comment: >
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. >
  
  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. >
  
  See, I used to be INTP, but now I am ENTP apparently. Also, I am very introspective, which like you say is healthy. I used to say I was an introvert in a way that was almost prideful, like "I don't need to talk to others to feel good, I can do that myself". And it did feel good. But now, after a journey of developing charisma and social circles, I have changed, and honestly for the better. My personality has changed wildly over the years - probably more than most people - through introspection and personal development. I realised that my introversion was detrimental, and my social circles were limited due to it.
  Then, I realised most black/white labels are bullshit too. I don't identity with any political groups for example, because I don't want a label on me like that. My views change, and my views cannot be confined to a single label. When you make something a part of your identity, it only makes you resistant to change too.
  Most people here are misunderstanding my post in so many ways. They think I am saying that I was just shy, or socially anxious, or that I don't understand that it is a spectrum, or that I am saying that "introversion/extroversion" is a core identity of people, like that is all they are. I am saying none of these things, I am just saying that identifying with these labels in any way is just dumb. Of course people don't think "introvert = their entire personality". That would be stupid. But people saying "I am an introvert" is also stupid. Why boil down a part of who you are to something so simplified. >
  
  Plus, most people on here are dumb. Like, just straight up. I don't surskit think it's stupid to be incorrect, but I think a lot of people prefer to "be stupid" and a lot of those people are on this subreddit, arguing with others over their own internal opinions. You shouldn't really have to defend yourself at all. Even if your opinion has some premises that might end up being incorrect, you never said anything that really deserved to new argued with >
  
  "Socially awkward extrovert realizes they actually like people" is hardly an opinion, much less an unpopular one. Congrats on growing up I guess. >
  
  I was never socially awkward while an introvert. Read my last sentence. >
  
  It is a spectrum. >
  
  All the more reason to avoid identifying yourself by one of two words. >
  
  Identifying as anything is mostly stupid. Just do the things you want in life. You don’t need a label
  Nobody else gives a shit about your identity. Stop putting so much weight into it. >
  
  Identifying as anything is stupid. All it means is you are now going to live your life by stereotypes associated with the label or do/think the way you are "supposed" to other wise you don't really belong to X group. >
  
  I agree 100%. So many people do not have this viewpoint though. Identity is a big thing in the current social climate. People want to shoe-horn themselves into a group to feel a sense of belonging, but they fail to realise that the smallest minority on earth is the individual. No two people have the exact same behaviours or views. Labels themselves are useless (unless you want to be associated with things that do not apply to you). I am anti-ideology for this reason. >
  
  It’s not about liking or being good at communicating with people it’s about if it takes energy or gives you energy. Most people aren’t either Tbf. >
  
  Yeah, I did mention that in my post. I just mentioned my reasons for putting myself out there in the first place - I never wanted to become an "extrovert". >
  
  It just feels like your post is more about shyness vs gregariousness >
  
  Well it wasn't, but I can see why you may think that. I was never shy while an introvert. >
  
  Carl Jung (Who came up or found the whole concepts) said that rarely people are extremely introverted and extroverted, most people are in the middle. And it changes depending on them moment too.
  So yeah people get way too into defining themselves or other people as cheery and energetic or held back and low in energy. Yeah there are some people in the extremes but most people are around the center, being both introverted and extroverted and the amounts change with the situation.
  I did the int vs ext test and got something like 55% Introverted, 45% extroverted. Not a huge difference >
  
  I think people can be introverted or extroverted in certain situations. I actually love reading Carl Jung and think that he was a very interesting and influential man. I think that identifying with these modes of behaviour (as introvert or extrovert), which are ever changing, is a problem. Identifying with something only prevents you from changing and developing who you are. 
  I used to say I was liberal for examplel, and would therefore reject right wing views entirely due to that. Now I am a-political. I realised that I did not want to shoe-horn myself into a category. My views change regularly. I have ideas that fall on both sides of the spectrum. I am very individualistic. >
  
  I think that everyone is introvert in some situations and extrovert in other situations. >
  
  I don’t really think there’s such thing as a “shy extrovert”. It’s only easy when you can find something in common with a person or possibly make them laugh which would mean coming out of the safe shell. But I both agree and disagree, mostly disagree so you can take my upvote. >
  
  Probably, but I have been called one before when I mentioned I used  to be introverted, and am not extroverted. I have no problem with using these words in this way by the way - just with identifying with them. I used to find it easy like you say - when I have something in common or make them laugh.
  Now, I get along with everyone. I have developed charisma, and it makes social interactions less draining. I realised through this that the labels mean nothing. My identity is so much more than that. >
  
  Can I identify as a sloth 😕 >
  
  Sometimes I think I'm an extrovert with a high level of social anxiety. Or an introvert with a high level of social anxiety. I have social anxiety. I'll deal with the extro/intro later. >
  
  Yes, you probably just have social anxiety - which can be broken down further (for example, you won't be socially anxious around friends, so it is not socialisation that is the issue, it would be something deeper). You don't need these other labels attached to you. They are useless. Just work on yourself and never stop improving. >
  
  I'm not really an introvert...I just genuinely hate small talk. >
  
  I hate small talk too. That is a completely different thing. I rarely hear people say they enjoy small talk. >
  
  Ok. I don't care enough about people to be extroverted is what I should have said. >
  
  I agree. People give way to much credit to the whole introvert/extrovert labels. In reality it just people being used to dealing with other people and people who are not used to dealing with people. It’s more about experience with people then it is a set personality trait. >
  
  So you were ACTIVELY avoiding socializing with others? You were anti-social and you let it control your life. I know you’re claiming that you weren’t anti-social, but You were! 
  I’m introverted and I don’t actively avoid being around people. I love going out and being with my friends. I also love spending time with myself and taking care of me. Knowing I’m an introvert doesn’t make me anti-social. It allows me to self regulate so that I’m not constantly drained by others. >
  
  Not actively avoiding socialising, but more not just making an effort to socialise, stating that I was an introvert and therefore didn't need to do that to be happy. I wasn't "anti-social" in the typical sense. 
  Knowing you are drained by others doesn't mean you are introverted. It probably means you need better relationships my friend. Social interactions shouldn't be draining, that is unhealthy. You even say you love going out and being with friends. See how much more complicated this is than just a label? >
  
  I think the labels are fine. But I do think we have a problem of people saying shit like:
  "omg i cant interact with people without sweating and i hate leaving my room im such a quirky introvert"
  Like, my dude, thats not introversion, thats SOCIAL ANXIETY, which is a problem you need to solve.
  I'm an introvert. I *need* alone time to recharge or else I'll go insane, but I very much still enjoy going out with my friends, leaving the house and while my social skills aren't the best (i am trying to improve tho), I am capable of having normal daily social interactions with little issue. 
  I know people who are the opposite, my sister is a huge extrovert, while she still appreciates being alone at times, she *needs* to socialize with people, and if she has been way too long without company she tens to get exhausted and moody.
  ​
  Being either an introvert or extrovert is fine, the problem is letting it define your personality or using it as a "shield" to ignore problems you might have. >
  
  I've never understood this "recharging" definition. If that's the definition I'm neither. I consider myself an introvert because I greatly prefer sticking to myself and doing whatever I want to do than being around groups of people and get dragged into doing things I'm not interested in being any part of. I don't get drained by it. More like annoyed. >
  
  There's bad science behind the personality types tests, but labels can still be useful. If I explain to someone that I need time to recover after a social event because I'm an introvert, it can set a level of understanding without needing more discussion. Like anything, some people take it way too far and way too seriously, but that doesn't mean the labels can't be useful. >
  
  Do people in the comments heard of the word Ambivert? >
  
  I can be extroverted if I really push myself. However social interactions are draining after more than an hour and then I crave my own company. I have no real urge to get out and meet other people. I can talk to people, sometimes I enjoy it. But I like my own space and alone time. I just can't be around people 24/7.