[thraxil]

Sorry, but that article's really annoying.

He accuses people of misunderstanding the terms "introversion" and "extroversion" but does the same thing himself by associating them with the stereotypical behavior that we commonly think of rather than the underlying neurological differences. Those differences are real (dopamine vs acetylcholine, different blood flow patterns in the brain) and appear to be linked to genetics [1] [2]. Yes, the terminology both in common use and within Psychology is imprecise and often misapplied, but that doesn't mean that there aren't actual differences.

He dismisses the "energy" interpretation as a simple matter of fatigue from undeveloped skills. I haven't seen any research that supports that or indicates that individuals can change their fundamental reaction to external/internal stimulus through practice and effort. Ie, an introvert can learn to work a crowd and present as an extrovert, but afterwards they will be exhausted compared to a true extrovert.

I do agree that the positive external traits that we typically associate with each (sociability, friendliness, assertiveness vs ability to focus on solo tasks without becoming bored) are enabled by skills that anyone can learn no matter where they are on the introversion/extroversion spectrum and people shouldn't give up just because they find it hard. But an introvert will have a fundamentally harder time developing the social skills and will need to recuperate afterwards (and same for an extrovert with solo skills). I don't think it's productive or helpful to encourage the "just toughen up, buttercup" dismissive approach.

1: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926641005... 2: http://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/50/18087.short