As an introvert, I dispute this hypothesis. I don't live in a state of fear. That's not the way it works. I simply don't feel the urge to talk as much.

The way I would put it, which may explain the phenomenon discussed in the linked article, is that introverts talk for a purpose, whereas for extraverts, talking is the purpose.

I was thinking, maybe extraverts speak to more people or a broader audience, so they frequently/necessarily speak more in generalities.

+1. When I talk it is to add value or present a different view, or making a prediction of how something will likely turn out and why.

It's not about fear at all. In fact, because of what I say, it is often the opposite of fear.

As a fellow introvert, this is succinctly put.

Another hypothesis: being extravert means getting energised by interactions with others; being introvert means that costs energy. (Most people will have experienced both, at different times.)

This is why I don't think that being introvert is caused by fear, nor that courage cause extraverted behaviour. For most people, whether a social situation is providing or draining energy very often depends on more than just you.

Yes, there are exceptions. But don't underestimate yourself -- in either direction. The vast majority of people need both to thrive.

> Another hypothesis: being extravert means getting energised by interactions with others; being introvert means that costs energy. (Most people will have experienced both, at different times.)

This isn't really a hypothesis so much as a restatement of the definition of each term. The person to which you are replying is giving a hypothetical explanation of _why_ the two conditions are the way they are.

Fear seems an incorrect analysis. The idea that introverts wish they could talk to people more if not for the anxiety seems to project the desires of an extravert onto them without good reason.

Social anxiety is a thing, introversion is a thing, and sometimes they overlap. But not universally.

I have both extroversion and social anxiety and I am reasonably sure you're correct. Fear has motivated me at times to act like an introvert, but that's not the same as being one. Whenever I have an excuse to go be around people I will do so, and it takes some effort to back out of social opportunities that I think will hurt my overall goals.

I think you are mixing up being an introvert with being socially anxious. While the two can go hand in hand, there are plenty of socially anxious extroverts and socially confident introverts.

I don't think the socially anxious gain energy by behaving like extroverts.

But I agree with socially confident introverts.

I guess you can have more reasons to behave a given way, and it's really hard to isolate traits or narrow them down towards a definition.

> I don't think the socially anxious gain energy by behaving like extroverts.

My point is that they are seprate traits (albeit with sone correlations).

Socially anxious people don't gain energy by "behaving" like extroverts. Being an extrovert is not a behaviour.

I think this is insightful, based on my own experience. I think the two traits are orthogonal. I'm naturally(?) extraverted, but have always been shy and am still anxious in most social situations.

People would probably recognize me as extraverted, but it requires something like mental/emotional gatecrashing (or some disinhibiting agent).

I mean, that'd probably just be the worst case: you're afraid of social situations, but you also don't like to be alone.

As someone who leans introvert who has worked to be more extroverted over many years I think there are some merits of your hypothesis. I'm not really afraid of social consequences, but when I speak I really want to be correct and precise. What I have found in many conversations is that correct and precise is not the purpose. People want to chat and feel like they came to some group understanding as a group. So instead of stating positions and quickly getting to the end result, it's a long dance. It's fine, but as you mention, it's very tiring to me. Something I have not figured out how to solve over the years.

> - they are less interesting to small talk with because they leave little room to engage

I would rephrase this as "introverts are generally uninterested in pointless small talk".

>I would rephrase this as "introverts are generally uninterested in pointless small talk".

This, I want to talk about something, not rehash the same comments about the weather. I don't even mind when people talk about their vacations or their kids, but I want to know interesting specific details, not nonsense generalities just for the sake of talking. I love talking to people about their careers, but I want to learn the weird minutiae that isn't common knowledge.

Yes, all those discussions about introverts sound more easily described as a bully society.

- Bullied people are afraid of talking and must prove their hypotheses all the time,

- Bullying people aren’t afraid of extrapolations, because even when they are wrong, they can use various forces to remain on top.

are you trying to claim that all extroverts are bullies and all introverts are being bullied?

i think not!

first of all, bullying is usually a chain. people who are bullies are themselves being bullied elsewhere (by their parents for example, or their bosses)

that alone makes this distinction difficult.

second (and i admit that i don't research this, it's just a guess), i believe most bullies are introverts because they don't know how to properly interact with others, and bullying is their way to get attention. extroverts can get attention more easily, so i suspect that extroverts are less likely to be bullies. but again, that's just a guess. i could be completely wrong here.

Introversion and extroversion is not a static spectrum, it slides depending on circumstances.

If I'm in a work environment, or somewhere action-oriented, or discussing something practical or intelligent, I am the biggest extrovert on the planet -- especially if the culture includes straightforward and honest communication.

But if I'm in a culture of passive-aggression/double-talk/"nice" or I'm discussing philosophical or otherwise non-practical matters (e.g. "oh. My. Gawsh. Look at how cuuuuute that puppy is") or the people I'm conversing with have zero dimension or breadth to the topics they choose to engage with: I don't fucking care, and my interest in engaging is zero.

The confounding factor is that most introverts like to talk about specific subjects that are uncommon interests while extroverts like to talk about specific subjects which are common interests.

I think you're getting close to an accurate general statement, but your points are wrong. I can bring introverts out of their "shells" by engaging with them on topics that interest them (at which point they will likely overpower me) and I can put extroverts into their shells by forcing a topic that they have nothing to say on.

The thread that connects all of this is interest. Introverts have a set of interests that is not conducive to general, everyday conversation, while extroverts do.

From there you can have knock-on effects like confidence, social outlook and initiative, and other things that cascade throughout the years that make the divide between the two more apparent and may generate specific differences (e.g. fearful of criticism or not, etc.).

> The thread that connects all of this is interest. Introverts have a set of interests that is not conducive to general, everyday conversation, while extroverts do.

This is spot on. I love listening to people talk about their interests because their enthusiasm for whatever they're interested in is usually contagious (at least to me). In my experience, the folks that lean more towards introversion tend to have more niche interests, and I feel like I always learn something new by talking to them.

However, I'm seeing a lot of comments here talking about being "right" or "wrong" in conversations. I definitely lean more towards the introvert end of the spectrum, but I've spent a long time trying to get better at holding conversations. I don't know if it's a consequence of getting older, but I don't have a lot of patience for being corrected on trivial matters. I would never argue with someone about something they have expertise in that I don't, but I once got called out for mispronouncing "tesla" (apparently its "tez-la", not "tess-la"?). The only outcome of that conversation was a strong desire to not talk to that person again and to deliberately avoid saying anything that could have an ambiguous pronunciation.

To be clear, this is entirely context-dependent. Obviously, correctness is important in technical discussions. I'm talking about chit-chatting over a few drinks. If you see conversation as a zero-sum game, everybody loses.

Extraverts use communication as a means to bond while introverts use communication to relay a message.