The science behind why introverts struggle to speak
introvertdear.com
introvertdear.com
In hindsight many of the skills I lacked a decade ago -- speaking clearly, recalling the correct words, smalltalk, even remembering people's names -- were things that improved radically with practise.
It seems pretty obvious now. I can have a conversation and actually focus on the content because I'm not focusing on my language, or random social niceties. All the little things I used to have to concentrate on have become rote.
Back then I thought these were just things I was just inherently bad at. I get a little frustrated when people blame their lack of social skills on a self-diagnosis of introversion. It's the exact same thing as claiming simple arithmetic is too hard bexause you're bad at math.
Pretty much every article on the subject I've read or skimmed characterizes so-called introverts as fragile, overly-sensitive misfits suffering from some form of crippling shyness who are perfectly normal but have to be treated with extra care and respect (a helpful howto guide is often included) by the segment of the normal population that happens to be more socially inclined and outgoing.
Basically, introversion is a perfectly normal yet agonizing condition that causes psychological suffering so extreme that the non-afflicted normal people have to recognize that this normal yet horrible-sounding condition exists and that its sufferers need special treatment to help them function comfortably in, er, normal social and public settings.
Yeah, that makes no sense whatsoever. But when the bullshit layer is removed that's what the vast majority of articles about introverts are saying. Where does this "introversion", that science is now apparently studying, come from? It comes from the mind of C.G Jung and gained popularity via the decidedly unscientific Myers-Briggs Type Indicator assessment that is popular in certain HR departments, with poorly-trained psychologists and with people who obsess over their four-letter MBTI code and what it ostensibly represents.
My take (as someone who self-identified as an introvert in high school) is that Myers-Briggs and the labels it spawns are pseudo-scientific bullshit that triggers the same cognitive distortions and biases as astrology and horoscopes. According to Jung a person inclined towards introversion needs alone time to relax and "recharge", whereas the extrovert feels most relaxed and revitalized in a stimulating social environment. Jung's concept, while not scientific, makes more sense than the twisted version peddled today where a person is either extremely extroverted, or extremely introverted. People who invest a big chunk of their identity in an essentially meaningless label are then reluctant to let go of it and end up stuck in a confirmation-bias loop that reinforces the fairy story they've bought into.
Maybe one problem here is that many people actually think it's weird or abnormal to not feel 100% comfortable and at ease in all situations at all times. This is a society (US/Canada) so obsessed with attaining a mythical non-existent level of "happiness" that frauds like Deepak Chopra make a very good living writing "definitive" guides to happiness and contentment etc. and people keep buying and buying rather than wondering why, after reading a decades worth of happy books they're still not happy.
The related absolutely-normal-yet-horribly-defective introvert scam gets more outlandish every six-months or so. I mean a website called introvertdear...aw,how precious. And now "science" has identified four types of introversion! And I have some prime real-estate in the Everglades for sale...and I'm investing in this new bridge project that...actually I'll tell you all about it over a drink. My treat.