comment: >
  
  Yeah this is a really unpopular opinion and I know this first hand because whenever I say this I get a lot of pushback and shit. Honestly I'm going to say something people don't want to hear but I think personality theories are for stupid people.
  I mean think about it, we already have a way of identifying personalities. Why are we trying to create personality groups? It just doesn't make sense. I can understand how it can be a little entertaining. But beyond that there's no real reason for personality theories.
  If somebody is loud and obnoxious, we already know that that's their personality. We don't need to find a group of other loud obnoxious people and tell them that they have a valid personality.
  And the whole idea of introvert and extrovert is nonsense. Extraversion is healthy. Introversion is unhealthy. There's introspection, which is healthy. But introversion is just being unwell mentally. So it's very wrong that so many people are encouraging others to accept that it's okay to be shy and victimized. That's not a good head space to be in.  
  I think a lot of people take a sort of rebellious pride in being introverted. Because they already feel angry and disillusioned or outcast. So then somebody gives them some validity and they kind of claim it with this egotistical pride. But I think it makes sense because of where they're coming from. But as somebody who's never really thought it was valid, I can see through it and see that it's coming from how they're feeling inside.
  It's kind of like the alpha and beta theory. Just because somebody thought of it doesn't make it true. Also, the way Freud tied everything back to sex. That's just his own perversion. Everything is not related to sex. That's disturbing. And I wouldn't be surprised if that's part of why he and Carl Jung stopped getting along. (I think Jung invented the introversion concept.)
  Actually though, even though it's contradicting what I said before, I do think mbti can help people in certain ways. Even though a lot of it is just straight up nonsense. A lot of the NF types kind of feel different from everyone so it's helpful for them to find others who are like them. And then some of the more negative personality types get some inner validity, and then they also get some impetus to grow.
  ISTP, ESTJ, and ESFP often get called out on their negative traits. Entp kind of learn that they don't need to be so obnoxious. Etc.
  But on the other hand INTP kind of refused to grow. They get validation when they don't need it. And they don't really hear any kind of influence to be more disciplined.
context: The tests reveal who you are at the moment, not who you will be nor ought to be. The labels are descriptive not prescriptive. >
  
  But people act like they are descriptive/prescriptive, which is why this opinion is unpopular. You are right though.
  EDIT: not sure why I am being downvoted for agreeing with you. I think I have really riled people up with my unpopular opinion. This sub is hilarious. Most people do not realise that the tests only reveal who you are at that moment (and this can change so quickly, like I could test introverted on a bad day where I am feeling like I want to avoid social contact, but test extroverted on a good day where I want to meet new people). But people will take these tests and make it their identity. /r/introvert has 400k members, just as an example. >
  
  It's a fuckin' horoscope with 2 signs.
  It's the same as the old "Type A / Type B" and "Left Brained / Right Brain" nonsense. >
  
  Yeah, It's also very much black/white thinking. People are so much more complicated than "introvert/extrovert" - I think the labels are useless. >
  
  Yes exactly! Non duality! >
  
  Yesssss fuck duality >
  
  I've always been introverted myself but kind of forced myself to get out there and talk to people.   Now I feel comfortable talking to anyone.   However it is still draining and I have to have time to myself to recharge my batteries each day.   Especially after social events.   
  For the most part I think people can bounce in and out of both being an introvert or extrovert.   Depends where your at in you life.  Like you said you just have to put yourself out there till you become more comfortable with it. >
  
  I used to feel exactly the same. Keep putting yourself out there and you'll change, believe me. It's a great feeling to finally get rid of that draining feeling. >
  
  Letting the label define u and making u think u have to abide by it is certainly weird. U can be an introvert and like going out sometimes… it’s not really stupid to use the actual term for being shy/a homebody. >
  
  I think people can bounce in and out of both being an introvert or extrovert. >
  
  Ofc u can. And no one is being forced into one specific category. But saying you are an introvert is completely normal. >
  
  Normal is a mathematical term and it means it's common. It does not mean that it's correct. >
  
  Huh >
  
  He's saying it boils down to statistics. The more people agree on something, the more it is seen as normal. This does not actually lend the idea any credibility. Look at scientific views of the past, that have been debunked, which were considered "normal", and see that what he said is right. >
  
  Normal does not mean common. It mean to conform to the standard. It is standard to label yourself. Again has nothing to do with the point >
  
  And what is the "standard", if not common? Look at the definitions of standard - "used or accepted as normal or average". Oxford Languages dictionary by the way. >
  
  It is common for people to do a lot of weird things that do not conform to what society views as normal.
  Still of topic. >
  
  I don't mind if we go off topic, it's interesting to me. To be weird is "unusual" - "not habitually or commonly occurring or done". Synonymous with uncommon. >
  
  You confuse shy with introvert. >
  
  I was never shy as an introvert. I mentioned this in my post, and multiple times in the comments. >
  
  Introvert is not the same as antisocial or socially anxious.
  This is just a case of you misunderstanding what these words mean. >
  
  I'm sorry to burst your bubble but I think that you are actually the one who doesn't understand it here. >
  
  I think maybe you're misunderstanding what introversion/extroversion are.
  Being introverted isn't necessarily a preference for being alone and remaining in your shell. To be introverted means socializing expends energy rather than creates it. If you're introverted, you're going to need time alone to recover after being around people a lot. You tend to be more reflective, and also more comfortable with a close circles of friends rather than a large group of people.
  You can absolutely be an introvert that likes socializing. I know I do! When I become familiar with people, I can really open up. I like talking to strangers, and ive done great in customer service roles. But at my core, I'm always going to be introverted, because eventually too much social interaction taps me out and I can become irritable and irate. 
  Extroverts on the other hand are literally fed by their interactions with people. There energy grows, and doesn't diminish. I wouldn't be able to force myself to experience that no matter how hard I tried. And I've gone through many periods of time of being very active socially. >
  
  I think you didn’t read my post fully >
  
  I think part of it for me is social anxiety. ( I saw the edit too) I still try to put myself out there though. But it Is odd to let a label define you >
  
  It is odd, but people do it all the time. I see it a lot, people will wear the label as though they are proud of it, like it defines who they are. /r/introvert has 400k members for example. I actually relate with a lot of what they say, like doing activities alone like going to the movies or going to restaurants. But they are doing these things because they label themselves an introvert. Meanwhile, I do these things because its fun, and something I like to do. There is a difference.