I listened to Cain speak on my undergraduate campus as a freshman. All the self-proclaimed introverts on campus were thrilled about a chance to be highlighted as tortured geniuses. I was unsure if I fit in this category but if asked would have identified as introverted. I think if you were to have taken a poll, 95% of us would have identified as introverts immediately post forum. Her ideas were intriguing partially because of the intellectual dissonance that hummed through conversation circles after her departure. With 20/20 hindsight, I can now say that the allure she offered was essentially Gladwellian (my readers will by now be familiar with my thoughts on Malcolm Gladwell). In a nutshell, she presents interesting research combined with more interesting anecdotes and then draws extraordinarily shaky conclusions.
To be fair, I think Cain is both well-intentioned and exceptionally bright. I could go on about how badly she mischaracterizes Dale Carnegie or how she ignores all evidence of a society that embraces introverts at least as well as extroverts but my main beef with her boils down to two points. First, for playing fast and loose with the core definitions and second for appealing to readers as victims of miasmatic social constructs. (I say this advisedly; social science is my professed domain of expertise)
Her fundamental argument is society should embrace introvertedness. She then goes on to define introvertedness as ” ” oh wait she never proposes a coherent definition, only rejects available defenitions. Here’s the Wikipedia list of the incompatible definitions she does offer: “Cain’s definition is that introverts have a preference for a quiet, more minimally stimulating environment. Introverts tend to enjoy quiet concentration, listen more than they talk, and think before they speak, and have a more circumspect and cautious approach to risk. Introverts think more, are less reckless, and focus on what really matters—relationships and meaningful work. Conversely, extroverts are energized by social situations and tend to be assertive multi-taskers who think out loud and on their feet.” I’m not a psychologist, but I’m familiar enough with the relevant literature to be rolling my eyes very hard. She conflated almost all five “Big 5” personality traits (one of which is extraversion, by the way), after explicitly acknowledging her knowledge of the system, and then cherry-picked virtuous adjectives from each trait. If you define introverts as people who “focus on what really matters” then it’s easy to say we should appreciate introverts more.
Second, she doesn’t challenge her audience to adapt, to become, and to improve. Instead, she tells them to pat themselves on the back as they weep at the injustice of the oppressive extraverted hierarchy of power. Identifying problems at a social level is fine, but only if the action to be taken is directed at individuals. Societies can’t improve themselves, individuals have to do that.
As a chronic introvert, let me propose that if you’re struggling to communicate you should improve your communication skills (perhaps by reading the much-maligned Dale Carnegie), not bemoan a world that is too loud to hear your whisper.
I listened to Cain speak on my undergraduate campus as a freshman. All the self-proclaimed introverts on campus were thrilled about a chance to be highlighted as tortured geniuses. I was unsure if I fit in this category but if asked would have identified as introverted. I think if you were to have taken a poll, 95% of us would have identified as introverts immediately post forum. Her ideas were intriguing partially because of the intellectual dissonance that hummed through conversation circles after her departure. With 20/20 hindsight, I can now say that the allure she offered was essentially Gladwellian (my readers will by now be familiar with my thoughts on Malcolm Gladwell). In a nutshell, she presents interesting research combined with more interesting anecdotes and then draws extraordinarily shaky conclusions.