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

What I am arguing I would like to clarify this before the debate continues. As pro has the burden of proof, all I need to do is make sure the resolution is not proven, not that it's reverse is true. My job is to show that we do not have adequate reason to believe extroversion is preferable to introversion in western society, not that introversion is preferable. I will argue that introversion is preferable in a number of ways, and perhaps I will succeed in proving it is more preferable overall. At the very least, however, all I need to do is show that pro has not given us reason enough to believe that it is overall more preferable to be an extrovert in Western society. Other countries Pro entirely ignores the important parts of this argument, assuming that I was only talking about Eastern societies, when in fact, only one of the eleven countries I mentioned was Eastern.In regards to my argument about Eastern societies favoring introverts, I will obviously drop that as I had misread the resolution. However, not all the countries I mentioned were eastern and pro never responded to those. Pro's arguments are mostly applicable to America and a few other countries, but these are just the most extroverted countries. He has actually left a lot unproven by ignoring the rest of the Western world. Last round I mentioned a number of European countries that are introverted. The countries were Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Sweden, Switzerland. These are ten of the most introverted countries and all are Western. If pro's case seems convincing to you, the readers, consider that his scope has been heavily narrowed. If it is indeed true that it is preferable to be extroverted in an extroverted society, then there are many Western societies where it must be preferable to be introverted since those societies are introverted. Contradictions? I don't see why pro thinks it of such importance that I concede points. It would be absurd of me to argue introverts have it better in every possible way just as it would be absurd of pro to argue extroverts are better off in every way. It does not contradict my stance, as pro implies, to admit extroverts have it better in some ways. That would be like saying a Liberal who agrees that Conservatives are more correct about gun laws is himself contradicting his being a Liberal. At any time where it seemed I was saying Western society as a whole is biased towards extroverts, it should have been evident that from my former argument, regarding other countries, I did not admit that. Many Western countries are introverted but pro has focused only on the extroverted ones. Socialization among extroverts and introverts Pro ignores much of what I stated last round. Introverts do not need to socialize as much as extroverts, so it is not entirely significant that extroverts are better at socialization than introverts. Pro also ignores the fact I pointed out last round, that introverts do not feel as much pressure to conform as extroverts do. Extroverts look for outside approval whereas introverts are more inward. Western societies having a bias towards extroverts does not in itself mean it is better to be an extrovert. That would be like saying if society were biased against happy people, it would better to be depressed. In regards to happiness it takes more for an extrovert to be happy and this can be explained scientifically, "a chemical called “dopamine” is released by our brains whenever we experience something positive. It’s an automatic reward center and makes us feel good! Extroverts need more dopamine to feel an effect, whereas introverts have a low dopamine threshold. They don’t require a lot of stimulation to feel rewarded." In regards to studies in the matter, it is, however, unsure which of the two groups are actually the most happy. [2]This goes with what I stated last round. It is easier for introverts to find ways to content themselves. They don't need a fast paced environment and life to thrive. A book, a game, a movie, some music, or a walk are easy access ways to experience simulation for introverts. For their social life, they need only a small circle of friends. Extroverts on the other hand must seek more for entertainment and relationships. Societal roles and positions I never stated that introverts such as Johnny Depp and Abraham Lincoln make this contention irrelevant. I was just noting that it does not take an extrovert to fill these roles. I even stated it was not entirely important but somehow pro still gathers that it was used to imply his argument was irrelevant. It's one factor of my counter-argument but does not in itself refute pro. Pro cannot claim the majority of the most high paying jobs are best suited for extroverts. I don't recall him proving this. He mentioned power roles and a few others. I, on the other hand, already showed that 40% of executives (remember introverts make up only one third of the total population) call themselves introverts and other high paying jobs such as in computers and in science are very suited for them as well. Last round I noted that politics and such, do not appeal widely to introverts, so it doesn't matter that those roles aren't suited for them. Pro responds but in no way that actually forms a refutation. All he says is, "If the power roles of society catered to the introverted mindset you would surely be saying that introverts are at an advantage". Eh, no not really. My argument would be the same. Certain powerful positions are suited better for certain types of people but the type of people they are not suited to would not like that sort of life so it puts them at no preferential disadvantage whatsoever. Pro could just as well be saying it's better to be a man since women aren't as commonly politicians.The major factor is that introverts don't aspire to the same roles as extroverts. Politics would sound utterly dreary to plenty of introverts but pro seems to think it puts them at a loss that they are not as suited for the task.I already mentioned numerous ways where introverts dominate leadership roles and other qualities but pro never responds. Pro's own source even states introverts make excellent leaders[1]. I'll mention a few other factors as well as reiterating. Introverts exhibit calm, know how to take advantage of silence, are great at preparation and don't have to "wing it" often; they're thoughtful, think before they speak, listen, focus on the big picture and know how to improve due to their tendancy to self-evaluate.[3] These are all excellent qualities for any business or leadership positions as well as in regards to life in general. Pro's next statement makes me wonder if he's not getting a little too caught up in his "extrovert bias" idea. Pro saying that society takes on the attitude that you must conform to extrovert ideals or be cast, is a wild exaggeration that I will get to latter. The ideal self I hardly see how introverted ideals are off track but if pro wants to toss it off as irrelevant, all the better for me. I also do not really know what pro means by introverts being "looked over". Introvert wants and introvert ideals are their concern and within their ability to accomplish. It is not so dependent on the rest of society to recognize them. Furthermore, introverts may be a minority but one third is still a significant fraction. It is not as if they are overwhelmed by extroverts. Pro saying the introvert ideal is near non-existent in extroverted societies is just an assertion. Pro already stated it's subjective and never answered the contention that introverts try to conform to different ideals than extroverts. The majority ideal is no the only ideal and just because it is the majority who aspires towards it, does not mean those who make up that majority care whether introverts and others have different ideals to which they aspire to. I would really like to know how pro can say introverted ideals are almost non-existent in western societies. The majority ideal might be extroverted, but that is only because the majority is extroverted. Look at it this way, the majority of society wants to be the competitive, social, out-going leader that pro mentions but that is already because the majority of society already possesses these qualities in part. In other words it is easier to accomplish and they do not need to change their whole character. Introverts on the other hand have different ideals entirely because they are introverts. People tend to want to improve their character but not change it altogether because they want to keep the good parts about them. There are good things in extroverts and in introverts. Introverts, therefore, want to conform to ideals fitted to their personality, not the majority extrovert ideal. Pro keeps assuming there is one sole ideal. This is highly unreasonable. Extroverts don't get to choose "the" ideal because there is no "the". That is a highly narrow minded way of thinking. I don't see how anyone could believe that, "since extroverts make up the majority they get to decide what the ideal is", but that is an exact quote from pro. Especially since pro has already stated it is subjective. He probably does not believe that but he continually assumes it. Pro highly over exaggerates the oppression of introverts. Society is not going to reject introverts because they does not conform to the extrovert ideal. If the extroverts in the extroverted societies are really the narrow minded oppressors pro makes them out to be, every introvert should be glad he's not one of them. Thankfully they are not however, which means most extroverts do not care if you are an introvert so long as you are a good person.[1] http://www.iacac.org...[2] http://www.psychologytoday.com...[3] http://www.parade.com...