There is some link to a re-post about so-called introverts http://jerrybrito.org/post/6114304704/top-ten-myths-about-introverts which made some resonance on HN http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2657554. That is, by the way, yet another sign of degradation of the level of HN community.
Let's talk a little about these top 10 over-simplifications and over-generalizations along with jumps to conclusion, which is one of the most successful type of blog-posts to gain fast and cheap attention - oversimplified, digested, second-hand experience in form of a take-home conclusions.
So, who are those introverts? There is a generalization, that there are people, who have a different set of habits of thought and behavior from what is called 'normal' in some particular society which in turn was influenced or even shaped by some particular culture and historical processes.
The difference is in so-called closeness in themselves, as opposed to the so-called openness (or lack of manners) of the simple-minded common folks.
There are multiple causation which may lead to the differentiation of visible behavior. They can be divided into two major groups: genetic and environmental which are tightly bound to the personal history of an individual.
Genetic causation could vary from inherited autistic spectrum disorders of various severity to the wide range of physiological differences in development of various parts of the brain. It could be an inherited "over-sensitivity" of Amigdala, or a differentiation in the neuro-chemical level, and so on.
These genetic factors affects the results of environmental ones, which in turn, shapes the personal history and affects the way we're decoding and processing, our perception and then updating and 'indexing' our inner maps and models.
The experience in some sort of feed-back loops strengthens the thought habits and mental behavior and so on. Restricted behavior leads to limited set of experiences, narrowness of views and impoverishment of mental maps and models of the world.
There also could be uncountable results of some historical events such as childhood traumas (physiological, neurological, psychological) abuses and th like that affects the results of genetic variations and predispositions along with environmental influences and restrictions.
So, the term introvert is absolutely meaningless generalization when considered aside from the current state of the mind and the personal history of some particular person.
You might be introvert because due to shape of your back and neck you have an impoverished blood circulation in your brain which leads to constant feeling weak and inability to concentrate for a long period of time, and so on. Due to that shape of your back and neck you may receive a different social feedback, which leads to big differences in formation of your mental models and maps of the world and to the different level of stress or depression.
Now let's talk a little about that list.
They like or don't like to talk. That is nonsense. They might do not want to get some sort of experience which confirms (or disconfirms) some of their own view or generalizations about themselves. It is mere the way to avoid the mental pain of yet another cognitive dissonance.
They just do not want to increase the level of mental arousal or to disturb their comfortable internal monologue. It is not about talking, it is about changing the internal state which is might be difficult to maintain or control.
They are shy? Shyness and shame are just another names of our reactions to the failure to maintain some inner balance, some comfortable equilibrium, manageable level of stress and arousal.
Rudeness? Hardly. Do not disturb me and I will never react rude. Rudeness is a byproduct, it is not a special trait.
We don't like people? Wrong. We do not need them. At least we do not need all those hyper-active talking heads with their meaningless small-talks, fake politeness and annoying automated behavior. They are mere distractions.
Don't like to go into a public places? Wrong. It depends of a place. Familiar or unfamiliar? In what circumstances? What kind of people will be around? For what occasion? Public library or a football game is very different places.
We want to be alone? Nonsense. We want to keep our mental balance (not on the conscious level, of course) so, we're avoiding distractions and disturbance, not the people. Or at least some kinds of people.
There are very simple example. When you're, say, do some trekking in Himalayas, you're very like to see local folks and almost hate any other tourist, because these another tourists are just distractions, an artificial elements which spoils your experience. It is not that you're too selfish or very rude, it is just your reaction to the useless distractions by something artificial and annoying.
I don't feel to comment on the rest of the nonsense, except for one important thing.
As long as we speak in terms of these over-generalizations and oversimplifications, yes, introverts can't become extroverts (due to complexity and multiplicity of causation and very dynamic nature of mental processes). But, if we can talk in terms of habituation, restrictedness and repetitiveness of behavior and their causation, we can change everything by changing our environment, our activities, our surroundings and our level of understanding who we are and how and why we became what we are.
It is possible (at least to some extent) to change everything by changing our understanding of ourselves and as a result by altering and correcting our own views and mental models, and then, in turn, our behavior.
The way of thinking in terms of meaningless generalizations and oversimplifications is the major cause of our inability to change or improve our lives.
