Since I suspect there are other early-career shy, introverted philosophers out there like 'postdoc' and myself, I thought it might be helpful if I opened up a discussion on these issues. If one is shy and/or introverted, are these impediments to professional success? Are they things one should aim to "overcome"? If so, how? I don't pretend to have "the answers" to these questions--but what I can do is offer up my own experience, and encourage readers to offer thoughts of their own.--Marcus Arvan at the Cocooners.
Marcus has written an excellent piece that has generated a very useful discussion that has also generated some important distinctions. For example, as Stacey Goguen notes networking is a skill that generates, or so I would argue, different kinds of challenges for different kinds of people. The discussion also generated lots of useful suggestions at how to handle yourself at, say, conferences; I would endorse Richard Yetter Chappell's suggestion: "don't feel obliged to socialize at absolutely every opportunity" at a conference. While I very much like networking and gossiping (I think both are compatible with being shy), I always eat some meals alone at conferences in order to allow myself 'off-time,' assimilate what I learned (philosophically or professionally) earlier in the day or, say, write a blog-post. So go check out Marcus's post (if you have not done so--it has already resonated with quite a few folk, including links by both Daily Nous en Leitterreports.) )!
It is notable, however, that, as an anonymous commentator points out, Marcus presupposes that most of the accommodation and change has to come from the introverts (Marcus generously conceded the point). Here I offer two observations, first, as that commentator notes, that without some such accommodation of the shy by non-introverts or by the norms that govern the profession, non-introverts may be denying themselves opportunities to learn from and acknowledge the existence of alternative perspectives; second, that professional success still is possible for introverts--after all, the introverted are no less good at publishing journal articles and writing grant proposals than the extrovert. I elaborate on both points below. In addition, the skill-set that is required for excellence in teaching may (as again some of the commentators note) by equally challenging (in different ways, perhaps) to outgoing and shy types--I firmly believe there are varieties of ways of being an excellent teacher.
On the first point: the general concern with shyness is presumably due to the concern that those that are more outgoing have a leg up in the profession. And, indeed, folk that never go to conferences/workshops or that remain quiet at events, may well suffer because of all the ways in which the current review system (of grants, books, journal articles) also factor in (unfairly or not) one's public personality or one's status in a professional network. (But as somebody who has generated modest name-recognition in the profession, I also note that some people explicitly judge my work, even in the context of anonymous review, critically in light of my blog persona.) While I don't want to disagree with the general impression, it is worth noting that the kinds of qualities that often seem to give folk an unfair advantage (e.g., quickness of mind, cruel wit, fitting the part/looks, appearance of depth, factor X in boy wonder, etc.) are not all of them associated with extroversion which, in my experience, is at least sometimes also interpreted as a species of 'superficiality' (generally not a quality that is meant as praise among professional philosophers) or lack of 'depth' (the Wittgensteinian condemnation).
On the second point: I have the sense that professional philosophy has become more careerist and less welcoming for reclusive and idiosyncratic scholars. (One can note this while also recognizing that the high tolerance for non-careerism allowed a lot of mediocrity and sexism (etc.) to flourish.) This has been facilitated by an academic culture in which 'winners take all' (grants, low teaching load tenure, etc.)--the stories are subtly different in different academic environments (see for my indictment of the grant culture that rewards me and punishes fantastic scholars). What's key here is that intellectual communities should try hard to make sure that scholarly values (in the broad sense--this may well include political and moral values) determine our judgments of quality and interest/significance. This is not so easy in the best of times.
But...it does not follow (as some of Marcus's commentators suggest) that the shy person is better at listening than the outgoing person. (I would say that, wouldn't I?) And if it is true (the empirical world can disprove me after all), it is a contingent matter. After all, philosophical listening -- not unlike networking -- is also a skill not a feature of shyness.
I've been thinking a lot about these posts on shyness because, although I've always thought of myself as introverted, I end up firmly on the "not that shy" / "not having a problem networking" side of the divide that gets cast in this discussion. (I used to joke that I'm an introvert who's good at playing an extrovert.) But then again, I've always assumed that there are more introverts than extroverts in academia. (Maybe's I'm wrong on this?) Anyway, while these labels can be useful for signaling what sorts of social tendencies a person has (i.e. needing to be along or around people for comfort or 'recharging' their social energy), I think emphasizing types can get in the way once we want to talk more specifically about certain skills and situations.
For instance, I've started thinking about the circumstances under which I am especially introverted, shy, and socially awkward.
Example: If I don't know anyone in a room, and the people who do know everyone else won't introduce me or include me in conversations, I get shy and awkward and grumpy. But if I'm the one who knows everyone, I try to make introductions and I feel a lot more at ease and in my element. This is one reason why the conference circuit has gotten easier for me the more I've done it. The more people I know, the more comfortable I feel, even if I still occasionally need to find a corner to be by myself and recharge.
I think this is the direction Eric's going in too, in talking about listening as a skill and the ways that extroverts don't have a constant advantage that's free of its own costs.
tl;dr - When talking about making networking or other activities less painful, I think it might be helpful to think less in terms of types of people, and more about the specific circumstances under which people may act more or less introverted/shy/awkward/etc.
Posted by: Stacey Goguen | 01/25/2016 at 04:04 PM
Fully agreed, Stacey! (And apologies--your post had ended up in the typepad spambox.)
Posted by: Schliesser, Eric | 02/03/2016 at 06:07 AM