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

The first chapter discusses the shift in American society from the Culture of Character in the 19th century to a Culture of Personality in the 20th century, making extroversion the ideal. Cultivating an outgoing, engaging personality began to be favored over a self-effacing, disciplined demeanor. That this accompanied a rise in urban living and immigration, and the creation of the corporation, is no accident. Instead of living their lives in the same small town or rural area where residents knew each other, Americans increasingly resided in fluid, crowded areas where first impressions mattered in winning over strangers. The sales profession also took off in the early 20th century. Soon, the ability to make a good sales pitch became a prized quality not only at work but also in one’s private life.

The terms “introvert” and “extrovert” as psychological types were popularized in the 1920s by psychologist Carl Jung. Soon, self-help guides like Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People (1936) offered to help people overcome diffidence and turn into extroverts. All this coincided with the explosive popularity of movies, which made stars out of performers. Eventually, everyone aspired to be a performer of some kind—even if only to project their public selves to the world.

This trend influenced most all aspects of society, starting with courtship. Previously, having a certain reserve was an admirable quality for both men and women. Now it was seen as a liability. The ideal way of raising their kids changed as well. With the rising influence of psychology in the 1920s, parents were warned to watch for and thwart the development of an inferiority complex in their kids by socializing them properly and giving them ample opportunity to develop an outgoing personality. Thus, children were sent to school at ever younger ages to learn how to deal harmoniously with others. As sociologist William Whyte documented this in his 1956 book The Organization Man, college admission offices were on the lookout not for standout intellects, but for amiable and sociable students with average grades—a shift he attributed to the fact that corporations sought this type of person for their employees. The ideal company man had a “hail-fellow-well-met demeanor” (28).

Cain points out that extroversion is nothing new, and some scientists believe it is genetically encoded. Europeans and Americans tend to be more extroverted than Africans and Asians, which matches migration patterns: Being extroverted would have been a key trait for frequent migrants. Similarly, early Americans prized action over intellect. This can be seen in the waves of 19th century religious revivals known as the Great Awakenings, whose clergy incorporated a healthy level of performance. Likewise, the 1828 presidential campaign, in which war hero Andrew Jackson defeated the bookish John Quincy Adams, illustrates the same principle. As a Jackson slogan put it, “John Quincy Adams who can write / And Andrew Jackson who can fight” (30). Today, Dale Carnegie’s books are still in print and some psychiatrists consider fear of public speaking a pathology. Cain ends by asking what had been lost in the process.

In this chapter, Cain examines how extroversion became the accepted norm of leadership in contemporary society. To do this, she reports from three places that exalt leadership: a workshop by self-help guru Anthony Robbins, Harvard Business School, and Rick Warren’s evangelical megachurch Saddleback.

First, the author books a spot in a Robbins seminar called “Unleash the Power Within.” The entire experience is like a rock concert, with loud music, dancing, bright lights, and a giant Jumbotron. From 8:00 am to 11:00 pm, Robbins leads attendees through high-energy role-plays designed to practice their extroversion skills and lead to greater confidence. The night ends with the group filing out to the parking lot where they engage in Robbins’s signature closer, the “Firewalk”: Participants are supposedly so full of positive, high-octane energy that they can walk across burning coals without scorching their feet. Cain does not attempt it.

Next, she goes to Harvard Business School, which trains top business and political leaders to see whether extroversion is a requirement for leadership. What she observes is a hothouse graduate program where extroversion is part of the curriculum. Everything, including (maybe especially) socializing, is geared toward moving in groups, networking with peers and professors, and trying to attract the attention of the crowd. There seems to be little room—or need—for quieter, introspective types. Cain talks to one such student, Don Chen, who confirms how challenging it is for him to push himself to always participate and stand out.

However, Cain wonders whether there isn’t room for introverts in leadership positions. Each Harvard Business School cohort participates in something called the Subarctic Survival Situation, in which groups of students brainstorm surviving a crash in a cold-weather environment with limited resources. They compete to rank the resources in order of importance and their best use. The most dominant and talkative ones always get their way. However, when their performance is judged against the correct answers, it doesn’t always match up. Although people have been trained to trust and follow those who assert themselves and talk more others, their ideas are not necessarily actually good. In fact, many CEOs of top companies have been introverts, including Bill Gates at Microsoft and Lou Gerstner at IBM.

Cain’s final visit is to meet Adam McHugh, an evangelical minister who led a trend toward accepting more introverted qualities in evangelicals. They meet at Rick Warren’s megachurch, Saddleback, where they watch the extroverted Warren lead a service. Cain notes that while “many evangelicals come to associate godliness with sociability” (70), McHugh and others long felt uneasy with constant proselytizing. With the advent of social media, they found like-minded counterparts online and realized they constituted a sizeable community. Through his book Introverts in the Church (2009), McHugh hopes to convince more in the church that introverts have leadership roles to play.

The third chapter presents a number of influential studies showing that working alone is more productive and creative—despite the commonly held belief in what the author describes the New Groupthink, which “elevates teamwork above all else. It insists that creativity and intellectual achievement come from a gregarious place” (75).

Having privacy to work alone is essential. One famous study by Swedish psychologist Anders Ericsson compared violinists at a West Berlin music academy, finding that the single factor distinguishing their skill levels was the amount of time they practiced alone. This allowed them to engage in Deliberate Practice, which pushes individuals beyond their level of proficiency and focuses on specific areas that need improvement. Another study that came to be called the Coding War Games reviewed the performance of computer programmers. The best results came from those who worked alone, rather than in groups, in their jobs.

Another essential element to outstanding results is freedom from peer pressure. Ad man Alex Osborn first came up with the well-known approach of “brainstorming” to generate ideas, emphasizing the quantity of ideas over their quality and making no value judgments. Brainstorming is used in businesses and schools to teach effective group work—but the reality is that brainstorming is not that effective. Again, research shows that working alone produces better sets of ideas; moreover, the larger the brainstorming group, the worse the results. There are three reasons for this: (1) some group members don’t contribute at all, (2) since only one person can talk at a time, others’ ideas sometimes don’t get included, and (3) apprehension about being evaluated negatively by the group. The last is incredibly powerful. Recent research using brain scans has shown that group work actually alters one’s perception, leading to conformity.

Cain concludes that both solitary and group work is important. There are times that collaboration has positive effects. Working on a project together online accomplishes more than individuals can working alone. The key seems to be having a healthy mix of voluntary and casual interaction between group members, who can come and go at will, rather than a lengthy period of mandatory, forced group work.