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

Contrasting with the Culture of Character, the Culture of Personality took hold in America beginning in the early 20th century. In Culture as History, Susman explains that this arose in tandem with mass migration to urban areas, when first impressions became more important because the people one came into contact with were strangers. The rise of the Culture of Personality also coincided with the rise of business—when selling became a constant in society, people were encouraged to be “bold and entertaining” (21). This soon became what Cain calls the Extrovert Ideal in American society, which exists to this day.

In refuting the notion that collaboration always yields the best ideas—part of the Extrovert Ideal—Cain refers to what one researcher called “the key to exceptional achievement” (81). Known as “deliberate practice,” this technique pushes one’s boundaries of knowledge or skill level. An individual first makes a concerted effort to identify what needs to be done to make progress, and then learns from any failed attempts and revises methods as needed. Deliberate practice can only be done alone: Since other people cause distractions, and since everyone comes to a task from a different place, group work won’t help any one person find the correct path to success. People can only do that for themselves.

Cain uses this term to describe American society’s valorization of qualities associated with extroversion, such as being decisive, taking risks, behaving in an outgoing way, and socializing. For introverts living in this system, it is like being “women in a man’s world, discounted because of a trait that goes to the core of who they are” (4). Cain presents evidence to show how true this is: According to research, personality types appear to have genetic origins. She goes on to argue that extroversion is not an ideal that fits every situation and that introverts have qualities that also contribute to society in key ways.

The author credits renowned psychologist Carl Jung for popularizing (though not coining) the terms “extroversion” and “introversion” in his 1921 book Psychological Types. In general, both refer to how people live in and make sense of the world. Extroverts are participatory and social, finding meaning in doing. They find being alone stifling and are energized by social interaction in large groups. They’re more likely to speak up, act, and take risks.

Researcher Brian Little devised this theory, which holds that people are born with two kinds of traits. Fixed traits determine fundamental personality—introversion or extroversion. However, everyone also has free traits that allow them to act in the opposite way when pursuing something important to them. Because we find deep meaning in these “core personal projects” (209), we are willing to stretch our boundaries. Knowing this theory can allow us to enter a so-called “Free Trait Agreement” with friends and family—a compromise that gives us free rein to be ourselves most of the time in exchange for sometimes stepping out of our comfort zone for the other person. For example, when one spouse is an introvert and the other an extrovert, they may find common ground with such an agreement.

This is a term used by developmental psychologist Jerome Kagan in his longitudinal study on infants to predict personality. Kagan presented infants with new stimuli and observed their reactions. Those he called “high-reactive” had stronger reactions, which included crying and moving their arms and legs. The other group (“low-reactive”) remained largely calm in the face of the stimuli. He followed the children as they grew up, conducting new studies at various intervals in their childhood. Overall, high-reactives were more associated with having an introverted personality and low-reactives with an extroverted personality.

As opposed to extroversion (see above), introversion is a personality type in which one has a rich interior life, enjoys being alone, and is more likely to listen to others than to speak up. While introverts can also be quite social, they tend to prefer one-on-one conversations or gatherings in small groups—and are enervated by social interaction in large groups. They may prefer writing to speaking and are less likely than extroverts to take risks.

Cain uses this term to refer to the prevailing notion that the best ideas at school and in the workplace can only come through teamwork. Cain explains that this theory took hold gradually over time, but one factor that helped it coalesce was the rise of the Internet, “which lent both cool and gravitas to the idea of collaboration” (78). Suddenly, people all over the world could work together on projects online. The author argues, however, that such collaboration is different—and better—when done at a distance over the web versus in person. This is because having open offices at work and learning “pods” of desks grouped together in classrooms prevents private time, which is necessary for deep thinking.

This posits that introverts are like orchids: They may whither under challenging circumstances, but they flourish in an environment that works well for them. Conversely, extroverts are like dandelions, able to survive in just about any environment—but even at their peak do not reach the level of a thriving introvert.

Cain writes that introverts need to rejuvenate themselves much like one recharges batteries. Psychologist Brian Little calls this using “restorative niches,” or “place[s] you go when you want to return to your true self” (219). This can be a literal place to find quiet and relaxing rest, or short periods of time taken in between high-energy commitments.

Psychologists refer to this quality as something that makes people engage in behavior that results in a reward—money, power, status, and so on. Some people feel the drive to seek these kinds of rewards more than others. Often the higher the risk one takes, the higher the potential reward. In the book, Cain describes a retiree who used his retirement money to invest in the stock market. When faced with losses, he made ever riskier investments in hopes of recouping the losses with a big payoff. Instead, he ended up losing 70% of his money. Research shows that extroverts are more likely to be more reward-sensitive than introverts.

Psychologist Mark Snyder created a scale to refer to the ability of introverts to adopt extrovert qualities, using a quality called “self-monitoring.” It is similar to Brian Little’s Free Trait Theory (see above), but goes a step further to gauge how well introverts make use of their free traits. Those who can most convincingly play the role of extrovert Snyder labels “high self-monitors” (HSMs) while those who are less convincing are “low self-monitors” (LSMs). In general, HSMs are better able to read a situation and adapt their behavior to it. On the other hand, LSMs are driven more by internal impulses and respond to fewer external cues.