Most people seem to be (by degree) more extroverted than introverted, and also among introverts it is more usual to be introverted to a smaller rather than larger degree; very few introverts will be (eg) full schizoid. Given that being mostly aware and/or interested in the sensory world and extroverted seems to be more common, would you say that this is (by now) not so much out of actual need to be aware of external dangers and sources of satisfaction, but more about ease? Maybe being extroverted is easier (given you don't actually need to control your senses to reveal sensory material, unlike with thinking so as to reveal notional material), or maybe it is just more productive and healthy.
Yet imo all material are partly notional anyway, regardless of being so consciously or not. You don't have to think about how you can move to reach a chair so as to sit down, yet the ability to do all (move, identify the chair, differentiate it from other stuff etc) is mental and not sensory; the sensory part is only formed by the external objects, while the identification and reaction is mental.
Not that the above is anything new, of course - in general this is usually referred to as 'idealism', though that is a huge over-category of philo stuff. Yet imo it is likely that all material identified are identified only by forming fossils in the world of thought, which in turn tie to those material (this is so not only for external objects, but for internal ones too; ie for thoughts or parts of thoughts). So in the end you just swim about in an ocean of notional stuff, which are interlinked in ways that cannot realistically be fully accounted for past some general level.
If the above is true, though, how exactly does being extroverted have a biological positive value? I mean one can go about happily for a time, yet running blindfolded in a forest will only be good up until you hit a tree. Maybe biology is to some extent only directing its "sights" on ephemeral stuff, and happiness or productivity under some circumstances (most young people are carefree and would not stand to gain anything by massive introversion). It is also probably true that remnants of biological safeguards of such a type are visible, eg fear of various unlikely (by now) predators or antipathy towards sounds (such as screams) which could attract their attention. Yet i think that ultimately the human mind is more of an oceanic abyss of connections and sets, which always rise to form waves and attract attention only to the waves rather than to the massive watery mass below.
I don't think that being extroverted is a bonus, unless one is a butterfly
Yet imo all material are partly notional anyway, regardless of being so consciously or not. You don't have to think about how you can move to reach a chair so as to sit down, yet the ability to do all (move, identify the chair, differentiate it from other stuff etc) is mental and not sensory; the sensory part is only formed by the external objects, while the identification and reaction is mental.
Not that the above is anything new, of course - in general this is usually referred to as 'idealism', though that is a huge over-category of philo stuff. Yet imo it is likely that all material identified are identified only by forming fossils in the world of thought, which in turn tie to those material (this is so not only for external objects, but for internal ones too; ie for thoughts or parts of thoughts). So in the end you just swim about in an ocean of notional stuff, which are interlinked in ways that cannot realistically be fully accounted for past some general level.
If the above is true, though, how exactly does being extroverted have a biological positive value? I mean one can go about happily for a time, yet running blindfolded in a forest will only be good up until you hit a tree. Maybe biology is to some extent only directing its "sights" on ephemeral stuff, and happiness or productivity under some circumstances (most young people are carefree and would not stand to gain anything by massive introversion). It is also probably true that remnants of biological safeguards of such a type are visible, eg fear of various unlikely (by now) predators or antipathy towards sounds (such as screams) which could attract their attention. Yet i think that ultimately the human mind is more of an oceanic abyss of connections and sets, which always rise to form waves and attract attention only to the waves rather than to the massive watery mass below.
I don't think that being extroverted is a bonus, unless one is a butterfly
