As for my "point".. I'm of the school that believes that trying to harshly define things in terms of psychology harms as much as it helps. I don't see introversion and extroversion as black and white.. more labels assigned to people who display a disposition for preferring certain things. I guess that's always been enough for me.
What lead me to this thinking is that introverts are described as needing time alone to recharge and extraverts needing time in company.. however having spoken to extraverts and introverts the opposite is also true and often more marked by the subject. An extravert will usually be quick to point out how they need alone time to feel okay (presumably because it stands out in comparison to their normal routine). With all the contradiction in people I gave up on strict definitions even in theory.
However to try to define things for this discussion my father refers to introverts as primarily concerned with the world inside their heads... that made a lot of sense to me. As an INTP I'm more concerned with how much sense things make to me rather than whether they work in the real world.
Conversely I've found in discussions with my INTJ friend that he's more concerned with the practicalities of an idea more than it's exact infrastructure and internal consistency.
Note I'm only postulating that this could be a good measure to Ti vs Te...
I'm not so commanding in that sense. I am often leading our social circle but more due to everyone else refusing to make a decision than any great desire to be centre stage.I like to put together a committe to get something done. "I'm in charge, Bob you are doing ......, Jane, would you prefer to do X or Y? Great, now lets get this done asap. Let's meet again on the 24th."
Quite possibly. Hell even if you're an introvert it could be that which is missing.. I know I've had more fun since I dropped the whole seclusion clause in my social contractI believe getting involved like that is what's missing in my life at the moment.