BC #6 Quiet

[sshawnn]

Quiet
The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking

By Susan Cain

Are you a thinker? Are you accused of being in your own head too much? You may be an introvert! For many reasons, my adult quest towards self actualization was put on hold until the last 5 years or so. Books like this are a springboards (maybe cliff notes of several different but yet related subject matter is a more detailed way to say cheat sheet) to learn quickly about an otherwise foreign concept. Susan Cain’s inflections and experiences from a field outside the books main subject matter let the book flow and be very easy to read. The book references some scientific studies but should not be considered a text book or reference style book. (Quiet is classified as behavioral psychology) That being said, I will be keeping one in my own library.

Chances are, most forum members know very well their personality type and have taken a Meyers-Briggs test to solidify their theory. I started to learn (and admit) my personality type as a true introvert later in life. Quiet, helped me to examine the notion of real physiological difference in introverts and extroverts.

Quiet is not hugely scientific and Susan Cain is a lawyer, not a scientist or doctor. She writes in an easy going, story telling fashion that is fun to read. The majority of points she attempts to make in the book seem to be supported by enough information and ideals to be believable.

Cain takes many opportunities to cheer on the introvert in an extroverted world.


I was particularly intrigued by Chapter 4 “Is temperament destiny.” Cain references Kagan’s psychological studies of children through adult hood identifying them as high or low reactive. This chapter really exposes the incorrect notion of personality type being a completely learned behavior.

Questions

1. Are you an introvert? (if yes) If you did a retroactive review of yourself would you fall under Kagan’s high reactive title? If you are an extrovert, are you low reactive?

2. Many sources agree that the studied culture is made up of at least 75% extroverts. Is the world truly more suited for extroverts and do introverts have to overcome a “handicap” to “make it”

3. I think if we polled here on the forum the majority say that introverts are more suited for pursuits closely aligned with ERE. IF that is the case, what advice helpful advice could introverted ERE people offer extroverted ERE types.

[sshawnn]

Questions

1. Are you an introvert? (if yes) If you did a retroactive review of yourself would you fall under Kagan’s high reactive title? If you are an extrovert, are you low reactive?

Yes. Yes I would. The book really made me reconsider ISTJ/INTJ


2. Many sources agree that the studied culture is made up of at least 75% extroverts. Is the world truly more suited for extroverts and do introverts have to overcome a “handicap” to “make it”

Sure. The advertising and consumer worlds use extroversion as a pillar! Handicaps are quietly laid down by the consumer culture on their non mainstream peers all the time. (noted egocentric view, this is regional throughout the world but introversion likely affects readers of this book)

3. I think if we polled here on the forum the majority say that introverts are more suited for pursuits closely aligned with ERE. IF that is the case, what advice helpful advice could introverted ERE people offer extroverted ERE types.

I think introverts have characters that let them more easily, successfully ERE. My advice to most extroverts who want to ERE is simply not to equate extroverted, mainstream “achievement” with personal fulfillment.

[Chad]

Definitely one of my favorite books of the last few years. I think it should be required reading for all extroverts.

Questions

1. Are you an introvert? (if yes) If you did a retroactive review of yourself would you fall under Kagan’s high reactive title? If you are an extrovert, are you low reactive?

Yes, I'm an introvert and high reactive.

2. Many sources agree that the studied culture is made up of at least 75% extroverts. Is the world truly more suited for extroverts and do introverts have to overcome a “handicap” to “make it”

Absolutely. Other than reading, everything is designed for extroverts. Introverts don't need salesmen, most business meetings, most conversations, etc. If introverts were in charge we wouldn't elect a president by determining who the best speaker was (talk about a dumb way to pick such an important position).

3. I think if we polled here on the forum the majority say that introverts are more suited for pursuits closely aligned with ERE. IF that is the case, what advice helpful advice could introverted ERE people offer extroverted ERE types.

Shut the hell up! Think instead of communicating for once.

[theanimal]

1. Yes, I am an introvert but I am low reactive.

2. Definitely. This is highly prevalent in my current environment, college. Endless group work and constant harping on how you need to participate in class. Cain was spot on in that regard. It doesn't matter what you say as long as you talk. Oddly enough, I think I have become even more introverted since beginning college.

3.What Chad said.

Edit: By the way, I really enjoyed this book.

[Dragline]

Not finished yet, but should be done this weekend. You know I ALWAYS finish what I start.

This book is great so far, has some excellent nuggets of wisdom and also has some cross-currents with Jenny's book.

[sshawnn]

Not finished yet, but should be done this weekend. You know I ALWAYS finish what I start.

Cross thread humor is cool

I am glad others are enjoying the book. My questions were not to be a limitation for discussion as the book covers a lot of territory.

[saving-10-years]

I have just started the book. In unusually ERE fashion I ordered the book from the Library (50p reservation charge) rather than buying it online. The downside was that it only just arrived. After these early reviews I will definitely finish it. But answers may be slower. Thanks for choosing this one and for the great questions.

[jennypenny]

Great choice, Shawn.

I definitely identified with the idea of 'pretending' to be an extrovert. My family raised me thinking I was/would be exactly like my extroverted, gregarious father. I learned the role but hated it, and eventually took a destructive route out of the many expectations that went along with it. I still maintain the facade with my family—what I think Cain was talking about with the ‘performing self.’

The chapter that accused religion of being geared towards extroverts was truly enlightening for me. I’d never considered it before. The comment that “If you don’t love Jesus ‘out loud’ then it must not be real love” was brutally honest and reflected feelings I’ve felt in the past. It made me re-evaluate my decision years ago to pursue Catholicism after attending a contemporary Presbyterian church. It makes sense in that context. The Catholic Mass is structured in a way that makes it easier for an introvert to express their faith through rigidly structured rituals that eliminate surprises and the need for extemporaneous prayer.

What was Cain's point when she talked about buzz and flow? Are extroverts looking for a buzz and introverts looking for flow? Or was that related to sensitivity?

One criticism I have is that Cain talked about different methods people could use to accommodate introverts (which they should), but then didn’t talk much about which coping skills introverts could learn to help themselves succeed. I don’t think introverts should ‘pretend’ to be extroverts; I think it would help to be more efficient introverts. For example, one thing I’ve learned in therapy is that I don’t need to ruminate over every decision. I’ve learned to identify when I’m doing it over something meaningless like deciding what to cook for dinner, acknowledge that I’m doing it, force myself to make a quick decision, and move on. I’ve also learned to save my best introvert traits and protective mechanisms for things that really matter, and let go of them and be more exposed on things that don’t matter as much. Learning to smile or touch during silences can also remove the air of aloofness that can surround an introvert.

Cain also repeatedly stated that introverts were better at reading people. I'm terrible at reading social clues. Am I the only one (introvert) that's hopelessly lost in a social situation?


I could talk about this book for hours (which is kinda funny since the book is about introverts who don’t like to talk), but on to the questions …

1. Are you an introvert? (if yes) If you did a retroactive review of yourself would you fall under Kagan’s high reactive title? If you are an extrovert, are you low reactive?

I'm an introvert, although I’m not as quiet as some. I have no idea if I was a reactive child, and there’s no one left to ask. As an adult, I find that I’m reactive to certain things but not others. Is that sensitive and not reactive? I found those two concepts confusing in the book.


2. Many sources agree that the studied culture is made up of at least 75% extroverts. Is the world truly more suited for extroverts and do introverts have to overcome a “handicap” to “make it”

I found the section in the beginning that discussed how the world was designed for extroverts interesting, especially the role consumerism played. It would make a good book all on its own. I wondered if there are more extroverts now, and that fuels the consumerist culture? Or if the focus on consumerism during the last century cultivated more extroverts? Maybe it’s just cultivating more ‘pretend’ extroverts?

Personally, social media and status-driven purchases seem like a less emotionally-taxing way to act extroverted than trying to keep up through social demands and exchanges. As an introvert with extreme social anxiety, I’m never going to talk my way into the ‘in’ crowd, but I’ve got the means to buy my way in. It made me think about consumerism differently.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that introverts have to overcome a handicap to succeed. I think that’s stretching the point a little too far. I would describe introverts as having an additional set of hurdles if they want to succeed in a traditional way. Introverts seem to have it easier when it comes to ERE.


3. I think if we polled here on the forum the majority say that introverts are more suited for pursuits closely aligned with ERE. IF that is the case, what advice helpful advice could introverted ERE people offer extroverted ERE types.

I would say to find ways to satisfy their extroverted needs with less money. Extroverts might require bigger budgets in categories related to socializing and we (forum introverts) shouldn’t denigrate those choices. An extrovert might find the $50/month they spend on bar hopping with friends as satisfying as an introvert’s $50/month budget for books or tools. Extroverts might be better candidates for semi-ERE , volunteer work, or other post-retirement activities that involve a lot of social contact.

[Chad]

Cain also repeatedly stated that introverts were better at reading people. I'm terrible at reading social clues. Am I the only one (introvert) that's hopelessly lost in a social situation?


I could talk about this book for hours (which is kinda funny since the book is about introverts who don’t like to talk), but on to the questions …

Terrible at reading useless social clues like the ones associated inane weather talk? Or, terrible at reading social clues when it actually matters?

For me, I actually think I'm decent at reading social cues, but terrible at replying to them when they are part of the inane "filler" conversations.

I could talk about it this book a lot too. I almost bought copies for my company to try and get them to realize there is more than one "right" way.

[Dragline]

Ok, finally finished:

Book-tator Questions:

1. Are you an introvert? (if yes) If you did a retroactive review of yourself would you fall under Kagan’s high reactive title? If you are an extrovert, are you low reactive?

I am right on the line between I and E, leaning towards the I, but currently testing on the MB scale as an E. I was not highly reactive as a baby. I was more like a lump of flesh. My mother thought I was destined to be “slow” and probably not very bright. I was very introverted at times growing up with sharp inclinations towards math and science, but have become more extroverted as I have gotten older, some by natural inclination and some by choice.

I find that when I am with an introverted crowd, I am the most extroverted person in the group, and when with an extroverted crowd I am usually one of the most introverted of the group. I see value in both approaches to life.

When I need to do serious work/thinking/preparing, I am better off alone. But I like to collect ideas from others and then synthesize them, which is often way more efficient that reinventing your own wheel, so the “research” part of my work is often social. I enjoy both introverted and extroverted social activities, but dislike the extremes of large crowds or complete solitude for days at a time. I do almost everything in moderation, and usually regret it when I don’t.


2. Many sources agree that the studied culture is made up of at least 75% extroverts. Is the world truly more suited for extroverts and do introverts have to overcome a “handicap” to “make it”

I think the measure is more likely to be 50%-2/3rds extroverted and the rest introverted. U.S. culture is geared more towards the extrovert. Consumerism and “social proof” are highly correlated with extroversion. Other cultures not so much so, although I think it varies a lot from place to place.

Both introverts and extroverts would be well-advised to develop enough of the others’ skill set to be “conversant” in the way the other side works, even if they don’t want to spend their leisure time in that world. “Stretch the rubber band” as the book puts it.

I’m not in favor of designing whole societies that appeal only to one sort or the other, or exulting one approach over the other. A free society should have room for both.


3. I think if we polled here on the forum the majority say that introverts are more suited for pursuits closely aligned with ERE. IF that is the case, what advice helpful advice could introverted ERE people offer extroverted ERE types.

I agree. Extroverts would be well advised to take up such activities as journaling or writing their plans down to force themselves to reflect and thereby think before they act. They also need to find social activities that are not related to consumerism. This used to be easier than it is today.


Other thoughts and notes:

The bit about the IBM songs made me laugh (“Selling IBM” to “Singin’ in the Rain”). I went online and found this gem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ChoHNEgRI


I had not appreciated the historical difference between the “Culture of Character” of the 19th Century and the “Culture of Personality” that developed in the 20th. I thought that lens/model made a lot of sense as a fundamental difference between the two. To a certain extent, the latter only became possible with the advent of mass media. It made me kind of wonder where we are headed in the 21st. While there is still lots of mass media directed at large audiences, the internet has made publication and dispersion of information available to nearly everyone. This could lead to a “Culture of Narcissism” on the negative side or some kind of “Culture of Free Expression” on the positive side.


I was aware that so-called experts, particularly in the social sciences or politics, are notoriously bad at predicting anything in the future with any consistency – one of the hallmark dividers between good science and pseudo-science, or good and bad models if you prefer. I had not heard the “Bus to Abilene” anecdote/analogy, but it aptly describes some of the madness of crowds and how organizations can go off the rails with social proof.


The best new and useful information I learned in this book was the part about which kind of leaders are better for which groups – that introverted leaders get better results out of motivated groups, but you need extroverted ones to motivate passive groups. I’ve always wondered why sometimes leadership clicks and sometimes it doesn’t. This explains a lot about what the right approach might be in a given situation.


The identification between extroversion and the modern American mega-church was also insightful. I can see why introverts would shy away from such organizations and tend towards either more traditional churches or flexible but non-evangelical ones. It also made me want to go read the book of Jeremiah to see if was indeed “a genius CEO.”


I think the author gets a little alarmist when she goes off with the idea of “The New Groupthink”. Made me muse about what the “Old Groupthink” might be. Whenever authors of these types of books start veering into criticisms and fixes for the US educational system, I tend to think they are out of their depth and also making a fundamental mistake in assuming that there is any uniformity in that system. I think these management trends tend to come and go.


The data re open floor plans confirms my suspicions. Most people I know at work want to have their own space and are not interested in trendy open floor plans or “hoteling.”


I was aware that brainstorming turns out to have been a bad idea and probably only works to a limited extent with people working on marketing campaigns. But I recall from Kahneman’s “Thinking Fast and Slow” that one way it can work is if everyone comes up with their own ideas on their own before the meeting and then brings their list with them. This way people are not unduly influenced by what the group is thinking. As the studies show, social proof is a powerful and primitive motivator connected with the animal parts of our brains. Thus, it did not surprise me that this worked much better electronically, where people were not forced to sit in a room with one another but could think about the problem at their leisure and then write down the thoughts they wanted to share.


The Kagan research on the genetics and heritability of introversion or extroversion was interesting and reminded me of the “Sports Gene” book we read. It made me wonder if certain groups of people were prone to one or the other. That Kagan did not fall into the B.F. Skinner trap of thinking that what he found explains everything increases my respect for his work and perspectives. “To ask whether it’s nature or nurture, says Kagan, is like asking whether a blizzard is caused by temperature or humidity. It’s the intricate interaction between the two that makes us who we are.” (at 109). On the other hand, the main deficiency I see with this book is the author’s attempts to use the introversion/extroversion spectrum as a model for explaining everything about human behavior – “to a woman who only has a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” That came through particularly at the end of the book where she started giving parenting advice.


Equating psychopathy with extroversion is just wrong, and somewhat ignorant actually. For every extroverted con man or serial killer, there is also a misanthropic loner who may send bombs in the mail or shoot up a school or a theater, or just be the grumpy neighbor nobody likes. (See “The Science of Evil” and or “The Sociopath Next Door”.) The author gets way out of her element here and reveals an unfortunate “introvert good, extrovert bad” bias.


From what I can tell, I do have the “short” (introvert) version of the serotonin transporter gene, although its still not clear how many genes are involved in this determination.


This was one of the best observations in the book (at pp 117-18):

“Schwartz’s research suggests something important: we can stretch our personalities, but only up to a point. Our inborn temperaments influence us, regardless of the lives we lead. A sizable part of who we are is ordained by our genes, by our brains, by our nervous systems. And yet the elasticity that Schwartz found in some of the high-reactive teens also suggests the converse: we have free will and can use it to shape our personalities. These seem like contradictory principles, but they are not. Free will can take us far, suggests Dr. Schwartz’s research, but it cannot carry us infinitely beyond our genetic limits. Bill Gates is never going to be Bill Clinton, no matter how he polishes his social skills, and Bill Clinton can never be Bill Gates, no matter how much time he spends alone with a computer. We might call this the “rubber band theory” of personality. We are like rubber bands at rest. We are elastic and can stretch ourselves, but only so much.”

The rubber band analogy of personality is quite a good model. Stretching the rubber band on either end would be a laudable goal for most people.


The public speaking class the author went to reminded me of a class I teach to law students about speaking in court. Most of this is simply a skill to be learned and is not dictated by personality. Really the question is “what version of you” is the one that should do the speaking. Finding that version can take some time and effort, but its usually well worth it and can be quite empowering.


This passage had interesting correlations or cross-currents with both the 80/20 rule (power laws as an organizing principle of nature) and Kahneman’s “Thinking Fast and Slow” that I am not sure the author appreciated: “From fruit flies to house cats to mountain goats, from sunfish to bushbaby primates to Eurasian tit birds, scientists have discovered that approximately 20 percent of the members of many species are “slow to warm up,” while the other 80 percent are “fast” types who venture forth boldly without noticing much of what’s going on around them. (Intriguingly, the percentage of infants in Kagan’s lab who were born high-reactive was also, you’ll recall, about twenty.) If “fast” and “slow” animals had parties, writes the evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson, “some of the fasts would bore everyone with their loud conversation, while others would mutter into their beer that they don’t get any respect. Slow animals are best described as shy, sensitive types. They don’t assert themselves, but they are observant and notice things that are invisible to the bullies. They are the writers and artists at the party who have interesting conversations out of earshot of the bullies.” (at 146).


Does this passage apply to ERE? I think/would hope it does: “In the long run,” said Ni, “if the idea is good, people shift. If the cause is just and you put heart into it, it’s almost a universal law: you will attract people who want to share your cause. Soft power is quiet persistence. The people I’m thinking of are very persistent in their day-to-day, person-to-person interactions. Eventually they build up a team.” As I am fond of saying “Build it and they will come.”


I heartily agree with this idea – and it gets the past the oft-heard excuse “I can’t because I am . . . “: “You might wonder how a strong introvert like Professor Little manages to speak in public so effectively. The answer, he says, is simple, and it has to do with a new field of psychology that he created almost singlehandedly, called Free Trait Theory. Little believes that fixed traits and free traits coexist. According to Free Trait Theory, we are born and culturally endowed with certain personality traits— introversion, for example— but we can and do act out of character in the service of “core personal projects.” In other words, introverts are capable of acting like extroverts for the sake of work they consider important, people they love, or anything they value highly.” (at p. 209)


I like this too. In fact, this is one of the reasons I frequent this forum: “Restorative niche” is Professor Little’s term for the place you go when you want to return to your true self. It can be a physical place, like the path beside the Richelieu River, or a temporal one, like the quiet breaks you plan between sales calls. It can mean canceling your social plans on the weekend before a big meeting at work, practicing yoga or meditation, or choosing e-mail over an in-person meeting. (Even Victorian ladies, whose job effectively was to be available to friends and family, were expected to withdraw for a rest each afternoon.)” (at p. 219)


Here is something that Taleb is big on – the iatrogenic problem, and that I see a lot of: “But Ethan’s own parents never found a way to see him in that light. The last thing Dr. Miller heard was that his parents finally consulted with another psychologist who agreed to “treat” their son. And now Dr. Miller is the one who’s worried about Ethan. “This is a clear case of an ‘iatrogenic’ problem,’ ” he says. “That’s when the treatment makes you sick. The classic example is when you use treatment to try to make a gay child into a straight one. I worry for that kid. These parents are very caring and well-meaning people. They feel that without treatment, they’re not preparing their son for society. That he needs more fire in him. Maybe there’s truth to that last part; I don’t know. But whether there is or not, I firmly believe that it’s impossible to change that kid. I worry that they’re taking a perfectly healthy boy and damaging his sense of self.” (at page 242-243)


The book kind of tailed off at the end where she started giving advice about fixing schools. I’m not sure the author has actually spent that much time managing groups of children. Her prescriptions looked a little bit too formulaic.

That said, I thought this was a great book with a lot of interesting information and insights.

[jennypenny]

I had not appreciated the historical difference between the “Culture of Character” of the 19th Century and the “Culture of Personality” that developed in the 20th. I thought that lens/model made a lot of sense as a fundamental difference between the two. To a certain extent, the latter only became possible with the advent of mass media. It made me kind of wonder where we are headed in the 21st. While there is still lots of mass media directed at large audiences, the internet has made publication and dispersion of information available to nearly everyone. This could lead to a “Culture of Narcissism” on the negative side or some kind of “Culture of Free Expression” on the positive side.

I was struck by this idea, too. My first reaction was that I was born in the wrong century. I dug up Warren Susman's essay that Cain quoted from in Chapter 1. The essay is part of a collection http://www.amazon.com/CULTURE-AS-HISTOR ... inw_strp_1 .

So far, I've read the Introduction and the last essay "Personality and the Making of Twentieth-Century Culture." Both are good. His comments on the effect of mass media seem particularly insightful since the essay was written before the digital age and the internet. From the introduction ... Any study of the culture of abundance begins with the obvious cultural consequences of the new communications. It is not simply that these inventions made abundance available to many and made possible increasingly effective distribution. Consciousness itself was altered; the very perception of time and space was radically changed. Perhaps no previous culture was as significantly shaped by the available communications technology. New cultural forms previously unknown developed ; those that continued were reshaped repeatedly. At the same time, no other culture expended so much of its energy and resources discussing and analyzing communication and its problems. That became a characteristic of the culture itself.

The last essay changed my opinion about belonging to the last century. I think ERE might borrow [what I would consider] the best traits from both centuries. Character development and a producer mentality are prevalent, but without the Puritan ideals and accompanying selflessness of the 19th century. A keen awareness of crowds and crowd mentality, and the intent to work the system for individual benefit seem more like 20th/21st century concepts that ERE incorporates.

Anyway, sorry for the OT. I've enjoyed what I've read so far, but obviously can't say anything about the rest of the essays. Here's another snippet from the essay on Personality ...

Yet they illustrate my conviction that we can best understand modern cultural developments in all forms if we see and define the particular vision of the self basic to each cultural order. But my fundamental interest in the culture of character lies in the signs of its disappearance and the resulting call for a new modal type best suited to carry out the mission of a newer cultural order. It was not that the culture of character died suddenly or that books and manuals stressing the “character” vision of the self disappeared. In fact they are still being published . But, starting somewhere in the middle of the first decade of the twentieth century, there rapidly developed another vision of self, another vision of self -development and mastery, another method of the presentation of self in society. First, there is clear and growing evidence of an awareness of significant change in the social order, especially after 1880. Symptoms are easily suggested: what was called “American nervousness” and the various efforts at its diagnosis; the rash of utopian writings; the development of systematic sociological and economic analysis in the academic world; the development in government and public journals of a view of the need for “objective” and “scientific” gathering of data and treatment of social ills; and, even more important, the development of psychological and psychiatric studies. This awareness of change also suggested the need for a new kind of man, a new modal type to meet the new conditions . Perhaps few were as specific as Simon Patten and The New Basis of Civilization (1909), in which he argued that a society moving from scarcity to abundance required a new self. ...

There is general agreement among historians that some significant material change occurred in the period we are considering . Whether it is a change from a producer to a consumer society , an order of economic accumulation to one of disaccumulation, industrial capitalism to finance capitalism, scarcity to abundance, disorganization to high organization— however that change is defined, it is clear that a new social order was emerging. But even more important than this was the growing awareness on the part of those living through the change that it was in fact occurring and that it was fundamental. The ability to treat this change with increasing “objectivity” made it possible to face the subjective or psychological changes that seemed to be mandated. All of this is preface to the discovery of the beginnings of a radical shift in the kinds of advice manuals that appeared after the turn of the century, and to new preoccupations, which strike at the heart of the basis of the culture of character. In an important sense, however, the transition began in the very bosom of the old culture. For it was what might be called the other side of Emerson— his vision of a transcendent self— that formed the heart of that New Thought or Mind Cure movement so important in the process from a culture of character to a culture of personality.

[jennypenny]

I posted a link to a podcast Dan Pink did with Susan Cain in a journal, but I should post it here, too.

What I posted in cimorene12's journal ...

Pink has done several talks which are available on the internet, if you just want to hear his spiel. He does a podcast http://www.danpink.com/office-hours/ and he's had some good guests including Dan Ariely and Susan Cain. He also has some good resources on his website http://www.danpink.com/ .

[Chad]

Thanks, Jenny. I love her book.