This book includes a plain text version that is designed for high accessibility. To use this version please follow this link.
Does the fact that you are an introvert mean that you would have preferred to do this interview on the phone or by email? Well, first of all, all introverts are different. For me, no. Hav- ing a one-on-one chat is pretty comfortable. But one of the definitions of introversion is that it has to do with how you respond to stimulation. And so introverts love environments that are just a little quieter. And so to me, talking one-on-one has always been a really comfortable form of socializing, because it is kind of a quieter, more intimate kind of socializ- ing. Presenting to groups and that kind of thing is where I feel like, “Ooh, I am over my stimulation load here.”


What was it like for you to attend TED? I think one of the reasons that TED asked me to present is that a lot of the people who attend that conference are introverts themselves. There are a lot of people in the tech industry, which attracts introverts, and people who are pretty introspective, who are attracted by ideas. I was one of the first presenters and then I was there all week, and people were coming up to me afterwards and tell- ing me their own stories because I had spoken so personally on stage. A lot of these people were really hypersuccessful company founders, but they would tell me how they were introverts struggling in an extroverted world. And they said that having listened to my talk, they felt now they had per- mission to go back to their hotel rooms and chill a little bit, instead of feeling pressured to network from morning until night. I think that is something a lot of people crave. I actually always viewed networking as a series of one-on-one conver- sations, like the kind we are having now.


Large receptions are a fixture at many conferences. Are there ways that organizers can make them more comfortable for introverts? I think having quiet areas — ones that are not, obviously, marginalized areas, but rather quiet areas that are cool and inviting — goes a long way. That was one of the things that was great about TED, actually. They had all of these different environments that you could be in. Some were noisy and some were not. I recently had a meeting at Google’s office in Manhattan. And their office is fascinating, because they have a lot of peo- ple working in an open area, which I am generally opposed to. But they were really good about having all kinds of nooks and crannies all over the place where you could go and take your work. They had different cafés; some of the cafés were bustling and noisy, and some of them were quiet. They had a library where you could go and work, or you could go take naps. I think that that goes a really long way. One of the great things about having written my book is


that I now really feel a sense of entitlement to be who I am. And so I take the breaks that I need to.


PCMA.ORG JUNE 2012 PCMA CONVENE 65 ›


Book Excerpt FromQuiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking


If we assume that quiet and loud people have roughly the same number of good (and bad) ideas, then we should worry if the louder and more forceful people always carry the day. This would mean that an awful lot of bad ideas prevail while good ones get squashed. Yet studies in group dynamics suggest that this is exactly what happens. We perceive talkers as smarter than quiet types — even though grade-point averages and SAT and intelligence test scores reveal this perception to be inaccurate. In one experiment in which two strangers met over the phone, those who spoke more were considered more intelligent, better looking, and more likable. We also see talkers as leaders. The more a person talks, the more other group members direct their attention to him, which means that he becomes increasingly powerful as a meeting goes on. It also helps to speak fast: We rate quick talkers as more capable and appealing than slow talkers. All of this would be fine if more


talking were correlated with greater insight, but research suggest that there is no such link.… A well-known study out of UC Berkeley by organizational behavior professor Philip Tetlock found that television pundits — that is, people who earn their livings by holding forth confidently on the basis of limited information — make worse predictions about political and economic trends than they would by random chance. And the very worst prognosticators tend to be the most famous and the most confident — the very ones who would be considered natural leaders.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120