Lunatics, Monsters, and Maniacs

I had serious aspirations to be a forensic psychologist for about four years throughout high school and college.  I majored in criminal justice and minored in psychology as a first-year college student.  The human mind fascinated me and still does to this day.  To ponder how and why humans choose violence is a process that will never provide a final conclusion to the questions.  But to ask those questions should never be considered wasted time.

The tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday, December 14, 2012 has inundated the news lately.  It has caused a torrent of tears, feelings of anger and blame, and confusion about why a human being would willingly and carefully plan out the horrific act of taking the lives of children.  It really doesn't make any logical sense.  Eventually we suspect there will be some publicized explanations, however irrational or unbelievable they might be.  For now, we can only ponder it blindly.

Adam Lanza has become a name unfortunately emblazoned in our national consciousness.  There are those who do not hesitate to label this troubled man as a lunatic, a monster, or a maniac.  It is easier on us to dehumanize someone who carries out such a horrible act.  After all, these victims were innocent six and seven year old children - and the courageous educators protecting them.  Their inner light extinguished.  I have shed many tears about this like we all have.

But I have no illusions about the fact that Adam was a human being.  In my opinion, to label him a monster is an injustice in itself.  It is in my nature, based upon my upbringing, personal experiences, thoughtful reflection, and probably a bit of genetic coding, to view every human being as essentially a good person.  Whenever I get the desire to label someone as "evil," I catch myself.  My worldview emphasizes the need to reflect upon the similarities held among us in the human race.  And that for all of our cultural, socioeconomic, racial, and spiritual/religious differences, we share the common experience of being human.  Therefore, when such acts of violence occur, soul-searching is necessary.  If we label Adam a monster, then it is critical to look within our selves and ask the question, "Do I have the capacity to be a monster? A lunatic? A maniac?" Before you reply with a unflinching, automatic "No, I don't!", reflect deeply on that question.  Seriously.

Based on the limited knowledge we have so far about Adam, it seems evident that he suffered from a number of mental and physical disorders.  A very troubled young man.  These conditions clearly played a significant role in his development as a child and adolescent.  Obviously, he could not have come out of his mother's womb with an immediate intent to kill, need to hate, or desire to commit violence.  But his disorders did factor into his life experiences.  Perhaps he was bullied; maybe he was made an outcast; potentially he faced a personal trauma; possibly he developed a worldview that dehumanized others.  But if he had an psychological apathy for others and disinterest in social engagement, that is not enough on its own for one to commit violence.  With his biological disorders combined with a culmination of his interactions with others, he ultimately chose to take his mother's life, children's lives, and teachers' lives.  An awful, awful thing.  In the well-known theoretical debate over nature versus nurture, I'd say - like many would - both biology and life experiences form who we individually are.  But he made a choice, one that others may have unwittingly permitted or even nudged.  This isn't to say that we should readily blame Adam's family or the people who knew him.  We can't and shouldn't.  This was a choice Adam made himself.  But it is to say there must have been signs.  It takes time to plan out the horrible crimes that he enacted.

Adam was apparently mentally ill.  That does not make him a lunatic.  I despise that word for its offensive history.  Using such terms is a way for us to feel better about ourselves and push people like Adam outside the boundaries of humanity.  But then we avoid seriously talking about the problem and instead sensationalize his actions.  I can empathize with the sincere writer of "I am Adam Lanza's Mother."  How does one effectively parent a child who makes threats against him/herself and others?  Is it enough to send such a child to the hospital emergency room for a psychiatric evaluation?  Is it sufficient to provide him or her regular counseling sessions?  Is the answer to medicate?  Does it take a village, like Hillary Clinton might say, to ensure another Adam doesn't unleash violence - and if so, what are all the villagers' roles?  Do we simply lock such a person away for life or for a very long time in a psychiatric institution? And what if, as an adult, this individual with violent thoughts but no documented threats does not wish to be treated for their mental illness?  Should we enact laws to force this person into treatment, and if so, where do we draw the line?

I don't know.  I doubt any single mental health expert has truly credible, reliable, and consistent answers to these questions, either.  But I imagine it will be the professional community who provide mental health support that puts together a semblance of a plan forward.

We've heard about parents of families who initially led stable, productive lives but ultimately faced a series of personal stressors that brought them to despair, and they chose to take their family's lives and their own.  If these people are monsters, like Adam Lanza has been labeled, then look within yourself and consider what you might do in their shoes.  I'd bet you don't really know, though you'd hope you wouldn't do what they did.

Mental health is a critical discussion point for our nation.  It's not to be taken lightly.  Compassion for others is a crucial requirement for the treatment of mental illness - and for the treatment of our fellow human beings.

We cannot stop all of these personal tragedies from happening again.  And they're certainly nothing new (read about the horrific 1927 elementary school bombing that faded from our national memory).  But we can all do our part to care for our family members, friends, colleagues, and neighbors.  And that's a start.

I started this reflective piece by noting my aspirations to be a forensic psychologist. So why did I ultimately choose a different career path?  Focusing on the darker side of the human mind ultimately led me to realize that I didn't want to spend my entire life mostly attentive to the terrible things we are capable of doing.  I knew it would eventually bring me down.  So I switched majors and chose instead to direct my studies to the psychology of personality.  And I later chose to work in higher education and student affairs.  It's because I believe in the inherent good of everyone, and we can help others grow into their potential.  As long as we choose to care.

You're My Friend, But You're Also an Idiot (A Commentary on Politics and Empathy)

It's been a hard-fought political season among all levels of government this year.  Emotions run high, as they always do.  There is a plethora of disagreements, as should be expected.  Social media has become a mainstream method of communication, at least for most of the people I know.  But from my perspective, people rarely used social media as a tool to engage each other rationally.  Like-minded people tended to use Facebook and Twitter to agree with each other.  Those with differing views tended to use social media as a means to belittle others.  Anonymity can explain some of this, though it's not a good excuse.  But when we clearly go beyond anonymity, when people know that acquaintances, co-workers, friends, and family members are reading their statuses and tweets, I have a more difficult time trying to work it out logically in my head: "Why is it that people lose empathy on social media?"  And I know it's not just on social media - the technology we use is not the problem; rather, it's the behaviors we choose to enact that embody the concern.

Politics has always been entwined in upheaval, struggle, and emotional carnage.  I can only speak to what I've witnessed in my short life so far.  When political candidates become monoliths, you begin to see people demonize, demean, and dehumanize those candidates.  To a portion of the populations, these candidates suddenly become stupid, ignorant, malicious, greedy, selfish, divisive, uncaring, lazy, weak, brutal, dishonest, or even evil.  And to that I ask, why is this the accepted norm?

I volunteer that I've made critical attacks of statements that candidates and elected officials have made.  I know I've mocked their backgrounds and beliefs, too.  So I'm not without sin here.  But I was never comfortable when I saw others on Facebook and Twitter calling Mitt Romney "Mittens" or Barack Obama "Osama."  I cannot help but believe first that people have good intentions.  I wait for someone to prove me wrong.  I can't say that I ever hated any elected official or candidate.  I don't know them.  I don't know what's in their hearts deep down.  All I know is they are human, and they are in a position of power.  But the moment they are dehumanized, it opens the door to hatred.

I was really surprised this election cycle to see people socially close to me announce such disgust for the 'other' who voted or planned to vote for the opposing candidate.  It made me extremely uncomfortable when folks would say that the South voted for Romney because they're all stupid and uneducated.  Or that liberals voted for Obama because they're all self-claimed blameless victims.  When a family member or close friend would argue that anyone who voted for the candidate I preferred is an idiot, it just shocks me.  So I'm an idiot, too?  How are we friends?  How did we grow up as family members but suddenly get to this point?  Maybe it shouldn't bother me.  But it does.

We have every right to argue another person's political stance is wrong.  But when we call that person a moron for taking that stance, we have lost EMPATHY.  Rational discussions sometimes bridge gaps in beliefs, and sometimes they can't possibly even begin to do that.  Some of those beliefs are critical ones that impact lives and human dignity.  And that can be difficult to overcome.  But when we can't bridge those particular gaps, why can't we then choose instead to find other areas where we can agree?  Because in every person and in every political candidate or official - I'd argue we can find agreement in at least one - but likely many - of their beliefs and actions.  They're not "all bad."

This lack of empathy is what continues to drive this divisiveness in politics.  When using social media, I think we need to remember that we have chosen to set foot on a public stage with the spotlight on us.  In these political times, two friends might joke to each other what an idiot a particular candidate is and everyone who follows that candidate.  And those two people might be the most cultured people you thought you knew!  But HELLO.  The rest of their friends and family are watching their every move.  Sure, we have the right to offend everyone else.  But why would we want to?

The only we way we can accomplish stuff and move forward is by finding ways to collaborate and solve problems.  We need to humanize each other and remember none of us is perfect - and none of us is the devil-incarnate.  You can call me naive, but I'm confident that I'm not.

Where I Got My Res Life Roots

Tonight I thought I'd sift through some old papers and poems I'd written in high school and college - because, yes, I save almost all of them.  But then I came across something that brightened my evening - something I haven't read in years.  It's an "OTM" or Of-the-Month award - one of those acronyms we use in student affairs.  I think it's a sign that I need to start writing them again because I was so persistent about recognizing others as a college student.  I always felt it put a positive mark on a person's life - it put the spotlight on them and gave them strength in knowing the work they did was meaningful.  A little extra side effect?  It made me feel good to recognize others, too.

I rarely get teary-eyed but reading this OTM tonight that an RHA colleague wrote about me in February 2000 has certainly reminded me of where I got my res life roots.  It's totally self-promoting to post it but it's been more than twelve years since it was written.  And maybe folks who know me now can get a little sense of the guy I was.  I'm glad I saved it.  Thank you Kristen for the sweet nomination you wrote about me back then.  We lost touch but I hope you're rocking whatever you're doing in life.  :) 

Here ya go, everyone.

             Have you ever met the type of person that at first does not outwardly seek leadership positions, but when he finally does accept a position the results are remarkable? Michael Goodhart is that type of leader. At the beginning of the school year, Radford University’s Residence Hall Association (RHA) decided to create the appointed position of Webmaster. Michael more than fit the bill, through his love of computers and previously made web sites. 

            During the month of February, Michael has, without a doubt, been RU’s greatest residence hall student leader. He has added to and maintained the RHA web site almost daily. Recently, he has even scanned and posted pictures of RHA conferences, programs, and intramural events. One of his major projects during the month of February was formulating the RHA logo contest. He saw that RU’s RHA had a slogan but no logo, so he compiled examples from other Residence Hall Organizations across the country to show hall senators in hopes that someone would draw a logo for a reward of twenty-five dollars. Michael received over fifteen submissions by the end of the month, which was way more than anticipated! 

            Being fairly new to RHA, Michael had never attended a leadership conference. His first opportunity came at the beginning of February when the Virginia Association of College and University Residence Halls (VACURH) held their annual conference. The National Communications Coordinator chose Michael to head the name tags committee. This year, nametags would be judged as opposed to displays. Michael’s committee worked diligently to produce creative nametags that well represented Radford. The delegation proudly showed them off at VACURH. 

             Then during mid-February, Radford began preparing for the No Frills conference and writing a School of the Year bid. Even though it was not in his job description, Michael worked many sleepless hours on the bid with other executive board members. He played a vital role in compiling information, proofreading others’ work, and polishing up the final details. 

            Not only had Michael attended his first conference and helped write a School of the Year bid, but he also found time to start planning for next year. Executive board members for Radford’s RHA had to complete their bids to run by the end of the month. Michael knew he wanted to be even more involved next year, so he decided to run for Vice Chair of Policies and Procedures. His bid was not only thorough and concise, but it was ready to be turned in a week early! 

            In addition to his work with residence hall government on the campus level, Michael helps to advise his respective Residence Hall Council in Trinkle Hall. He is a positive role model for the hall council officers to emulate. They look to him for advice and ask for help during meetings when things are not running as planned. Officers also come to Michael for one-on-one guidance. This month, he has successful encouraged two hall officers to run for campus-wide positions next year! While still advising and helping Trinkle Hall Council, Michael also maintains their web site. His ability to create remarkable web sites even fascinates students who major in Information Systems! 

            Michael has truly exceeded all aspects of being a student leader by continuously showing dedication and effort to his campus.  His lists of accomplishments this month have truly been impressive. He has gone well above and beyond his duties as RHA Webmaster. For these reasons, I take great pride in nominating Michael Goodhart for Executive Board Member of the Month for February.

The Grammar Police

I could certainly be accused of being on the payroll for the grammar police, but I wish I could get the salary to go with it.  Responsibilities of a grammar police officer include appearing as a snobbish know-it-all while pointing out others' errors of spelling, punctuation, grammar, and improper word usage.  I do that well.

You could place a document in front of me with 500 words, and if there was only one error in it, my eyes would likely focus in on that mistake in less than five seconds.  That's not a joke!  It is an odd heightened sense of awareness that I wish could provide me some personal benefit.  Sometimes I laugh about this kind of scenario because it seems so surreal, but the person responsible for the document rarely finds it amusing.  "What a jerk," he/she/ze says.  I can't help but feel a little uppity about this talent.  It's familiar to me, and for a man who sometimes needs a lesson in being able to exude confidence, it's a rare strength I don't mind openly embracing.

I break the rules of grammar sometimes.  No one is flawless.  I generally don't mind being corrected because it's the only way I'll know how to properly do my job.  Also, my jurisdiction is limited to the modern English language in an American context.  British English is notably different than American English, and rules that apply in England sometimes do not apply in the U.S. (and vice versa).  Old and Middle English and other languages are completely out my reach, so I leave other skilled folks to monitor those areas.  I also try to take into consideration how different dialects might affect the spoken word.

As I have accrued my years of service, there have been several common violations that pass my eyes and ears, and I offer as a public courtesy and with a touch of sarcasm a short list of mistakes that grieve me:

"Smelled" versus "Smelt:" I smelt something terrible with an odor that made me want to vomit.  Unless you have practiced the art of metallurgy, you probably were smelting something improperly and should stick to an area in which you excel. Smelting deals with metal and ore, while smelling deals with your nose.  The other possibility is you're British (it's my understanding British English indicates that smelt is a correct way to use the word "smell" in the past tense).  Oh, and you can thank me for this little Condescending Willy Wonka meme I created on www.quickmeme.com.  He would be a perfect fit on the grammar police squad - just the right amount of snobbishness.  

"Orient" versus "Orientate:" I needed to orientate myself to my new surroundings.  This one is arguably a gray area.  I vehemently argue that orientate is incorrect, at least in the United States.  "Orient" has been around for quite a long time in the English language, while "orientate" only started to be used in the nineteenth century.  Something about that extra syllable gives me shivers.  It takes less time to say or write "orient."  I wonder what folks who are in charge of employee and/or student Orientation processes prefer to say?

"Literally" versus "Figuratively:" I literally died when he made fun of me.  This sentence is only accurate if you predicted you would die because someone laughed at you and you wrote it down before it happened.  If you ever literally die, you won't be around to tell the story.  Perhaps you meant to say you "figuratively" died, as that sounds much more realistic.

"Try and" versus "Try to:"  Just try and stop me.  Okay, first I'll try.  Then I'll stop you.  When you say you'll try and get things done, it implies you're going to make an attempt first and THEN you'll actually get it done.  In most circumstances, it's likely that you intended to say you'll "try to get things done."  The word "and" has a wonderful purpose, and "Try and" typically doesn't include that intended purpose. 

"Lightening" versus "Lightning:" That was a beautiful lightening storm.  Oh, that storm lightened up the night skies until it was day time again?  Amazing.  "Lightening" is a word, but it's not used when describing a thunderstorm.  It is used when you're making something less dark.

"Defiantly" versus "Definitely:" I defiantly want to do that.  I believe this improper word use came about from the wondrous spell-checking features associated with word processing.  Someone types "definately," which isn't a word, so a spell-checker notes that you may have meant to say "defiantly."  If you defiantly want to do something, then why would you do it?  Why be so defiant? 

"Honestly" versus "...silence...:"  Honestly, I just don't know what I'm going to do.  Honestly, this is more about overuse of the word "honestly."  It has become a habit for people to use the word "honestly" at the beginning of many sentences.  When I hear someone say the word "honestly," I immediately wonder if every other time they speak they're spewing lies.  Although if that was the case, then I guess I must praise them for letting me know when they're being honest and when they're not. 

I could write an entire book about grammar police duties.  There are so many mistakes that get under my skin (figuratively, not literally) such as "their, they're, and there," "effect and affect," "judgment and judgement," "too and to," and a willing disregard of the Oxford comma.  Several people have already written books on these topics, however.  They were all members of the grammar police.  A few of them got pulled over for reckless writing, though.  Who knows?  Maybe I'll even be given a citation for something wrong in this blog post.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  

One Year Closer to Being Debt-Free...

I never would have imagined that I would be able to go for a full year without using a credit card.  This month marks the first year complete since I enrolled in a debt management plan.  I have a way to go until I'm totally debt-free, but with budgeting and fiscal responsibility, I've now paid down 18% of my debt over the last twelve months. 

Since September 2011, each month I've been paying just under half of my monthly salary to a debt management company (I'm more than happy to share the name of the company if anyone needs a recommendation).  They reduced all of my interest rates significantly.  The plan stipulates that I cannot apply for new credit cards or loans, and all but one of my previous credit cards were cancelled (the remaining one helps maintain my credit history).  It means that I'm forced to spend only within my means.  I won't deny that it's been a hardship as I have had very limited funds for hobbies and a social life.  As a single guy, that's been an especially hard pill to swallow - and I am working out plans to increase my discretionary spending.  Additionally, my budget was stretched thin during the summer when I didn't have the benefit of a "free" meal plan where I work.  It forced me to cook - I mean actually cook, which is something I've avoided in the past as much as possible.  Now that the academic year is underway again, I am incredibly thankful to have that meal plan again.  I've also benefited in having a reliable car since January.  I am consistently grateful for my gas- and money-saving Prius.

This fall semester I'll be taking a three-credit undergraduate course (free as a university employee) in accounting, which I imagine will help me understand and utilize better financial practices.  If I enjoy that course, I'll likely continue in the graduate level certificate program in accounting - for a personal benefit and potentially a career benefit as well.  

It makes me feel good whenever I look at a chart of my net worth on my financial software.  To tangibly see that worth go up, up, up causes me to feel that my "personal" worth improves, too.  In just over three years and probably sooner, I will not owe any money to credit card companies.  When that day arrives and that final payment goes through, it will likely rank among the happiest moments in my life so far.  

I Think I Just Caught the Antiques Bug...

There is something about the past that pulls me in.  When I started doing genealogy research in 2006, I was enthralled by the fascinating intersections between family and history.  Now at 32 years of age, I decided to stop by an antiques shop on my own for the first time ever.  Funny enough, the show "Pawn Stars" recently caught my attention in terms of the cool artifacts that people brought in.  Driving back from Providence, R.I. today, I saw the Rhode Island Antiques Mall conveniently off of Interstate 95, and I thought, "Why not stop in?"

When I entered the store, the first thing I noticed was a 1950's style stove-oven boldly colored turquoise and in near-pristine condition.  My narrowed focus on this piece of domestic history then expanded to my peripheral views in the rest of the antiques mall.  Good golly, thousands or perhaps more than a million nick-knacks and pieces of jewelry, furniture, electronics, containers, daguerreotypes and other old photographs, trading cards and sports memorabilia, and even my personal favorite collectible - walking sticks.

It all evoked this feeling that I can best describe as that childhood sense of awe and wonder when coming across a brand new experience - like walking into Disney World, or perhaps in my case, running through the woods as a young kid behind my house in Chesterfield, Virginia and discovering dilapidated Civil War era mounds and remains of old buildings.  They became a sort of playground.  I believe I've found my new playground in antique stores.

On the right is a sweet looking eight-track stereo that just boggled my mind.  These stereos became a thing of the past in the early 1980's when I just a toddler.  But I remember one of our neighbors who used to babysit me had an eight-track stereo in their son's car.  It was an electronic marvel that was rapidly becoming obsolete during the dawn of the cassette tape.  This particular model that I saw at the antiques store was in great shape, though I don't know who would buy it since it didn't come with any eight-track tapes.  Though it looked pretty damn cool and perhaps that's enough for someone to purchase it.

The Rhode Island Antiques Mall has TWO expansive floors, and I was so overwhelmed by the number of items on all of the shelves and in display cases.  I spent a little over an hour in the store.  I usually detest window shopping, but I never felt the need to purchase anything at this place.  I was content to mosey around and simply appreciate all the little pieces of history.  I wanted to know the story behind them - who owned them and what were their lives like?

I left empty-handed.  But I came away with something intangible: a new-found fascination.  I definitely plan on stopping by more antique shops in the future.  I do believe I've caught the antiques bug!  

The Power of Introverts

Shared in this blog post is a sort of book review along with some of my personal thoughts and experiences about introverts.  This post is a particularly lengthy one, but I hope you can stick with me on it!  I believe it'll be worth your time.

Since high school, I have considered the intricacies of personality differences a personal passion.  I tend to identify myself as an introvert for at least ninety percent of statements on the Myers-Briggs and similar personality indicators.  As a student of Jungian psychology, I've enjoyed teaching others in various presentations over the years about the eight main personality characteristics.  Much of my awareness of this topic was self-taught through reading relevant books as an adolescent, but I also had the pleasure of taking a graduate level course that greatly expanded my knowledge about the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

I thought I knew the "ins and outs" of introversion pretty well, so when I heard about the book "Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking," I was intrigued but figured there wouldn't be much new to learn.  I was pleasantly surprised that I was wrong.

Book Details:

Cain, Susan
Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking
New York: Crown Publishers, 2012.
352 pp. $26.00
978-0-307-35214-9





An introvert herself, author Susan Cain tackles the subject of introversion in her book by sharing the years of research she's done.  She discusses the implications of numerous fascinating scientific studies about human personalities and brain functions.  Cain offers suggestions for how to encourage an introvert child in their development - and how introverts can ensure their voices are heard.  But most importantly, Cain offers introverts the mantra that they have more power than they realize in "a world that can't stop talking."

Are we born with our personalities, or are they learned?  Research suggests both are responsible but to various degrees for each individual.  One longitudinal study by Jerome Kagan finds that we potentially inherit what's called low- and high-reactive sensitivity to our environments.  As babies, those who have a low-reactivity to new stimuli tend to be extraverts in later life, while those babies who have a high-reactivity to new stimuli tend to be introverts.  In other words, if as a baby, you're exposed to something new and it upsets you, you are highly reactive and are likely to avoid or at least carefully navigate new stimuli later in life - essentially, an introverted trait.  There's not a perfect correlation between reactivity and personality, but it is significant.  This initially sounds like introversion isn't healthy; not true - there's a reason why high-reactivity can be a good thing, which I'll explain later.

Cain briefly mentions in her book that many individuals with significant health issues tend to become introverts, because their thoughts and feelings are directed inward.  As a child, I dealt with a lot of social anxiety due to health issues.  Because of intestinal issues (which you can read about in other posts of mine), I was often focused on how my stomach felt and how quickly I could get to a bathroom [funny enough, Cain notes that many introverts seek out bathrooms to get away from the world for a moment - makes sense the more I think about it!].  It makes me wonder - had I not experienced those health issues as a child, would I be more extraverted today?

Based on my experience and education, I know that introversion is not a "bad thing," but our cultural upbringing in the West tends to convince us that introversion is a less revered trait than extraversion.  Cain's research shows that this cultural phenomenon didn't fully form in the United States until the beginning of the industrial revolution.  Before the industrial revolution when Americans generally lived in small communities and knew each other well, Americans greatly valued Character (moral values).  One could be quiet but be considered valued community members because of their quiet strength.  But as industry grew,  large-scale urban employment created the perception that people needed to be concerned more with how they were socially perceived by others.  Mass advertising then began to take off, suggesting that people should do whatever they could to create an agreeable and charismatic social appearance (physically and emotionally) in order to get good jobs and make lots of acquaintances.  With this transition, introversion began to be associated, unfairly, with social anxiety and shyness.  There is of course a major difference between social anxiety and introversion; while some introverts experience social anxiety, there are also many extraverts who experience social anxiety but do their best to hide it - resulting in panic attacks and other negative experiences.

Growing up as an introvert, I tended to think there was something wrong with me.  This line of thinking didn't begin until I attended school and left the comforts of home.  I would wonder why other kids socialized so easily and I didn't.  School is a major turning point for introverts, because it's when socializing becomes so important.  Group learning in schools is becoming more prevalent compared to when I was a child, and therefore introverts are being confronted with situations that potentially reinforce the feeling they are inferior to their extraverted classmates.  Cain points out an example of what happens when introverted children are forced to participate in a group brainstorming session that addresses a problem.  An introvert tends to reflect on a problem and won't speak up in a group unless they are confident in their thoughts or are invited by the group without judgment to speak their mind.  The result is that introverts either don't speak up in a group or if they do speak up, they may do so too tentatively, and their ideas are neglected because they're not confident enough.  As you can imagine, this can have a cumulative negative effect on an introvert's self-confidence as they grow older.  Cain notes that many teachers do a great job ensuring that introverted children get the individual attention they need, but the educational system as a whole isn't doing a favor for our introverts.

Self-confidence is, of course, a positive trait, right?  Well, usually.  Introverts are more likely to be cautious - and possibly less confident - than their extraverted colleagues.  But caution can be an important survival technique that our Extraverted culture unfortunately frowns upon.  Extraverts tend to act quickly without much reflection but with great confidence.  In an action-oriented society, if you are tentative in your approach, you might be labeled as lacking in confidence.  And it's possible you could use some help building confidence.  But it's crucial to separate caution from lack of confidence. 

Here's my personal view on caution and risk.  Consider the following common sayings:

"Better to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission."
"The second mouse gets the cheese."    

I would argue that the first quote was created by an extravert.  It promotes risk-taking and decisiveness.  Get the job done yourself, and if it turns out it was the wrong decision, you can always ask for forgiveness later.  What's wrong with this situation?  I'd say you better expect to be held accountable and learn from your mistake.  But research shows that introverts are more likely than extraverts to learn from their mistakes.  Why?  Because an introvert might feel a certain feeling of concern based on their mistake, thus they will reflect on their decision in greater depth.  What did they do wrong, and what could they do better?  Extraverts are more likely to be overconfident and dismiss their mistake easily.  A consistent praise my supervisors have given me is that I never make the same mistake twice.  I've always taken pride in that - and now I know introversion has played a role in that strength.

You probably get the idea now that I would argue the second saying above was created by an introvert.  The first mouse sees cheese in a trap - they see a reward and are willing to act quickly to get it.  Unfortunately, they might not live to get the reward when the trap ensnares them.  The second mouse, watching the first mouse all this time, demonstrates caution, a trait inherently tied to the exercise of reflection.  The second mouse analyzes the situation thoughtfully - and either gets the cheese by determining a solution through persistence, or decides the reward isn't worth the risk and leaves the cheese alone.  Cain describes the concept of reward-sensitivity and how extraverts' brains are actually geared to be more excited/stimulated by rewards, while introverts' brains are geared to get less excitement from rewards.  The upside for extraverts is that they act quickly and potentially win the prize.  The upside for introverts is they reflect on whether the prize is worth the risks, and if so, how they can best get the prize.

Western society puts high value on people who exude lots of confidence, ambition, and decisiveness.  But Cain finds through interviews with some experts about the 2008 financial crisis that the American recession was partially created by the Extraverted Ideal.  That might sound unfair at first, but consider that the financial fall-out was created in an environment inundated with excess risk.  Reward-seeking corporate leaders and overconfident hedge fund traders took risks that may have caused the crisis.  That overconfidence did great harm, and there were in fact many more cautious mid-level financial folks who were wary of too much risk.  Those more cautious introverted folks, such as Vincent Kaminski who was the managing director of research for the now-infamous company Enron, saw the excess risk the company was involved in.  Vincent pointed those excess risks out to leaders of the company, but he was ultimately removed from his responsibilities because the leaders saw their risks as worth the rewards.  We all know now if Enron followed Vincent's advice, things would have turned out much better.

You may be starting to think that Susan Cain's book bashes extraverts.  That's not the case.  Instead, her book focuses strongly on the often overlooked advantages of introversion.  In western culture, extraverts have become the likely candidates for power positions.  And unfortunately, introverts often get pushed aside.  Her book is a beacon of strength for introverts - and a calling for extraverts to pay attention.

Personally, I do need to build more healthy self-confidence for myself.  And I have to say that Susan's book gives me hope and strength in the fact that there is nothing wrong with being an introvert.  Sure, I already know that intuitively based on my own personality research - but my experiences throughout life have negatively caused me to believe that something was wrong.

I am fortunate to work in the field of student affairs in higher education where many people are easily accepted. Tolerance and open-mindedness are trademark aspects of higher education.  On the other hand, student affairs is also an extravert-dominant field.  And despite all the best intentions, even extraverts in student affairs don't fully understand introverts.  We in our field place great importance on students (and colleagues) "coming out of their shells" and feeling more confident to take risks.  The irony here is that "shells" have a survival function - turtles need them, right?  While it is arguably essential to build social skills and come out of one's shell to an extent, it is also important to take care in encouraging introverts by letting them know their shells have extraordinary intrinsic value.  Harness those strengths.

I've been able to harness some of my strengths effectively as an introvert.  For example, I've developed a finely tuned skill with communicating the written word.  Whenever my department reviews and/or expands upon our written operating procedures, web pages, and publications, they seek out my advice for wording issues in terms of communication, grammar, and punctuation.  They know to utilize my skills because I've been an advocate for this area - and they've witnessed the benefits of that.

When I was in college, I was painfully nervous in public settings but I wanted to be a student leader.  I was lucky to have leaders around me who saw my abilities as a web site developer as useful to student organizations.  They encouraged me to be a web developer for our residence hall council and later the campus-wide residence hall association.  Through that experience, I built some needed self-confidence and decided I wanted to be more of a leader.  To do so, I practiced public speaking in our weekly campus organization meetings. I became more comfortable expressing myself publicly, as long as I meticulously prepared.  Introverts can be effective public speakers when they prepare.  Other introverts, who are inherently good at "self-monitoring" can become good public speakers, too.  Self-monitoring is the ability to adapt to social situations by observing social cues.  After taking the Self-Monitoring Scale test on-line, I learned I was an intermediate self monitor.  In some ways, I love the idea of acting.  Sometimes I enjoy making a fool of myself in front of groups, such as when there are planned skits or performances.  Self monitoring is a means of acting, essentially; as long as an high monitoring introvert doesn't exhaust themselves, they can be quite effective in public speaking and performances.  For me, I have a low tolerance for public speaking - I can't do it very often, but when I have the desire, it can be a lot of fun.    

In other ways, Quiet has shown me some strengths that I've harnessed without fully realizing it before.  In supervisory positions, introverts naturally do better with smaller teams because it allows for one-on-one and more intimate ways to communicate - this I knew; but I didn't know that research shows that introverts are better supervisors than extraverts when they oversee employees who are pro-active and independent.  This is because introverts are inclined to allow those employees to shine without being micromanaged.  An introverted leader tends to listen to their employees carefully and hear out their ideas; introverted leaders also aren't interested in "dominating social situations" as Cain puts it, so they can allow their employees to take credit.  Extraverts on the other hand tend to want to take credit for successes.  They're less likely to hear out their employees ideas closely.  Studies show that pro-active employees therefore are more productive and effective in their work under introverted leaders. (In contrast, extraverted leaders are better supervisors with employees who are more passive, because extraverts are good at inspiring and confidently moving passive folks to work effectively.)  I now realize my best student staffs I have supervised were those with strong personalities and/or creative individualists; since I have a major role in the hiring process for the staff members who work for me, perhaps I've always intuitively realized who would be the best fit on my team.

Susan Cain poses the challenge that introverts can not sit idly by in western society.  She discusses strategies for how introverts can be better advocates for their positions in an extraverted world.  Because let's be honest - not all extraverts will read her book and buy into it (though, some will of course).  When introverts and extraverts work together to bridge the gaps in their styles, we all stand to benefit.

I'll provide an example of how those gaps can be bridged.  One of my supervisors and I initially had great difficulty working together.  She is a strong extravert, while of course I'm a strong introvert.  We clashed for a long while.  But over time, we learned about each other's strengths and weaknesses.  It was a two-way road, and we both adapted our styles within our working relationship.  She learned that when giving me responsibility for a significant decision, she would give me a fair amount of time to process and reflect upon the decision.  This allowed me to be comfortable in making a decision that I felt was fundamentally sound.  I also learned to be more forth-coming about my ideas and opinions with her.  Because of our mutual efforts, we have a much stronger working relationship!

If you're an introvert feeling impaired by all of the Extraversion surrounding you, I believe this book will affirm your strengths.  It is a sort of groundswell of support that reinforces the fact that introverts have power.  If you're an extravert who has a close relationship with an introvert, and you want to develop a better understanding and be an empowering partner, this book will also provide you with great insight.

Ultimately, extraverts and introverts balance out each other's strengths and weaknesses.  Western society is currently off-balance, though.  The game is rigged for extraverts to succeed, but thankfully cultures can change.  Society is gradually progressing, politically, to create a world of equality for all people of all kinds.  I would argue that Personality deserves a spotlight for equality, too.