Talking abstractly is usually better in social situations. Your audience can get the main point really easily, and if they want more details then there are lots of questions they can ask.
Diving into concrete details is bad because.
- Explaining details takes time and can lead to monologues. You want to be sure that people want the details before you do this
- Understanding the details can take a lot of effort so it’s tiring for the other person, and you risk making them feel stupid if they don’t understand.
I think that this experiment is showing that extroverts have better social skills.
The article is not really talking about abstraction vs concrete details in the sense that you are—it's about the difference between extroverts giving high-level descriptions and sweeping inferences ("they admitted to engaging in more interpretation – describing things that were not directly visible in the pictures") vs introverts describing images exactly as they are, with their extra words coming in as extra details from the image ("numbers and specific people") and "making more distinctions".
In other words, the abstraction isn't an intentional one that is designed to an end, it's creative and knowingly potentially inaccurate. Meanwhile the concrete details aren't a sort of out-of-touch technical rant that's out of reach for the audience, it's that introverts tend to interpret the question literally and actually describe the contents of the photos.
One of the researchers' conclusions actually runs directly counter to your introverts-exhibit-worse-social-skills narrative:
> "Thus an introvert's linguistic style would induce more situational attributions and a higher perception of trustworthiness than an extravert's style," the researchers said.
Although far more frequently they will talk abstractly enough that they are not really saying anything, and they just keep going. When the point could in this case would have been possible to make with 2 short detailed sentences. I am afraid to ask any questions, because I think they will not understand the question anyway, and it will just be another reason to keep saying whatever they want to say with no meaning at all.
I think in work settings, many extraverted managers are like that. Just so much time in meetings spent on this yapping.
Ultimately I think they just do it because it gives them feeling of control, authority and visibility. Because people will see someone with a lot to say as higher status.
There's a productive reason to do it for themselves, because it indicates higher status, and that is good for their career. It's probably subconscious and naturally rewarding for a lot of them for sure.
But overall for team productivity, it hurts since more time in meetings, more energy and time wasted, less time spent on development.
As an introvert I would find those meetings very draining, but coding is stimulating and energizing.
Diving into concrete details is bad because. - Explaining details takes time and can lead to monologues. You want to be sure that people want the details before you do this - Understanding the details can take a lot of effort so it’s tiring for the other person, and you risk making them feel stupid if they don’t understand.
I think that this experiment is showing that extroverts have better social skills.