Introversion is not all bad

A Review of 

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

by Susan Cain

Quiet is a compendium of extensive research carried out by psychologists, sociologists and neuroscientists about the causes and effects of two types of personality traits - extroversion and introversion. The author Susan Cain, who herself is an introvert, has exploited the research to bring the merits of being an introvert to the foreground. She is a proponent of the notion that every type of personality has some strengths and some weaknesses, as opposed to the "Extrovert Ideal" which is adopted by many nations, America being on top of the list. She maintains that it is scientifically wrong to expect every person to be overtly expressive and outgoing - the key features of extroversion, as experiments and studies carried out by neuroscientist have revealed that personality traits are, to a large extent, genetic in nature.

Our choice of friends, professions, hobbies, preferences for social activities and the manner in which we evolve as a member of a home, a company and the society depends on where we fall on the so called "introvert-extrovert spectrum." In most of the parts of modern world, extroversion is considered to be the preferable personality trait. A friendly, expressive and easygoing person is liked in general whereas a quiet and reserved person is thought to be either having bad time or suffering from depression. Introverts are largely misunderstood and underestimated. The modern man has evolved to get inclined to concur with the person who speaks the loudest and with utmost enthusiasm rather than the person who is actually voicing the right thing. In fact, the reason for introversion being perceived as the cause of retarded progress or even failure is that people hold on to the extrovert ideal. The most enthusiastic person seems to be doing most of the work. The most vocal person appears to be presenting the right solution. The person who smiles most widely is the best at heart. The most socially dynamic person is thought to be most productive because group activities are supposed to be more yielding than individual work. The introverts are often detained not because they lack the capabilities but because they do not fit well with the perception of success. They often try to mould their behavior against their nature for social acceptability but a constant battle with oneself resulting in emotional fatigue cannot be expected to result in any personal satisfaction whatsoever.

"The archetypal extrovert prefers action to contemplation, risk-taking to heed-taking, certainty to doubt. He favors quick decisions, even at the risk of being wrong. She works well in teams and socializes in groups. We like to think that we value individuality, but all too often we admire one type of individual—the kind who’s comfortable “putting himself out there.” Sure, we allow technologically gifted loners who launch companies in garages to have any personality they please, but they are the exceptions, not the rule, and our tolerance extends mainly to those who get fabulously wealthy or hold the promise of doing so.

Introversion---is now a second-class personality trait, somewhere between a disappointment and a pathology."

Cain starts by an introduction of the meaning of introversion and extroversion, explaining how to identify each of the traits. Then she goes on to tell about the commonly experienced ill-acceptance of introverts in a world that sees extroversion as the desired personality trait. In spite of the fact that at least one out of three people (in another study it is one out of two) are introverts, introversion is perceived as an abnormality of behavior. Although introverts are more often behind the great inventions, discoveries, creative writings and the success of many great companies, the extrovert-loving world rules them out as an exception- they are obviously good at what they are doing but they are not good at relationships. So a common person, who is not a high-achieving tycoon or a world famous author of a best-seller, has no business being an introvert - he or she should better change into an extrovert for good, because otherwise, he or she is a freaking destroyer of all the fun. Following this, she clarifies some of the common misconceptions about introversion. That it is only a personality trait and is not synonymous to being a hermit or misanthrope or shy. Then she presents a set of questions that the reader can use to evaluate where he or she falls on the extrovert-introvert spectrum. Also she makes it clear that being a 100% extrovert or a 100% introvert will surely render one a lunatic. Quiet is about those who are more introvert than extrovert.

There was a time, not so long ago in the past, when people looked for "character." They valued integrity, good deeds, honor, dutifulness and reputation. Slowly, the "culture of personality" took over the "culture of character." Now we are impressed by personalities. May be, we unconsciously think that we no longer have time to delve into actually knowing a person's character but if he or she looks good and friendly, he might as well be the same at heart. And if he or she does not look friendly and expressive, then he or she might have something to hide or something to be ashamed of. Even if either is not true, it is just too much work to try to get to know him or her. So now we look for things like charisma, magnetism, forcefulness and attractiveness.

"People who pass us on the street can’t know that we’re clever and charming unless we look it"

Cain gives a detailed account of how over many decades, this change happened. How industrial development changed social preferences and every person is now expected to be a "performer". Everyone is now expected to be able to "sell" himself. The culture of personality is actually a stage for performing or marketing. Everyone is expected to have the qualities of an excellent salesman. Yes, that is the irony. In the quest to become dynamic leaders and gregarious socialites, all people are actually trying to be are salesmen!

Cain has presented quite a lot of counter-intuitive revelations in the book. She reveals the results of some researches carries out by psychologists in which they studied the comparative productiveness of group thinking and individual work. Individual thinking produced better results, both qualitatively and quantitatively, as compared to group brainstorming. Psychologists explain that when people try to come up with ideas in a group brainstorming session, they are also facing the peer pressure. They have ideas thrown at from every side, which disturbs their thinking process. Also people are more self-conscious and apprehensive about presenting their ideas, fearing that their idea might be rejected or looked down upon. This fear of rejection or peer pressure impairs productivity. But with the prevalence of the Extrovert Ideal and the Culture of Personality, the trend of brainstorming in groups also emerged as the preferable method of planning and problem solving. Many large companies like Google and Microsoft constructed  "Open-Plan" buildings for their offices, so that their employees could be together all the time and work together in groups. But a psychological research reveals that open-plan offices reduce productivity and impair memory. Working in such environments makes people sick, unmotivated, hostile, insecure and unnecessarily pressurized.

"Open-plan workers are more likely to suffer from high blood pressure and elevated stress levels and to get the flu; they argue more with their colleagues; they worry about coworkers eavesdropping on their phone calls and spying on their computer screens. They have fewer personal and confidential conversations with colleagues. They’re often subject to loud and uncontrollable noise, which raises heart rates; releases cortisol, the body’s fight-or-flight “stress” hormone; and makes people socially distant, quick to anger, aggressive, and slow to help others."

Cain also narrates the results of many neuroscience researches, disclosing the fact that personality trait are literally embedded in our DNA. Neuroscientists studied the brain activities of a number of a few month year old babies and found that they all respond differently to novelty. Some were "under-stimulated" as they accepted the new sights and sounds easily and remained calm. Others were "over-stimulated" suggesting that they were not as adept at accepting novelty. After many years, when the babies had grown into adults, they were again examined and it was revealed that those who were over-stimulated as babies are more often introverts while others are extroverts. This suggest that the reaction of certain parts of the brain to same experience is different for introverts and extroverts. More importantly, it does not completely depend upon one's environment (environment does affect personality but only partially), rather it is a part of one's DNA and personality traits are something one is born with.

The book tells about the introverted personalities of some of the great business tycoons, scientists and writers.  Interestingly, many of the most successful people were introvert-extrovert pairs. When introverts and extroverts accepted each other and had an understanding that they somehow completed each other, they achieved miracles. Also the personality traits differ with geographical regions as well. Asians are incidentally more  introverted than American. Because that is life. Sometimes we have to take action and be energetic and just live in the heat of it all. At other times, we need to think deeply and rationally and to have thorough understanding of the problem at hand. And we do not always want quiet people around us. Similarly we do not want to live with people who cannot stop talking. We need to have a balance and for that we need to acknowledge our differences and figure out how to benefit from them.

Cain also gives some valuable advice to introverts and parents of young introverts. She acknowledges the fact that for better or for worse, we live in the world dominated by extroverts, so we have to make our way into the world. For that she has some very valuable advices to offer.

I admit that I picked this book because I thought that the synopsis gave a description of my own personality and reading it I found that I am not as abnormal as people think I am. My friends cannot understand why I don’t get excited about parties and class trips. I think I am mostly defensive and sometimes angry at such times and even if I go to the parties, I rarely enjoy but I still do because I want to be with my friends. It is pretty complicated. But I really liked reading this book and I sincerely think that it has the potential to change lives. At least it will make you feel good about yourself if you are an introvert.

Personally I think it is important to be different and be able to collaborate. I don’t like to imagine a world full of either extroverts or introverts. In fact, roughly half the world population are extrovert and other half are introverts. The book is evidently written to help introverts but at some points I think the writer made extroverts look like a little short of idiots or having shallow personalities or having less intellectual capabilities. I only want to emphasize that there should be a sense of proportion, a balance between the two types of personalities. This can be done in a better way if people are made aware of the merits and demerits of both types and they should be able to judge what route to take in life.

The Sense of an Ending by Julian Barnes

“How often do we tell our own life story? How often do we adjust, embellish, make sly cuts? And the longer life goes on, the fewer are those around to challenge our account, to remind us that our life is not our life, merely the story we have told about our life. Told to others, but—mainly—to ourselves.”

The Sense of an Ending is a story about how one tells one's own life story. How an old man feels when looking back at the lost time of his life. At one time or another in our lives, we all say that history is not absolutely reliable. In our perception, it mainly depends upon the credibility of the narrator and his source of information. But it also depends upon how the narrator himself sees the situation in question. His own character, preferences and role in the historical event often moulds the history into a defense of his own. The narrator might not be intentionally deceiving, rather he might himself be deluded by his own memory.  And memory is imperfect and can only partially tell the truth. But the tricky part is that you don’t always realize that your memory is impaired by your own opinions in addition to passing of time.

“History is that certainty produced at the point where the imperfections of memory meet the inadequacies of documentation.” 

"I survived. 'He survived to tell the tale'—that’s what people say, don’t they? History isn’t the lies of the victors, as I once glibly assured Old Joe Hunt; I know that now. It’s more the memories of the survivors, most of whom are neither victorious nor defeated."

The book is about the poignancy of old age. When there is nothing more to expect for the future. The only things that remain are the memories that the idle mind of a retired man thinks over again and again and mould them according to what he wanted them to be. And what would it be like then to realize at a later point in life that your own memory of your own life is an illusion, a fortress you have created to protect yourself from your own past but only to realize that the walls are half dissolved into the air. From where you stand, all that can be seen are some foggy, disconnected images. You can let life go on like that and be contented. After all, being contented is all one wants at the end. Whether the contentment is borne out of one's good deeds or from only the illusion created by memories does not really matter. Old Tony was living just that kind of life. Retired. Alone. Letting life happen to him. Having stopped planning for future. Just living one day at a time. Reminiscing about his youth and had preserving some guarded memories. Getting nostalgic about lost emotional attachments. Until some ghosts from the past rose to haunt him with his own doings.

"when you are young, you think you can predict the likely pains and bleaknesses that age might bring. You imagine yourself being lonely, divorced, widowed; children growing away from you, friends dying. You imagine the loss of status, the loss of desire—and desirability. You may go further and consider your own approaching death, which, despite what company you may muster, can only be faced alone. But all this is looking ahead. What you fail to do is look ahead, and then imagine yourself looking back from that future point. Learning the new emotions that time brings. Discovering, for example, that as the witnesses to your life diminish, there is less corroboration, and therefore less certainty, as to what you are or have been."

"But I’ve been turning over in my mind the question of nostalgia, and whether I suffer from it. I certainly don’t get soggy at the memory of some childhood knickknack; nor do I want to deceive myself sentimentally about something that wasn’t even true at the time—love of the old school, and so on. But if nostalgia means the powerful recollection of strong emotions—and a regret that such feelings are no longer present in our lives—then I plead guilty."

About the great mystery:

I really liked this book and I think that it would be my absolute favourite. But the story which is supposedly a shocking mystery does not make much sense to me. All right, Tony had a shallow personality. He was neither an intellectual nor thoughtful. He had been stupid and non-serious as a young man, used to making fun of everything and everyone. He had conveniently forgotten some his extremely thoughtless acts and living a peaceful, more or less contented life at an old age. But why should the blame of his friend's affair rest on his shoulders is something I don’t really understand.

-------------------------------

***Spoilers Alert! ***

Tony had a girlfriend called Veronica who broke up with him and later had an affair with Tony's friend Adrian, who was supposed to be a great intellectual at philosophy and later committed suicide. When Tony heard about it, he wrote an angry letter addressing both Adrian and Veronica, trying to poison them against each other. Honestly, the letter was very immature and very obviously written to appease the writer himself by taking out his anger at the couple. It was the kind of letter that would make you marvel at the extent of human stupidity. It was totally senseless like someone bursting with anger, not knowing what he is saying. But Adrian, the genius, was naïve enough to take it seriously. He went to Veronica's mother on Tony's suggestion in the letter. Even up to this point, if her mother did not turn out to be very convincing about Veronica and he broke up with Veronica, the blame, to some extent, could be placed upon Tony for poisoning their relationship. But how could he possibly imagine that Adrian would take a fancy to Veronica's mother. Not just that. He got the old lady pregnant and this turned out to be the reason of his suicide. In his suicide note, he had given some strange philosophical reason for taking his own life and to my utter disgust, everybody actually admired his "bravery" and commitment with his beliefs. Well,  many decades after his death, it was revealed that Adrian had killed himself out of shame for having got his former girlfriend's elderly mother pregnant, who later gave birth to his son. Now I don’t understand how Veronica could have thought that Tony will guess and understand all this by himself as she kept telling him in disgust that "You will never understand" again and again. Nobody can think that wildly. How could he possibly guess that telling Adrian to meet Veronica's mother would make him have a physical relationship with her. That was unforeseeable, even if Tony had been in foreseeing mood while writing the stupid, overrated letter. Even the old lady thought he was responsible for her affair as she left him "blood money" and Adrian's diary. Still I don’t believe that Tony had any significant place in the so-called chain of responsibility. But Tony, Adrian, Veronica and her mother were all convinced of his role. Strange, isn't it?

-------------------------------

The book has a truly shocking ending and I was left with a literally open mouth. But the thing about the chain of responsibility simply eludes me. 

But that is probably the difference between being a listener to a story and being a part of it. The book is also about how people are prone to placing and accepting blame. Those who have led only an average life with some achievements, some regrets and some sorrows and have only a mediocre life but a high opinion of themselves have the tendency to doubt themselves much more than others. Tony, who was just that kind of person, did not have the energy to defend himself or may be he wanted to feel important. How would he defend himself against the ugliness of the letter, however immature and stupid ! And Veronica had probably had a better chance of preventing what had happened so many years ago but she still accused Tony for leading Adrian to his fate. But here again is the thing about history and imperfections of memory and of trying to protect one from one's own actions. Who could be certain of right and wrong or responsibility and blame after such long time when even the events in question are only some nebulous, distant, imperfect biased and self-preserving memories.Tony probably just did not know enough to understand the extent of his role. May be it was his self-centred-ness that made him accept a more important role than pointing it out to Veronica that he was not really supposed to "get it". The only evidence of the past was what was there in written form: the letter. And now it was too late to find out the complete truth. His sense of coming to the end of life and his passivity were probably the reason of silently accepting his role as suggested by Veronica.

The story makes it look as if life is but an enigma in the end; you don't know yourself what happened to you and what you made happen in all those years !!

About the writing:

The book is, simply put, excellently written. It has, as the synopsis states, "psychological and emotional depth and sophistication". It delves deep into the matters of memory and history, responsibility and misunderstanding and human beings' instinct for self-preservation and how importance it is for people to appear good to themselves. Barnes has packed a lot of irony in quite a small book.

Don't get mean, get even..

A Review of Not a penny more, not a penny less by Jeffrey Archer

It might be because of being more demanding than usual that I did not really enjoy this book. Or may be it was just not good enough for my taste. To put it in the shortest possible way is that it lacks the emotional intensity: the excitement, the shock, the despair and the exhilaration. The characters behave in a strange mechanical way and there are more figures and mathematics of gambling and speed driving than I can deal with. Here's an account of the main characters playing something (whatever) at a casino.

"The next hand gave Jean Pierre a three, Harvey a seven and the young man a ten. The dealer drew himself a seven. Jean Pierre drew an eight and doubled his stake to six francs and then drew a ten–vingt-et-une. Jean Pierre did not blink. He realized he was playing well and that he must not draw attention to it, but let Harvey take it for granted. In fact Harvey hadn’t even noticed him: his attention was riveted on the young man on his left, who seemed anxious to make a gift to the management on every hand. The dealer continued, giving Harvey a ten and the young man an eight, leaving them both no choice but to stick. The dealer drew a ten, giving himself seventeen. He paid Jean Pierre, left Harvey’s stake and paid the young man."

The same monotone continues through several pages and after that a new monotone starts for the next several pages. My point is I do not know what is meant by giving a three or a seven or drawing an eight. That are only facts and figures of a specific game whereas I am interested in the characters and how they are feeling sitting next to their arch enemy. The same game could be turned into a thrilling match if only the writer decided to take us into his characters' minds instead of focusing on the comings and goings of cards in a gambling show.

The only thing that I liked about this book and am willing to give it three stars (which means saying I like it) is that it is quite well researched. The author takes us to many placed from art museums to casinos to the great Oxford university's annual celebrations. The description of the strange royal trends of Oxford university is the most interesting thing in this book, though it is also described in the same monotone. I also liked the last couple of chapters better than most of the book. And well, I liked the concept as well: "Don't get mean, get even..". The story was different because all the four main characters decided to systematically get back what was rightfully theirs in a thoroughly planned manner instead of the usual emotional drama. Though it was too thorough and free from emotions to be close to being natural.

The story is something like TV thrillers or may be a combination of such thrillers. A wicked, corrupt businessman launches a company, spread some rumours to raise the price of its shares, makes an innocent, enthusiastic young business school graduate into his scapegoat to get people purchase all the shares within a short time and then next day the company quietly vanishes. Now there were four people who had whimsically put their faith in the company by trusting the young representative of the company who had enthusiastically advertised the expected raise in share prices. All four of them ill-advisedly spent all their savings to buy these shares and suffered from the shock of their life when they realized that all their money was sunk as the company stopped functioning. They get together and make a plan to get their money back. The plan involves the participation of all four of them and it is decided that each of them will come up with a plan according to his professional expertise while all others will help to conduct the plan. It is rather a strange assortment of an Oxford professor, a doctor, a curator of an art museum and a British lord (who was no good really but still a lord). Well, the manner in which they set upon their mission is rather like taking up a research project. At least the description is like a research report or may be the way in which police might document an investigation. It was well-planned and well-executed and the story had its fair share of surprises in the end as well. Only if it had been just as well narrated, it could be one of my favourites.

I don’t call it a waste of time but I think I would be rather reluctant to read Jeffrey Archer's novels in future. In fact, this book was highly recommended by a close friend who herself had a great time with this book. I myself think that it was a pretty good story but for the monotone and the lack of feeling and the overa-bundance of figures and uninteresting details.

The Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkien

Tolkien singled out the word CUTE and started fantasizing about it until a book called The Hobbit came into being. Mostly we are used to mighty magical creatures living in magnificently magical world. Tolkien thought: but what about the fantasy of living in secluded peaceful communities, free from the worries of the world, not trying hard to behave intelligently to make your way into the world, wearing bright clothes, eating six times a day, living in comfortable places having bedrooms, bathrooms, lots of pantries, wardrobes and even rooms devoted to clothes, kitchens (yes, that is a plural), dining rooms (here is another one), all on the same floor (so that there nothing as inconvenient as stairs) and spending your time eating and cooking and eating again and smoking and singing and what a great thing it would be if all this could be done without having to worry about shoes (only some people like me can understand this bit of fantasy). All this IS fantasy. If that could exist in the real world, then even I could be a hobbit. So what if "there is little or no magic about them", they still exist in some ancient, magical, unreal world.

The accommodation described above had just one little inhabitant Bilbo Baggins. I can give all the stars to this book for just this one character, The Hobbit. As Bilbo Baggins was spending just another day of his life, he had an encounter with the wizard Gandalf, who was known to be involved in great adventures and therefore was not liked much in the hobbit community who valued the quiet and peace. So Bilbo did not act as graciously as he was used to. While Bilbo had only  a lowly opinion of adventures of any kind, Gandalf was probably having a private joke with himself about dragging the cute, comfort loving and dinner loving hobbit out into the roughest of adventures:

"We are plain quiet folk and have no use for adventures. Nasty disturbing uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner! I can’t think what anybody sees in them." (Bilbo Baggins)

But Gandalf was not someone who could be so easily "good-morninged" by a hobbit so he gets himself invited to tea at Bilbo's house and thought it was quite prudent to overwhelm the little hobbit into getting employed in an adventure by a party of thirteen dwarves that unceremoniously arrived at the appointed tea time (offering their own services and asking the hobbit to cook all sorts of delicacies for them). Now Bilbo found himself dragged into being a "Burglar". The dwarves were robbed of their kingdom by a dragon and now they employed a burglar to rob the dragon itself. After a lot of mayhem at Bilbo's house, they set upon the adventure.

The adventure is action packed, full of blunders, full of grumping, bickering and blaming and a number of battles they had to fight together against hunger and dark among other even more deadly enemies. Tolkien has managed to include all sorts of magical and fantastical creatures in the story. First the party encounters trolls and our little hobbit, unable to figure out what to do, went pick-pocketing a troll and got cornered as a result. Then they were met by cruel goblins and Bilbo had an episode of riddles with a creature called Gollum, from whom he stole the invisibility ring. After somehow escaping the goblins, they were surrounded by wolves and then rescued by eagles. They also visited a community of friendly elves, where they got their strength back after resting for days and replenished their food supplies. After that they become prisoners of some less friendly wood-elves and finally reach their destination via a barrel-riding adventure. There were a great many events in the adventure and slowly Bilbo Baggins gained the respect of the dwarves, having saved their necks on a number of occasions. So now they faced the dragon and although it was quite unexpected but the dragon got itself killed by someone outside the party and the dwarves found themselves the masters of their kingdom again. Yet, it was not so simple. There was a war brewing up and here Bilbo Baggins played his role in trying to avoid the war, resulting in banishment from the party by angry, greedy dwarves. At the end, he only wanted to return to his quiet life and did not care much for the wealth that the dwarves had promised him for his services.

So Bilbo Baggins returns a hero and a changed man, having faced and overcome great hardships that other hobbits could not even imagine. Though he found, to his dismay, that his house was being auctioned by his hobbit relatives who thought him deceased, he again settled comfortably in his former life style.

"He took to writing poetry and visiting the elves; and though many shook their heads and touched their foreheads and said 'Poor old Baggins!' and though few believed any of his tales, he remained very happy to the end of his days, and those were extraordinarily long."

I have a long-standing problem with the genre of fantasy: I keep comparing it with Harry Potter series. Chronicles of Narnia did not live up to the standard and neither has The Hobbit. The Hobbit has humor, history, action, magical creatures, songs and riddles and wisdom which sum up to be all the necessary ingredients of children's literature. But unlike Harry Potter series, the book does not have a strong plot. There are no intelligently woven details or mystery or suspense that could make the reader voraciously read till the end. It is not a page-turner. It was just a series of adventures. They were all interesting but a bit tiring to read one after the other. I liked the first few an the last few chapters very much but the middle of the story was just too much adventure for my taste. Most of all I liked the characters. None of the characters was perfect or extraordinary (except Gandalf perhaps) but they still made their way through the adventure, not without mistakes and imperfections but they still managed it.