I bet if I google I can find the BBC refuting this statement in the past.
I've been working in offices again for the past, I don't know, 7-8 years now which initially gave me some whiplash as an introvert finding himself working in a position where extroversion tends to rule the day. Nowadays, however, I have a little electronics workshop in my basement where I can scurry off to and think with clarity all to myself after the day is done. It's rejuvenating and gives me a stronger sense of worth and balance in my overall mental health.
I was thinking exactly this when I saw parent's comment. Has anyone attempted to describe this theory scientifically? Is it equivalent to the "bell curve"?
Headline today: "Study shows X causes cancer!" Headline tomorrow: "Study shows X can prevent cancer!"
Key point: A loner wouldn't get lonely, they'd be perfectly content to be alone.
Person A, for whatever reason can't sit still and won't feel right unless they spend most of their time with other people.
Person Z, for whatever reason is drained through interacting with others.
Example: I can't read unless it's quiet or a familiar music is playing. People moving about also distracts me.
On the other hand, I know a few people who'll fall asleep reading in a library but not in a noisy area. Jazz, classical and soul music causes itching sensations in these persons.
Heck, the article could talk about Jazz lovers and pass the same message.
> It's more about one's natural base or comfort level.
I mean, no, I don't really agree. Negative feelings about oneself are extremely dependent on your society, I would say more so than your personal preferences (i.e., behaving per your personal preferences when it generates negative social attention is MORE damaging than behaving per social preferences when it generates negative effects due to ignoring personal preferences). Most people can adapt. Personal baselines basically only kick in at far extremes and most people are neither.
What introverts generally hit isn't that, it's that introverts may be very different from the rest of the folk (since they're the non-default) and stand out as a sore thumb, anyway.
> Heck, the article could talk about Jazz lovers and pass the same message.
Again, what? Jazz is not a universal trait (introversion/extroversion affects everyone). Being super into Jazz or super not into Jazz is not really going to modify your life much. How is this similar at all?