Introversion Cast In A Noteworthy Light: TED Talk with Susan Cain

“The bias against introversion leads to a colossal waste of talent, energy, and happiness” – Susan Cain

For the first time in my life, I had found a piece of me that I’d been searching for in someone else’s speech. Susan lays out a unique and compelling perspective on how introversion is underestimated in our cultural context, when in reality introverts make momentous contributions to creativity and leadership.

People misunderstand how introverts function; they need solitude to replenish, recuperate away from the gaze of peers, and gain deep thought, but that need for alone time is mistaken as being unsociable, and of being an“outlier and problem case”. Solitude is crucial for mountaintop revelations (consider world religions) and without it leads to loss in brilliant work. Cain highlights the bias in society through her own struggle: she felt like she had to prove herself as a bold, assertive go-getter so she became a Wall Street lawyer. However, her career decision and actions were counterproductive in actual talent and happiness. Collaboration is important but it shouldn’t completely replace the freedom of solitude. In a culture that associates introversion with the concept of “less”, Cain refutes the untruth with an agenda to change how people view introverts and how introverts see themselves.

One example I thought of within this topic was the collision and misunderstanding that occurred between traditional researchers and management within the ad industry. Researchers by skill tend to be detail oriented and fascinated with numbers, depth of thought in compiling and making sense of data, while lacking in people skills. On the other hand, decision makers move things forward, have fluid communication, but can rough-hand and overlook information, increasing risks with a just-do-it mentality. AP and managers express their frustration with “inept” researchers who stay in their comfort zones and not make a move into integrated communicative role. But I feel this is an unfair measurement of someone’s capabilities, as a researcher’s quality lies in the depth of ideas and intelligence not social lubricativeness; an extroverts’ comfort zone of 5 feet can be 5 miles for an introvert. I believe effective leadership is about understanding different, unique perspectives and harnessing people’s strengths, and I also think that sort of sensitivity to understand can come from an introvert.

In Korea, or more generally cultures of the East, being quiet/studious/introverted is considered a norm and even ideal, but take the same ideal kid and put him in context of the West, he becomes a fish out of water. He lacks social skills for the real world, isn’t taken seriously, and is considered book smart, academic, and passive. I can understand why people of my nationality have well worn the path to the science field; they can hide in the crevices of quiet observatory roles and in the refuges of knowledge. As an introvert, we can get the message that we will be less successful, that we lack professionally and not whole, that we are less competitive in the work field.

After graduating, there was a period of time when I binged on TED talks, and this was one that resonated with me deeply, so much so that I got her book, Quiet, The Power Of Introverts. She spoke directly about my life experience, of my struggles in the past and current. I gained a larger understanding of how I function as a creative, and a sense of quiet confidence in my strengths as an introvert over all the weaknesses that had been highlighted when compared to the Extrovert ideal of the culture I live in, reinforced through all my social experiences.  It’s the basis of why my sorest spot is being misunderstood, and why my search for clarity has brought me to writing.