Because I'm only a self-identified social philosopher and also not very quick with concepts that may or may not already be apparent to my brainier counterparts, I apologise in advance that it has taken me so damn long to catch onto this. 'This' being an extension of the extravert-introvert philosophy.
The really extroverted people release social energy, no matter where they are or who they meet. My friend Beq is one such person who simply radiates friendly, approachable vibes - whether she's sitting at a bus stop or out at a party. It never seems to matter to her that she doesn't know anyone, she will readily be the glue that holds conversations, however brief, together. That's why she makes such an awesome nurse.
On the other hand, the really introverted people absorb that energy without giving anything back - they are like social energy black holes. No matter how interesting the company, all the vibes are deadened by this type of introvert. They are often vague and distant, even in lively situations. They seem to pass through the world without absorbing any of its flavour.
Most people can control whether they give or take social energy - like sometimes you meet shy people and you think they're introverted but then you get to know them and they are actually quite extroverted. I have plenty of raucous friends who believe they are 'shy', which they mostly are when they meet new people.
In my own experience, depending on the situation, I can be quite aloof, which is my coping mechanism for when I feel out of my depth (e.g. fashion show). Lately I've been practising outward confidence, taking the initiative in meeting people and never mind the small stuff (i.e. cheek-kissing). This works because it allays my discomfort and it provides a new opening for social contact. At the moment the only thing I have real difficulty with is meeting people when they're all already in conversation with someone else. Because I feel rude.
Anyway, most of us can control the level of energy we give or take from a situation. It varies with the setting - on a train, for example, I've conditioned myself to 'switch off' those vibes because train freaks are attracted to me whereas at the pub I might emit more energy.
But the extremes have a problem with turning on or off their energy levels. Beq gets people coming up to her all the time - in supermarkets, at internet cafes etc - to dump their brain all over her personality. She once complained that she must have a neon sign above her head saying 'tell me all your problems'. That lack of privacy and personal space can be exhausting for the radiating extrovert.
At the other extreme, dull people are introverts who can't control their absorption of social energy because they can't seem to return the same level of energy back to the initiator. It's like playing handball - the energy-giver serves and the energy-taker just stands there. If the energy-giver is lucky, the ball will rebound off the energy-taker and giver can keep going. Eventually, though, the giver gets tired of being the only active player and leaves the taker alone. After all, what's the point of investing time and effort on someone who's inert?
A secondary theory, extrapolated from this, is the theory of silence. Silence is comfortable when both parties understand that there is nothing more to say on a subject at that point in time and that another shareable thought will come along soon. The social energy level in a comfortable silence is neutral.
An uncomfortable silence is one where at least one party feels obliged to devote social energy into the moment, even if there is no guarantee of return. It is this 'obligation' of energy that makes the silence uncomfortable. Their decision to break or continue the silence gives or takes social energy to/from the moment, which until that point is neutral.
Comments welcome.
