中英文稿

當(dāng)我九歲的時(shí)候, 我第一次去參加夏令營。 我媽媽幫我整理好了行李箱， 里面塞滿了書， 這對(duì)于我來說 是一件極為自然的事情。 因?yàn)樵谖壹遥?閱讀是首要的集體活動(dòng)。 聽上去我這一家都不愛社交， 但對(duì)我們來說 看書也社交的另一種途徑。 你可以享受被自己家人圍繞的溫暖， 但你也可以自由地漫游在 思維深處的冒險(xiǎn)樂園。 我當(dāng)時(shí)以為 夏令營就是這樣，當(dāng)然要更好些。

我想象十個(gè)女孩坐在一個(gè)小屋里， 穿著配套的睡裙 愜意地讀書。

事實(shí)上，夏令營更像是 沒有酒精的派對(duì)聚會(huì)。 在第一天的時(shí)候， 指導(dǎo)員把我們都集合在一起。 她教會(huì)了我們一種 在余下夏令營的每一天中 都會(huì)用到的加油口號(hào)， 來凝聚我們的“夏令營精神”。 聽上去是這樣的： “R-O-W-D-I-E， 這是我們拼寫“吵鬧"的口號(hào)！ 噪音，喧鬧， 我們要變得吵一點(diǎn)！”

對(duì)，就是這樣。 可我怎樣也不明白 為什么我們需要這么吵鬧？ 為什么我們非要錯(cuò)誤地拼寫 “Rowdy”?

但我還是和其他伙伴一起 背熟了這個(gè)口號(hào)。 我盡了我最大的努力。 我在等待可以捧起 我摯愛的書的那一刻。

但當(dāng)我第一次把書從行李箱中拿出來時(shí)， 宿舍中最酷的那個(gè)女孩向我走了過來， 并且她問我：“為什么你要這么安靜？” 安靜，當(dāng)然，是R-O-W-D-I-E “喧鬧”的反義詞。 而當(dāng)我第二次拿書的時(shí)候， 指導(dǎo)員滿臉憂慮的向我走來， 她重復(fù)了關(guān)于“夏令營精神”的要點(diǎn)， 并且說我們都應(yīng)當(dāng)努力 去變得外向些。

于是，我放好我的書， 放回了行李箱中， 并把箱子塞回了床底， 在暑假余下的日子， 書再也沒被拿出來過。 我對(duì)這樣做感到挺愧疚的。 我感覺這些書是需要我的， 它們?cè)诤魡疚遥?但是我卻放棄了它們。 我確實(shí)放下了它們， 并且我再也沒有打開那個(gè)箱子 直到在暑期結(jié)束我回家。

我剛講的是夏令營的故事， 我還可以告訴你們50個(gè)類似的經(jīng)歷， 在這些經(jīng)歷中， 我都反復(fù)收到一個(gè)信號(hào) 我的文靜和內(nèi)向的性格 挺不對(duì)勁的， 我應(yīng)該努力變成一個(gè)外向者的角色。 而在我內(nèi)心深處一直覺得， 這種想法是錯(cuò)誤的， 內(nèi)向的人做自己也非常優(yōu)秀。 但是多年來 我都否認(rèn)了這種直覺。 我首先成為了華爾街的一名律師， 而不是我長久以來 想要成為的一名作家。 一部分原因是我想向自己證明 我可以變得勇敢而堅(jiān)定。 并且我總是去那些熱鬧的酒吧， 雖然我只想和朋友們 吃一頓不錯(cuò)的晚餐。 我做出了很多自我否認(rèn)的抉擇 如條件反射一般， 甚至我都沒有意識(shí)到 我做出了這些決定。

這是很多內(nèi)向的人正在做的事情， 這當(dāng)然是我們的損失， 但這同樣也是同事們的損失， 我們所在團(tuán)隊(duì)集體的損失。 也許聽起來有些夸大其詞， 這更是世界的損失。 因?yàn)楫?dāng)涉及創(chuàng)造力和領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力的時(shí)候， 我們需要內(nèi)向的人發(fā)揮長處。 世上三分到二分之一的人口都是內(nèi)向的， 三分之一到二分之一。 這意味著你認(rèn)識(shí)的每兩到三個(gè)人中 就有一個(gè)內(nèi)向的。 即使你自己是一個(gè)外向的人， 我正在說你的同事 和你的配偶和你的孩子 還有正坐在你旁邊的那個(gè)家伙， 他們都要屈從于這樣的偏見， 一種在社會(huì)中扎根的偏見。 我們從很小的時(shí)候就 內(nèi)化了這種偏見 甚至都不知道是怎么一回事。

讓我們來清楚地看待這種偏見， 我們需要真正了解“內(nèi)向”到底指什么。 它和害羞是不同的。 害羞是對(duì)于社會(huì)眼光的恐懼， 內(nèi)向更多的是 你怎樣對(duì)于刺激作出回應(yīng)， 包括來自社會(huì)的刺激。 外向的人是很渴求大量刺激， 反之內(nèi)向者則是相反的， 他們最敏銳、最充足、最具有能力 是當(dāng)他們處于更安靜的， 更低調(diào)的環(huán)境中。 并不是所有時(shí)候， 這些事情不是絕對(duì)的， 在大多數(shù)情況下就是這樣。 關(guān)鍵在于 若想將我們這些內(nèi)向者的天賦最大化， 我們需要將自己 置身于適合我們的激勵(lì)區(qū)域中。

但偏見會(huì)來搗亂， 我們最重要的一些體系： 學(xué)校和工作單位 它們都是為性格外向者設(shè)計(jì)的， 并且有適合他們需要的刺激和鼓勵(lì)。 我們現(xiàn)在有一種思維慣例， 我稱它為新型的“團(tuán)隊(duì)思考”， 這種思維覺得創(chuàng)造力和生產(chǎn)力 都來源于社交場(chǎng)合。

想象一下如今典型教室情形。 在我上學(xué)的時(shí)候， 學(xué)生一排排地坐著。 坐在一排排的課桌后， 學(xué)生大多會(huì)獨(dú)自完成自己的作業(yè)。 但如今，一個(gè)典型的教室中 有的是一組組課桌—— 四、五個(gè)，六、七個(gè)孩子 面對(duì)面坐在一起。 孩子們要完成無數(shù)個(gè)小組任務(wù)。 甚至在數(shù)學(xué)和創(chuàng)意寫作， 這些本可以獨(dú)立完成的科目， 現(xiàn)在孩子們被當(dāng)成小組會(huì)的成員。 對(duì)于那些喜歡獨(dú)處， 或者獨(dú)自學(xué)習(xí)的孩子來說 他們常常被視為局外人， 更糟的情況下， 他們會(huì)被視為問題孩子。 很大一部分老師的報(bào)告中都相信 最理想的學(xué)生應(yīng)是外向的 而非內(nèi)向的。 事實(shí)上，內(nèi)向的學(xué)生有著更好的成績 更加博學(xué)多識(shí)， 有研究報(bào)告顯示。 （笑聲）

同樣的事情也發(fā)生在工作場(chǎng)合。 如今，大多數(shù)人都在 開敞式辦公室里工作， 沒有隔墻， 我們?cè)诓粩嗟脑胍糁泄ぷ?也暴露于同事的目光下。 而當(dāng)談及領(lǐng)袖氣質(zhì)的時(shí)候， 在選擇領(lǐng)導(dǎo)時(shí)， 內(nèi)向的人總會(huì)被忽視， 盡管內(nèi)向的人通常小心仔細(xì)， 很少去冒險(xiǎn) —— 這些都是我們所稱贊的氣質(zhì)。 沃頓商學(xué)院的亞當(dāng)·格蘭特教授 做了一項(xiàng)很有意思的研究 表明內(nèi)向的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)們 相較外向領(lǐng)導(dǎo)，更能取得高業(yè)績。 因?yàn)楫?dāng)他們管理主動(dòng)積極的雇員時(shí) 他們更傾向于 讓有主見的雇員自由發(fā)揮， 反之，外向的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)就可能， 當(dāng)然是不經(jīng)意的， 容易對(duì)事物反應(yīng)過度， 容易以自己的想法獨(dú)大 導(dǎo)致他人的想法很難出頭。

事實(shí)上，歷史上一些變革型領(lǐng)袖 都是內(nèi)向的人。 舉一些例子。 埃莉諾·羅斯福、羅沙·帕克斯、 甘地 —— 這些人都把自己描述成內(nèi)向， 輕言細(xì)語甚至是害羞的人。 他們?nèi)匀徽驹诹司酃鉄粝?即使這樣做會(huì)讓他們渾身感到不適。 這成為了一種獨(dú)特的力量， 因?yàn)槿藗兌紩?huì)感覺到 這些領(lǐng)袖成為掌舵者 并不是因?yàn)樗麄兿矚g指揮別人， 抑或是享受眾人目光的聚焦， 而是因?yàn)樗麄儧]有選擇 因?yàn)樗麄儓?jiān)信的正義 驅(qū)使著他們。

我在這里必須提一下， 我非常喜愛外向的人。 我總是喜歡說我最好的朋友 都是外向的人， 包括我親愛的丈夫。 當(dāng)然，在內(nèi)向者到外向者 這一范圍中， 人們都有各自的不同。 卡爾·榮格， 這個(gè)推廣這些術(shù)語的心理學(xué)家， 說過世上絕沒有一個(gè)純粹的 內(nèi)向或外向的人。 他說那人若真存在 一定會(huì)在精神病院里。 還有一些人處在 在內(nèi)向與外向中間。 我們稱這些人為“中向性格者”。 我覺得他們幸運(yùn)地取得了完美的平衡。 但是我們中的大多數(shù)會(huì)認(rèn)為 自己屬于內(nèi)向或外向的其中一類。

從文化上講， 我們需要一種更好的平衡。 我們需要更多的陰陽平衡 在這兩種類型的人之間。 這點(diǎn)是極為重要的， 特別是涉及創(chuàng)造力和生產(chǎn)力， 因?yàn)楫?dāng)心理學(xué)家們研究 那些最有創(chuàng)造力的人時(shí) 他們尋找到的 是擅長交流想法、提出想法的人， 但同時(shí)也有著顯著的內(nèi)向傾向。

這是因?yàn)楠?dú)處 是激發(fā)創(chuàng)造力的重要因素。 比如說，達(dá)爾文會(huì) 一個(gè)人漫步在小樹林里， 并且斷然拒絕晚餐派對(duì)的邀約。 西奧多·蓋索， 就是大家所熟知的蘇斯博士， 他的許多夢(mèng)幻作品 都創(chuàng)作于他在加州拉霍亞市房子后的 一座孤獨(dú)的塔形辦公室中。 而且，他還不太敢去與 他的小書迷們見面， 害怕孩子們會(huì)期待 他是像圣誕老人一般的可愛形象， 而會(huì)對(duì)他實(shí)際含蓄的性格感到失望。 史蒂夫·沃茲尼亞克 發(fā)明第一臺(tái)蘋果電腦時(shí) 也是一個(gè)人獨(dú)自坐在 惠普公司的一個(gè)小方間中。 他說他成為電腦方面專家 也是因?yàn)槌砷L過程中過于內(nèi)向 不敢出門。

當(dāng)然了 這并不意味著我們都應(yīng)該停止團(tuán)隊(duì)合作。 你看，史蒂夫·沃茲尼亞克和 史蒂夫·喬布斯的強(qiáng)強(qiáng)聯(lián)手 創(chuàng)建了蘋果公司。 但這證明了獨(dú)處的重要性， 并且對(duì)于一些人來說 獨(dú)處就像賴以呼吸生存的空氣。 我們已經(jīng)明了獨(dú)處的卓越力量很久了。 只是到了最近，非常奇怪， 我們開始遺忘它了。 如果你看看世界上主要的宗教 你會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)探尋者： 摩西，耶穌，佛祖，穆罕默德 他們?cè)跁缫爸歇?dú)處并思索， 在那兒，他們得到了深刻的頓悟， 并將這些思想帶回并貢獻(xiàn)給社會(huì)。 沒有曠原，沒有啟示

盡管這并不令人驚訝 如果你注意到現(xiàn)代心理學(xué)的思想理論 它反映出來我們甚至不能和一組人待在一起 而不去本能地模仿他們的意見與想法 甚至是看上去私人的，發(fā)自內(nèi)心的事情 像是你被誰所吸引 你會(huì)開始模仿你周圍的人的信仰 甚至都覺察不到你自己在做什么

還曾跟隨群體的意見 跟隨著房間里最具有統(tǒng)治力的，最有領(lǐng)袖氣質(zhì)的人的思路 雖然這真的沒什么關(guān)系 在成為一個(gè)卓越的演講家還是擁有最好的主意之間-- 我的意思是“零相關(guān)” 那么... （笑聲） 你們或許會(huì)跟隨有最好頭腦的人 但是你們也許不會(huì) 可你們真的想把這機(jī)會(huì)扔掉嗎？ 如果每個(gè)人都自己行動(dòng)或許好得多 發(fā)掘他們自己的想法 沒有群體動(dòng)力學(xué)的曲解 接著來到一起組成一個(gè)團(tuán)隊(duì) 在一個(gè)良好管理的環(huán)境中互相交流 并且在那里學(xué)習(xí)別的思想

如果說現(xiàn)在這一切都是真的 那么為什么我們還得到這樣錯(cuò)誤的結(jié)論？ 為什么我們要這樣創(chuàng)立我們的學(xué)校，還有我們的工作單位？ 為什么我們要讓這些內(nèi)向的人覺得那么愧疚 對(duì)于他們只是想要離開，一個(gè)人獨(dú)處一段時(shí)間的事實(shí)？ 有一個(gè)答案在我們的文化史中埋藏已久 西方社會(huì) 特別是在美國 總是偏愛有行動(dòng)的人 而不是有深刻思考的人 有深刻思考的“人” 但是在美國早期的時(shí)候 我們生活在一個(gè)被歷史學(xué)家稱作“性格特征”的文化 那時(shí)我們?nèi)匀?，在這點(diǎn)上，判斷人們的價(jià)值 從人們的內(nèi)涵和道義正直 而且如果你看一看這個(gè)時(shí)代關(guān)于自立的書籍的話 它們都有這樣一種標(biāo)題： “性格”，世界上最偉大的事物 并且它們以亞伯拉罕·林肯這樣的為標(biāo)榜 一個(gè)被形容為謙虛低調(diào)的男人 拉爾夫·瓦爾多·愛默生稱他是 “一個(gè)以‘優(yōu)越’二字形容都不為過的人”

但是接著我們來到了二十世紀(jì) 并且我們?nèi)谌肓艘环N新的文化 一種被歷史學(xué)家稱作“個(gè)性”的文化 所發(fā)生的改變就是我們從農(nóng)業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展為 一個(gè)大商業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)的世界 而且人們突然開始搬遷 從小的城鎮(zhèn)搬向城市 并且一改他們之前的在生活中和所熟識(shí)的人們一起工作的方式 現(xiàn)在他們 在一群陌生人中間有必要去證明自己 這樣做是非?？梢岳斫獾?像領(lǐng)袖氣質(zhì)和個(gè)人魅力這樣的品質(zhì) 突然間似乎變得極為重要 那么可以肯定的是，自助自立的書的內(nèi)容變更了以適應(yīng)這些新的需求 并且它們開始擁有名稱 像是《如何贏得朋友和影響他人》（戴爾?卡耐基所著《人性的弱點(diǎn)》） 他們的特點(diǎn)是做自己的榜樣 不得不說確實(shí)是好的推銷員 所以這就是我們今天生活的世界 這是我們的文化遺產(chǎn)

現(xiàn)在沒有誰能夠說 社交技能是不重要的 并且我也不是想呼吁 大家廢除團(tuán)隊(duì)合作模式 但仍是相同的宗教，卻把他們的圣人送到了孤獨(dú)的山頂上 仍然教導(dǎo)我們愛與信任 還有我們今天所要面對(duì)的問題 像是在科學(xué)和經(jīng)濟(jì)領(lǐng)域 是如此的巨大和復(fù)雜 以至于我們需要人們強(qiáng)有力地團(tuán)結(jié)起來 共同解決這些問題 但是我想說，越給內(nèi)向者自由讓他們做自己 他們就做得越好 去想出他們獨(dú)特的關(guān)于問題的解決辦法

所以現(xiàn)在我很高興同你們分享 我手提箱中的東西 猜猜是什么？ 書 我有一個(gè)手提箱里面裝滿了書 這是瑪格麗特·阿特伍德的《貓的眼睛》 這是一本米蘭·昆德拉的書 這是一本《迷途指津》 是邁蒙尼德寫的 但這些實(shí)際上都不是我的書 我還是帶著它們，陪伴著我 因?yàn)樗鼈兌际俏易娓缸钕矏鄣淖骷宜鶎?/p>

我的祖父是一名猶太教祭司 他獨(dú)身一人 在布魯克林的一間小公寓中居住 那里是我從小到大在這個(gè)世界上最喜愛的地方 部分原因是他有著非常溫和親切的，溫文爾雅的舉止 部分原因是那里充滿了書 我的意思是，毫不夸張地說，公寓中的每張桌子，每張椅子 都充分應(yīng)用著它原有的功能 就是現(xiàn)在作為承載一大堆都在搖曳的書的表面 就像我其他的家庭成員一樣 我祖父在這個(gè)世界上最喜歡做的事情就是閱讀

但是他同樣也熱愛他的宗教 并且你們可以從他的講述中感覺到他這種愛 這62年來每周他都作為一名猶太教的祭司 他會(huì)從每周的閱讀中汲取養(yǎng)分 并且他會(huì)編織這些錯(cuò)綜復(fù)雜的古代和人文主義的思想的掛毯 并且人們會(huì)從各個(gè)地方前來 聽他的講話

但是有這么一件關(guān)于我祖父的事情 在這個(gè)正式的角色下隱藏著 他是一個(gè)非常謙虛的非常內(nèi)向的人 是那么的謙虛內(nèi)向以至于當(dāng)他在向人們講述的時(shí)候 他都不敢有視線上的接觸 和同樣的教堂會(huì)眾 他已經(jīng)發(fā)言有62年了 甚至都還遠(yuǎn)離領(lǐng)獎(jiǎng)臺(tái) 當(dāng)你們讓他說“你好”的時(shí)候 他總會(huì)提早結(jié)束這對(duì)話 擔(dān)心他會(huì)占用你太多的時(shí)間 但是當(dāng)他94歲去世的時(shí)候 警察們需要封鎖他所居住的街道鄰里 來容納擁擠的人們 前來哀悼他的人們 這些天來我都試著從我祖父的事例中學(xué)習(xí) 以我自己的方式

所以我就出版了一本關(guān)于內(nèi)向性格的書 它花了我7年的時(shí)間完成它 而對(duì)我來說，這七年像是一種極大的喜悅 因?yàn)槲以陂喿x，我在寫作 我在思考，我在探尋 這是我的版本 對(duì)于爺爺一天中幾個(gè)小時(shí)都要獨(dú)自待在圖書館這件事 但是現(xiàn)在突然間我的工作變得很不同了 我的工作變成了站在這里講述它 講述內(nèi)向的性格 （笑聲） 而且這對(duì)于我來說是有一點(diǎn)困難的 因?yàn)槲液軜s幸 在現(xiàn)在被你們所有人所傾聽 這可不是我自然的文化背景

所以我準(zhǔn)備了一會(huì)就像這樣 以我所能做到的最好的方式 我花了最近一年的時(shí)間練習(xí)在公共場(chǎng)合發(fā)言 在我能得到的每一個(gè)機(jī)會(huì)中 我把這一年稱作我的“危險(xiǎn)地發(fā)言的一年” （笑聲） 而且它的確幫了我很大的忙 但是我要告訴你們一個(gè)幫我更大的忙的事情 那就是我的感覺，我的信仰，我的希望 當(dāng)談及我們態(tài)度的時(shí)候 對(duì)于內(nèi)向性格的，對(duì)于安靜，對(duì)于獨(dú)處的態(tài)度時(shí) 我們確實(shí)是在急劇變化的邊緣上保持微妙的平衡 我的意思是，我們?cè)诒３制胶?現(xiàn)在我將要給你們留下一些東西 三件對(duì)于你們的行動(dòng)有幫助的事情 獻(xiàn)給那些觀看我的演講的人

第一： 停止對(duì)于經(jīng)常要團(tuán)隊(duì)協(xié)作的執(zhí)迷與瘋狂 停止它就好了 （笑聲） 謝謝你們 （掌聲） 我想讓我所說的事情變得清晰一些 因?yàn)槲覍?duì)于我們的辦公深信不疑 應(yīng)該鼓勵(lì)它們 那種休閑隨意的，聊天似的咖啡廳式的相互作用-- 你們知道的，道不同不相為謀，人們聚到一起 并且互相交換著寶貴的意見 這是很棒的 這對(duì)于內(nèi)向者很好，同樣對(duì)于外向者也好 但是我們需要更多的隱私和更多的自由 還有更多對(duì)于我們本身工作的自主權(quán) 對(duì)于學(xué)校，也是同樣的。 我們當(dāng)然需要教會(huì)孩子們要一起學(xué)習(xí)工作 但是我們同樣需要教會(huì)孩子們?cè)趺礃营?dú)立完成任務(wù) 這對(duì)于外向的孩子們來說同樣是極為重要的 他們需要獨(dú)立完成工作 因?yàn)閺哪撤N程度上，這是他們深刻思考的來源

好了，第二個(gè)：去到野外（打開思維） 就像佛祖一樣，擁有你們自己對(duì)于事物的揭示啟迪 我并不是說 我們都要跑去小樹林里建造我們自己的小屋 并且之后就永遠(yuǎn)不和別人說話了 但是我要說我們都可以堅(jiān)持去去除一些障礙物 然后深入我們自己的大腦思想 時(shí)不時(shí)得再深入一點(diǎn)

第三點(diǎn)： 好好看一眼你的旅行箱內(nèi)有什么東西 還有你為什么把它放進(jìn)去 所以外向者們 也許你們的箱子內(nèi)同樣堆滿了書 或者它們裝滿了香檳的玻璃酒杯 或者是跳傘運(yùn)動(dòng)的設(shè)備 不管它是什么，我希望每當(dāng)你們有機(jī)會(huì)你們就把它拿出來 用你的能量和你的快樂讓我們感受到美和享受 但是內(nèi)向者們，你們作為內(nèi)向者 你們很可能有仔細(xì)保護(hù)一切的沖動(dòng) 在你箱子里的東西 這沒有問題 但是偶爾地，只是說偶爾地 我希望你們可以打開你們的手提箱，讓別人看一看 因?yàn)檫@個(gè)世界需要你們，同樣需要你們身上所攜帶的你們特有的事物

所以對(duì)于你們即將走上的所有旅程，我都給予你們我最美好的祝愿 還有溫柔地說話的勇氣

非常感謝你們

謝謝。謝謝

When I was nine years old, I went off to summer camp for the first time. And my mother packed me a suitcase full of books, which to me seemed like a perfectly natural thing to do. Because in my family, reading was the primary group activity. And this might sound antisocial to you, but for us it was really just a different way of being social. You have the animal warmth of your family sitting right next to you, but you are also free to go roaming around the adventureland inside your own mind. And I had this idea that camp was going to be just like this, but better.

I had a vision of 10 girls sitting in a cabin cozily reading books in their matching nightgowns.

Camp was more like a keg party without any alcohol. And on the very first day, our counselor gathered us all together and she taught us a cheer that she said we would be doing every day for the rest of the summer to instill camp spirit. And it went like this: "R-O-W-D-I-E, that's the way we spell rowdie. Rowdie, rowdie, let's get rowdie."

Yeah. So I couldn't figure out for the life of me why we were supposed to be so rowdy, or why we had to spell this word incorrectly.

But I recited a cheer. I recited a cheer along with everybody else. I did my best. And I just waited for the time that I could go off and read my books.

But the first time that I took my book out of my suitcase, the coolest girl in the bunk came up to me and she asked me, "Why are you being so mellow?" -- mellow, of course, being the exact opposite of R-O-W-D-I-E. And then the second time I tried it, the counselor came up to me with a concerned expression on her face and she repeated the point about camp spirit and said we should all work very hard to be outgoing.

And so I put my books away, back in their suitcase, and I put them under my bed, and there they stayed for the rest of the summer. And I felt kind of guilty about this. I felt as if the books needed me somehow, and they were calling out to me and I was forsaking them. But I did forsake them and I didn't open that suitcase again until I was back home with my family at the end of the summer.

Now, I tell you this story about summer camp. I could have told you 50 others just like it -- all the times that I got the message that somehow my quiet and introverted style of being was not necessarily the right way to go, that I should be trying to pass as more of an extrovert. And I always sensed deep down that this was wrong and that introverts were pretty excellent just as they were. But for years I denied this intuition, and so I became a Wall Street lawyer, of all things, instead of the writer that I had always longed to be -- partly because I needed to prove to myself that I could be bold and assertive too. And I was always going off to crowded bars when I really would have preferred to just have a nice dinner with friends. And I made these self-negating choices so reflexively, that I wasn't even aware that I was making them.

Now this is what many introverts do, and it's our loss for sure, but it is also our colleagues' loss and our communities' loss. And at the risk of sounding grandiose, it is the world's loss. Because when it comes to creativity and to leadership, we need introverts doing what they do best. A third to a half of the population are introverts -- a third to a half. So that's one out of every two or three people you know. So even if you're an extrovert yourself, I'm talking about your coworkers and your spouses and your children and the person sitting next to you right now -- all of them subject to this bias that is pretty deep and real in our society. We all internalize it from a very early age without even having a language for what we're doing.

Now, to see the bias clearly, you need to understand what introversion is. It's different from being shy. Shyness is about fear of social judgment. Introversion is more about, how do you respond to stimulation, including social stimulation. So extroverts really crave large amounts of stimulation, whereas introverts feel at their most alive and their most switched-on and their most capable when they're in quieter, more low-key environments. Not all the time -- these things aren't absolute -- but a lot of the time. So the key then to maximizing our talents is for us all to put ourselves in the zone of stimulation that is right for us.

But now here's where the bias comes in. Our most important institutions, our schools and our workplaces, they are designed mostly for extroverts and for extroverts' need for lots of stimulation. And also we have this belief system right now that I call the new groupthink, which holds that all creativity and all productivity comes from a very oddly gregarious place.

So if you picture the typical classroom nowadays: When I was going to school, we sat in rows. We sat in rows of desks like this, and we did most of our work pretty autonomously. But nowadays, your typical classroom has pods of desks -- four or five or six or seven kids all facing each other. And kids are working in countless group assignments. Even in subjects like math and creative writing, which you think would depend on solo flights of thought, kids are now expected to act as committee members. And for the kids who prefer to go off by themselves or just to work alone, those kids are seen as outliers often or, worse, as problem cases. And the vast majority of teachers reports believing that the ideal student is an extrovert as opposed to an introvert, even though introverts actually get better grades and are more knowledgeable, according to research.

Okay, same thing is true in our workplaces. Now, most of us work in open plan offices, without walls, where we are subject to the constant noise and gaze of our coworkers. And when it comes to leadership, introverts are routinely passed over for leadership positions, even though introverts tend to be very careful, much less likely to take outsize risks -- which is something we might all favor nowadays. And interesting research by Adam Grant at the Wharton School has found that introverted leaders often deliver better outcomes than extroverts do, because when they are managing proactive employees, they're much more likely to let those employees run with their ideas, whereas an extrovert can, quite unwittingly, get so excited about things that they're putting their own stamp on things, and other people's ideas might not as easily then bubble up to the surface.

Now in fact, some of our transformative leaders in history have been introverts. I'll give you some examples. Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosa Parks, Gandhi -- all these people described themselves as quiet and soft-spoken and even shy. And they all took the spotlight, even though every bone in their bodies was telling them not to. And this turns out to have a special power all its own, because people could feel that these leaders were at the helm not because they enjoyed directing others and not out of the pleasure of being looked at; they were there because they had no choice, because they were driven to do what they thought was right.

Now I think at this point it's important for me to say that I actually love extroverts. I always like to say some of my best friends are extroverts, including my beloved husband. And we all fall at different points, of course, along the introvert/extrovert spectrum. Even Carl Jung, the psychologist who first popularized these terms, said that there's no such thing as a pure introvert or a pure extrovert. He said that such a man would be in a lunatic asylum, if he existed at all. And some people fall smack in the middle of the introvert/extrovert spectrum, and we call these people ambiverts. And I often think that they have the best of all worlds. But many of us do recognize ourselves as one type or the other.

And what I'm saying is that culturally, we need a much better balance. We need more of a yin and yang between these two types. This is especially important when it comes to creativity and to productivity, because when psychologists look at the lives of the most creative people, what they find are people who are very good at exchanging ideas and advancing ideas, but who also have a serious streak of introversion in them.

And this is because solitude is a crucial ingredient often to creativity. So Darwin, he took long walks alone in the woods and emphatically turned down dinner-party invitations. Theodor Geisel, better known as Dr. Seuss, he dreamed up many of his amazing creations in a lonely bell tower office that he had in the back of his house in La Jolla, California. And he was actually afraid to meet the young children who read his books for fear that they were expecting him this kind of jolly Santa Claus-like figure and would be disappointed with his more reserved persona. Steve Wozniak invented the first Apple computer sitting alone in his cubicle in Hewlett-Packard where he was working at the time. And he says that he never would have become such an expert in the first place had he not been too introverted to leave the house when he was growing up.

Now, of course, this does not mean that we should all stop collaborating -- and case in point, is Steve Wozniak famously coming together with Steve Jobs to start Apple Computer -- but it does mean that solitude matters and that for some people it is the air that they breathe. And in fact, we have known for centuries about the transcendent power of solitude. It's only recently that we've strangely begun to forget it. If you look at most of the world's major religions, you will find seekers -- Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad -- seekers who are going off by themselves alone to the wilderness, where they then have profound epiphanies and revelations that they then bring back to the rest of the community. So, no wilderness, no revelations.

This is no surprise, though, if you look at the insights of contemporary psychology. It turns out that we can't even be in a group of people without instinctively mirroring, mimicking their opinions. Even about seemingly personal and visceral things like who you're attracted to, you will start aping the beliefs of the people around you without even realizing that that's what you're doing.

And groups famously follow the opinions of the most dominant or charismatic person in the room, even though there's zero correlation between being the best talker and having the best ideas -- I mean zero. So --

You might be following the person with the best ideas, but you might not. And do you really want to leave it up to chance? Much better for everybody to go off by themselves, generate their own ideas freed from the distortions of group dynamics, and then come together as a team to talk them through in a well-managed environment and take it from there.

Now if all this is true, then why are we getting it so wrong? Why are we setting up our schools this way, and our workplaces? And why are we making these introverts feel so guilty about wanting to just go off by themselves some of the time? One answer lies deep in our cultural history. Western societies, and in particular the U.S., have always favored the man of action over the "man" of contemplation. But in America's early days, we lived in what historians call a culture of character, where we still, at that point, valued people for their inner selves and their moral rectitude. And if you look at the self-help books from this era, they all had titles with things like "Character, the Grandest Thing in the World." And they featured role models like Abraham Lincoln, who was praised for being modest and unassuming. Ralph Waldo Emerson called him "A man who does not offend by superiority."

But then we hit the 20th century, and we entered a new culture that historians call the culture of personality. What happened is we had evolved an agricultural economy to a world of big business. And so suddenly people are moving from small towns to the cities. And instead of working alongside people they've known all their lives, now they are having to prove themselves in a crowd of strangers. So, quite understandably, qualities like magnetism and charisma suddenly come to seem really important. And sure enough, the self-help books change to meet these new needs and they start to have names like "How to Win Friends and Influence People." And they feature as their role models really great salesmen. So that's the world we're living in today. That's our cultural inheritance.

Now none of this is to say that social skills are unimportant, and I'm also not calling for the abolishing of teamwork at all. The same religions who send their sages off to lonely mountain tops also teach us love and trust. And the problems that we are facing today in fields like science and in economics are so vast and so complex that we are going to need armies of people coming together to solve them working together. But I am saying that the more freedom that we give introverts to be themselves, the more likely that they are to come up with their own unique solutions to these problems.

So now I'd like to share with you what's in my suitcase today. Guess what? Books. I have a suitcase full of books. Here's Margaret Atwood, "Cat's Eye." Here's a novel by Milan Kundera. And here's "The Guide for the Perplexed" by Maimonides. But these are not exactly my books. I brought these books with me because they were written by my grandfather's favorite authors.