, or absence of social engagement and acting in introverts or extroverts. Like being oneself as a Jungian, Christian, Critical Theorist, Muslim, or Existentialist are going to produce different social consequences and I think the unwillingness for people to observe some shared social realties is due to this pluralistic reality of beliefs and norms and less to do with temperamental ones. I think overtime we'll find some common tender of relating, but the dust has not yet settled in our current cultural epoch.
If the person is performing their roles, I'm not talking about them. The only function for a label like introvert is because you want to engage in behavior that's not going to be acceptable in your community overall and you want others to accept that behavior so you're trying to normalize it with a label so that you don't have to take accountability. Otherwise, you don't need that label, you wouldn't be trying to redefine the societal expectations, because nobody would know you felt differently inside vs your behavior.
No, the tender can always work the other way, people can confront one another about their ill-advised social actions. Yet, I do think it's beneficial for people to push the envelope and try out alternative ways of living that differ to the ways and beliefs in the dominate social sphere, because these open and liminal spaces are where creative solutions and innovations that the dominate culture will eventually adobt come from. A culture needs exploratory, adventurous, rebellious, and pioneering individuals or it stagnates and dies. I think the Norse myth of Loki and Asgard is fitting, the minute you lock the trickster away, then comes Ragnarök, because you have to keep some things and aspects of societal functions open ended or they will stultify, decay, and die. Check this video out:
Society is built to be social for a reason. I think everyone can understand why, were introversion to become the norm, a whole aspect of life would collapse under people's refusal to perform duties that made them uncomfortable. So, I suppose I'm upholding the framework of societies expectations and saying I think they make sense, they might make me uncomfortable, but I understand why it needs to function that way. I suppose if I believed we could have a utopia of introversion I might flip on that, but my experience with a family full of introverts who didn't try to perform to the expectations of society leads me to believe allowing this would be terrible and result in a total lack of skill building for most people.
Societies are built to be social, because humans are social. Introversion is already a norm, 1/3 to 1/2 of all people in any society is introverted. Introverts are social, because they are human. I think you're taking issues with changes in culture for instance look at this video:
I understand why society functions the way it does, but I think people are questioning if it needs to function the way it does. Which is a normal function of classical liberalism in western societies that has taken place across many times in history like the American and French Revolution. I don't believe in utopia and think generally humans and other animals evolved to be both introverted and extroverted because we need one another to be the most successful we can be as species social or otherwise. I don't think realistically the world will become more introverted when 2/3 to 1/2 of all people are extroverts. Yet, I think you make good points as to why we should push for more social and communal engagement in western societies.
Good response by the way.
