[michrassena]

I think if we were to dig into the reasons someone would want to change their introverted personality, it would be specifically to enjoy or at least tolerate situations they associate with being extroverted.

I wonder if the outcome is what matters. Changing one's personality may or may not be possible, and would certainly be a difficult task if it were, but obtaining the behaviors associated with the desired personality are attainable. Isn't an introvert saying they wish they were an extrovert (for example) really just shorthand for wanting it to be easy to interact and socialize, as they imagine it is for extroverts.

As a personal example, I've recently taken a short sketching course. If only I had the "artist" personality type, then I wouldn't have to put in the hard work to learn to draw. So I wonder if what we regard as contrasting personality types in others isn't a proxy for a form of talent that we either don't have, or don't readily perceive in ourselves. And from the outsider position, it's very difficult to know how much work someone has spent honing a skill. The "natural" may have worked very hard indeed.

[phkahler]

>> Isn't an introvert saying they wish they were an extrovert (for example) really just shorthand for wanting it to be easy to interact and socialize, as they imagine it is for extroverts.

Introversion vs extroversion isn't really defined (as I understand it) by your social skills or even your desire to be around people. It's based on where one derives their mental energy. Introverts can socialize but it is mentally taxing and they need alone time to recharge. For extroverts interacting with people is exhilarating and kind of is their way to recharge. In this light, you may be able to change a persons ability to socialize but not so much the effect it has on them. I don't think these are entirely separate either If you're not good at it it's got to be more taxing, but then perhaps ability and self perception are not the same thing!

[michrassena]

Perhaps the reason extroverts find interacting with people exhilarating is because it's not much work for them. Or perhaps because their perception of what is at stake in an interaction to be less than what introverts perceive. Better dancers step on fewer toes, as it were. And while I'm sure there are terrible dancers with a thousand hours on the dance floor, they must be a rarity.

Practice won't turn the introvert into the Haile Gebrselassie of social interaction (natural talent exists), but it will help. A couch potato will suffer through every mile of a run, until they give up. A seasoned runner will be energized by a run over the same distance.

I would characterize an extrovert's social interactions as existing in a state of flow. An extrovert has a perception of their ability that closely matches their actual ability. An introvert has too little confidence in their actual abilities, or too little ability.

So my point, and if nothing else, I've convinced myself of this fact, which might be useful in a fake-it-until-you-make-it fashion, is that social interaction is a skill, a learnable/teachable skill. And as such, we can group those who possess this skill into introverts and extroverts.

[ap3]

>A couch potato will suffer through every mile of a run, until they give up.

Couch potatoes can train until they stop being couch potatoes and become runners

Similarly with introversion, you learn more skills and become less afraid of the interactions