Introversion is problematic

[slant]

First up: I realize that posting this on a forum that is dedicated to people who identify with the label introvert isn't going to make it a popular thread. I understand there will be defensiveness, that people are going to disagree with this view. If you would rather not engage with this thread you're free not to. This is not a personal attack on anyone, but I think it's an important discussion to be had, and I think all concepts we believe need to be questioned from time to time. If it is a good belief, questioning it will do no harm.

So let's get into why I'm saying this.

I don't think introversion is real- I do not believe it exists. If given the label introvert or extrovert I would identify as introvert. However, I'm beginning to think that this label "introvert" is directly associated with social skills, social confidence and trauma.

People who identify as introverts love to say that they're good with people and they know how to socialize but it drains them. I've seen it- I have seen people who identify this was as being able to be charming in social situations, but here's the caveat: for limited periods of time. The longer they have to maintain this level of social interaction the more tired they get because they are not actually good at socializing. The amount of energy they have to put into studying other people's reactions and thinking of what to say and what to do and worrying about this and that, it drains them because it's not coming to them naturally and they're not very good at it.

Two scenarios for why this is the case:

The person is neurodivergent like autism and actually has a social disability. So they're not processing things normally which causes issues in their socializing. Over time they can copy other people and learn what they are supposed to say and do but they cannot maintain this and therefore want to isolate .

Or

The person experiences significant trauma in their life and has PTSD to some extent with socializing. Other people trigger them into fight or flight and again they may have learned how to mask it to a certain degree but eventually they can't emotionally regulate themselves and have to remove themselves from the situation.

It can even be a combination of these two, because being neurodivergent can often cause people to have negative social interactions and to become traumatized. Also I believe that not being able to practice social skills because of social isolation sometimes caused by trauma in say childhood will stop them from achieving developmentally appropriate milestones in socialization.

Why, you might ask, is the distinction even important? Because these skills can be developed, and the "draining" aspect of socializing will become less and less as you have appropriate emotional regulation and social awareness. I'm not saying every case will result in this fear completely going away. I think trauma and having neurodivergency is going to make this always difficult. But I believe that embracing the label of introversion allows people who are avoiding situations which make them uncomfortable a "get out of jail free" card. It's one thing to acknowledge that you aren't good with people or have stress when socializing that causes you to avoid it and self isolate. It is a totally different thing when you normalize it and allow yourself to retreat from social situations.

There is probably a safe in between when you can acknowledge that because of your issues you aren't able to perform the same as other people and I think that's what this label tries to achieve, to remove the guilt and shame from having this issue, to try to normalize it.

But it is not normal, and it will actually harm you if you give in to it. Whether you like it or not interacting with others socially is a part of life, and trying to avoid that because it causes you discomfort will result in general lack of progress in all aspects of your life.

I'm sure there are people who have adopted the introvert label who out of necessity have learned to balance their skills out better and have not socially withdrawn entirely in reaction. So perhaps for some the label is not harmful. But I cannot tell you the amount people I've met, myself included, that adopting this concept became a box for them to live in, gave them justification not to challenge that sense of discomfort.

So, what do you think? Maybe I'm just taking very extreme excited examples of how the label hurts people instead of looking at how it could help people understand themselves.

 

[Wyote]

Bold of you to question decades of scientific data

 

[Wyote]

So perhaps for some the label is not harmful. But I cannot tell you the amount people I've met, myself included, that adopting this concept became a box for them to live in, gave them justification not to challenge that sense of discomfort.

I think this is the real problem.
Using any kind of a label as an excuse to be lazy or toxic or whatever else negative is never a good thing.

Maybe the labels introvert and extrovert are not as helpful as some other labels in a self discovery process, who can say really.
They've helped me personally orient my environment at times though for the better of everyone.

 

[Jexocuha]

So, what do you think?

Interesting post @slant and you have an interesting perspective on Introversion versus Extroversion.

Overall, I believe that no matter who you are, you cannot please everyone, regardless of how hard you may try. And, I think at some point a person will or must eventually breakdown and just be themselves and "roll with the punches".

My two cents...

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

Crap like this gets on my nerves and one of the things that I honestly hate about American never mind modern culture.

To sum up the op is introversion equal bad and extroversion equal good thus the expected norm even though the bulk of the population settles somewhere in the middle.

 

[athenian200]

I think that you may be correct in that some people mistake poor social skills or neurodivergence for introversion, or have their introverted tendencies exacerbated by other issues in their lives. My take on introversion is that it isn't so much that you don't want to be around any people at all, but more that you prefer smaller groups rather than mingling with big crowds and quickly moving from one person to another. That is, you want to invest more of yourself in fewer people, rather than have a large number of superficial connections.

If someone wants to avoid being around people at all, that could be social anxiety or something like that. When I say I get drained interacting with people, what I mean is interacting with strangers or big crowds. That's what I find draining. If it's a small group of people I know, I can deal with them for hours and not get tired.

 

[John K]

So, what do you think?

I think the interpretation you expressed is effectively one born of an intrinsically extroverted society. Coming from a somewhat more introverted culture, I don’t find there is the same stigma attached.

There are social problems for many people who have an introverted orientation but to focus only on that is one-sided. The flip side are the extroverted folks who cannot stand their own company and have an almost pathological need to be with others. They can only be alive in company and to be alone for any length of time is almost a torture for them. Most people lie between these two extremes and are reasonably well balanced regardless of whether they are innately introverted or extroverted.

It’s important to understand that the term introversion was defined by Jung to mean something very different from the distorted way it is used colloquially. It refers to the way someone orients themselves to the world by bringing it inside themselves - extroversion is when you project yourselves outwards into the world. It takes rather more mental work to respond to externals when you are introverted than extroverted but less work to process things internally. It isn’t just people that can drain an introverted person but all sorts of external stimulation. On the other hand extroverted people need less energy to deal with externals but run out of energy more quickly when they have to ruminate on it.

Both introverted and extroverted people can suffer from mental health problems and these can lead to serious complications in their social lives that can look among many other things like a manifestation of introversion. In particular extroverted people struggling with problems can be forced into an introverted state even though this isn’t their true orientation. This is a nightmare for them just as enforced unending company could be for an introvert. I think this may be where the prejudice against introvertion may come from in a predominantly extroverted society.

 

[Anemoia]

I think this is true in at least some cases, or appears simultaneously with the other kinds and manifestations of 'introversion' (such as its well-established neurology).

However there's a problem in imagining social interaction to be a largely competence-based activity, where we can do it 'well' or 'poorly'. Socialising is only a 'skill' in a very narrow sense, since it's mostly about connection and thus highly dependent upon the individuals and groups interacting.

It would be absurd, for instance, to equate a mainstream taste in certain sports with social competence, and to conclude from this that not liking those sports means that an individual is neurodivergent or socially disordered.

Put a professor of literature in the crowd of a wrestling match, have them attempt to socialise with the people there and you could easily conclude from this that the professor of literature is socially incompetent. Or, if they are initially successful, keep them surrounded only by the crowd for months and years at a time and watch them withdraw into themselves.

Take a member of this same crowd - someone normally extroverted and gregarious - and place them now in the professor's social milieux. Watch this former 'extrovert' withdraw into themselves, now denied any authentic avenues for human connection.

Neither individual is 'really' all that socially incompetent, they simply are not presented with appropriate environments within which to connect with others like them. However, tell them that it's a competency issue and that they are deficient in some way, and watch their self-esteem plummet.

This is merely one dimension of this issue, but it illustrates the deeply problematic nature of presenting human connection as a simple matter of competence or skill. It is not.

 

[Asa]

I disagree that there is no such thing as introversion. I agree that trauma and neurodivergence can contribute to a person self-identifying as introverted.

Asocial behavior is not the same as introversion, though asocial people often use introversion as an excuse whether they're truly introverted or not.

 

[Anomalous]

I can see the point here, but I'd say the problem is applicable to many labels, not just introversion. I don't think it is helpful to brand people with a social disability because they don't conform to the culture. You could similarly say that identifying as an extrovert is problematic because it excuses them from developing more introspective qualities.

 

[slant]

I disagree that there is no such thing as introversion. I agree that trauma and neurodivergence can contribute to a person self-identifying as introverted.

Asocial behavior is not the same as introversion, though asocial people often use introversion as an excuse whether they're truly introverted or not.

I think this pretty much refines my idea and was more of what I meant then what I actually wrote. I'm particularly disturbed by asocial individuals clinging to the label of introvert to avoid addressing their behavior that is socially harmful to themselves and others. Outside of that, I guess there is little harm in utilizing the label.

I think this is true in at least some cases, or appears simultaneously with the other kinds and manifestations of 'introversion' (such as its well-established neurology).

However there's a problem in imagining social interaction to be a largely competence-based activity, where we can do it 'well' or 'poorly'. Socialising is only a 'skill' in a very narrow sense, since it's mostly about connection and thus highly dependent upon the individuals and groups interacting.

It would be absurd, for instance, to equate a mainstream taste in certain sports with social competence, and to conclude from this that not liking those sports means that an individual is neurodivergent or socially disordered.

Put a professor of literature in the crowd of a wrestling match, have them attempt to socialise with the people there and you could easily conclude from this that the professor of literature is socially incompetent. Or, if they are initially successful, keep them surrounded only by the crowd for months and years at a time and watch them withdraw into themselves.

Take a member of this same crowd - someone normally extroverted and gregarious - and place them now in the professor's social milieux. Watch this former 'extrovert' withdraw into themselves, now denied any authentic avenues for human connection.

Neither individual is 'really' all that socially incompetent, they simply are not presented with appropriate environments within which to connect with others like them. However, tell them that it's a competency issue and that they are deficient in some way, and watch their self-esteem plummet.

This is merely one dimension of this issue, but it illustrates the deeply problematic nature of presenting human connection as a simple matter of competence or skill. It is not.

I find this interesting because I don't think socializing is at all about having common interests. If you can only connect with people who have the same specific interests as you I would view that as a signal of poor social skills. I was raised by so called "introverts" who pressed this idea that small talk was silly and they didn't like it and they only wanted to talk about what they were interested in, the deep topics. And that seems to be what your example is rubbing on. I actually think you could have decent small talk with a sports crowd even if you hated sports. Ask them about their kids, what school they went to, what their favorite movie was, etc. Just because somebody enjoys sports and you don't doesn't mean that's a disconnect. You could do the same in the literature circle. I find that seeking out people who want to talk about specific niche topics that you are interested in is a sign that you're not able to connect with people outside of a very narrow parameter. I used to not understand the function of small talk, but now it is obvious: you can use it to create a genuine human connection with anyone. If you're not achieving that, it's not because that person doesn't share your interests, it's because you don't know how to uncover the human commonalities that exist between you and decide you would rather associate with people who "require less work" or stretching for you to connect with. Then justify it to act like you couldn't connect with these other people. It's not true. You could. You just aren't willing to stretch to the point where you could.

I think the interpretation you expressed is effectively one born of an intrinsically extroverted society. Coming from a somewhat more introverted culture, I don’t find there is the same stigma attached.

There are social problems for many people who have an introverted orientation but to focus only on that is one-sided. The flip side are the extroverted folks who cannot stand their own company and have an almost pathological need to be with others. They can only be alive in company and to be alone for any length of time is almost a torture for them. Most people lie between these two extremes and are reasonably well balanced regardless of whether they are innately introverted or extroverted.

It’s important to understand that the term introversion was defined by Jung to mean something very different from the distorted way it is used colloquially. It refers to the way someone orients themselves to the world by bringing it inside themselves - extroversion is when you project yourselves outwards into the world. It takes rather more mental work to respond to externals when you are introverted than extroverted but less work to process things internally. It isn’t just people that can drain an introverted person but all sorts of external stimulation. On the other hand extroverted people need less energy to deal with externals but run out of energy more quickly when they have to ruminate on it.

Both introverted and extroverted people can suffer from mental health problems and these can lead to serious complications in their social lives that can look among many other things like a manifestation of introversion. In particular extroverted people struggling with problems can be forced into an introverted state even though this isn’t their true orientation. This is a nightmare for them just as enforced unending company could be for an introvert. I think this may be where the prejudice against introvertion may come from in a predominantly extroverted society.

See this is where I'm like, I'm not sure that it is something inherent. I think withdrawal from the world and becoming more inward is often the result of trauma and adverse childhood events and genetic factors that contribute to difficulty in socializing. Maybe what I'm trying to say is that Jung is trying to normalize these differences as just being variabilities, and they are, but I think it's maladaptive and that being inwardly focused is inherently problematic for a social species. I'm sure you could draw a direct correlation between disorders like anxiety, depression, bipolar, etc and find the link that all of these are "inward" expressing. These are all things that hinder the function of people in society. I guess what I struggle with is how to see positive examples of introversion that you can say without a doubt do not cause significant social, work, or other issues for these individuals.

Crap like this gets on my nerves and one of the things that I honestly hate about American never mind modern culture.

To sum up the op is introversion equal bad and extroversion equal good thus the expected norm even though the bulk of the population settles somewhere in the middle.

Do you think you would be upset by this dynamic if you were naturally extroverted? It seems to me that people don't like these ideas because what is being depicted as good or how I would phrase "healthy" is not something that they want to do, that it's too difficult or uncomfortable for them. So if they were to accept that socializing regularly and putting yourself daily in social situations is healthy, they would either have to say, well I don't care about being healthy, or they would have to put themselves in those situations that make them uncomfortable for the sake of their health. The idea that everything that's good for us feels good is silly. People often don't like to exercise because it is painful at times, it's hard, but it is definitely healthy. I think it's easy to adapt ideologies that justify our comfort.

 

[John K]

See this is where I'm like, I'm not sure that it is something inherent. I think withdrawal from the world and becoming more inward is often the result of trauma and adverse childhood events and genetic factors that contribute to difficulty in socializing. Maybe what I'm trying to say is that Jung is trying to normalize these differences as just being variabilities, and they are, but I think it's maladaptive and that being inwardly focused is inherently problematic for a social species. I'm sure you could draw a direct correlation between disorders like anxiety, depression, bipolar, etc and find the link that all of these are "inward" expressing. These are all things that hinder the function of people in society. I guess what I struggle with is how to see positive examples of introversion that you can say without a doubt do not cause significant social, work, or other issues for these individuals.

Hey slant, I'm really sorry if all your experience with introverted folks is such a negative one <3. My own parents and both my brothers are / were introverts and we had a very happy home life. My parents had a good social life and many friends, but valued their home / alone time even more highly and gave us as children the space to be the same. They both had deep inner lives, and my spiritual roots, love of art and music, and love of the mystery of the world and of learning rests on the foundations they gave me. We grew up learning to value ourselves and our own company, form ourselves and who we are, and learn to accept ourselves beyond the judgemental matrix of our social networks, and this was a most precious gift . My father was a successful advertising man and this is a very in your face kind of environment and his introversion didn't hold him back there, though he used to come home emotionally drained during the twice yearly campaign seasons for their main client.

I was very lucky though that both my parents had a similar orientation to myself - my mother was almost certainly INFJ and my father probably INFP. It seems to me that many people have lifetime problems if they came from families of radically different type to themselves. It isn't just an introversion / extroversion thing - for example an INFP born into a predominantly ISTJ family is also going to have problems unless their parents are pretty enlightened.

Again, I'll repeat that healthy introversion in psychological terminology isn't a withdrawal from the world - far from it. It's certainly an alternative way of relating to the world, but those who do cut themselves off are not simply expressing introversion. But we may simply be disagreeing about semantics here, because the conditions you describe are real and unhealthy. It is a distortion of the concept of introversion though to conflate it with these disorders and this can be of great harm to those who are healthy introverted people. Exaggerating to make the point, it's a bit like saying that it's a disorder to be redheaded and class it with a scalp disorder like alopecia - redheads have certainly been unfairly discriminated against in the past.

 

[Asa]

I think this pretty much refines my idea and was more of what I meant then what I actually wrote. I'm particularly disturbed by asocial individuals clinging to the label of introvert to avoid addressing their behavior that is socially harmful to themselves and others. Outside of that, I guess there is little harm in utilizing the label.

I agree with your points. Using traits or experiences as scapegoats for inappropriate behavior or avoiding self-improvement is unacceptable.


Also, I originally mistyped "scapegoats" as "spacegoats" and that made me laugh.

 

[aeon]

I think of extroversion and introversion as engagement charge potentials.

Neurodevelopmental disorders affect engagement, but are overlays, and not part of the potential.

The same can be said of all manner of trauma responses.

Skills related to engagement are learned as part of socialization, but are not part of the charge potential itself.

That said, that charge potential will affect the learning of a given socialization, as well as the later use of those skills.

I definitely think extroversion and introversion exist as demonstrated normative states in human beings, and I suspect those states reflect vasovagal activation threshold, baseline cortisol levels, and suchlike related to stimulus response of the CNS and PNS.

That said, the everyday use of the term introversion is, at best, muddied. For reasons of conflation, social shame, self-protection, and distance from the source material.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Ok08Y567gA]

See this is where I'm like, I'm not sure that it is something inherent. I think withdrawal from the world and becoming more inward is often the result of trauma and adverse childhood events and genetic factors that contribute to difficulty in socializing. Maybe what I'm trying to say is that Jung is trying to normalize these differences as just being variabilities, and they are, but I think it's maladaptive and that being inwardly focused is inherently problematic for a social species. I'm sure you could draw a direct correlation between disorders like anxiety, depression, bipolar, etc and find the link that all of these are "inward" expressing. These are all things that hinder the function of people in society. I guess what I struggle with is how to see positive examples of introversion that you can say without a doubt do not cause significant social, work, or other issues for these individuals.

Interesting post @slant and great responses by everyone

For myself, rather than arguing the inherency of introversion or extroversion. I'm going to argue against the notion that it's maladaptive or that being inwardly focused for certain members of the human animal is inherently problematic because we are a social species.

Alright, I'm going to make an analogy, if you look at a basketball team it has 12 players, and those players all have different positions which means they do different things or have different jobs. They all can generally do the same skills such as dribbling, shooting, rebounding, passing, defending, and blocking but some specialize and excel at anyone and subset of these total skills and so each player occupies a different position. Now, if we analyze why some players are better at dribbling or shooting, we find correlation with things like size of their hands, height, hours of practice, and absolute quickness and speed, so a shooting guard though they're a basketball player; they're not the same thing as a power forward, so even if you have people who are more suited for power forward or shooting guard practice for the same amount hours and play the same number of games they will have different skills they excel at, strengths, and weakness. Now, are the weaknesses of the power forward or shooting guards problematic? In a game of one on one possibly, but as a team they complement one another and if you had a basketball team of 12 power forwards or 12 shooting guards, they would be crushed by teams that had all 12-role players, because basketball as a game is most effectively played when you have all the players complimenting one another's strengths and weaknesses. Thus, if for a basket-ball team you have everyone playing the same position or performing the same functions, you will have a highly inefficient basketball team.

Now, let us turn our attention to human groups. The reason human beings have different personalities is likely because we're specialized to perform different social functions. Now what's a social function, I got no fucking clue from a general sense, because we're far removed from prehistoric environmental demands and conditions and not all prehistoric human groups were organized the same, but, in psychological literature, we do notice certain temperamental trends with success in differing occupations at least in western societies. For instance, on creative achievement questionaries, all creative high achievers are overwhelmingly high in the big five-dimension Openness to experience and in low and moderately complex jobs conscientious people excel. Now, decades of personality research in scientific and artistic fields show that the overwhelming majority of "highly-creative" individuals are introverted that is low in trait extroversion from a big five standpoint. What I take from this is not that introverts are meant to be creative scientist or artists, but that if you have a highly creative individual in some human activity there is a high probability that they're introverted. What's the value of creativity in human social affairs? Well, from a broader anthropological standpoint we have to get traditions, festivals, celebrations, religions, and art from somewhere and I'm willing to bet the vast majority of human innovation in these areas come from introverts. This is a more inductive line of reasoning, but when one looks at the role of the shaman in hunting prehistoric societies some things are apparent, shamans were overwhelming women, deformed, not-neurotypical, and introverted, so if we can coalesce these observations into a likely hypothesis, introverts are those people who occupy our creative and shamanic functions within human societies and though these things no longer seem as important in the face of industrialism and social media, the people who invented apple, google, twitter, and Facebook were most likely introverts. If an introvert is just a mutant human suffering from some social PTSD that doesn't mean they're not adding value to society, the economy, or the lives of other people just because they don't talk or socialize well, come on, think Sheldon Cooper, Abraham Lincoln, Gandi, Jesus, Newton, JK Rowling, or Gandalf.

In a less specific sense, to return back to my analogy, it's my intuition that human groups work more like basketball teams, you don't want all humans to be extroverted or we as species would likely go extinct or on the other hand as a group be outcompeted by human groups that have introverts.

 

[Ok08Y567gA]

 

[Ok08Y567gA]

Interview with Christine Fonseca about Introverted Gifted Students - Davidson Institute (davidsongifted.org)

 

[slant]

Interesting post @slant and great responses by everyone

For myself, rather than arguing the inherency of introversion or extroversion. I'm going to argue against the notion that it's maladaptive or that being inwardly focused for certain members of the human animal is inherently problematic because we are a social species.

Alright, I'm going to make an analogy, if you look at a basketball team it has 12 players, and those players all have different positions which means they do different things or have different jobs. They all can generally do the same skills such as dribbling, shooting, rebounding, passing, defending, and blocking but some specialize and excel at anyone and subset of these total skills and so each player occupies a different position. Now, if we analyze why some players are better at dribbling or shooting, we find correlation with things like size of their hands, height, hours of practice, and absolute quickness and speed, so a shooting guard though they're a basketball player; they're not the same thing as a power forward, so even if you have people who are more suited for power forward or shooting guard practice for the same amount hours and play the same number of games they will have different skills they excel at, strengths, and weakness. Now, are the weaknesses of the power forward or shooting guards problematic? In a game of one on one possibly, but as a team they complement one another and if you had a basketball team of 12 power forwards or 12 shooting guards, they would be crushed by teams that had all 12-role players, because basketball as a game is most effectively played when you have all the players complimenting one another's strengths and weaknesses. Thus, if for a basket-ball team you have everyone playing the same position or performing the same functions, you will have a highly inefficient basketball team.

Now, let us turn our attention to human groups. The reason human beings have different personalities is likely because we're specialized to perform different social functions. Now what's a social function, I got no fucking clue from a general sense, because we're far removed from prehistoric environmental demands and conditions and not all prehistoric human groups were organized the same, but, in psychological literature, we do notice certain temperamental trends with success in differing occupations at least in western societies. For instance, on creative achievement questionaries, all creative high achievers are overwhelmingly high in the big five-dimension Openness to experience and in low and moderately complex jobs conscientious people excel. Now, decades of personality research in scientific and artistic fields show that the overwhelming majority of "highly-creative" individuals are introverted that is low in trait extroversion from a big five standpoint. What I take from this is not that introverts are meant to be creative scientist or artists, but that if you have a highly creative individual in some human activity there is a high probability that they're introverted. What's the value of creativity in human social affairs? Well, from a broader anthropological standpoint we have to get traditions, festivals, celebrations, religions, and art from somewhere and I'm willing to bet the vast majority of human innovation in these areas come from introverts. This is a more inductive line of reasoning, but when one looks at the role of the shaman in hunting prehistoric societies some things are apparent, shamans were overwhelming women, deformed, not-neurotypical, and introverted, so if we can coalesce these observations into a likely hypothesis, introverts are those people who occupy our creative and shamanic functions within human societies and though these things no longer seem as important in the face of industrialism and social media, the people who invented apple, google, twitter, and Facebook were most likely introverts. If an introvert is just a mutant human suffering from some social PTSD that doesn't mean they're not adding value to society, the economy, or the lives of other people just because they don't talk or socialize well, come on, think Sheldon Cooper, Abraham Lincoln, Gandi, Jesus, Newton, JK Rowling, or Gandalf.

In a less specific sense, to return back to my analogy, it's my intuition that human groups work more like basketball teams, you don't want all humans to be extroverted or we as species would likely go extinct or on the other hand as a group be outcompeted by human groups that have introverts.

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.

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.

I'm really struggling with this idea of us just accepting people who choose not to develop these skills and then try to push a narrative that society is somehow forcing them to be a way that they aren't and that they should be allowed to violate societal standards simply because it makes them more comfortable. It does end up having negative impacts on the family members and others forced to interact with these people who think they should be allowed to do whatever they want and that we all need to accept their authentic self regardless of the consequences their failure to participate in their community has on everyone else.

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.

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.

Then again, I think I'm equation dysfunctional introversion with regular introversion and that's what I'm talking about: the dysfunctional kind. And it does it exist. And it should not be encouraged.

 

[Wyote]

they should [not] be allowed to violate societal standards simply because it makes them more comfortable

I got news for you...

 

[Wyote]

Typology labels are in reality just reference points for a relation to yourself and your perceived environment along with your own understanding of your capabilities.
In short, it's a made up composite perception within your own mind that in some ways you can get around and in some ways you can't.
Telling a fish to climb a tree is never going to make it possible for them to do it, even if you climb the tree yourself.
Carrying them up the tree might even kill them.
Or if you are a fish and every tree climber is telling you you gotta do it, then you're going to kill yourself on the way up.
That's what it feels like to be an introvert in an extroverted world when you don't honor your own set of skills, like easily drowning those fucking tree climbers.

It is like having a basketball team though, as @Yoh Asakura said.
We're all our own player with certain skills and shortcomings.
When you don't know how to use your own skills properly, you become a hindrance for the team.
And when you try to play like another player, things don't gel well.
We can't all be Michael Jordan, but he became Michael Jordan because of the team and staff and a lot of other things.