Thoughts on "Quiet - The Power of Introverts" by Susan Cain

[AureliaSeverina]

(Mods, please don't move this to the literature section, because I'd like people to discuss the ideas brought up in this book, not the quality of her writing etc)


(I originally posted this on another forum, so some bits might sound weird. Sorry for rambling so much )

Has any of you read this book yet and would like to share their views?
I'm about half-way through and I've found these points most interesting:
1. Before Americans got obsessed with salesmanship, self-help books emphasized introverted traits.
So this whole glorification of extroversion is only a historical phenomenon. Personally, I think neither introversion nor extroversion should be the ideal and people should just live and let live. But it is frightening how many people are not aware of how these ideals are cultural constructs and change over time. Also, it's strange how Americans have extended the idea of selling yourself to their private life. I always thought that when you're with your friends you can be yourself. Having to 'sell yourself' to make as many friends as possible seems a bit desperate. In fact, most of the extroverts I know don't do this. It's just in their nature to be outgoin, chatty (and sometimes dominant) and they don't show off or present themselves as something they aren't in order to impress people.

2. Blushing or lowering your head are conciliatory gestures after a fight and introverts do these more often than extroverts. These are social gestures that lead to better group cohesion. I found that quite interesting because many people seem to mix up "sociable" with "social". For me "sociable" means enjoying group situations, whereas "social" is the opposite of anti-social, i.e. interested in the smooth working of a group or of society. I.e. just because people are socialising as a group, doesn't automatically mean that the group dynamics are always positive. E.g. sometimes my colleagues try to have a night out together, because it is generally understood that socialising is a nice thing and we ought to do it. But then they argue so much about when and where to go that even "friends" get aggressive towards each other and the whole thing gets cancelled and everybody hates everybody else for a while. The funny thing is that everybody starts off by saying "I'm not going on a Friday because it's the last day of term and I want to go home and spend time with my family and I'll be too tired anyway". Then someone says "Ok, let's go on Thursday." Then the same people who didn't want to go on a Friday shout "I'm NOT going on a Thursday because I have to work on Friday and I'm not getting boozed up on a Thursday!". So these people are basically all clandestine introverts and nobody wants to go out anyway????
I tend to avoid these situations as much as I can, which probably makes me "anti-social" in the eyes of those for whom sociable = social (I'm cruelly depriving them of my exalted presence??? *joking*). But the reason I avoid them is because I know I'm about to kick off on people and it's better not to get to this point. So is this a "social" action?
How do you guys define "social" and "sociable"? Do they mean the same to you or are they different words?

3. It's interesting that Americans are more aware of the introversion/ extroversion distinction. Here many introverts say "I'm quiet." (so are shy extroverts), but seem less aware of how social situations drain them. Where I work, the three people who cause most social disruptions or make offensive comments about others are all secret introverts. One lady says she used to be quiet and sad as a child. Now she is always drawing attention to herself by commenting on and laughing about her own sneezing, farts etc.She also feels compelled to show carrots to people in official meetings and shout "Look, I found a p.....-shaped carrot!" repeatedly until someone pays attention to her. Another introvert always wants to know what I did at the weekend and when I say "Nothing. I slept." he has a go at me for being boring. When I tell a hyper-extroverted colleague that I'm boring and don't do nights out, he just accepts it. Another introverted lady thinks she is autistic becaues she needs a lot of personal space and always says to other introverts "You're a little bit ASD." A very focused introverted lady has decided that an introverted maths teacher "has no personality at all", because she only talks about maths (which is what a maths teacher ought to be doing in lessons?).
Do you guys find that introverts who don't know the concept are competing with each other to prove they are more sociable/ social than other introverts? How do you deal with them when they attack you? Is it best to just ignore them or is it worthwhile to drop hints about introversion to get them thinking?

4. Group work alters your perception of reality. Scary. Enough said.

5. What I don't like about the book is that Cain equates introverts with thinking people. She does mention Myers-Briggs but doesn't differentiate between different types. The people I have most clashes with seem to be ISFJs: they provide unsolicited feeling-based advice that doesn't make sense to me, I provide unsolicited and cruel thinking-based advice that doesn't make sense to them. Misunderstanding ensues and both parties are equally guilty.
I suppose if you contrast thinking vs doing, it is true that all types of introverts are "thinkers" and all types of extroverts are "doers". But if you take Myers-Briggs seriously, any type of extrovert with a dominant or auxiliary thinkin function is more of a "thinker" than an introvert with dominant or auxiliary feeling.
What I'm trying to say is that I don't like this equation of qiet = thinking because it easily lends itself to an introvert-supremacist attitude as in "1. thinking is better than feeling, 2. all introverts are thinkers, 3. let's all form an introvert herd and validate each other. Yipee, I've got the sun shining out of my armpit because I'm an introvert and there are lots of other introverts so it must be true!"
What are your thoughts? How can we connect with other introverts better without starting a global conspiracy of "thinkers" and plotting to assassinate extroverts? Or do we need such a conspiracy?

 

[nharkey]

I have been reading Cain's book too, off and on. In some ways I think your #4 is remarkably scary, since group/team work is so completely the Politically Correct mode in both education and much of business.

But getting to @ 5. I think it is fair to say that introverts generally are more reflective (that is, think--or feel, before they speak). That doesn't mean that they are all thinkers rather than feelers. In that you are right, she just doesn't consider any other preferences or qualities.

I think that Keirsey's books on "Please understand me" did a good job, though perhaps forgotten now, of making it clear that we all see the world through our preferences and tend to feel that that is the way the world is. I have a blog up on my www.temperamentmatters.com website about that topic as it relates to parenting (Why I believe in Parenting by Temperament). Anyhow, I don't think she sees Introverts as anything but thinkers, so I agree with you. It is a worthwhile book though. Enjoyed your post

 

[AureliaSeverina]

Hi nharkey, thanks for your reply.
Yep, it's only a minor criticism. Actually, Cain herself says that it takes all sorts of people and that it's not about who's "better". That's just me being nitpicky

Thanks for the link.
Keirsey's book has been on my mental to-read list for a while, thanks for the reminder.

 

[scorpiomover]

Has any of you read this book yet and would like to share their views?

I have not read the book. However, this thread did not exclude those who didn't, and I have much info on the topic:

1. Before Americans got obsessed with salesmanship, self-help books emphasized introverted traits.
So this whole glorification of extroversion is only a historical phenomenon.

Jung wrote as much in his book on "Psychological Types":

Almost more even than the extraverted is the introverted type subject to misunderstanding: not so much because the extravert is a more merciless or critical adversary, than he himself can easily be, but because the style of the epoch in which he himself participates is against him. Not in relation to the extraverted type, but as against our general accidental world-philosophy, he finds himself in the minority, not of course numerically, but from the evidence of his own feeling. In so far as he is a convinced participator in the general style, he undermines his own foundations, since the present style, with its almost exclusive acknowledgment of the visible and the tangible, is opposed to his principle. Because of its invisibility, he is obliged to depreciate the subjective factor, and to force himself to join in the extraverted overvaluation of the object. He himself sets the subjective factor at too low a value, and his feelings of inferiority are his chastisement for this sin. Little wonder, therefore, that it is precisely our epoch, and particularly those movements which are somewhat ahead of the time, that reveal the subjective factor in every kind of exaggerated, crude and grotesque form of expression. I refer to the art of the present day.

Personally, I think neither introversion nor extroversion should be the ideal and people should just live and let live.

Jung seems to agree with you on this as well:

Such men are found not only among the educated classes, but in every rank of society; with equal distinctness, therefore, our types can be demonstrated among labourers and peasants as among the most differentiated members of a nation. Furthermore, these types over-ride the distinctions of sex, since one finds the same contrasts amongst women of all classes. Such a universal distribution could hardly arise at the instigation of consciousness, ie. as the result of a conscious and deliberate choice of attitude. If this were the case, a definite level of society, linked together by a similar education and environment and, therefore, correspondingly localized, would surely have a majority representation of such an attitude. But the actual facts are just the reverse, for the types have, apparently, quite a random distribution. [p. 414] In the same family one child is introverted, and another extraverted.

But it is frightening how many people are not aware of how these ideals are cultural constructs and change over time.

It's actually quite natural. In the past, people had a lot to deal with. So they looked at the past, to understand the present. Today, our many technological improvements have made such an easy life for many people, that many hardly have to think that much, to enjoy a pleasant life. So there simply is not the strong incentive to look at things from a wider chronological basis. So many people don't.

Another reason not to face up to reality, is that the future looks pretty bleak for such people. Almost all large and powerful civilisations have fallen, again and again. Westerners are in such a civilisation, and it appears to be in its fall as well. In particular, America is the head of the West. It is the new Rome. Yet, analysts from the UK, and even the USA itself, have admitted that America is on its way down, precisely when China is on its way up, with the expectation that in less than 10 years from now, 2012, America will be #2 and China will be #1. It's pretty hard to want to face facts, when facing facts means that many of the privileges and pleasures that one took for granted, will soon be gone.

Also, it's strange how Americans have extended the idea of selling yourself to their private life. I always thought that when you're with your friends you can be yourself. Having to 'sell yourself' to make as many friends as possible seems a bit desperate. In fact, most of the extroverts I know don't do this. It's just in their nature to be outgoin, chatty (and sometimes dominant) and they don't show off or present themselves as something they aren't in order to impress people.

When everything is freely available, about the only thing you have, that can convince someone to get it from you rather than someone else, is your ability to convince them that getting it from you, would be more advantageous to them, than getting the exact same thing from someone else. Salesmanship.

2. Blushing or lowering your head are conciliatory gestures after a fight and introverts do these more often than extroverts. These are social gestures that lead to better group cohesion.

If they are in the service of self-achievement, then in a highly competitive society, they become valued gestures. If they are in the service of the collective, then in a highly competitive society, they become de-valued, because everyone else is fighting for stuff, when you are not, and so you lose out. Social subservience may be good for the group as a whole. But it's not good for the individual in a highly competitive environment. So it has evolutionary pressure against it. People's reactions are just in line with what one would expect from evolutionary pressures.

3. It's interesting that Americans are more aware of the introversion/ extroversion distinction. Here many introverts say "I'm quiet." (so are shy extroverts), but seem less aware of how social situations drain them. Where I work, the three people who cause most social disruptions or make offensive comments about others are all secret introverts. One lady says she used to be quiet and sad as a child. Now she is always drawing attention to herself by commenting on and laughing about her own sneezing, farts etc.She also feels compelled to show carrots to people in official meetings and shout "Look, I found a p.....-shaped carrot!" repeatedly until someone pays attention to her. Another introvert always wants to know what I did at the weekend and when I say "Nothing. I slept." he has a go at me for being boring. When I tell a hyper-extroverted colleague that I'm boring and don't do nights out, he just accepts it. Another introverted lady thinks she is autistic becaues she needs a lot of personal space and always says to other introverts "You're a little bit ASD." A very focused introverted lady has decided that an introverted maths teacher "has no personality at all", because she only talks about maths (which is what a maths teacher ought to be doing in lessons?).

Do you guys find that introverts who don't know the concept are competing with each other to prove they are more sociable/ social than other introverts?

Depends on the introvert and the extrovert. In my experience, there are introverts who just get on with things, and let others get on with things, and extroverts who do the same. There are introverts who always bug you, and extroverts who do the same.

How do you deal with them when they attack you? Is it best to just ignore them or is it worthwhile to drop hints about introversion to get them thinking?

I've tried to attack them back in the past, and somewhat in the present. But more and more, I see that Schopenhauer and Emerson were right. Once someone gets an idea in their heads, then attacking their idea, puts them on the defensive, and makes them only more entrenched in their views and their actions.

Effectively, they have similar reactions to trolls. Best thing to do, is to find a way to just get with your life, and leave them to theirs.

If you really are a positive influence, then over years, they will eventually realise they screwed up, by driving you away. But it usually does take years of absence. So don't expect them to come running.

So either way, the best course of action is to do what you would do, if they weren't around in the first place.

4. Group work alters your perception of reality. Scary. Enough said.

Yes, it does. I find that me being an introvert, it really helps to bring me out of my shell, and forces me to listen to others, and to other ways of viewing things as a consequence. Scary. But if you put effort into learning from others and learning to work with others, and take a balanced viewpoint of extroversion and introversion, as you suggested above, it can be very rewarding, especially for an introvert.

5. What I don't like about the book is that Cain equates introverts with thinking people.

Reckful pointed out that Jung admitted that he made the same mistake.

Jung pointed out that Introverts focus on their views, opinions, needs, wants, etc, more than those of others. Thus, they can be introverted about their own habits, and can easily assume that their ways of doing things are better than everyone else's. This can lead to introverts assuming that everyone would try to be like introverts, and that the only reason that some people don't, is because they are stupid. Hence the assumption that extroverts aren't thinkers, which in turn implies that the only thinkers are introverts, equating the two.

In reality, such an attitude is just an indication of an over-introversion, an introversion that forgets about the values of extroversion, to an unreasonably unhealthy degree.

It's similar to thinking that Ne is useless, and that consequently, the only thing that INTPs are good at, is introverted thinking, with no resulting productivity or achievement in the real world.

She does mention Myers-Briggs but doesn't differentiate between different types. The people I have most clashes with seem to be ISFJs: they provide unsolicited feeling-based advice that doesn't make sense to me, I provide unsolicited and cruel thinking-based advice that doesn't make sense to them. Misunderstanding ensues and both parties are equally guilty.

I found MBTI incredibly useful in understanding how to talk with my mother, and other people as well. What I came to realise, is that everyone has certain views about how to solve problems in life, and how to express them, that would correspond to what we call MBTI types. Based on those, what one says and doesn't say, and how one says it, are pretty obvious. MBTI types seem to be consistent for most of their life. So they don't even bother explaining the backdrop that explains what they say, because for them, it's been true for so many years, that they take it for granted, and forget that everyone else doesn't see life that way. Hence, why so many of the same MBTI type seem to have an instant understanding of what others of the same type say, while others of a different type, are entirely mystified. It's the backdrop that explains what they say, and the backdrop is also a given for others of their own type, while mostly ignored by others of a different MBTI type.

So, to understand an ISFJ (Si-Fe), I now understand, that I only need to think of how I would say the same thing, were I to consider Se to be the most important thing in life for solving problems and for communication, and then secondary to that, Fi, and everything else being a pale shadow of what Se and Fe could accomplish. When one puts those as a given in one's thoughts, the communication of the ISFJ becomes patently obvious. Same for when you want to communicate to them. If you choose to see things like an ISFJ, then the words they would understand, becomes patently obvious.

I suppose if you contrast thinking vs doing, it is true that all types of introverts are "thinkers" and all types of extroverts are "doers".

Jung describes introverts as being more interested in the subject, than the object. Initially, I thought this meant egotism. But a recent conversation with an INTJ over Ni, made me realise that it's more than that.

An introvert discussing if Iran has nuclear weapons or not, would focus on the subject, Iran. He/she might point out how we aren't sure if Iran has nuclear weapons, if Iran has a right to have them, and if we should go to war or not with Iran. He/she probably would point out that even if Iran has no nuclear weapons, they might have other WMDs, and so it would still make sense to go to war with Iran.

An extrovert would look at the object of the topic, the topic of nuclear weapons. He would then point out how ANY nuclear weapons are dangerous, and so we should have a global unilateral agreement to destroy ALL nuclear weapons, including those in our own countries.

However, saying the topic slightly differently, say: "Does the list of those countries with nuclear weapons, include Iran?" would produce the opposite effect, because the introvert would focus on the subject, the list of countries with nuclear weapons, and the extrovert would focus on the object of the conversation, Iran.

As a result, asking the question: "What should I do today?" results in the introvert focussing on all the things he can do, but not so much on doing them, and certainly not today, while the extrovert would focus on all the things that can be done today, and so would go out and do them.

However, if we phrase the question another way, say "What things that could be done today, should I do?" Then the introvert sees a lot of things that can be done today, and goes and does them, while the extrovert focusses on what he can do, and so does less, and is more of a thinker.

As a consequence, any narcissistic attitude, that puts the person as the subject, automatically makes the introvert focussed on himself, to the exclusion of the world, and action, while extroverts focus on the opposite. Any altruistic attitude, that puts others as the main focus of the sentence, automatically makes the introvert focussed on others, to the exclusion of his own needs, while extroverts focus on the opposite.

As a consequence, introverts intensify their attitudes. When their attitudes are healthily productive, they are. When they are unhealthily destructive, they are as well. Extroverts always take the non-focus position. So they always balance out more. As Jung pointed out, introverts focus on intensity, while extroverts focus on extensity.

There really isn't a leaning of doing or thinking in I/E, only depending on what you choose to focus as being the subject under discussion.

But if you take Myers-Briggs seriously, any type of extrovert with a dominant or auxiliary thinkin function is more of a "thinker" than an introvert with dominant or auxiliary feeling.

Only because the other side must be a perceiving function. But if you read Jung, he refers to both Thinking and Feeling as Rational functions, and the others as Irrational functions. So Jung appears to see that Feeling is just as rational as Thinking, just using different criteria for rationality than Thinking does.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't like this equation of qiet = thinking because it easily lends itself to an introvert-supremacist attitude as in "1. thinking is better than feeling, 2. all introverts are thinkers, 3. let's all form an introvert herd and validate each other. Yipee, I've got the sun shining out of my armpit because I'm an introvert and there are lots of other introverts so it must be true!"
What are your thoughts? How can we connect with other introverts better without starting a global conspiracy of "thinkers" and plotting to assassinate extroverts? Or do we need such a conspiracy?

The essential problem with any such conspiracy, is that feelings of superiority, tend to be very good masks for feelings of inferiority. So invariably, a lot of people who go around saying they are superior to others, and band together as a consequence, are themselves only expressing an indirect statement that they feel inferior. The subconscious takes its cues from what the conscious hands it. So walking around, thinking introverts are better than extroverts, and extroverts are to be avoided, reminds the subconscious that you think introverts can be perceived to be inferior to extroverts, because that is how they are treated in society, and so in all situations, the subconscious expects to be walked all over, because that is what it was told usually happens to introverts in society. So the subconscious doesn't put up a fight, and doesn't even try to help the conscious put up a fight.

So when you go to your extroverted boss for a pay rise, and he asks you why you deserve one, your unconscious sees no point in helping you, and so it doesn't bother handing you any intuitive ideas to say. It will, of course, later on, give you lots of intuitive reasons why you deserved the pay rise, because you told it that introverts are just as good as extroverts, and better. But it won't give you those reasons when a real situation is presented, because you told it that in real situations, extroverts usually win over introverts. So you feel like you should get the pay rise, but never do, while you perceive that extroverts do.

You become a self-fulfilling prophecy of your own vision of society.

So, if you are to move on to a better life, you have to realise that your worldview programs your subconscious on how to act, and those actions are what determines the course of your life. You have to program a world view, that, if true, would result in the goals you want, both in the short-term, and in the long-term.

If you want to be seen as an effective introvert, you need only consider how an introvert would be effective, and then realise that all the times you weren't, it was because you never tried to be an effective introvert, because you had accepted what you were told about introverts, without thinking about it.

If you want others to be seen as effective introverts, then you need them to do the same, to just think of HOW introverts can be effective, and then to do that, always.

If being an effective introvert includes introverts linking up, such as introverts on this site, all linking up to work together to solve a major global problem, then doing that, tells your subconscious that you are effective, and then your subconscious will also help you be effetive in other areas of your life.

If you're more effective when you feel, than when you think, then if you want to be effective, you need to feel more than think.

If it would make you and other introverts more effective, to give each other encouragement, then by all means do that. But in my experience, introverts are very untrusting of most people's compliments, and are only accepting of them from certain people. So if you want that, I think you have to form small, tight-knit groups of introverts, who all trust the compliments from the other members of the group, and who all go around giving each other compliments on a regular basis.

FYI, no-one really says that introverts are "quiet", not Jung, and not Myers-Briggs. If you don't believe me, then look at the posts of INTJs and INTPs. Many of them have written thousands of posts, in only a few years. That's not what I'd call "quiet".

 

[AureliaSeverina]

Thanks for your long reply, scorpio. There's a lot to think about in there and you really got me interested in Jung now.
I might reply in more detail when I've re-read your post.

FYI, no-one really says that introverts are "quiet", not Jung, and not Myers-Briggs. If you don't believe me, then look at the posts of INTJs and INTPs. Many of them have written thousands of posts, in only a few years. That's not what I'd call "quiet".

LOL. I'm an INTJ and I am quiet, except when I'm talking. LOL, my introverted friends talk a lot all in one go when I meet up with them. They just don't talk that much on a daily basis.

 

[MissQuote]

I put this book on hold at my library.

I am number 122 in line I guess I'll be reading it sometime in a year or two.

 

[MissQuote]

Ohh, maybe I will be reading it sooner than I originally thought. I just checked and I am now #117 in line. They must have a pile of copies.

 

[AureliaSeverina]

I put this book on hold at my library.

I am number 122 in line I guess I'll be reading it sometime in a year or two.

LOL. It's a really good book, very thought-provoking but easy to read at the same time. Hope you won't have to wait for two years.

 

[josurac]

I just finished reading this and I'm forcing my ESFJ wife to read as well. I thought his was a great book but I think she missed out by not differentiating by the other mbti types beyond the I vs E. while I was going through I found myself asking "whats the meaning of life" type questions. For example, she talks about a student at Stanford who doesn't get along with the other students. If this person is so uncomfortable, why did he apply and pay to be in that position? For me, and I wonder if this is the case for others, I struggle with what to actually "do" with my time. I think that intps have a great capacity to think ourselves out of actually "doing" anything because the act of thinking is such a valuable pursuit in itself. Why did he go to stanford? Presumably to be challenged intellectually - well, can't you just find the syllabus online and read the books? Yes, you're missing out in the interactions and different views from others, but that's hardly worth it if the social interaction stresses you out to a point where you can't concentrate.

I also think the last chapters of how to communicate with your spouse and not screw up your kids should be required reading.

 

[AureliaSeverina]

I just finished reading this and I'm forcing my ESFJ wife to read as well. I thought his was a great book but I think she missed out by not differentiating by the other mbti types beyond the I vs E. while I was going through I found myself asking "whats the meaning of life" type questions. For example, she talks about a student at Stanford who doesn't get along with the other students. If this person is so uncomfortable, why did he apply and pay to be in that position?

Yep, I was wondering the same about all those introverts who are studying Business Management or something. What is it that makes them interested in these jobs and this whole 'culture', if it's so patently anti-introverts? This is especially puzzling as many of them know enough about introverstion to self-identify as an introvert, but on the other hand they make no effort to adopt an introverted life style.

 

[RockinLollipop]

I didn't read the book, but I read your whole post and I think I have a few things to say. Since I haven't read the book, I don't have all the information on what you're talking about and I apologies for any discrepancies.

For your fifth point, it sounds to me like the author didn't do much research about introverts. To me, and many people I have conversed with about the topic, "introvert" simply means one who becomes exhausted upon interacting with others for extended periods of time, while "extrovert" means someone who is energized by it. It seems to me that the author is assuming that, since you're not focusing your mental efforts on dealing with other people, you must be spending time in your own little world. If anything, I think this should be left as the comparison between Sensing and iNtuition types, as that is usually what the difference is defined as, anyway. An ISxx type can spend his or her time in a corner simply observing people, while not really thinking about it, while an ENxx type can be partying it up while cross-referencing everything that goes on around him or her to subjects of his or her interest.

 

[warryer]

I'm working on it right now. It's quite enjoyable.

I like the concept that people have different degrees of sensitivity to external stimulation. To me this is a spot on observation. The more "introverted" one is the more reactive they are. I finally feel like I understand the reason for my introverted tendencies.

It does have a feel of championing the introvert but, I can see the reason for it - introversion needs to be recognized for what it is not as some kind of plague to be avoided.

 

[MichiganJFrog]

people have different degrees of sensitivity to external stimulation. To me this is a spot on observation. The more "introverted" one is the more reactive they are.

This made me think of the whole Highly Sensitive Person (HSP) dimension. Apparently, you can be extraverted and also be highly reactive -- 30% of HSPs are, so they say. I couldn't wrap my head around this until I took a closer look at the guy down the hall at work. He has people parading in and out of his office all day long, and his phone rings non-stop, but he also likes to keep the lights down low and his door shut for extended periods. And he's as particular about his music as me.

One thing I noticed from the stills of Susan Cain's TED talk is how she forms a ring with her thumb and index finger when she's on a roll. I find myself doing that all the time now when I'm thinking really hard about something.

 

[Architect]

I saw her Ted talk a while back and thought it was likely to be one of those "yeah we the power!" type books. We got it from the library and I've been reading it, apart from a stumble at the beginning the book is excellent.

She starts with a story of Rosa Parks, the civil rights activist, which immediately turned me off. It seemed too specious and argument to equate introversion with 'greatness' in this way. Anyhow I plowed on and the book has yielded a lot of good material. One of the better or best books I've read in a while.

Personally it's helping me with some work issues I'm having. For example, the last two years I've worked mostly at home, coming in to the office for a few hours. During this I've also produced my best and most creative work, and most productive. Recently I've been spending more time in the office and ... my productivity and creativity has plummeted. That's OK with me, they've gotten enough of my good work (and don't really know what to do with it), but I've puzzled over this. I've also puzzled with social interactions and my feelings about them, and this book is really helping here.

I recalled this thread on the subject and thought I'd revive it.

 

[MissQuote]

I read about a third to halfway through this book but then never finished it and had to return it to the library.

I did find what I read to be interesting and informative, but also found it to be idealising introversion whilst making extraversion seem a bit parasitic and vapid. In other words, what I did read, while well written and attention holding, was a bit less objective than to my liking. Or what I mean is, there seemed to be a bit of feel good manipulation, initially.

I did not finish the book however, though I would have liked to, so I cannot give an overall review.