Introverts Run the World—Quietly 內向者：悄然掌管世界

The theory of evolution. The theory of relativity. The Cat in the Hat1）. All were brought to you by introverts.

Our culture is biased against quiet and reserved people， but introverts are responsible for some of humanitys greatest achievements—from Steve Wozniaks invention of the Apple computer to J. K. Rowlings Harry Potter. And these introverts did what they did not in spite of their temperaments—but because of them.

As the science journalist Winifred Gallagher writes： “The glory of the disposition that stops to consider stimuli rather than rushing to engage with them is its long association with intellectual and artistic achievement. Neither E = mc2 nor Paradise Lost2） was dashed off3） by a party animal.”

Introverts make up a third to a half the population. Thats one out of every two or three people you know.

Yet our most important institutions—our schools and our workplaces—are designed for extroverts. And were living with a value system that I call the New Groupthink， where we believe that all creativity and productivity comes from an oddly gregarious place.

Picture the typical classroom. When I was a kid， we sat in rows of desks， and we did most of our work autonomously. But nowadays many students sit in “pods” of desks with four or five students facing each other， and they work on countless group projects—even in subjects like math and creative writing. Kids who prefer to work by themselves dont fit， and research by educational psychology professor Charles Meisgeier found that the majority of teachers believe the ideal student is an extrovert—even though introverts tend to get higher grades， according to psychologist Adrian Furnham.

The same thing happens at work. Many of us now work in offices without walls， with no respite4） from the noise and gaze of co-workers. And introverts are routinely passed over5） for leadership positions， even though the latest research by the management professor Adam Grant at Wharton shows that introverted leaders often deliver better results. Theyre better at letting proactive employees run with their creative ideas， while extroverts can unwittingly put their own stamp on things and not realize that other peoples ideas arent being heard.

Of course， we all fall at different points along the introvert-extrovert spectrum. Even Carl Jung， who popularized these terms in the first place， said there was no such thing as a pure introvert or a pure extrovert—that “such a man would be in a lunatic6） asylum.” Theres also a term， ambivert7）， for people who fall smack8） in the middle of the spectrum.

But many of us recognize ourselves as one or the other. And culturally we need a better balance of yin and yang between the two types. In fact， we often seek out this balance instinctively. Thats why we see so many introvert-extrovert couples （Im an introvert happily married to an extrovert） and the most effective work teams have been found to be a mix of the two types.

The need for balance is especially important when it comes to creativity and productivity. When psychologists look at the lives of the most creative people， they almost always find a serious streak9） of introversion because solitude is a crucial ingredient for creativity.

Charles Darwin took long walks alone in the woods and emphatically10） turned down dinner party invitations. Theodore Geisel， better known as Dr. Seuss， dreamed up his creations in a private bell tower in the back of his house in La Jolla. Steve Wozniak invented the first Apple computer alone in his cubicle at Hewlett Packard.

Of course， this doesnt mean that we should stop collaborating with each other—witness Wozniak teaming up with Steve Jobs to form Apple. But it does mean that solitude matters. And for some people its the air they breathe.

In fact， weve known about the transcendent power of solitude for centuries； its only recently that weve forgotten it. Our major religions all tell the story of seekers—Moses， Jesus， Mohammed， Buddha—who go off alone， to the wilderness， and bring profound revelations back to the community. No wilderness， no revelations.

This is no surprise， if you listen to the insights of contemporary psychology. It turns out that you cant be in a group without instinctively mimicking others opinions—even about personal， visceral11） things like who youre physically attracted to. We ape12） other peoples beliefs without even realizing were doing it.

Groups also tend to follow the most dominant person in the room even though theres zero correlation between good ideas and being a good talker. The best talker might have the best ideas， but she might not. So its much better to send people off to generate ideas by themselves， freed from the distortion of group dynamics， and only then come together as a team.

Im not saying that social skills are unimportant， or that we should abolish teamwork. The same religions that send their sages off to lonely mountaintops also teach us love and trust. And the problems we face today in fields like economics and science are more complex than ever， and need armies of people to solve them.

But I am saying that we all need alone time. And that the more freedom we give introverts to be themselves， the more theyll dream up their own unique solutions to the problems that bedevil us.

進化論。相對論。《戴帽子的貓》。所有這些都是由性格內向的人帶給我們的。

我們的文化對性格沉靜、內斂的人存在偏見，但內向型性格的人創造了人類最為杰出的一些成就——史蒂夫·沃茲尼亞克發明了蘋果電腦，J. K. 羅琳寫出了《哈利·波特》，不一而足。這些內向型的人能取得如此成就并不是因為他們克服了自己的內向性格，而是因為他們有這樣的性格。

正如科學記者威妮弗雷德·加拉格爾所言：“這種性格使人在面對新鮮刺激的事物時會停下來思考，而不是風風火火地投入其中。其倍受贊譽之處就在于它與智力成果和藝術成就的長久淵源。無論是方程式E = mc2還是《失樂園》都不是派對狂匆匆創造出來的成果。”

內向型的人占所有人口的1/3到1/2。也就是說在你認識的人中，每兩三個人就有一個是內向型的。

然而，我們最為重要的機構——我們的學校和工作單位——都是為外向型的人設計的。我們所處的價值體系認為所有的創造力和生產力都來自某個古怪的群體場合，我稱這種價值體系為“新式群體思維”。

想象一下典型的教室。在我小時候，我們坐在成排的課桌后，大部分作業都是獨立完成的。但如今，許多學生都是四五個一組，面對面坐在圍成“豆莢式”的課桌旁，做著數不清的小組任務——即使像數學課和創意寫作之類的課程也不例外。那些喜歡獨自完成功課的孩子無法適應。教育心理學教授查爾斯·梅斯蓋爾的研究發現，大多數老師都認為理想的學生是外向型的，即便心理學家阿德里安·弗恩海姆發現內向型學生的分數往往更高。

工作場所也不例外。現在我們許多人的辦公室都沒有圍墻，這使我們無法從同事的嘈雜聲和注視中得到喘息的機會。此外，領導崗位通常都不會考慮選內向型的人來擔任，盡管沃頓商學院管理學教授亞當·格蘭特的最新研究表明，內向型領導往往能帶來更好的成果。他們更善于讓積極主動的職員按照他們的創意來做，而外向型領導會在不知不覺中把一切打上自己的烙印，卻意識不到自己沒有聆聽別人的意見。

當然，我們都在“內向—外向”這兩極之間占據著不同的位置。卡爾·榮格是最早把這些術語變得家喻戶曉的心理學家，但即使是他也認為并不存在純粹的內向或外向型的人——“那樣的人可能會在精神病院里找到”。還有一個術語，叫“中間性格者”，指那些正好處在內向和外向兩極中間的人。

但我們許多人都認為自己非此即彼。從文化上來說，我們需要在兩者之間找到一個更好的陰陽平衡。事實上，我們往往本能地尋求這種平衡。正因為如此，我們會看到很多內向型和外向型結合的夫妻（我是內向型，嫁給了一個外向型，婚姻幸福），人們也發現效率最高的工作團隊都是混合了兩種性格的人的團隊。

在創造力和生產力的問題上，內向和外向的平衡尤其重要。當心理學家在審視最富創造力的一些人的生活時，他們幾乎總能發現內向性格的重要特征，因為獨處是創造力的一個關鍵要素。

查爾斯·達爾文曾斷然拒絕一次又一次的晚宴邀請，長時間獨自一人在樹林里漫步。常被人稱作瑟斯博士的西奧多·蓋澤爾在其位于拉荷亞的房舍后面的一座僻靜鐘樓里構思出了他的作品。史蒂夫·沃茲尼亞克獨自在惠普公司的小隔間里創造出了第一臺蘋果電腦。

當然，這并不意味著我們應該停止相互合作——沃茲尼亞克就是和史蒂夫·喬布斯合作才成立了蘋果公司。但這的確說明了獨處的重要性。對某些人來說，獨處就是他們呼吸的空氣。

事實上，數百年來，我們都深知獨處具有超凡之力，只是在最近我們才忘記了這一點。人類主要的宗教都流傳著探尋者的故事——摩西、耶穌、穆罕默德、佛陀——他們孑然一身，深入荒野之境，將深奧的啟示帶回給人類。不入荒野，焉得啟示。

這沒什么奇怪的，你只要聽一聽當代心理學的觀點就會明白。事實證明，如果你置身于一群人之中，你就會本能地仿效他人的觀點——哪怕是在一些個人的、發自內心的事情上，比如誰在生理上對你具有吸引力。在模仿別人思想時，我們甚至意識不到這一點。

群體也通常會服從房間里最健談的那個人，盡管好的思想與健談者之間毫無關系。最健談的人也許會有最好的思想，但也可能沒有。因此，最好還是將人們分開，以免受到群體力量的干擾，讓他們獨自形成自己的觀點，然后再作為一個團隊聚在一起。

我并不是說社交技能不重要，或者應該廢止團隊協作。那些將圣賢們送到偏僻山頂的宗教同時也教誨我們要互愛互信。如今，我們在經濟學和科學等領域所面臨的問題比以往任何時候都要復雜，需要大量的人力來解決。

但我要說的是，我們都需要獨處的時光。我們給內向者自由發揮的余地越多，他們就能設想出更多自己獨到的方案，以解決那些深深困擾我們的問題。

1. The Cat in the Hat：《戴帽子的貓》，美國作家、漫畫家西奧多·瑟斯·蓋澤爾（Theodor Seuss Geise， 1904～1991）創作的兒童讀物

2. Paradise Lost：《失樂園》，英國詩人約翰·彌爾頓（John Milton， 1608～1674）以《舊約圣經》的《創世紀》為基礎創作的史詩

3. dash off：迅速寫（或畫）；迅速完成

4. respite [?resp?t] n. 暫緩；喘息時間

5. pass over：（在提升、任命時）對（某人）不加考慮

6. lunatic [?lu?n?t?k] adj. 為收容精神病人而設立的

7. ambivert [??mbi?v??（r）t] n. [心]既外向又內向的人，中間性格者

8. smack [sm?k] adv. 恰巧，正好

9. streak [stri?k] n. （行為、氣質等的）個性特征（或傾向）

10. emphatically [?m?f?t?kli] adv. 斷然地

11. visceral [?v?s?r?l] adj. 發自肺腑的，出自內心的

12. ape [e?p] vt. 模仿