Extroversion vs. Introversion

In this post, I refer to the words introversion and extroversion as methods of obtaining energy. Introverts obtain energy through relaxation, finding highly social situations to be draining after a while, and needing to take a break every now and then (NOT synonymous with antisocialsm or shyness). Meanwhile, extroverts thrive on social interactions for their energy.
I myself am highly introverted. I love being around people but can become exhausted and need to confine myself to my room to 'recharge'. I'm impressed by people who can be around many other people for the entire day any not be completely drained at the end of it. It makes me wonder why people are one way or the other. I think a possibility might be that it is an observation of your parents (or whoever you may have been raised by) from a young age. My parents have many friends at their work, but rarely saw them in other contexts. They both came home, ate dinner, relaxed with each other and the family, went to bed and repeated the same thing the following day. It was very rare that we had company - as evidenced by our dogs who greated any person outside the realm of our family with loud barking and nervous sniffing. I, like my parents, typically see my friends in the same settings in which I got to know them.
As an introvert in a college atmosphere where true alone time is hard to come by, I find that I must often engage in destressing activities. During the week it is imperative that I play the piano at some point and on weekends go on drives by horse farms - or even return home for a ride. This leads me to my question - Do extroverts ever feel the need to "get away" in the absence of social stressors?

Morality

It is often argued that one of the best gifts bestowed on humankind via religion is morality. While it is very possible that morals may be obtained through religion, I think it is tragic to say, which is often argued, that it is the sole module through which we may learn morality. Morality is both innate and learned through consequences of actions. Animals illustrate this point wonderfully. I think it is fair to say that no other species subscribes to a particular doctrine, yet we see them abide by some moral principles. I recently learned of a horse whose pasture mate was blind would help him navigate the pasture, ensuring he never got too close to potentially dangerous objects such as the fence and eletric wire. There have been dolphins that have chased away sharks in pursuit of humans and also have brought drowning humans to shore. A crow that adopted a stray kitten would caw loudly whenever he got too close to the road so that passerbys may be weary. Although our intelligence is unrivaled, we must not forget that we too are animals and have similar mechanisms of learning and behavior. We learn not to steal because we are either punished and/or feel guilty for our actions. Morality, to me, seems quite palpably natural. As all other species of the world, we aim to pass on our genes and help our species survive and thus we have adapted behaviors and mechanisms that increase our survival rate - and being moral and helping other is an enormous one.

Question: How important do you think studying animals is to understanding ourselves?

Is the knower wiser than the Believer?

Response
Naturally, I believe the first step to ansering this question is defining what wise means. To me, wise connotes experience and not accepting things at face value - meaning, not believing whatever is told you you. In society, we would call such a person a fool or gullible. This being my idea of what the word wise means, I would say that the knower is wiser than the believer. A believer, by definition, must support something without certainty of it - thus, they must accept something at face value, for they do not 'know' whether or not it truly is so. To know something means to explore all other alternatives and dismiss all, meanwhile what they "know" to be true cannot be discredited or disproven. It is wiser to srutinize all possibilities, and thus we know that whatever is left is our currently best explanation.

Question: What makes a topic socially taboo to discuss and critique?

Response to Michelle Webb

What would be a beautiful emotion?
I think an immediate response to this question would be love. I feel that the word emotion, though, has a connotation that it is something that must be elicited - it is the product of an event or relaying of information. I have constant love for my family, but have irregular emotions in regard to them. Sometimes, I may be mad, other times I may feel content or neutral, and other times I may be fully aware of the love I have for them - and in my opinion, I feel you are most fully aware of your love for someone when their safety is at risk (coincides with the idea that 'you don't know what you have until it's gone'). My mother had been diagnosed with cancer a year ago, which is most certainly one of the ugliest and hardest things a human being (or animal for that matter) may have to go through - however, it brought my family even closer together. When you're on the cusp of losing someone, it forces you to evaluate the possible consequences of losing that person. Most often, you'll find that these consequences are more than devastating and would most anybody to fully value that person's current state of existence. So when my mother was put into remission, I experienced the greatest sense of euphoria. I can imagine no greater sense of relief. Of course, their are many other modes through which we may encounter a beautiful emotion - this is just for me, the most beautiful I have personally felt.

Question: Why is it that we don't know what we have until it's gone?

Response to Michelle Webb

I think confidence is not purely dependent on physical appearance. We may be confident in our own individual talents - a math teacher may be very confident in their math skills and teaching skills. Physical appearance must only affect confidence in social relationships. Some people are naturally thin (and I know a few that are genuinely self conscious about how thin they are). In all other cases, I believe that the desire and requisite steps taken to achieve a small physique are catalyzed by insecurities of physical appearance. Our culture has fathered the notion that thin is beautiful - and the demands to be ever thinner are rapidly increasing. Only 15 years ago the average model's pant size was a six. Today, it is a 0. Not only do models starve themselves, but also adopt other unhealthy habits such as smoking and even as drastic as snorting cocaine as a means to keep trim. Women who are insecure in their appearance are under the impression that if they drop 20lbs they'll be magically beautiful. It's a tragic ideology that has been imposed upon our culture.

Question: Why is thin beautiful?