The Quiet Rise of Introverts

by Brenda Knowles

  Jung did not consider the introvert a social loss. To him, introverts were not rejecting the world but instead seeking quietude where they could best make their contribution to the community.

  Susan Cain, author of Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking, points out that introverts and extroverts also differ in the amount of stimulation they prefer. Introverts work better with lower levels of stimulation. Their brains and nervous systems process sensory information differently. They are more sensitive to it.

  Although we may not think of people as stimuli, they are. Interactions with people are stimulating, particularly to introverts if they occur in a large group or with people who are not close companions.

  It should be noted that according to decades of Myers Briggs Type Indicator data, introversion and extroversion reside on a continuum within each of us. We all have introverted and extroverted tendencies, but usually one temperament is more natural or preferred.

  THE EXTROVERT IDEAL

  For several reasons, it is widely believed in Western cultures that life as an extrovert is better than life as an introvert.

  One of these reasons is the notion that gregarious personalities fare better when competing for jobs, friends, and mates. As mentioned by Susan Cain in Quiet, this line of thought gained momentum in the early twentieth century. At that time, the United States was moving from a rural agricultural economy and population to more urban industrial ways of living. People migrated from small farm towns to bigger cities in search of manufacturing jobs and steady paychecks.

  Among strangers in a new city, anonymity encouraged bold behavior. Your family’s reputation, as well as your own, were not known or on the line. The risk of running into your coworkers at church or the local store was smaller. Emboldened by anonymity and the need to stand out among the competition, people transformed themselves from soft-spoken farmers into confident speakers with solid eye contact. If they didn’t, there would be fewer employment opportunities and successes. They would not be positioned in upwardly mobile and well-thought-of social circles. They would not attract and secure the best or richest mate.

  SMALL RURAL COMFORT

  Much like those rural wallflowers prior to their move to the big cities, I experienced the bliss of living in a small, agriculturally based town in the middle of Michigan. My high school class numbered fewer than 250 students. My dad owned the local shoe store, and many of my friends’ parents grew up in this same small town. Everybody knew each other. My family and I lived “in the country” on a dirt road. It was quiet in our little house, nestled between a creek and fields that farmers rotated annually between soybeans and corn.

  The small school and community afforded us a sense of belonging without having to compete for everything. There were socioeconomic differences among the town’s people, but overall the playing field seemed level. Everyone played their parts and worked together to support the community.

  Hindsight tells me one reason for this cohesiveness: the fact that everyone knew where you lived, who you were related to and where you worked. Our proximity kept everyone in check. It was damn difficult to exist in anonymity. Harmony was the name of the game, and a sharing of resources kept things running smoothly. Granted, there were only a handful of stores for everyone to shop. Fewer resources could incite competition, but mostly it offered a chance to catch up with your neighbor if you ran into them at the bank or meat market. The experience was pleasant rather than frustrating. So many people lived in a small, quiet neighborhood or out in the rural areas (like I did) that we welcomed a chance run-in with someone we knew. We weren’t constantly burdened with crowds, traffic, long lines or job scarcity.

  I personally had a wonderful balance of quiet country living and active social experiences. At home in our small farmhouse, there was an absence of hustle and bustle. There was a cat or two stretched out on the porch, breezes rustling through the leaves of walnut and pear trees, little to no traffic on our dirt road, comforting aromas coming from the oven, and glorious solitude in my upstairs corner bedroom. When “in town” or at school activities, I could be found hanging out in the basement of my friends’ homes watching movies, sharing stories, or playing cards with anywhere from one to fifteen people. As teens, my friends and I spent a lot of time “cruising” in our cars looking for (and often finding) boys and parties. There were school functions like dances and football games too. I was never a big fan of group sleepovers, but I endured and even enjoyed them, knowing I would be home in my own, peaceful bedroom the next night.

  But, even in this idyllic atmosphere, I was fed a steady diet of television shows and movies that presented city living and brash lifestyles as the way to go. I thought all of the possibilities and fulfilling careers were to be found in bigger, more alive cities. Surely, the people in the city were more interesting, intellectual and exciting.

  My sleepy little town could not keep me. By the time I graduated from high school, I was convinced my small community was holding me back.

  COMPETITION AT HOME

  There was another factor motivating me to move out of my hometown. Although, I did not feel competition among my classmates, friends or coworkers (during my years employed by Kentucky Fried Chicken and my dad’s shoe store), I did feel significant competition and inferiority at home.

  My mom, dad, and sister were all extroverts. Although I am sure my parents’ outgoing personalities subconsciously affected my view of my nature, it was my younger sister’s strong and vocal personality and others’ responses to it that most influenced my self-perception: namely, that it was better to be a boisterous, center-of-attention type than a quiet, sensitive remain-on-the-sidelines type.

  The new city dwellers of the 1920s learned to stand out from their peers by adopting high-voltage personalities and a willingness to be the proverbial squeaky wheel. My sister was born with those skills. And they worked for her. She garnered the enviable and fun nicknames of “imp,” “character,” and “pistol.” It was hard not to notice her. It was also hard to get noticed when around her.

  As a tender-hearted, read-in-her-room, play-with-dolls, kind of child, I had to really stretch myself to stand out. As teenagers, my sister and I both had a lot of friends, but she played team sports, was on the homecoming court, and was never without a boyfriend. I did not lack for social activities. I was a pom-pom girl and had a circle of six or more close girlfriends. I felt safe in these groups. I had the occasional short-term boyfriend. I was not a standout, but I was happy, except when compared to my sister.

  WHY EXTROVERSION IS ADMIRED

  Extroverts still hold the top seat for ideal personality, although introverts have gained ground in the last few years, thanks to Susan Cain’s book, a positive correlation between the Internet and introvert skills, and a new appreciation by everyone for downtime and solitude due to their rareness in this frenetic world.

  One reason society still prefers the extroverted personality type is the perceived and proven idea that extroverts are more financially successful. In February of 2015, Truity Dyometrics did a survey regarding career income and personality type. Personality type was determined by answers to the survey and their correlation with the sixteen MBTI (Myers–Briggs Personality Indicator) types. According to the results, extroverted types (those with an E as the first letter of their four-letter Myers–Briggs code) made the most money and coincidentally managed the most people. Extroverts are more apt to take managerial positions, which often earn larger salaries.

  Salary isn’t everything, though! The Truity questionnaire also revealed that job satisfaction did not correlate with greater income.

  Charisma and the ability to influence others with overt communication are two qualities deemed by the general public as representative of leaders. Leaders earn more money.

  This is not to say introverts are not effective leaders. Two separate studies facilitated by Wharton Business Sc
hool professor and author Adam Grant and two colleagues, professor Francesca Gino of Harvard Business School and professor David Hofman of the Kenan-Flagler Business School at the University of North Carolina, showed introverts to be the most effective managers or leaders of innovators and self-directed employees. Introverted leaders are more apt to listen to their subordinates, stay open to suggestions, and grant them autonomy. This ultimately results in superior outcomes.

  Employees looking for direction fare better with extroverted leaders. Extroverted leaders inspire action in passive employees.

  I took the Myers–Briggs Personality Type Indicator test for the first time as a young twentysomething working for office furniture manufacturer Steelcase as a sales administrator. Much to my frustration, I neither have those results, nor remember the exact four-letter code I received, but I do know the first letter was an I, for Introversion.

  Surrounded by humorous and outgoing salespeople, I did my best to keep my scarlet letter to myself. I wanted the coveted E for extrovert because E meant well-liked, fun, popular, and even successful. I meant forever in the shadows as the administrator behind the higher-earning, more striking salesperson. It didn’t matter that I did not want the job of salesperson—I once got so nervous, I vomited prior to a face-to-face walk-through with the end-user at the close of a job. It only mattered that I had the more quiet, inhibited personality type that most likely would not rise very high in the corporate standings.

  Even today, in a seemingly introvert-friendly culture permeated with technologies that allow us to “connect” via the Internet and texting, the pace and quantity of connections feels more extroverted than introverted. Traditionally introverted careers, such as writing, require social media presence and repeated exposure of the public to you and your work. Authors must develop marketing platforms or branding to showcase their writing, style, and persona. I’ve seen a hierarchy of introvert writers and social media personalities develop based on their number of followers and their social media presence. Those introverted authors who more aggressively market themselves, engage in more collaborative projects, and present lively personalities edge out the traditionally introspective authors.

  As an introverted writer, it’s difficult for me to watch colleagues reach and announce 100,000 followers on Facebook and market yet another webinar for the masses. It almost feels like a betrayal of our type and, at the same time, makes me feel like I am falling behind. Why can’t I promote and publish as much as Author A? The answer is that I don’t have the time or energy to do that. My introverted nature has reached its maximum output between running a household, parenting, coaching, writing, and maintaining an intimate relationship. My social energy is cooked.

  DOES EXTROVERSION EQUAL HAPPINESS?

  Several studies claim extroversion correlates with happiness. Who doesn’t want maximum happiness in their life? But how is happiness defined in these studies?

  In a study titled “The Happiness of Extroverts,” done by Michael Argyle and Luo Lu of Oxford University in 1990, happiness was found to have three components:

  1. Frequency and degree of positive affect, or joy; 2. The average level of satisfaction over a period; and 3. The absence of negative feelings, such as depression and anxiety. These components can be shortened to positive affect, satisfaction, and the absence of distress.

  The Oxford study of 130 subjects focused on the subjects’ level of extroversion and their effects of joy and satisfaction. Introverts were simply defined by their absence of extroverted traits, primarily the reduction or absence of social interactions and activities.

  Data was collected on happiness, social activities, and personality (extroversion–introversion) via the Oxford Happiness Inventory (OHI), a social activity scale which inquiries about enjoyment and frequency of participation in activities with varying levels of interactions, i.e. “taking a long bath”, “a quiet chat with a friend,” or “going to the pub,” and the extroversion scale from the EPQ (Extended Project Qualification, a test taken pre-university in the United Kingdom, similar to the SAT or a more subjective equivalent).

  Introverts were found to withdraw more from social situations and extroverts were found to be happier than introverts. Gender was not a significant factor, except that females were found to enjoy party settings more than males. An interesting point found in the study was that merely judging an activity as enjoyable did not correlate with happiness. Participation did correlate with happiness. The biggest predictor of unhappiness? Withdrawal from social activities. The more withdrawal, the bigger the effect on your happiness, principally the less happiness experienced.

  The Oxford study gave two explanations for the results that extroverts are generally happier than introverts: 1. Extroverts engage in more social activities, which enhances happiness; and 2. Introverts withdraw more from social situations, which reduces happiness.

  The study further declared that participation in social activities predicts happiness, independent of extroversion or introversion. This indicates that introverts could be happier if they participated in more social engagements. It is not their personality that holds them back or the extrovert’s personality that propels them ahead in happiness levels. The biggest takeaway here is that the avoidance of social activities significantly decreases happiness.

  One question that arose from the correlational study was whether happiness was a by-product of extroverted behavior or extroverted behavior was a by-product of happiness. Could the causation go both ways? That is, could a happy introvert engage in more extroverted behavior and create a positive feedback loop of happiness? And what is happiness, anyway?

  In a Psychology Today article titled “Are Extroverts Really Happier?” PhD assistant professor of psychiatry Arnie Kozak looks at happiness through the introvert’s lens. He states that correlations between extroversion and happiness are based on how extroversion is measured. Studies do not measure positively valued introvert qualities or, in some cases, the absence of inherent extroversion. Kozak asks us to look at pioneering positive psychologist Martin Seligman’s facets of happiness, represented in the acronym PERMA: Positivity, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment. In Seligman’s version of happiness, if we find meaning in an activity or idea, we do not have to strive for extroverted types of happy experiences. Positive emotions flow, with or without socializing.

  Dr. Kozak reminds us of the contentment or equanimity the Buddha exhibited. The Buddha remained peaceful, regardless of the outer environment. Introverts have access to rich inner experiences (as do extroverts, but they do not experience the same energy boost). If we expand our definition of happiness beyond a high-arousal, extrovert-dominated one, and include low-arousal, introvert-based feelings (contentment, peacefulness, calm, appreciation), the correlations to happiness change.

  A comment on Dr. Kozak’s article brought up an interesting difference between extroverts and introverts. The commenter said introverts don’t necessarily prefer less time in groups (socializing), but are more focused with their interests and relationships. When in groups or relationships that advance their interests, and make efficient use of their time, introverts are happy.

  DEPENDENCE PORTION OF THE MATURITY CONTINUUM

  When speaking of the maturity continuum—dependence > independence > interdependence—Stephen R. Covey, author of the classic leadership and personal success book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, said, “Dependence is the paradigm of you—you take care of me; you come through for me; you didn’t come through; I blame you for the results.”

  At the dependence maturity level, the locus of control is in other’s hands. Just as physical dependence requires others to care and provide sustenance for us, intellectual dependence demands that others think and make decisions for us. If we are emotionally dependent, we lean on others to elevate our moods and give us a sense of security and self-worth. As individuals in the dependence stage, we believ
e our self-worth is determined by what others think of us.

  For introverts, that often means we undervalue our nature because the external community values high-energy, friendly, fun, talkative, outgoing, popular people. It often means we adjust our demeanor to align with the external world’s expectations. We put on our active, vocal, group-focused masks and carry on.

  As an adult, I chose a business degree from a large university instead of the English literature teaching degree I initially considered. In my mind, a bold business career in corporate America trumped a bookish, introspective career in academia. The potential for a high salary was greater, and honestly, the corporate world seemed like a confident and more successful person’s choice. I admired those with business aspirations and abilities so much that I married a Finance major who later earned an MBA. His personality lived up to my revered extroverted expectations. He spoke quickly and with conviction. He thrived on completion. I was in awe. He garnered a very high salary to go with his high-powered personality. He represented the extrovert ideal.

  The perspective that extroversion is the ideal is pervasive in our culture.

  I’ve seen well-meaning suburban moms set up bonfire parties and sleepovers for their daughters, who, much to their mother’s dismay, want to stay in their room and read or watch videos.

  My client, Carrie (not her real name), once told me of a time when she and her sister were at a bar and met a few men who worked in marketing for a big corporation. Carrie was also in marketing. Although the men would never guess it, she was also a true introvert. She dazzled them with her smile, witty stories, and confidence. Carrie’s sister even commented admiringly about how “on” and outgoing Carrie was at the bar. The men found her and her sister so engaging they invited them to their company Christmas party that night. Carrie went to the party. Once there, she found herself in group discussions where everyone had to answer questions like, “What is your favorite Christmas memory?”. This on-the-spot questioning gave Carrie a little anxiety—introverts often find off-the-cuff speaking challenging—but she answered with rousing cheers from the group. She knew she had won them over.