It is More Preferable to be an Extrovert Than an Introvert in Modern Western Society

As pro has accepted the burden of proof without objection, I only need to show how it has not been proven that it is preferable to be an extrovert in Western society rather than an introvert. This round I will demonstrate how pro has failed his burden of proof. It's impossible not to misunderstand arguments at times, but as far as I can tell, pro has misunderstood me more than I him. I knew pro was arguing it was generally more preferable to be an extrovert in Western society; his mistake was in generalizing Western society at the level of bias which he presented. My objection was that Western society was not nearly as extroverted as pro assumed, partially because plenty of Western countries are more introverted than extroverted. As I showed last round, it was absurd to say I continually contradicted my case. Pro continues this fiction, unfortunately, with the following statement, "My opponent states that extroversion is praised in western society, that the ideal self in an extroverted society mimics the mindset of an extrovert, and that introverts are a minority that must conform to different ideals." Extroversion and introversion are both praised by different people so I don't know how that's important. I never stated that the ideal self is an extrovert because I firmly denied such a thing as "the ideal self". I admitted that introverts are a minority but I stated the opposite of what pro asserts I said. Introverts have their own ideals. Introverted countries It's my opponent's error for not realizing that the clearly Western countries I mentioned were Western and not Eastern. It was not good format on my part, but the countries were obviously Western. It might be easy to take to pro's analysis of extroversion in the Western world because the main English speaking Western societies are extroverted, i.e. North America and Great Britain and most of us hail from those areas. My contention is that it is only important if Western society is quite significantly biased towards extroverts and in ways that discriminate against introverts; but that is only true in some nations and then, of course, there are other factors to weigh in. In other nations there is either an introvert bias, or no significant bias either way, or no bias that hinders introverts. It is not enough only to claim a society has more extroverts but leave out whether this causes introverts to be at a disadvantage. In other words, the ideals, practices and social construction of a predominantly extroverted society might still cause no disadvantage to introverts. So far I have named 10 introverted Western countries. My opponent does not specifically name any but talks about the whole of Western society as extroverted. But this proves nothing. Extroverted societies are not by necessity more advantageous to extroverts, as pro seems to assume. Socialization among extroverts and introverts Pro is correct that school and most work places are social, and that extroverts enjoy socializing. He's incorrect to assume introverts don't enjoy this setting as well. That's a basic misconception. Introversion does not mean anti-social. It merely means that social interaction gives energy to extroverts whereas it depletes the introvert's store after a while; thus introverts recharge when they’re out of that environment. Introverts cannot handle as much social interaction as extroverts but that does not mean they don't enjoy it. This is why introverts can thrive with only a few friends and a more limited social life. School and work don't force introverts to be extremely socially active. Usually introverts can handle a social life more to their suiting. Introverts like social interaction, social approval and stimulating environments as well. They just don't need as much of it as extroverts and find it in different ways. This can be an advantage on its own because it demands much less in order to thrive. Introverts don't need society to be introverted as much as extroverts need it to be extroverted. Pro paints the picture of a society where the needs of the extroverts are handed to them on a silver platter and the introverts have to fend for themselves as best they can. The problem here is that what's on the platter is agreeable to introverts; they just take a smaller helping. They can go out and socialize, but they need not do it as much as extroverts. It is not hard to restrain from too much social interaction. Another problem with the picture is that in any society it is impossible not to spend much of the time alone. In times of isolation, the introvert is more at ease. Living in an extroverted society does not alleviate the discomfort of having nothing to do. Introverts, however, are well suited to finding things to do because they enjoy activities like reading, taking walks and watching movies; and also only a small circle of friends. Society does not decide how much social stimulation one receives. For the most part, introverts can limit their social interaction just as extroverts can increase theirs. That’s why pro’s picture is wrong. He assumes society hands extroverts the lifestyle they prefer, whereas in reality, both introverts and extroverts suite their lifestyle to fit their preferences. Societal roles and positions Pro has dropped a few points. I take it that pro now regards it as relevant that introverts can still make some of the best persons in the roles pro describes as extroverted, whereas before he regarded it as missing the point. He also fails to address that extroverts do not dominate the field of high paying jobs, so I take that as conceded. Furthermore, he does not defend himself against the accusation that he has wildly exaggerated the extroverted oppression of introverts. Pro's argument makes sense that extroverts can climb higher in society; however this ignores a few factors. First, his conception of what it means to be at the top rungs of society. Introverts and extroverts probably have a different idea of this. Since extroverts need social recognition more than introverts, it makes sense that they would idolize political roles. On the other hand, introverts look more for self-fulfillment and thus do not incline so much to this position. Furthermore, pro never really defines “power roles” and talks only about politics. What about executives? I already showed 40% are introverts, which is a larger percentage than the total percentage of introverts in society. Pro has not shown how leadership is the least bit significant. Introverts make excellent leaders in a number of ways as I already stated. Extroverts do as well, but leadership is not at all dominated by extroverts making this argument fail in support of the resolution. The ideal self Pro sticks to his idea the society puts out one single ideal. There is a majority ideal in any society but ideals are subjective so it doesn't matter if the majority tries to conform to the same ideal. The minority ideals are still acceptable to the majority because it would be close-minded to press one's ideal on everybody else. What happens to an introvert who does not conform to extroverted ideals is not in any way "social rejection". While many people set a goal to become one specific kind of person, they have broad social boarders on what constitutes a good and acceptable person. Introverts can just as easily fit within these boarders. It is not necessary to conform to the majority ideal in order to be accepted. People set ideals for themselves. The majority ideal is the ideal that most people try to conform to but not what they push on to others. Introverts and others try to succeed in other ideals which the majority has no issue with because there is not one single ideal. That doesn’t mean you can try to be whatever kind of person you want and be accepted, but most introverted ways of thinking would be accepted by any normal person. Re-cap Pro has largely overstated the extroverted bias in Western society and amplified it by generalizing a few countries as the majority. Only a minority of countries are near as extroverted as pro claims all of Western society is overall. Pro furthermore exaggerates the pressure that society puts on introverts and the introvert's inability to thrive. In reality, extroverts and introverts both have their handicaps and benefits that help them adapt and thrive. Introverts need less stimulation. Society, according to pro, caters to the extroverted preference. This harms introverts little since it is easy to avoid situations of stimulation that exceed their threshold. Introverts fit their lifestyle to their introverted preferences. It takes less to make an introvert happy and introverts have the advantage over extroverts in times of isolation. Thanks to pro for the debate and the voters for their hopefully honest evaluations.