Is social shyness that big a problem?

My friend S doesn't like to be in a crowd. Not even one made up of friendly acquaintances. He likes to live by himself; new people make him uncomfortable; carrying on conversations outside the ordinary costs him tremendous amounts of energy.  This inhibition comes in the way of his articulating his opinions on things and  on having his way in interpersonal relations. He is very likely to feel that other people are dominating him or working against his will. This makes him want to withdraw further into his shell, to try and forcibly create some personal space for himself. All this while he is aware that he needs people to survive or get anywhere, but he just cannot handle them, and so puts part of the blame on himself, and smarts from what he sees as his social shortcomings.  Most people around him do not understand him. They don't want to. To them he is not entertaining, not comprehensible, not chummy enough, a thorough misfit lacking in social skills. Probably they even associate negative qualities such as selfishness and timidity and passivity with him.

But I can totally empathize with S, my basic personality type being the same as his. Only I have realized the hardships of this way of life and forced myself to adjust, to change myself at least on the outside, to try and fit in and be friendly with people. This costs me enormous resources of energy too. But then I am not as misunderstood as S.  I can get my way more often than he.  In our dominant social worldview, especially the  aggressive Western outlook which puts a premium on activity over passivity and values the ability to "hardsell" oneself , "introversion" and "shyness" are negative words. In  Asian cultures, reticence is valued more. It is a gesture of respect towards "elders and betters".  No one will think you weird for not making eye contact. A quiet unassuming person is thought less pretentious, and assertive or expressive western manners could be viewed as arrogant.  But it's only  a marginal advantage which is offset in some other ways.  A shy person would have a hard time bargaining, dealing with corrupt officials, pesky intrusive relatives and the like.

True, shy people face a lot of difficulties. But does it not come with some benefits of its own?

S is very good at mathematics. He may not be so good at verbally laying down his thoughts, but give him a blackboard and a piece of chalk and he can be the most communicative of people.  When you think in abstract terms for most of the day, and deal with them professionally, lay people without access to similar levels of mathematical insight can seem very foreign indeed. The ways of our society, and in general of any group of humans who come together to undertake some common activity, (usually shallow, not requiring any great intellectual insight) are not usually rational.  S can maintain the rigor of his thoughts through his aloofness from the mainstream.

Introverted people are often capable of deeper, more emotionally grounded, consistent relationships. They tend to know fewer people, but the ones they do, they usually do because they form deep bonds with them. An extrovert used to having her way around, would on the contrary claim a lot of "friendships", which usually turn out  to be temporary shallow need-based relations. Extroversion obviously comes loaded with more immediate benefits, but maybe introverts might have it better long-term? Many introverts make for popular, if under-appreciated  friends.  What person doesn't like to brag or relate his problems to someone else who is a good listener and wont go around telling on you, and even on occasions  give quiet soft-spoken support and advice. This is why I accept S almost unquestioningly.

The pursuit of the intellect often needs one to divert oneself from what are considered as  usual and healthy pastimes. An author for example would  often want to spend more time watching people around him do stuff, than being very active herself.  Her apparent passivity is just a shell to help observe people, process their feedback, form her own thoughts and gain more insight.  Same goes for the scientist who is also a professional observer.  Most labrats used to engaging in extremely directed and cerebral pursuits, would find themselves out of place in a frat party.  While an extrovert would be in love with the world, be driven often to contradictory impulses by all the rich sensory feedback she gathers from all over the place, an introvert would be more capable of filtering out and focus.  Somehow the former approach is more celebrated in our culture.

Part of it stems from the Romantic era glorification of the adventurous follies of the genius's mind. Our movies invariably celebrate the protagonist (usually male) who goes out and boldly makes mistakes, has adventures and usually wins his lady love and pot of gold in the end.  Even with our most creative artists and scientists, we like to tell stories of how eccentric they were with people or how successful they were at womanizing (suggesting a high degree of control in their relations, and a high hit-rate when it comes to having their way with people).  Extroversion is, almost like machismo, one of our longstanding cultural fetishes.

Introverts wouldn't readily act on impulse. They are used to having their voices ignored, and not getting their work done by others easily. This makes them more cautious, more afraid of making mistakes, and more given to deliberations before acting.  I might even stick my neck out to say that the quiet unassuming approach of the introvert is more attuned to our modern ideas of liberal democracy.

So far I have made extroversion sound like a monstrosity - a superficial trait founded on control and selfishness.  Part of it was obviously intended, as I am trying to challenge social stereotypes here. I have to attack the construct that I have set out to dismantle.  Shouldn't I be more like : "oh, extroversion and introversion are just these two character types, we need to respect each for what she is, to each his own, both are needed like yin and yang to maintain some balance" etc.?  Extroverts are not always control freaks or shallow hedonists. They could be very friendly caring types who go all out to help people too.  They could be comic artistes who make people feel better.  But yes if he wanted to be manipulative or ruthlessly goal-driven, there certainly are more options at his disposal, and not so just by definition. Social perceptions are likely to be heavily biased in his favor. 

I would like to argue that introversion has some benefits of its own, and so shouldn't be looked upon as a problem or worse, a disease.  But when could it be a problem? Life is full of difficult choices, and choosing to remain introverted or pushing yourself a bit to break the shackles, are both hard choices.  I think if indulged in to an extreme extent,  introversion could be a serious problem.  If a scientist is so shy that he is unable to discuss problems effectively with his colleagues, it could be a major impediment.  If you can never express your wants and expectations fully, you are likely to be hurt time and again. You will even have problems lightening your mood by sharing your pain with people. It is a fact of life that we need other people to survive, just as we need our personal spaces as rational individuals. To what extent should a compromise be made? There are no easy answers, I am afraid. At the end of the day, it's your call, and what matters is that you shouldn't feel too left out or victimized.  I personally believe in being open to experimentation.  S is more conservative and likes to stay put in his comfort zone. We are both managing.

So what am I really trying to say here?  An extrovert is one who  is more comfortable with or more attuned to the society around him.  So obviously he's going to get more out of people. That is clearly something that holds by definition.  What I am getting at really is this : softspoken reclusive people shouldnt be misunderstood, discriminated againist or bullied, just on the superficial assumption that they are self-seeking, people-hating weirdos.  In general, people shouldn't jump to conclusions or pass judgements on others. This is without doubt a general self-important preachy left lib statement, but we need to come up with these statements once in a while to keep ourselves from being nasty to each other.  As it is our society has  problems being considerate enough to women, disadvantaged minorities and homosexuals, and a lot of other kinds of misfits. Just as it traditionally values "masculine" activity and generativity  over "feminine" passivity and receptivity, there are a lot of other stereotypes it promotes that we need to be wary about.  The other point is that people like myself or S shouldn't probably feel too bad about what we are, as introversion comes with its own set of advantages too, however unappreciated these might be in the dominant discourse.  It is useful to think of life as a distance race, where there might be people muscling their way past us now, but we are well-trained runners possessing enough resilience to not lose hope for the long-term.