I believe our society’s sliding scale for rewarding temperament is slanted too far in the direction of extroversion. Outgoing, attention-hoarding, aggressive people are more respected, followed, and listened to than shy or introverted people. A rational inquiry would tell you that this occurs because extrovert’s ideas are the ones that are heard. These are the people who eagerly raise their hands to answer a question in class, jump to the leadership role in a group, and constantly talk about themselves when they can find someone to listen. The problem I have with this is that their ideas are not necessarily better than their shy counterparts, and in reality, can be worse. But these are the people who get the jobs; the people who get the promotions; the people who get the accolades; the people who have abundant choices in partners.
An analogy that works perfectly for this situation is one of long distance running versus bodybuilding. It accurately illustrates how two disparate activities (or states of being), which cannot inherently be sequenced based on value or importance, undergo exactly that from an outsider’s assessment. Just as one cannot say that red is better than blue or spring is better than fall, I believe one cannot say that being extroverted or outgoing is better than being introverted or shy—they’re just different. It almost goes without saying that for the purposes of this analogy, introversion lines up with long distance running, while extroversion lines up with bodybuilding.
The point here is that one group is unfairly easier to take notice of and praise—that being the extroverts/bodybuilders. You don’t have to know someone to gather that he is charismatic, outgoing, and affable. You can see it from across the room. In the first five minutes of an interview, he’s everybody’s best friend. Similarly, you can spot a bodybuilder and respect the work he puts into his physique without even having to meet the person.
On the other side of the spectrum, you can have pure geniuses, brilliant intelligentsia, saints, and Olympian caliber athletes, the human pinnacles of physical achievement, walking around. Can you spot them from across the room? Nope. You have to sit down with a quiet genius or read some of her works to realize what she brings to the table. These people can go through an entire interview leaving the interviewer thinking they were a dud, lacked a personality, or had no leadership initiative. When in reality, this person could be the pioneer of the next scientific breakthrough or the author of the next world-changing novel. Likewise, long distance runners don’t stick out as anything special because they’re usually just skinny. They would have to tell you they run 120 miles a week and are going to the Olympics in the 5000 meter run. Their physical level of achievement could be miles ahead of the casual bodybuilder, but the bodybuilder will get the initial admiration. Just as the extrovert will get the initial respect and opportunity even though the introvert could be light-years ahead of the extrovert on capability.
Focus has been directed on this conundrum in the media. Along with other stories I’ve read recently about the benefits of being introverted, a February 2012 Time magazine issue titled “The Power of Shyness” was dedicated to the subject. In it, author Bryan Walsh makes similar arguments to the ones in this piece. He claims that being extroverted is overrated but favored in America. And points out that extroverts can have trouble identifying risks and internalizing criticism, which are qualities needed in a good leader—qualities introverts are more likely to possess. Some of the leaders and famous people identified as introverts really support this claim: Abraham Lincoln, Bill Gates, Charles Darwin, Mother Teresa, Warren Buffett, and Mohandas Gandhi, to name a few. Imagine that group of people being overlooked simply because they didn’t ostentatiously jump out from the get-go. The world would look quite different—and not in a good way.