Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking Entry 1

I was drawn to this book because introvert and quiet are two words that I use to describe myself. I wanted to know what kind of Power I had. So I was curious. Did this book really understand what was going on in my head?

It opened with talking about Rosa Parks and how she was an introvert. It defined Introverts and common characteristics of introverts like, they feel "just right" with less stimulation, such as reading a book. "Introverts often work more slowly and deliberately. They like to focus on one task at a time and are good at concentrating. Listening more than they talk, think before they speak, tend to express themselves better in writing than in conversation, horror of small talk, dislike conflict, and enjoy deep discussions." I felt like someone had just walked into my brain and found the lost manual. It described me "to a T".

They also pointed out that being introverted doesn't mean your shy. It was like a light bulb went off in my head. Everyone always thinks I'm shy, that I'm afraid to speak, but I just don't feel the need to speak as much as everyone else. After years of being called shy, I realized that I had started to become shy. I'm just a thinker not a talker. But at the same time I was always nervous when in the public eye, but I never really known why, was it because I was afraid of disapproval? I had never thought about my personality in this way. Then I went on to read this, " Many introverts are also highly sensitive. You may be quicker than others to feel sickened by violence or ugliness, and you likely have a strong conscience. When you were a child you were probably called shy and to this day feel nervous when you're being evaluated." That's the line that sums up a huge chunk of my life. Nervous when being evaluated. I wasn't afraid, I just didn't like being evaluated and felt it a little more than most. That explains why I don't like presentations, speeches, and playing popcorn in class it's because I don't like being evaluated.

The book went on to talk about the Extrovert Ideal and how America had gone from a Culture of Character to the Culture of Personality. It talked about how early America in the 1800's was mainly rural and how people valued seriousness, discipline, and honor.  It said " The word personality didn't exist in English until the eighteenth century, and the idea of 'having a good personality' was not wide spread until the 20th." The idea of rages to riches became the American Dream and with it the American Ideal. The age of the salesman, lawyer, and statesman. All those jobs called for people who could speak well and was a people pleaser. The industrial revolution changed America from a rural country, to a city powerhouse. Jobs were scarce and in order to get a good job you had to learn how to sell yourself. It created this idea that outgoing and charming was the personality that the most successful people had, so everyone should strive to have it.

It's true likable, sociable, and more charismatic did seem like the personality people liked the most. All these things are great to have, but are they really necessary for success? This idea of being an outspoken, strong leader who speaks their mind, and is ready to take on the world, is how I've always thought of leaders. Is that the only type of leader there is?

It went on to talk about the idea of New Groupthink. The idea is that working in groups creates better ideas then working alone. But people like Charles Darwin, Marie Curie, Patrick White and Andrew Boyd all worked alone and were very successful. So it is possible be a quiet leader. It seems to me that teachers think that all students want they're time in the spot light, but some are too afraid to take it. Like Susan Cain says, " Not everyone aspires to be a leader in the conventional sense of the word, that some people wish to fit harmoniously into the group, and others to be independent of it."

Susan Cain went to talk to a Harvard student Don. One of the only introverts in Harvard. The way he was described was very relatable to me. " He has trouble elbowing his way into class discussions, in some classes he barely speaks at all. He prefers to contribute only when he believes he has something insightful to add, or honest-to-God disagrees with someone. This seems reasonable, but most teachers prefer that you say something even if it has little insight or substance to the subject." I wish that teachers would take into account the quality not the quantity when it comes to class participation. In class discussions I'm more interested in listening and gathering information than asserting my opinion. I need time to think out what I want to say before I say it. Most of the time I like to listen to others opinions, way the pros and cons, and then come to my own conclusion. I seldom ever have an opinion about something without thinking it through first. I do my best work alone, where I can think things through.