Book Summary: The Key Ideas
#1: ‘New Groupthink’ and the downsides of collaboration. Many institutions overestimate the benefits of collaboration, in some cases to the detriment of effective and innovative work in solitude.
#2: The biology of introversion. Research suggests introversion is nearly 50% explained by heritable factors. Children’s reactivity is a solid predictor for introversion, with neurological activity showing a consistent pattern even decades into adulthood.
#3: High reward sensitivity and its risks. Extroverts tend to have a higher level of ‘reward sensitivity’. This can present some unique problems for risk and overconfidence.
#4: Flexing from introvert to extrovert. Free Trait Theory suggests we are born with fixed traits, but we can flex behaviour for “core personal projects”. But there is an important balance to be found in this flexibility.
#5: Adapting to reflect the balance of introversion. Our institutions, cultures and parenting must adapt to embrace the power of introverts.
Book Notes: The Key Ideas in Detail
Premise of the Book
Driven by the rise of industry and services, in the 1900s we moved from Culture of Character to Culture of Personality. This shift brought with it a magnified focus on how others perceive us, toward what Susan Cain calls the “Extrovert Ideal”.
While these traits are in part genetic, we are having to adapt and hone the skills one might typically associate with extroversion to fit in as kids and climb the career ladder as adults. Now more than ever, progression is about our personal brand.
Quiet is Susan Cain’s attempt at an antidote for this fixation with sociability and extroversion. The book takes a tour through the wide-ranging research on introversion, demonstrating its underestimated upside – and how we need to adapt to take advantage of it.
Key Idea #1: “New Groupthink” and the downsides of collaboration
On the surface, the business world seems to value verbal fluency and sociability above all else. But the evidence suggests this isn’t necessarily the case at CEO level across some of the best performing global businesses.
Nonetheless, a skew towards extroversion in business risks compromising decisions, with the best talkers consistently prevailing. Our tendency to perceive frequent talkers as more intelligent exacerbates this effect.
Research suggests a more introverted approach – more willing to give the initiative to employees – can facilitate better business results. Indeed, numerous studies have found a link between introversion and creativity.
One possible explanation for this phenomenon is that working alone in solitude can a be a catalyst for innovation. But Cain believes our most important institutions are encouraging the opposite type of environment, in what she calls “New Groupthink”.
New Groupthink puts teamwork above everything else. Cain points to numerous examples, such as open-plan offices, lower spaces per employee, an excessive emphasis on corporate collaboration, and “cooperative learning” in schools.
These approaches ignore that often the most effective practice is done alone. Solo practice, as shown in Anders Ericsson’s famous “10000-hour rule” study, is one of the strongest predictors of skill. Indeed, in many fields, only by being alone can we engage in deliberate practice: the type of practice focused on systematically addressing our individual weaknesses.
Research on open-plan offices seems to support this idea, highlighting lower productivity, impaired memory, high illness and turnover, and other adverse impacts on wellbeing.
Moreover, studies on group brainstorming consistently show group brainstorming is less effective than individual brainstorming, while groups typically overestimate their performance. Cain highlights three likely reasons: social loafing (i.e. slacking in a group), production blocking (i.e. the stunting effect of one speaking at a time), and evaluation apprehension (i.e. the fear of looking stupid to others).
The optimal solution to this challenge are work environments that fully recognise the creative benefits of solitude as well as the social glue of collaboration. We must find an optimal balance that moves past the Extrovert Ideal.
Key Idea #2: The biology of introversion
Developmental studies suggest that babies with more sensitive nervous systems tend to become introverts and vice versa. In other words, high reactivity seems to predict introversion at a biological level. Most research points to a heritability factor of about 40-50% for traits of introversion or extroversion.
Research also suggests that high-reactive children face higher risks of problems like depression and anxiety, but they also have considerable potential. With the right nurturing, these so-called “orchard children” tend to have fewer social problems than their low-reactive peers.
High reactivity also appears to endure for decades from a neurological perspective. Research building on the reactivity idea has shown that high-reactive individuals show more amygdala activity on fMRI scans, decades after original studies on reactivity. This suggests the footprint of a high-reactive or low-reactive temperament never disappears in adulthood.
In other words, like elastic bands, our inborn temperaments influence us no matter how we stretch our personalities throughout life. Our prefrontal cortex serves to regulate this amygdala activity, but stress can easily retrigger fears and anxieties.
The upshot is that when we understand introversion is associated with higher stimulation, we can adapt our environments to optimise those stimulations for individual differences.
Key Idea #3: High reward sensitivity and its risks
Just as the amygdala of introverts seems to be more sensitive to novelty, extroverts seem to be more sensitive to reward-seeking cravings. Studies suggest that extroverts have more active dopamine pathways.
Indeed, the research increasingly points to the idea that reward sensitivity underpins most of the other characteristics of extroverts. The greater economic, political and hedonistic ambitions that extroverts display, and even their sociability, may be a function of this reward sensitivity.
But high reward sensitivity is inextricably linked with risk and overconfidence. This is supported by the research, which suggests introverts may make better financial decisions and be better at delaying gratification.
Cain points to the anecdotal evidence of a financial services sector dominated by extroverts pre-2008 financial crisis as one of the gradual catalysts for its crisis.
While there is no difference in IQ, lower reward sensitivity also seems to play into the hands of introverts for academic performance, critical thinking and perseverance – even through tasks one might regularly associate with extroverts.
Key Idea #4: Flexing from introvert to extrovert
The idea that we can adapt our levels of introversion to the circumstances is rooted in what psychologists call the “person-situation” debate.
The person side of this debate is well-supported by the aforementioned research: fMRI and skin conductance tests for high reactivity seem to be sustained through adult life and predict more introverted traits. Situationists, on the other hand, suggest situational factors predict behaviour.
Most academics have sensibly arrived at a more nuanced and balanced conclusion: that introversion and extroversion depend on person and situation.
A psychologist called Brian Little neatly encapsulates this balance in a theory known as Free Trait Theory. This is the idea that we are born with fixed traits but we can push ourselves out of these fixed traits for “core personal projects”.
Those most adept at flexing their behaviour are high ‘self-monitors’. They tend to experience less stress when exhibiting behaviour at odds with their fixed traits.
If used judiciously, a Free Trait strategy can be highly effective. But when used in excess, it can be disastrous. Cain suggests the key to finding the right balance here is to identify our “core personal projects” worth flexing for, suggesting three key steps to do so:
- Reflect on what you loved as a child
- Pay attention to the work you gravitate to
- Pay attention to what you envy
Ultimately, however, Cain recognises that we must allocate most of our time to being true to ourselves. The evidence shows overwhelmingly that living inauthentically can have significant adverse consequences for our overall well-being.
Key Idea #5: Adapting to reflect the balance of introversion
Studies suggest about 30% of the population are introverts. In modern institutions built for extroverts, we must therefore rethink our approach and adapt.
From a communicative standpoint, introverts and extroverts have a lot to gain from one another. Studies show that extroverts are better at reading social cues but tend to gravitate towards cheerier and lighter topics. Introverts, conversely, offer extroverts the opportunity to open up and confide about deeper issues.
From a nurturing standpoint, parents must understand the difference between the needs of introverted and extroverted kids. The key for introverts, Cain suggests, is to expose children gradually to new situations and people – and to respect limits.
We also need to adapt our teaching methods. Classrooms and teaching are too tailored to sociability. Teachers need to stop thinking of introversion as something that needs to be cured. Instead, they should mix up teaching methods, cultivate specific interests, and limit collaborative work to small groups.
Some of this change requires a cultural shift. Cain points to the contrast between Western and Asian attitudes to introversion as a case in point. In Asia, and especially in the “Confucian belt” countries, introversion is cultivated and valued highly alongside traits of quiet, humility and sensitivity. For Asian-Americans, the “Extrovert Ideal” can begin to have a toxic impact on self-esteem.
The risk is that we underestimate the “soft power” of this type of culture. One that puts ideas above noise, and one that research shows to be characterised by quiet perseverance.
Cain closes with the conclusion that we must unleash children’s passions for them to thrive. But we must also not underestimate the power of relationships. As Cain argues in the closing paragraphs, “Relationships make everyone happier, introverts included, but think quality over quantity.”
View from the Blog:
Quiet offers a revealing mix of anecdotal and academic evidence for the power of introversion. Its conclusion is that we need to shift our approach to get the best from everyone in our institutions and businesses.
Whether introvert, extrovert, or perhaps somewhere in between, there are some intriguing insights to take away. I was particularly struck, for example, by Cain’s careful dissection of the purported benefits of some forms of corporate collaboration. If you work(ed) in an open-plan office or regularly confront the dreaded group brainstorming session, you will surely empathise with these findings.
My feeling is that the goalposts have shifted somewhat since this book’s publication in 2012, not least because of events in 2020. More are interacting via their screens and this is likely to be reduce the emphasis on the “Extrovert Ideal”.
Notwithstanding, the book’s central argument – that we must embrace the power of introverts – remains hugely important. As history tells us, crises can be born out of loud voices drowning out wise voices. Part of the solution, of course, is to speak up. But equally important, is to listen.