On a more serious note, I feel this is the right attitude towards the kinds of things. I've never had a problem with my feed and if something is uninteresting I just block it, period. The feed always ends up being a mirror of the users curiosities and interests so if you have a problem with it it's up to you to change it. Technology is a gateway to knowledge and self actualization, but you can't force those things into people, it's their journey.
I don't believe neither in the existence of introversion or extraversion.
Articles like this reinforce a certain paradigm of behaviour as something inescapable or unchangeable, thus limiting one's ability to explore their environment in more productive ways. I believe it limits one's freedom and one's capacity to change.
Sure, you can take a bunch of people and according to any measure that you create, generate enough statistics that conform to the particular linguistic structure that is behind your hypothesis.
But that doesn't mean that the structure is really there.
If you change either your environment or your perception of it your behaviour will change accordingly. If you reinforce your baseline perceptions and avoid looking at them in a more distant way you will not change your behaviour.
I was very introverted as a child, due to some shattering events in my childhood and always assumed it was a part of me, it was my nature. As time has passed I've changed, not to say that I've become textbook extroverted, but I see my environment differently and I can embrace things in a more productive way. I can move between those definitions of interpersonal behaviour and be aware of what triggers certain patterns that I'm already aware of, and move into mental spaces that I don't feel can be described by this binary classification.
Language, as in your internal narrative, can become either your freedom or your prison. You can choose where you lay down your walls, or if you will lay them down at all.
I see where you're coming from -- its not a good thing to give excuses to people that hinder their growth. But...
Theres this notion of a "highly sensitive person". I hate describing a person as sensitive because it kind of implies a person that watches romantic comedies all day, but, if you take "sensitive" as a person with hightened awareness of subtle cues, theres a plausible basis to think that there are people that just are way more sensitive. Imagine if every sound you heard was twice as loud as what everyone else heard. On the one hand, you would have super hearing, but on the other hand, you would probably hate loud concerts.I'm not saying introverts ear better, but maybe they pick up on things you dont, and maybe every element costs a little bit more energy.
So like, yeah, some people use introversion as an excuse not to grow, but some other people pick up on 5x more detail than their more normal compatriots and find themselves thusly exhausted a lot quicker.
I'm kind of in your boat where I see facebook acquaintances sharing articles about introversion or aspergers and im like "maybe you just need some social skills" but I dont think the condition doesnt exist.
I would identify myself as an introvert, and I feel differently. I don't hear everything at twice the volume; I hear everything at half the volume, while loud background music plays. Every interaction, I'm having to watch for those cues more carefully, I'm having to strain to listen.
That's why I feel like an introvert; socializing with people is fun, but will eventually drain me.
But you really have to be careful not to mix introversion, shyness and social anxiety.
They might somehow look the same, but they certainly aren't and you can't just overcome your introversion like you can overcome your shyness or social anxiety.
I would say a shy person doesn't fear social situations, but might be at the beginning a bit reserved, needs a bit more time to warm up with foreign people and might be a bit overwhelmed when meeting to much foreign people at once.
Well it's just a definition of a word. You could define "shy" to mean anything you like, as long as it works for you.
As far as I can see, the grandparent's definition of shyness matches my experience with shy people very much (and also the depiction of shy people in media that I consume).
The problem is that the word was invented way before we started really talking about social anxiety. It might be the same thing after all, don't you think?
I think it's the difference between having fear of social situations and therefore to avoid them, or to prefer not to be that much in social situations, because they overwhelm you.
There's no sharp definition of both that clearly differentiates them, at the end it's about personal traits that can't be clearly defined like a math equation, but IMHO the key thing for me is, if fear is the determining force and not your free will.
There is actually some science behind the introvert vs. extrovert definitions. Of course, like most brain-related things, we don't know everything, but here is a decent layman's article on the subject: http://www.medicaldaily.com/brain-introvert-compared-extrove...
You're right insofar as they are unhelpful and artificial structures when people hide behind them or use them as an excuse for doing (or not doing) something. Particularly when they know they shouldn't be. Having the "I couldn't because I'm a ..." thing is self-deceptive.
But there is a very real difference between the two groups in terms of how they 'recharge' or 'relax'. I'm an introvert, which is to say that I prefer to spend time on my own to mentally relax. I am perfectly capable of socialising - and need to as much as anyone else - I just need to balance it with alone time.
Socialising to me is exhausting. I need it, I enjoy it, but it is work and it tires me out. Others recharge from the socialising, and in that context it's useful and important information.
