I don't see it; the Wiki says introverts are more concerned, and derive more pleasure from reflective activities. None of that contradicts that they can have good social skills - it's just tiring to use them.
>There is nothing in the article the article that says anything about "having social skills but its more effort to use them".
I disagree. If you're looking for an exact 1-to-1 mapping of that phrase to the wiki article, you won't find it. However, you have to read multiple sentences and if you interpret them together, it does say that[1]:
++ Some popular psychologists have characterized introverts as people whose energy tends to expand through reflection and dwindle during interaction.
++ , though he or she may enjoy interactions with close friends.
++ Introverts prefer solitary to social activities, but do not necessarily fear social encounters like shy people do.
I think the wiki article on "introversion" describes me quite well. I would characterize myself as extremely introverted. However I'm not shy at all and I have given presentations at Las Vegas conferences. I have no problem making eye contact with the audience and deliver the talks without stuttering. However, I get more stimulation from seeing a news flash about a gcc compiler beta release or reading a book rather than the typical banter at social situations.
It also takes "more effort" on my part to lubricate social interaction with pleasantries (e.g. "how are you?", "how's the weather?", "how are the kids?", etc) rather than to sit quietly and study two web frameworks to determine which one is better. (Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/602/)
Everyone has social skills, it doesn't need to be said. On the other hand, nothing in the Wiki article says introverts have worse social skills than extroverts. All the article says is that introverts prefer solitary activities and that their "energy tends to expand through reflection and dwindle during interaction", ie., it takes them more effort (=energy) to interact with people (=use social skills).
That "debunking" is mostly one study by one (somewhat vengeful) researcher, and it keeps being referenced in an attempt to relegate MBTI into the same realm as astrology. Neither the MBTI nor the Big 5 has particularly high predictive capacity (not unlike most metrics in the field of psychology), although I would say both are very statistically significant with regard to certain types of predictions. For instance, I would guess that the vast majority of HN users are INTJ or INTP. If MBTI had no predictive capacity, the distribution of types would instead be uniform.
(P.S. please express your disagreement using evidence and reason, not downvotes. Thanks.)
I'm curious - why is that imported to be noted here? Is the extroversion axis description in the OCEAN trait set markedly different from that used in Myers-Briggs?
For humans or any other beings with an obvious conscience Myers Briggs is 100% logical and cannot refuted. Myer Briggs just explains how a conscience being can analyze data.
