I finished the first part of the book today, which is actually the longest part. The whole point of part 1 is to introduce how American culture has idealized being extroverted to its detriment, and that the ideal cultural function would really be a balance between the two.
I enjoyed the introduction, and by Susan Cain's informal standards, I may not be 100% extrovert. I love solitude, and I do prefer to be a lone to think
a lot. More on that later.
I also notice that Cain is very proud of being an introvert. I understand that she writes as an introvert herself and probably doesn't see anything wrong with her pride, but as she describes the stupidity of extroversion's harmful dominance of our society in chapter one, I get the impression that she thinks extroversion is the big evil in the U.S. today. I could be wrong about that, so don't quote me.
On a positive note, I really enjoyed her insights in the Intro and first chapter. It helps to understand introversion as in a person's nature and a part of God's beautiful design. I agree that our culture
needs introverts.
Chapter two takes stock of today's leaders, drawing on the history of the rise of extroversion in chapter one. Her description of Harvard Business School, for example, really scared me.
Among the myriad of research and studies she discusses, she brings out a point that introverts leading extroverts are more effective than extroverts leading introverts though a couple of studies. "...it makes sense that introverts are uniquely good at leading initiative-takers" (57). I've found this
so true in my own life! As in, I love following the lead of someone who is quiet, vs. cowering under a domineering, yelling person. Who doesn't?
But along with this example, Cain makes one point that I think blurs the line between the definition of "extrovert" and "proud". She says, "Extroverts, on the other hand, can be so intent on putting their own stamp on events that they risk losing others' good ideas along the way and allowing workers to lapse into passivity." I see that this statement is softened with "
can" versus "do [put their stamp on events]", and that she says two sentences later that extroverts are better at getting results than introverts. But on the same token, I notice this tendency in the first 50-odd pages, that I hope doesn't continue: that is, making pride and extroversion partners, and humility and introversion partners. Repetitively she describes obnoxious extroverts, shallow extroverts, and selfish extroverts.
In my view, extroversion is not equivalent to obnoxiousness, superficiality or selfishness. It's a Venn diagram. I struggle with selfishness not because I am an extrovert but because I am a human with a sin nature, like 100% of humans.
On the same token, I have found myself being obnoxious, saying things I regret, and being selfish. I do wish I was more introverted at times, and I admire introverted qualities in my friends and family a lot! I just hope they don't only see me or all extroverts as obnoxious and selfish. Of course, taking time to dwell on the faults of those around you can make you pretty proud, whether or not you are introverted or extroverted.
I look forward to reading the rest of the book as time allows, and am glad that the entire book is not only critique.
One more thing... Susan Cain and I don't share many similar views on human nature and creation, so I'll be more skeptical than the average reader. I will be pointing out flaws, but I suppose I'm allowed to do that on my blog. :)