March 5th, 2006

Book Cover

Good Morning!

I wake, feeling well. The "big" storm that is predicted has not yet hit, though it is dark, but the wind seems to have blown somewhere else. It is very still. Steve is back from Finland, and we enjoyed breakfast at The Anchorage in Sausalito, a wonderful family-owned, and friendly place.

I return to read the news, and think I will not comment on it at all. You all read the papers, but there is a most bizarre article by Alistair Cooke's daughter that you may have not seen about her father's body, and Jimmy Carter and others have united in a wonderful comment on human rights, so, I give you my pluckings of today's news.

Black Shrouds and Black Markets

Article Tools Sponsored By
Published: March 5, 2006

East Montpelier, Vt. — Ten days before Christmas, I received a call from a detective with the Brooklyn district attorney's office. He wondered if I had heard anything about the office's investigation into the illegal sale of more than 1,000 bodies by several funeral homes in the area. I told him I had not. He went on to explain that the bodies were stolen and parts of them sold to several different processing plants. It sounded macabre, and I don't really remember much more after he said, "We have evidence that your father's body was one of the ones taken."

I was literally dumbstruck, too stunned to think or speak. The detective asked if by any chance this was the Alistair Cooke. I told him yes; he whistled through his teeth. Apparently investigators found that those who sold his tissue had falsified my father's age and cause of death, listing him as 85 rather than 95 and as having died of a heart attack rather than lung cancer that had metastasized to his bones. CNN had reported on the case the night before, but at that time no one knew of my father's involvement. Civil suits were being filed; class-action suits would probably follow.

I hung up and stared, slack-jawed, into space. Searching for some equilibrium in the next few days, I researched the story and felt the hair on the back of my neck rise. I called the detective and asked if there might be some mistake. He said that was not possible; they had receipts for my father's bones from tissue-processing plants in New Jersey and Florida.

The Brooklyn district attorney's office set about the long, gruesome task of verifying the contents of coffins. Unfortunately, they found a lot of plumber's pipe where there should have been bone. Last month, four men, including an embalmer and the owner of a human tissue bank, were arrested. Other arrests are expected.

That's the public part of the story. Those of us privately affected continue to be haunted by our unwilling parts in this ghoulish narrative.

Thanks to advances in technology, the tissue-processing industry has expanded to make use not only of donated organs but also of muscle, bone, tendons and skin for research and transplant. But now prosecutors say that some people who desperately needed help were given diseased tissue and body parts. Already there are patients who say they have contracted syphilis and hepatitis from these transplants. Imagine for just a second, if you can bear it, being told by your doctor — as thousands of patients have been — that in retrospect they aren't exactly sure where the tissue they put in you came from. How could you run away from yourself fast enough?

What has been surprising to me is how disturbed I have been as a relative of someone whose body was stolen. Unlike the recipients of diseased tissue, I have not been made physically ill. Walking around with a turned stomach is a far cry from learning you may have hepatitis or H.I.V. But the malaise I've contracted is one of sorrow and apprehension.

I've thought a lot about bodies over the last couple of months. I am not unfamiliar with dead bodies; I have watched autopsies, prayed over victims of fatal accidents, been in embalming rooms, funeral homes and emergency rooms and stood at many a graveside. I have counseled parishioners and families not to see our bodies as the core essence of who we are. Most of the time when I see a dead person, my reaction is: "Oh, not here anymore. Gone." I believe with all my heart that this is true. And though gone where, exactly, is less clear, gone to whom is pretty certain in my mind: gone to God.

The body we are left with is empty in the way that counts most. But we have loved that body in its particulars — perhaps the long fingers, the arch of the neck, the quirky smile, the strong arms, the face undone by tears.

Though we may say what we'd like done with our bodies when we die, the final decision rests with our next of kin. My father stated in his will that he wanted to be cremated and most of him, I guess, was. He was 95 years old, frail and ravaged by illness. After he died, my goal was to leave that picture behind. As anyone who has lost someone to an extended illness or a brutal accident knows, you try very hard to let go of the image of that person's final suffering and instead to remember the person as he or she really was. Usually, we manage this.

For almost three months, this goal has eluded me. Since I learned what happened to my father's remains, it has all been about the body, that still, empty vessel. It's hard to get beyond the body when the body is the story.

Cultures and religions throughout history have all had strict rules about dealing with the dead. Whether because bodies are believed to be ritually impure, bearers of disease, or sacred entities, their treatment is carefully prescribed.

In our society, figuratively and literally, we place death in a box, and we are able to grieve and to heal so long as its lid is nailed firmly shut. But sometimes the lid comes unhinged: when suspicion surrounds a death, when someone is missing in action, when a body is lost in a tsunami, or when, as in my father's case, someone steals a body and chops it up and sells it. Then we are plunged into an alien dimension.

It wasn't always this way. A hundred years ago, people died at home. The women of the family would then wash Grandmother's body and dress her up in her Sunday go-to-meeting clothes as the funeral baked meats were laid out in the parlor. Where I live in Vermont, many old farmhouses have a room off the kitchen that used to be called the "borning room." In it, people were born and died close to the warm hearth.

But since that time, we have handed death over to doctors, hospitals, nursing homes and funeral homes. And perhaps that's not surprising, since none of us wants to dwell too much with the unpleasantness associated with death.

Maybe that's why the tissue transplant industry is so poorly regulated. The criminals in my father's case were apparently able to pull off multiple frauds. They forged his death certificate, medical history and family consent forms. A simple phone call to his next of kin would have revealed that these documents were false, but at no point in the chain did anyone audit them. Although it is illegal to buy and sell tissue, those involved may have managed this by exploiting a loophole that allows harvesters to charge an unspecified processing fee. And although the Food and Drug Administration forbids the transplant of tissue contaminated with malignant cancer, the tissue bank in question may not have run the mandatory tests.

Being an organ or tissue donor is still a safe, generous and commendable act. Unfortunately, cases like these cast suspicion on all such endeavors. More stringent oversight would help restore confidence in organ and tissue donation programs. And public awareness could help bring such changes about, if citizens will bring pressure to bear on their Congressional leaders and other elected officials.

No doubt the recipients of illegally procured tissue continue to live in fear, while we, the families told that our loved ones' remains were stolen, remain haunted by the body's gruesome fate. Just last week I discovered the unsettling detail that it was my father's legs that were cut off and sold. To know his bones were sold was one thing, but to see him standing truncated before me is another entirely.

But perhaps this is a wake-up call — at least for those still able to sleep. We must not be so intent on distancing death from our hearths that we fail to do everything in our power to make sure this sort of crime never happens again.

Susan Cooke Kittredge is the minister of the Old Meeting House.
Book Cover

Human Rights and the UN!

Principles Defeat Politics at the U.N.

Published: March 5, 2006

In the global struggle for the advancement of human rights, the United Nations has reached a defining moment. The president of the General Assembly, Jan Eliasson of Sweden, has led five months of negotiations to develop a proposal to reform the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Although the commission has accomplished many things, including the adoption of human rights standards, treaties and fact-finding mechanisms that measure the performance of governments, it has become more of a political battleground than a meaningful force for protecting victims of human rights violations, and it must be reformed.

Last year, Secretary General Kofi Annan boldly proposed that the United Nations replace the commission with a new more elevated and effective body. His visionary proposal started a very creative process through which governments have thoroughly examined and debated the features of a new body that a large majority could embrace. Mr. Eliasson has now produced a draft resolution with many positive elements that has gained the support of the vast majority of the membership of the United Nations.

Some have asserted that the proposal is just a weak compromise. We challenge this claim.

The new council creates new expectations that members will uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights, fully cooperate with the council, and undergo additional scrutiny through a peer review. Most significantly, a member that commits gross and systematic violations of human rights can be suspended from the body.

The council includes a new requirement that members be approved by a majority of the General Assembly — or 96 countries — rather than simply being appointed by their regional groups. With these new procedures and the articulation for the first time of standards for membership, we believe the new body will be led by countries with a greater commitment to human rights.

Instead of having one highly politicized meeting per year, the council will meet throughout the year so that it can address urgent human rights issues in a timely way. This will create a more regularized, constructive and professional process. The politics and double standards of the existing commission will be redressed by providing for periodic review of the human rights records of all 191 members, including the most powerful.

In addition, the proposal ensures robust participation by human rights organizations and activists in the deliberations and secures the system of special rapporteurs and other fact-finding mechanisms — the best feature of the commission.

The draft before United Nations members represents a very significant and meaningful improvement over the existing commission, and to reopen negotiations would put at risk these gains and give those who would prefer a weaker system another opportunity to do mischief. This risks reintroducing very damaging proposals, like giving politically motivated member states control and oversight of the high commissioner for human rights, now an independent office and important voice for victims; new restrictions on special rapporteurs, nongovernmental organizations and news media; elimination or new high thresholds for passing country resolutions, and so forth.

Our aim must be to build a solid foundation for protecting human rights and coming to the aid of victims within the only truly global organization of governments on the planet. Mr. Eliasson has found a way forward that can bring everyone on board. Nearly 60 years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he has finally brought us to where we can begin to put principles over politics for the betterment of all.

Jimmy Carter, Óscar Arias, Kim Dae Jung, Shirin Ebadi and Desmond Tutu are Nobel Peace Prize laureates.
Book Cover

Now here is an interesting article -

The Atlantic Monthly is again talking about introversion this month, and how common it is, and how many people resonated to this article. Of course, it is rather complimentary to introverts. Why would anyone want to be anything else? : )

The Atlantic Monthly reports that "claiming for introverts the motto “I’m okay, you’re okay—in small doses,” Rauch’s piece became one of the most-read articles in the history of The Atlantic’s Web site and a sensation in the blogosphere." Here it is from March of 2003.

The Atlantic Monthly | March 2003

Pursuits & Retreats
Personal File

Caring for Your Introvert

The habits and needs of a little-understood group

by Jonathan Rauch


Do you know someone who needs hours alone every day? Who loves quiet conversations about feelings or ideas, and can give a dynamite presentation to a big audience, but seems awkward in groups and maladroit at small talk? Who has to be dragged to parties and then needs the rest of the day to recuperate? Who growls or scowls or grunts or winces when accosted with pleasantries by people who are just trying to be nice?

If so, do you tell this person he is "too serious," or ask if he is okay? Regard him as aloof, arrogant, rude? Redouble your efforts to draw him out?

If you answered yes to these questions, chances are that you have an introvert on your hands—and that you aren't caring for him properly. Science has learned a good deal in recent years about the habits and requirements of introverts. It has even learned, by means of brain scans, that introverts process information differently from other people (I am not making this up). If you are behind the curve on this important matter, be reassured that you are not alone. Introverts may be common, but they are also among the most misunderstood and aggrieved groups in America, possibly the world.

I know. My name is Jonathan, and I am an introvert.

Oh, for years I denied it. After all, I have good social skills. I am not morose or misanthropic. Usually. I am far from shy. I love long conversations that explore intimate thoughts or passionate interests. But at last I have self-identified and come out to my friends and colleagues. In doing so, I have found myself liberated from any number of damaging misconceptions and stereotypes. Now I am here to tell you what you need to know in order to respond sensitively and supportively to your own introverted family members, friends, and colleagues. Remember, someone you know, respect, and interact with every day is an introvert, and you are probably driving this person nuts. It pays to learn the warning signs.

What is introversion? In its modern sense, the concept goes back to the 1920s and the psychologist Carl Jung. Today it is a mainstay of personality tests, including the widely used Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Introverts are not necessarily shy. Shy people are anxious or frightened or self-excoriating in social settings; introverts generally are not. Introverts are also not misanthropic, though some of us do go along with Sartre as far as to say "Hell is other people at breakfast." Rather, introverts are people who find other people tiring.

Extroverts are energized by people, and wilt or fade when alone. They often seem bored by themselves, in both senses of the expression. Leave an extrovert alone for two minutes and he will reach for his cell phone. In contrast, after an hour or two of being socially "on," we introverts need to turn off and recharge. My own formula is roughly two hours alone for every hour of socializing. This isn't antisocial. It isn't a sign of depression. It does not call for medication. For introverts, to be alone with our thoughts is as restorative as sleeping, as nourishing as eating. Our motto: "I'm okay, you're okay—in small doses."

How many people are introverts? I performed exhaustive research on this question, in the form of a quick Google search. The answer: About 25 percent. Or: Just under half. Or—my favorite—"a minority in the regular population but a majority in the gifted population."

Are introverts misunderstood? Wildly. That, it appears, is our lot in life. "It is very difficult for an extrovert to understand an introvert," write the education experts Jill D. Burruss and Lisa Kaenzig. (They are also the source of the quotation in the previous paragraph.) Extroverts are easy for introverts to understand, because extroverts spend so much of their time working out who they are in voluble, and frequently inescapable, interaction with other people. They are as inscrutable as puppy dogs. But the street does not run both ways. Extroverts have little or no grasp of introversion. They assume that company, especially their own, is always welcome. They cannot imagine why someone would need to be alone; indeed, they often take umbrage at the suggestion. As often as I have tried to explain the matter to extroverts, I have never sensed that any of them really understood. They listen for a moment and then go back to barking and yipping.

Are introverts oppressed? I would have to say so. For one thing, extroverts are overrepresented in politics, a profession in which only the garrulous are really comfortable. Look at George W. Bush. Look at Bill Clinton. They seem to come fully to life only around other people. To think of the few introverts who did rise to the top in politics—Calvin Coolidge, Richard Nixon—is merely to drive home the point. With the possible exception of Ronald Reagan, whose fabled aloofness and privateness were probably signs of a deep introverted streak (many actors, I've read, are introverts, and many introverts, when socializing, feel like actors), introverts are not considered "naturals" in politics.

Extroverts therefore dominate public life. This is a pity. If we introverts ran the world, it would no doubt be a calmer, saner, more peaceful sort of place. As Coolidge is supposed to have said, "Don't you know that four fifths of all our troubles in this life would disappear if we would just sit down and keep still?" (He is also supposed to have said, "If you don't say anything, you won't be called on to repeat it." The only thing a true introvert dislikes more than talking about himself is repeating himself.)

With their endless appetite for talk and attention, extroverts also dominate social life, so they tend to set expectations. In our extrovertist society, being outgoing is considered normal and therefore desirable, a mark of happiness, confidence, leadership. Extroverts are seen as bighearted, vibrant, warm, empathic. "People person" is a compliment. Introverts are described with words like "guarded," "loner," "reserved," "taciturn," "self-contained," "private"—narrow, ungenerous words, words that suggest emotional parsimony and smallness of personality. Female introverts, I suspect, must suffer especially. In certain circles, particularly in the Midwest, a man can still sometimes get away with being what they used to call a strong and silent type; introverted women, lacking that alternative, are even more likely than men to be perceived as timid, withdrawn, haughty.

Are introverts arrogant? Hardly. I suppose this common misconception has to do with our being more intelligent, more reflective, more independent, more level-headed, more refined, and more sensitive than extroverts. Also, it is probably due to our lack of small talk, a lack that extroverts often mistake for disdain. We tend to think before talking, whereas extroverts tend to think by talking, which is why their meetings never last less than six hours. "Introverts," writes a perceptive fellow named Thomas P. Crouser, in an online review of a recent book called Why Should Extroverts Make All the Money? (I'm not making that up, either), "are driven to distraction by the semi-internal dialogue extroverts tend to conduct. Introverts don't outwardly complain, instead roll their eyes and silently curse the darkness." Just so.

The worst of it is that extroverts have no idea of the torment they put us through. Sometimes, as we gasp for air amid the fog of their 98-percent-content-free talk, we wonder if extroverts even bother to listen to themselves. Still, we endure stoically, because the etiquette books—written, no doubt, by extroverts—regard declining to banter as rude and gaps in conversation as awkward. We can only dream that someday, when our condition is more widely understood, when perhaps an Introverts' Rights movement has blossomed and borne fruit, it will not be impolite to say "I'm an introvert. You are a wonderful person and I like you. But now please shush."

How can I let the introvert in my life know that I support him and respect his choice? First, recognize that it's not a choice. It's not a lifestyle. It's an orientation.

Second, when you see an introvert lost in thought, don't say "What's the matter?" or "Are you all right?"

Third, don't say anything else, either.

Jonathan Rauch is a correspondent for The Atlantic and a senior writer for National Journal. Copyright © 2003 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
The Atlantic Monthly; March 2003; Caring for Your Introvert; Volume 291, No. 2
Book Cover

and on it goes -

So, to continue with Mr. Rauch here is the up-date and Sage Stossel interview with him this last month.

Atlantic Unbound | February 14, 2006


Introverts of the World, Unite!

A conversation with Jonathan Rauch, the author who—thanks to an astonishingly popular essay in the March 2003 Atlantic—may have unwittingly touched off an Introverts' Rights revolution.


Sage Stossel writes:

M ost magazine articles do not, as a general rule, inspire impassioned responses. But in 2003, when The Atlantic published a short essay by correspondent Jonathan Rauch on the trials of introversion in an extroverts' world, the reaction was overwhelming. Rauch was inundated with more enthusiastic mail about the piece than for anything else he'd ever written. And on The Atlantic's Web site, it drew (and has continued to draw) more traffic than any other piece we've posted.

"I am an introvert," Rauch declared in the piece. And as such, he contended, he is a member of one of the "most misunderstood and aggrieved groups in America, possibly the world." By definition, he explained, introverts are those who find other people's company tiring. Yet the uncomprehending extrovert majority imposes its own gregarious expectations on extroverts and introverts alike—compelling incessant socializing, enthusiastic party-going, and easy shooting of the breeze as norms. Introverts, Rauch pointed out—though an oppressed minority—comprise a significant portion of the population. Their quiet, introspective ways, he argued, should therefore be viewed not as a deviation from standard, but as a different kind of normal.

He addressed extroverts, admonishing them to be more sensitive to their introvert peers: after all, "someone you know, respect, and interact with every day," he explained, "is an introvert, and you are probably driving this person nuts." As for introverts, he wrote, "we can only dream that someday, when our condition is more widely understood, when perhaps an Introverts' Rights movement has blossomed and borne fruit, it will not be impolite to say, 'I'm an introvert.... Now please shush.'"

If the groundswell of support for these sentiments is any indication, Rauch may soon find himself the unwitting figurehead for an Introverts' Rights Revolution. We decided to have a few words with this author, who has clearly tapped into something important.

Rauch is a correspondent for The Atlantic and a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution. His book, Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, was published in 2004.

I spoke with him in early January.

—Sage Stossel

Interview with Jonathan Rauch by Sage Stossel:

Did anything in particular inspire you to write an article about this? An especially trying plane ride seated next to an extrovert, for example?

I don't think it was any specific incident. The idea was rolling around in my head for a while. To some extent, it was the result of being partnered with an extrovert and realizing that this was a daily source of tension. So I started organizing my thoughts on the subject. Another motivation was, basically, that I thought it would be funny.

It's interesting that you've found it a source of tension to be paired with an extrovert. I've read that introvert-extrovert pairings work well because the person who doesn't like to make small talk can just let the other person do it for them.

That's true. It does work very well in some situations. But for an introvert it also makes for a constant—I guess you might call it "brain pressure." That's a better phrase than "tension," because tension implies conflict and it's not that. It's just that my partner Michael's default mode of being is to talk and interact all the time, whereas mine is to talk as little as possible. We've been together since 1996 and we've spent much of that time just learning how not to drive each other completely insane. Part of my motivation for writing this piece was to pass along some of what I've learned. I was also hoping Michael would read it, which he did.

Did it help?

By the time the piece was published he'd probably heard it all from me before. But it doesn't hurt to go on the record.

If he were a writer he could do the companion piece—"How to Care for Your Extrovert."

Exactly. But of course my view, as I say in the article, is that it's much easier for introverts to understand these things than extroverts. Extroverts really have a hard time "getting" it. And even when they do get it, they still have a hard time modifying their behavior.

You wrote that for a long time you didn't even realize you were an introvert. What caused it to finally dawn on you?

From about the age of eighteen or nineteen, when I went to college, I realized that it was just not my idea of fun to party. In fact, I couldn't see why anyone would want to—I get so monumentally bored at parties. So I realized that I had this fundamental difference with a lot of other people. I didn't put a name on it until a few years ago when a friend of mine, who reads a lot of Jung, informed me that he's an introvert and that, "by the way, Jonathan, you're an introvert, too." He explained what that means and suddenly a lightbulb went on and things fell into place.

Now that you're tuned into it, can you usually tell when you meet someone whether or not they're also an introvert?

No. There's no introvert "gay-dar" that I can tell. One reason is that a lot of introverts are actually very good at being social. It just takes a lot of work for them. I'm like that. I'm not great at small talk, but I can seem quite outgoing for spells of up to an hour or so before I completely run out of gas. So I have to kind of get to know someone before I can figure out whether they're an introvert. Not that it takes all that much getting to know. If you notice that someone's getting tired out by a long conversation, they're probably an introvert. But it's not a first impression kind of thing.

I was surprised to read in your article that it's not typical for introverts to also be anxious or shy in social settings, because I'm both.

I was wondering whether you were an introvert. When did you realize that about yourself?

I'm not sure. I guess it probably hit me in seventh grade when somebody told my older brother, "You know, Sage could be popular if she talked more." Of course, he reported this to me, and I started to brood over it.

That is so unjust. Isn't it?

Yeah—chattiness suddenly seemed like the key to social success and happiness.

That story so sums up the kind of extrovert hegemony that can make life miserable. I think it's particularly hard for girls and women. "You'd be so much more popular if you'd talk more." It seems to me that the world would be a much better place, and that people would be much more rightly popular, if they talked less. Because so little of what most people say is actually worth hearing.

True. Although sometimes it's interesting to listen to other people talk. It's too bad it's not more acceptable to go to a party and just kind of soak things up.

Yeah. They should sell skybox seats at parties for people like us.

You asked about shyness versus introversion. My limited reading on the subject suggests that, psychologically speaking, they're regarded as different things. That reflects my own experience; I'm not particularly shy myself. To me, shyness implies a real reluctance to be socially aggressive or assertive. It's very difficult for shy people to put themselves out there if they need to. For introverts, it's never easy to do, but it's more a matter of reluctance to expend the energy, because it tires us out. That's what I feel most strongly. If I have to go to a party and then a dinner afterwards, I'm completely ruined for the evening. But if I'm called upon to run a business meeting or something, I don't feel any reluctance or anxiety about it. So, in my mind there's always been a fairly clear distinction between introversion and shyness.

You also mention in the article that studies have shown that introverts process information differently from other people.

Yeah, that's something I read back when I was reporting the piece. I can't remember the details now, but it involved brain scans.

It sounds right to me that the process is different. When there's a conversation flowing around me and everyone else is so quick with their responses, I almost imagine that other people's brains are endowed with some kind of fast-acting comment-generating engine.

Yeah, I marvel at Michael who can always somehow turn the conversation right over effortlessly and keep it going even when what he says is not necessarily profound or interesting. What he comes up with is perfectly tuned to the sense and flow of the conversation. But it's not words that are particularly intended to convey ideas or mean things. It's words that socialize—that simply continue the conversation. It's chit-chat. I have no gift for that. I have to think about what to say next, and sometimes I can't think fast enough and end up saying something stupid. Or sometimes I just come up dry and the conversation kind of ends for while until I can think of another topic. This is why it's work for me. It takes positive cognition on my part. I think that's probably a core introvert characteristic that you and I have in common and which can probably be distinguished from shyness per se—that small talk takes conscious effort and is very hard work. There's nothing small about small talk if you're an introvert. But we're good at big talk. Are you good at big talk?

If I get onto a topic I'm interested in and feel strongly about then it's true that I can get animated and engaged. But I'm not so good at chatting about things like the weather.

Right. The weather's not interesting. But once an introvert gets on a subject that they know about or care about or that intrigues them intellectually, the opposite often takes hold. They get passionately engaged and turned on by the conversation. But it's not socializing that's going on there. It's learning or teaching or analyzing, which involves, I'm convinced, a whole different part of the brain from the socializing part.

Do you ever wish you were an extrovert?

Not really. That may be because my "faking it" skills are pretty good. But I do think a lot of us are tired of being told that there's something wrong with us—of this lazy assumption that if you're not an extrovert, there's something wrong with you. I think my article may speak to people in part because of its defiant message. It says, "No, I don't wish to be an extrovert. Not everyone has to be one. And why don't you people get it?"

Your article made me think of that book The Lonely Crowd by David Riesman from the 1950s. He argued that the dominant economic model of each era in a sense "creates"—or privileges—the character type that's best suited to it. So, for example, in the agricultural and industrial eras, what he called the "inner-directed" type was best suited to getting work done and transmitting certain moral and cultural values. And then, with the rise of a more consumer-oriented economy, it became beneficial for people to be gregarious and affable. So teachers started to care more about whether their students were popular and cooperative than if they were interested in the subject matter and doing well academically.

I've never thought about it in those terms. It's true that in a lot of the social jobs that require leadership—whether in politics or in corporations—being energized by dealing with people all day long is a plus. And it's also probably true that, in an urban corporate economic structure, those skills are more important than in a rural peasant economy. But I wouldn't say that it changes the character of the people particularly. I do think that there's been, in the last ten years or so, a major economic resurgence for introversion—the "geek" economy. The prototypical geek is really good at thinking, has superb powers of concentration (which tends to be an introvert trait), and works very well independently. They're often pretty awesomely brilliant people, and they're fairly defiant about being geeks. They've turned this word "geek" into a term that's almost romantic in some ways, and through the Silicon economy, they've been massively innovative and economically important. A lot of them are running circles around the extroverts who are selling shoes. So I think part of what's happened lately is that the digital economy is giving introverts a new place in the sun.

You've gotten more reader response to this article than for anything else you've written. What do you think accounts for that?

Well, I can tell you that I never saw it coming. I thought I wrote this almost for my own fun and so that I would have something to hand people to get them to understand. Part of the problem with being an introvert is that it's hard to explain yourself. You can't say to your friends, "Hey guys, I'm an introvert," and have them know how to deal with you. So I thought it would be pretty darn handy to have something on paper.

Then I got this overwhelming reaction in the mail. It's been a bigger reaction than to anything else I've written. I think it suggests that a lot of people have the same experiences you and I do, and that they haven't had a name for it or a way of understanding it. Having that is very valuable. It tells you how to understand yourself and—maybe even more importantly—it tells you that you're fine and that, in fact, a lot of the problem is with the rest of the world.

People really do seem to be having a real "eureka" reaction to this. At some level, it reminds me of what it's like to discover that you're gay. Obviously there's no structural similarity between introversion and homosexuality, but there is this sense of realizing that you're different in a way that's very meaningful. Understanding introversion as a concept kind of makes the pieces fit together. A number of people have told me that they've Xeroxed the article and given it to their friends, their families, their significant others, and so on, as a communication device.

You jokingly talk about an Introverts' Rights Movement. It seems as though, given the dramatic response to this article, there must be a lot of people out there who are just now realizing that they're introverts and that the dominant culture doesn't really take their characteristics into account in terms of what it expects of them.

Well, that's exactly right. Part of the thrill of this article is that it seems to be helping introverts discover each other. It never occurred to me when I wrote it that there would be so many other people out there with whom this would resonate so strongly. But one of the main points I see over and over again in the mail I've been getting is, "I'm not alone! There are others like me." This sense of empowerment because of not being alone is very important to people. That in itself, to the extent that that takes hold, would be a very important part of correcting the introvert/extrovert imbalance.

Your article has also been one of the most popular pages on our Web site. We posted it three years ago, and it still gets more hits than practically anything else on the site.

Yes. The Internet is the perfect medium for introverts. You could almost call it the Intronet. You know the old New Yorker cartoon with a dog sitting at a computer saying to another dog, "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog." Well, on the Internet, no one knows you're an introvert. So it's kind of a natural that when The Atlantic put this piece online, introverts beat a path to it; it's the ideal distribution mechanism by which introverts can reach other introverts and spread the word.

Are you aware of anybody else writing about these things today?

I'm not. Some people who wrote in sent me some of their own writings on the subject. But if there are other articles I haven't seen them. We'll see over time.

So if you were to spearhead an Introverts' Rights movement what would be some of the things you'd advocate?

Massive subsidies. I think people like us should have twice as much Social Security.

I like that.

Yeah that's pretty good.

Maybe Greta Garbo could be the mascot.

Good idea. Though she may have just been shy. Did she really say, "I vant to be alone"?

That's what I've heard.

I think that was a line from her movie The Grand Hotel, though, in which case it was just her character who said that. But she could still be the patron saint. Actually, my favorite line is from Waiting for Godot. I can quote it to you exactly: "Don't talk to me. Don't speak to me. Stay with me."

That's perfect.

To me those words sum up the introvert impulse. We love people—we're not misanthropic for the most part. We just can't socialize with them all the time. We want to hold their hand or hug them or just sit quietly and read a book with them.

I was tongue-in-cheek about the introverts' rights movement, but the main principle would just be that it should be as respectable for introverts to be who they are socially as it is for extroverts. We ought to be trying to make extroverts conscious and not uncomfortable about the fact that we're here. Extroverts should understand that if someone is being quiet it doesn't mean they're having a bad time; it doesn't mean they're depressed; it doesn't mean they're lonely or need psychiatric help or medication. A lot of the battle is making the extrovert world more aware. The onus is on us to do that. Maybe this article is a start. One thing you'll notice about the article, by the way, is that it addresses extroverts. I think that's very much the strategy; we need to tell the world who we are. The first step is to understand who we are ourselves, but the second step is to educate extroverts. This is stuff extroverts need to know. They're driving us crazy. We need to tell them.

Sage Stossel is senior editor for The Atlantic Online and the books editor of the Radcliffe Quarterly. She draws the weekly cartoon feature "Sage, Ink." Her children's book, We're Off to Harvard Square, was published in September 2004. Copyright © 2006 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Book Cover

a little shorter -

Tired of all these long articles? Well, here is a short little poem by Edwin Markham.

Someone drew a circle that left me out,
but love and I had the wit to win -
we drew a circle that took them in.

Happy circle drawing. The storm is arriving, and I still have power. Yay!!!
Book Cover

evening poem -

A lovely poem by Ryokan that dances the sound of the rain.

When all thoughts
Are exhausted
I slip into the woods
And gather
A pile of sheperd's purse.

Like the little stream
Making its way
Through the mossy crevices
I, too, quietly,
Turn clear and transparent.
- Ryokan