They didn't invent "the strong, silent type" persona to dissuade individuals from being themselves. I happen to be introverted by nature and have enjoyed over

They didn't invent "the strong, silent type" persona to dissuade individuals from being themselves. I happen to be introverted by nature and have enjoyed over 20,000 one-on-one interactions, just with work. Probably 60% to 70% was face-to-face too. Introverts just don't have the mental demands (not quite a co-dependancy) on socializing as a determination of a quality of life metric. In the 21st century, I can say that I have accumulated 10,000 hours of quality time in several areas, with and without social interactions. Another commenter stated quality over quantity and I totally agree with that. Quality time is more important for wellbeing and something that both personality types most likely strive for/achieve. With the flood of low aptitude/low quality information on the Internet, its become obvious that 1 dimensional people exist in droves and devolve to inferior quality vocabulary in a feeble attempt to exist. I chalk this up to the culture divide and know environmental factors and lifestyle factors drive conversation/perspective more than any personal attributes. Its obvious that many cultures define quality time in a way that is completely counter to the culture in which I was raised. It may come down to learning environments where rote learners can only regurge what is in their environments (usually not the least bit relevant in context) compared to the free-thinking learning environments where multiple perspectives exist in most topics and even promoted. It goes back to 1 dimensional thinking/perspectives, in which religion/politics easily retreat to that rabbit hole as a low-hanging fruit example. Its just the environment that they were raised in. IMO, extroverts show than tendancy more where introverts just don't give an F about minutiae.