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.

进化论。相对论。《戴帽子的猫》。所有这些都是由性格内向的人带给我们的。

我们的文化对性格沉静、内敛的人存在偏见，但内向型性格的人创造了人类最为杰出的一些成就——史蒂夫·沃兹尼亚克发明了苹果电脑，J. K. 罗琳写出了《哈利·波特》，不一而足。这些内向型的人能取得如此成就并不是因为他们克服了自己的内向性格，而是因为他们有这样的性格。

正如科学记者威妮弗雷德·加拉格尔所言：“这种性格使人在面对新鲜刺激的事物时会停下来思考，而不是风风火火地投入其中。其倍受赞誉之处就在于它与智力成果和艺术成就的长久渊源。无论是方程式E = mc2还是《失乐园》都不是派对狂匆匆创造出来的成果。”

内向型的人占所有人口的1/3到1/2。也就是说在你认识的人中，每两三个人就有一个是内向型的。

然而，我们最为重要的机构——我们的学校和工作单位——都是为外向型的人设计的。我们所处的价值体系认为所有的创造力和生产力都来自某个古怪的群体场合，我称这种价值体系为“新式群体思维”。

想象一下典型的教室。在我小时候，我们坐在成排的课桌后，大部分作业都是独立完成的。但如今，许多学生都是四五个一组，面对面坐在围成“豆荚式”的课桌旁，做着数不清的小组任务——即使像数学课和创意写作之类的课程也不例外。那些喜欢独自完成功课的孩子无法适应。教育心理学教授查尔斯·梅斯盖尔的研究发现，大多数老师都认为理想的学生是外向型的，即便心理学家阿德里安·弗恩海姆发现内向型学生的分数往往更高。

工作场所也不例外。现在我们许多人的办公室都没有围墙，这使我们无法从同事的嘈杂声和注视中得到喘息的机会。此外，领导岗位通常都不会考虑选内向型的人来担任，尽管沃顿商学院管理学教授亚当·格兰特的最新研究表明，内向型领导往往能带来更好的成果。他们更善于让积极主动的职员按照他们的创意来做，而外向型领导会在不知不觉中把一切打上自己的烙印，却意识不到自己没有聆听别人的意见。

当然，我们都在“内向—外向”这两极之间占据着不同的位置。卡尔·荣格是最早把这些术语变得家喻户晓的心理学家，但即使是他也认为并不存在纯粹的内向或外向型的人——“那样的人可能会在精神病院里找到”。还有一个术语，叫“中间性格者”，指那些正好处在内向和外向两极中间的人。

但我们许多人都认为自己非此即彼。从文化上来说，我们需要在两者之间找到一个更好的阴阳平衡。事实上，我们往往本能地寻求这种平衡。正因为如此，我们会看到很多内向型和外向型结合的夫妻（我是内向型，嫁给了一个外向型，婚姻幸福），人们也发现效率最高的工作团队都是混合了两种性格的人的团队。

在创造力和生产力的问题上，内向和外向的平衡尤其重要。当心理学家在审视最富创造力的一些人的生活时，他们几乎总能发现内向性格的重要特征，因为独处是创造力的一个关键要素。

查尔斯·达尔文曾断然拒绝一次又一次的晚宴邀请，长时间独自一人在树林里漫步。常被人称作瑟斯博士的西奥多·盖泽尔在其位于拉荷亚的房舍后面的一座僻静钟楼里构思出了他的作品。史蒂夫·沃兹尼亚克独自在惠普公司的小隔间里创造出了第一台苹果电脑。

当然，这并不意味着我们应该停止相互合作——沃兹尼亚克就是和史蒂夫·乔布斯合作才成立了苹果公司。但这的确说明了独处的重要性。对某些人来说，独处就是他们呼吸的空气。

事实上，数百年来，我们都深知独处具有超凡之力，只是在最近我们才忘记了这一点。人类主要的宗教都流传着探寻者的故事——摩西、耶稣、穆罕默德、佛陀——他们孑然一身，深入荒野之境，将深奥的启示带回给人类。不入荒野，焉得启示。

这没什么奇怪的，你只要听一听当代心理学的观点就会明白。事实证明，如果你置身于一群人之中，你就会本能地仿效他人的观点——哪怕是在一些个人的、发自内心的事情上，比如谁在生理上对你具有吸引力。在模仿别人思想时，我们甚至意识不到这一点。

群体也通常会服从房间里最健谈的那个人，尽管好的思想与健谈者之间毫无关系。最健谈的人也许会有最好的思想，但也可能没有。因此，最好还是将人们分开，以免受到群体力量的干扰，让他们独自形成自己的观点，然后再作为一个团队聚在一起。

我并不是说社交技能不重要，或者应该废止团队协作。那些将圣贤们送到偏僻山顶的宗教同时也教诲我们要互爱互信。如今，我们在经济学和科学等领域所面临的问题比以往任何时候都要复杂，需要大量的人力来解决。

但我要说的是，我们都需要独处的时光。我们给内向者自由发挥的余地越多，他们就能设想出更多自己独到的方案，以解决那些深深困扰我们的问题。

1. The Cat in the Hat：《戴帽子的猫》，美国作家、漫画家西奥多·瑟斯·盖泽尔（Theodor Seuss Geise， 1904～1991）创作的儿童读物

2. Paradise Lost：《失乐园》，英国诗人约翰·弥尔顿（John Milton， 1608～1674）以《旧约圣经》的《创世纪》为基础创作的史诗

3. dash off：迅速写（或画）；迅速完成

4. respite [?resp?t] n. 暂缓；喘息时间

5. pass over：（在提升、任命时）对（某人）不加考虑

6. lunatic [?lu?n?t?k] adj. 为收容精神病人而设立的

7. ambivert [??mbi?v??（r）t] n. [心]既外向又内向的人，中间性格者

8. smack [sm?k] adv. 恰巧，正好

9. streak [stri?k] n. （行为、气质等的）个性特征（或倾向）

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

11. visceral [?v?s?r?l] adj. 发自肺腑的，出自内心的

12. ape [e?p] vt. 模仿