<p>I’m considered an extrovert. So are most of my family members. With them, I’ve shared some of the most thought-provoking discussions I’ve ever had. They provide interaction and push-back that Locke, Hamilton, and Kant simply can’t compete with, simply because books can’t argue with you effectively if you think faster than you can move your eyes. People can stimulate your mind in real-time, and books are decent substitutes for this. Arguing with yourself is also fun, but after a while, you run out new objections to your thoughts. When it comes to expanding one’s mind, there is no substitute for discussion with someone smart. That’s why as many introverts as extroverts pursue intellectual discussion-- and in both populations, that’s not a significant proportion. </p>
<p>If the purely introverted think more “deeply” than I do, I’d will them to share their thoughts more often. The discussions they start are, in general, far from intellectually stimulating. But that isn’t a problem of communication styles-- it’s a problem that is amazingly common among people in general, just like irrationality, stupidity, failure. If extroverts fail to be creative, smart, or hard-working, they have plenty of company among ambiverts and introverts. </p>
<p>Introverts aren’t stunningly deep thinkers. They aren’t smarter or more pensive than extroverts. Extroverts aren’t amazing conversationalists who could beat Hamlet in a duel of words. They aren’t any better at communicating than introverts. </p>
<p>The dichotomy is in what people seek to gain from social interactions, and in how they seek those gains. Extroverts are more emotive, for example, and more prone to loneliness and smalltalk. I’ll tell you one thing, though: introverts are not substituting smalltalk for careful, deliberate introspection. They’re reading a Dean Koontz novel, or watching TV, or resting, or having slightly-less-animated smalltalk sessions with friends. </p>
<p>Ugh, I’ve been rambling.</p>