Da jeg var ni år gammel, tog jeg på sommerlejr for første gang. Min mor pakkede en kuffert for mig fyldt med bøger, hvilket virkede helt naturligt for mig. Fordi i min familie, læste man, når man var sammen. Og dette lyder måske asocialt for jer, men for os var det bare en anden måde at være sammen på. Man har den dyriske varme fra sin familie, som sidder ved siden af, men man er også fri til at gå på eventyr i sit eget sind. Og jeg havde den opfattelse, at lejren ville blive lige sådan, men bedre. (Latter) Jeg forestillede mig 10 piger, der sad i en hytte og læste bøger i deres matchende natkjoler.
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. (Laughter) I had a vision of 10 girls sitting in a cabin cozily reading books in their matching nightgowns.
(Latter)
(Laughter)
Lejr var mere som en drukfest uden alkohol. Og på den allerførste dag samlede vores lejrleder os alle sammen, og hun lærte os at heppe og sagde, vi skulle gøre det hver dag resten af sommeren for at indgyde sammenhold. Og det lød sådan her: "L-A-A-A-R-M, sådan staver vi til larm. Larm, larm, vi ska' larme."
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."
Ja. Jeg kunne slet ikke forstå, hvorfor vi skulle larme sådan, eller hvorfor vi skulle stave ordet forkert. (Latter) Men jeg heppede. Jeg heppede sammen med alle de andre. Jeg gjorde mit bedste. Og jeg ventede bare på det tidspunkt, hvor jeg kunne gå og læse mine bøger.
(Laughter) 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. (Laughter) 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.
Men den første gang, jeg tog min bog ud af min kuffert, kom den sejeste pige op til mig, og hun spurgte mig, "Hvorfor opfører du dig så modent?" -- modent, var selvfølgelig præcis det modsatte af L-A-A-A-R-M. Og den anden gang jeg prøvede det, kom lejrlederen hen til mig med et bekymret udtryk i ansigtet, og hun gentog sin pointe om sammenhold og sagde, at vi skulle alle arbejde hårdt for at være udadvendte.
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.
Så jeg lagde mine bøger væk, tilbage i deres kuffert, og jeg lagde dem under min seng, og der blev de resten af sommeren. Jeg havde lidt dårlig samvittighed over det. Jeg følte, at bøgerne havde brug for mig, og de kaldte på mig, og jeg svigtede dem. Men jeg forlod dem, og jeg åbnede ikke den kuffert igen, før jeg var hjemme hos min familie ved sommerens slutning.
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.
Jeg fortæller denne historie om sommerlejr, jeg kunne have fortalt jer 50 andre lignende -- alle de gange, jeg blev fortalt, at min stille og indadvendte måde at være på, ikke nødvendigvis var det rigtige, at jeg skulle prøve på at opføre mig mere udadvendt. Jeg følte altid inderst inde, at dette var forkert, og at indadvendte var udmærkede præcis, som de var. Men i årevis fornægtede jeg denne følelse, og så blev jeg af alle ting advokat i finansverdenen i stedet for forfatter, som jeg altid havde ønsket -- delvist fordi jeg skulle bevise over for mig selv, at jeg også kunne være dristig og selvsikker. Og jeg tog altid på overfyldte barer, selvom jeg egentlig foretrak en hyggelig middag med venner. Og jeg foretog disse selvnægtende valg så meget per refleks, at jeg ikke engang var klar over, at jeg foretog dem.
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.
Dette er, hvad mange indadvendte gør, og det er helt sikkert vores tab, men det er også vore kollegaers tab og vores samfunds tab. Og med risiko for at lyde bombastisk, er det verdens tab. For når det handler om kreativitet og lederskab, har vi brug for indadvendte, som gør det, de er bedst til. En tredjedel til halvdelen af befolkningen er indadvendte -- en tredjedel til halvdelen. Så det er en ud af to eller tre af alle de mennesker, man kender. Så selv hvis du er udadvendt, så snakker jeg om dine kollegaer og din ægtefælle og dine børn og personen, som sidder ved siden af dig nu -- de er alle ramt af denne fordom, som ligger dybt og seriøst i vores samfund. Vi tilegner os den alle i en ung alder, uden vi overhovedet kan forklare, hvad vi gør.
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.
For at se denne fordom klart må man forstå, hvad indadvendthed er. Det er anderledes end at være genert. Generthed handler om frygt for social bedømmelse. Indadvendthed handler mere om, hvordan man reagerer på stimulering, inklusiv social stimulering. Så udadvendte har brug for store mængder stimulering, hvorimod indadvendte føler sig mest i live, mest tændte og mest kompetente, når de er i mere stille, neddæmpede miljøer. Ikke hele tiden -- disse ting er ikke absolutte -- men en stor del af tiden. Så nøglen til, at maksimere vores evner, er for os alle at sætte os selv i den stimuleringszone, som er rigtig for os.
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.
Men her kommer fordommen ind. Vores vigtigste institutioner, vores skoler og arbejdspladser, er hovedsageligt designet til udadvendte, og til de udadvendtes behov for en masse stimulering. Desuden har vi også disse værdier lige nu, som jeg kalder den nye gruppetænkning, som siger, at al kreativitet og al produktivitet, kommer fra et utroligt selskabeligt sted.
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.
Så hvis I forestiller jer et typisk klasseværelse nu til dags: Da jeg gik i skole, sad vi på række. Vi sad i rækker af skriveborde, sådan her, og vi lavede det meste af vores arbejde ret selvstændigt. Men nu til dags, har et typisk klasseværelse flokke af borde -- 4, 5, 6, eller 7 børn, som alle sidder med ansigtet imod hinanden. Og børnene arbejder med et utal af gruppeopgaver. Selv i fag som matematik og kreativ skrivning, som man skulle tro afhang af selvstændig tankegang, forventes det, at børn agerer som udvalgsmedlemmer. Og for børn, der foretrækker at gå for sig selv eller bare arbejde alene, de anses ofte for særlinge eller værre for problemsager. Og størstedelen af lærerne rapporterer i den tro, at den ideelle elev er udadvendt i modsætningen til en indadvendt, selv om indadvendte faktisk får bedre karakterer og er mere vidende ifølge forskning. (Latter)
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. (Laughter)
Det samme gælder for vores arbejdspladser. De fleste af os arbejder i åbne kontorer uden vægge, hvor vi er udsat for vores kollegaers konstante støjen og blikke. Når det gælder lederskab, bliver indadvendte gang på gang overset for lederpositioner, selv om indadvendte som regel er meget forsigtige, meget mindre sandsynlige til at tage store risici -- som er noget, vi alle kunne foretrække nu til dags. Og interessant forskning af Adam Grant på Wharton School har fundet, at indadvendte ledere ofte leverer bedre resultater, end udadvendte gør, fordi når de styrer proaktive medarbejdere, lader de ikke så ofte disse medarbejdere arbejde efter deres idéer, hvorimod en udadvendt helt ubevidst kan blive så ophidset over tingene, at de sætter deres eget fingeraftryk på tingene, og andres idéer får da sværere ved at boble op til overfladen.
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.
Faktisk har nogle af vores banebrydende historiske ledere været indadvendte. Jeg skal give nogle eksempler. Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosa Parks, Gandhi -- alle disse beskrev sig selv som rolige, blide og endda sky. Og de indtog alle rampelyset, selvom enhver knogle i deres kroppe bad dem lade være. Og dette viser sig at have en speciel kraft i sig selv, fordi folk kunne mærke, at disse var ledere, ikke fordi de nød at dirigere andre og ikke for nydelsen af at blive set på; de var ledere, fordi de ikke havde noget valg, fordi de blev drevet til at gøre, hvad de mente var rigtigt.
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.
Nu er det på tide og vigtigt, jeg siger, at jeg faktisk elsker udadvendte. Jeg nyder at sige, nogle af mine bedste venner er udadvendte, inklusive min elskede mand. Vi lander selvfølgelig alle forskelligt langs indadvendt/udadvendt spektret. Selv Carl Jung, psykologen, der først gjorde disse termer populære, sagde, at der ikke findes en ren indadvendt eller ren udadvendt. Han sagde, at en sådan person ville være på en galeanstalt, hvis han eksisterede. Nogle falder lige i midten af indadvendt/udadvendt spektret, og dem kalder vi ambiverter. Jeg tænker ofte, at de har det bedst af alle. Men mange anser sig selv for den ene eller anden type.
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.
Og jeg siger, at kulturelt behøver vi en meget bedre balance. Vi behøver en art yin og yang mellem disse to typer. Dette er især vigtigt, når det gælder kreativitet og produktivitet, for når psykologer ser på de mest kreative personers liv, finder de folk, der er meget gode til at udveksle idéer og bygge videre på idéer, men som også har et seriøst strejf af indadvendthed i sig.
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.
Det er fordi ensomhed ofte er en afgørende ingrediens for kreativitet. Så Darwin, han gik lange ture alene i skovene og afviste kategorisk invitationer til aftenselskaber. Theodor Geisel, bedre kendt som Dr. Seuss, han drømte sig til mange af sine fantastiske skabninger i et ensomt klokketårnskontor, han havde bagest i sit hus i La Jolla, Californien. Han var faktisk bange for at møde de små børn, som læser hans bøger af frygt for, at de forventede, at han var denne slags glade julemands-agtige mand og ville blive skuffede over hans mere reserverede person. Steve Wozniak opfandt den første Apple computer, mens han sad alene på sin plads hos Hewlett-Packard, hvor han arbejdede dengang. Han siger, at han aldrig ville være blevet sådan en ekspert, hvis ikke han havde været for indadvendt til at forlade huset, mens han voksede op.
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.
Selvfølgelig betyder dette ikke, at vi alle skal stoppe med at samarbejde -- og et godt eksempel er, da Steve Wozniak slår sig sammen med Steve Jobs for at starte Apple Computer -- men det betyder, at ensomhed betyder noget, og at for nogle er det luften, som de indånder. Faktisk har vi i århundreder kendt til ensomhedens transcendente kraft. Først for nylig er vi underligt nok begyndt at glemme den. Hvis man ser på de fleste af verdens store religioner, finder man søgere -- Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammed -- søgere, som går for sig selv alene ind i vildmarken, hvor de så får dybsindige åbenbaringer, som de så tager med tilbage til resten af samfundet. Så ingen vildmark, ingen åbenbaringer.
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.
Dette er dog ikke overraskende, hvis man ser på nutidens psykologiske viden. Det viser sig, at vi ikke kan være i en gruppe uden instinktivt at afspejle, efterligne deres holdninger. Selv ved tilsyneladende personlige og følelsesmæssige sager som hvem man er tiltrukket af, begynder man at efterabe de andres holdninger uden overhovedet at indse, at man gør det.
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.
Grupper følger som bekendt holdningerne hos den mest dominerende og karismatiske person i rummet, selvom der ingen sammenhæng er mellem at være den bedste taler og have de bedste idéer -- jeg mener ingen. Så ... (Latter) Man følger måske personen med de bedste idéer, men måske ikke. Og vil man virkelig lade tilfældet råde? Meget bedre for alle at gå væk alene, skabe egne idéer fri fra gruppedynamikkens forstyrrelser og så komme sammen som et hold for at tale dem igennem i et velstyret miljø og tage den derfra.
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 -- (Laughter) 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.
Hvis alt dette er sandt, hvorfor tager vi så grueligt fejl? Hvorfor organiserer vi vores skoler og arbejdspladser sådan? Og hvorfor får vi disse indadvendte til at føle sig skyldige i at ville gå for sig selv noget af tiden? Ét svar ligger dybt i vores kulturelle historie. Vestlige samfund, og især USA, har altid favoriseret handlingens mand frem for kontemplationens mand og kontemplationens "mand." Men i Amerikas første dage levede vi i, hvad historikere kalder en karakterkultur, hvor man dengang stadig satte pris på folk for deres indre selv og deres moralske retskaffenhed. Hvis man ser på selvhjælpsbøgerne fra den æra, havde de alle titler med ord som "Karakter, det Største i Verden." De havde rollemodeller som Abraham Lincoln, som blev hyldet for at være beskeden og ikke at antage. Ralph Waldo Emerson kaldte ham "En mand, som ikke fornærmer ved overlegenhed."
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."
Så ramte vi det 20. århundrede, og vi gik ind i en ny kultur, som historikere kalder personlighedskulturen. Hvad der skete, er at vi havde udviklet en landbrugsøkonomi til en verden af storkapital. Pludselig bevæger folk sig fra små landsbyer til byerne. I stedet for at arbejde sammen med folk, de har kendt hele livet, er de nu nødt til at bevise deres værd i en flok af fremmede. Forståeligt nok bliver kvaliteter som magnetisme og karisma pludselig meget vigtige. Og søreme om ikke selvhjælpsbøgerne ændrer sig for at møde disse nye behov, og de begynder at have navne som "Sådan Vinder Du Venner og Påvirker Folk." De har som rollemodeller virkeligt gode salgsmænd. Det er den verden, vi lever i i dag. Det er vores kulturelle arv.
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.
Intet af dette er for at sige, at sociale kompetencer er uvæsentlige, og jeg vil heller ikke afskaffe samarbejde overhovedet. De selvsamme religioner, som sender deres vismænd til ensomme bjergtoppe, lærer os også kærlighed og tillid. Problemerne, som vi møder i dag på områder som videnskab og økonomi er så store og komplekse, at vi vil få brug for horder af folk, der kommer sammen for at løse dem sammen. Men jeg siger, at desto mere frihed, vi giver indadvendte til at være sig selv desto mere sandsynligt vil de komme på deres egne unikke løsninger til disse problemer.
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.
Nu vil jeg dele med jer, hvad der er i min kuffert i dag. Nu skal I høre. Bøger. Jeg har en kuffert fuld af bøger. Her er Margaret Atwood, "Katteøje". Her er en roman af Milan Kundera. Og her er "Vejleder for de vildledte" af Maimonides. Men disse er ikke helt mine bøger. Jeg tog disse bøger med mig, fordi de blev skrevet af min bedstefars yndlingsforfattere.
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. My grandfather was a rabbi
Min bedstefar var rabbiner, og han var en enkemand, som boede alene i en lille lejlighed i Brooklyn, som var mit yndlingssted i verden, da jeg voksede op, delvist fordi den var fyldt med hans meget milde, høflige tilstedeværelse, og delvist fordi den var fyldt med bøger. Bogstaveligt talt havde hvert bord, hver stol i lejligheden opgivet sin oprindelige funktion for nu at yde som overflade for svajende stakke af bøger. Ligesom resten af min familie var min bedstefars yndlingsbeskæftigelse at læse.
and he was a widower who lived alone in a small apartment in Brooklyn that was my favorite place in the world when I was growing up, partly because it was filled with his very gentle, very courtly presence and partly because it was filled with books. I mean literally every table, every chair in this apartment had yielded its original function to now serve as a surface for swaying stacks of books. Just like the rest of my family, my grandfather's favorite thing to do in the whole world was to read.
Men han elskede også sin menighed, og man kunne mærke denne kærlighed i gudstjenesterne, som han forestod hver uge i de 62 år, han var rabbiner. Han ville tage hver uges læsnings frugter, og han ville væve disse indviklede gobeliner af oldgammel og humanistisk tænkning. Og folk kom fra nær og fjern for at høre ham tale.
But he also loved his congregation, and you could feel this love in the sermons that he gave every week for the 62 years that he was a rabbi. He would takes the fruits of each week's reading and he would weave these intricate tapestries of ancient and humanist thought. And people would come from all over to hear him speak.
Men her er det med min bedstefar. Under denne ceremonielle rolle var han virkelig beskeden og indadvendt -- så meget, at når han forestod disse gudstjenester, kunne han knap skabe øjenkontakt med den selvsamme menighed, som han havde talt for i 62 år. Og selv væk fra podiet, når man ringede til ham for at sige hej, ville han ofte slutte samtalen for tidligt af frygt for, at han optog for meget af ens tid. Men da han døde i en alder af 94, var politiet nødsaget til at lukke kvarterets gader for at have plads til folkemassen, som kom for at sørge over ham. Og derfor prøver jeg nu at lære af min bedstefars eksempel på min egen måde.
But here's the thing about my grandfather. Underneath this ceremonial role, he was really modest and really introverted -- so much so that when he delivered these sermons, he had trouble making eye contact with the very same congregation that he had been speaking to for 62 years. And even away from the podium, when you called him to say hello, he would often end the conversation prematurely for fear that he was taking up too much of your time. But when he died at the age of 94, the police had to close down the streets of his neighborhood to accommodate the crowd of people who came out to mourn him. And so these days I try to learn from my grandfather's example in my own way.
Så jeg har lige udgivet en bog om indadvendthed, og den tog mig omkring syv år at skrive. For mig var de syv år som en total lykke, for jeg læste, jeg skrev, jeg tænkte, jeg forskede. Det var min version af min bedstefars daglige timer alene i hans bibliotek. Men nu er mit job pludselig meget anderledes, og mit job er at være herude og tale om det, tale om indadvendthed. (Latter) Det er meget sværere for mig, for uanset hvor beæret jeg er over at være her med jer alle lige nu, er dette ikke mit naturlig miljø.
So I just published a book about introversion, and it took me about seven years to write. And for me, that seven years was like total bliss, because I was reading, I was writing, I was thinking, I was researching. It was my version of my grandfather's hours of the day alone in his library. But now all of a sudden my job is very different, and my job is to be out here talking about it, talking about introversion. (Laughter) And that's a lot harder for me, because as honored as I am to be here with all of you right now, this is not my natural milieu. So I prepared for moments like these as best I could.
Så jeg forberedte mig på øjeblikke som disse det bedste, jeg kunne. Jeg brugte det sidste år på at øve at tale offentligt, ved hver eneste lejlighed. Jeg kalder dette mit "år med at tale farligt." (Latter) Og det hjalp faktisk en del. Men hvad hjælper mig endnu mere, er min fornemmelse, tro, håb, at når det kommer til vores attituder over for indadvendthed og ro og ensomhed, står vi roligt på kanten af dramatiske forandringer. Jeg mener, det gør vi. Derfor vil jeg forlade jer nu med tre råb efter handling for dem, som deler denne vision.
I spent the last year practicing public speaking every chance I could get. And I call this my "year of speaking dangerously." (Laughter) And that actually helped a lot. But I'll tell you, what helps even more is my sense, my belief, my hope that when it comes to our attitudes to introversion and to quiet and to solitude, we truly are poised on the brink on dramatic change. I mean, we are. And so I am going to leave you now with three calls for action for those who share this vision. Number one:
Nummer et: Stop galskaben for konstant gruppearbejde. Bare stop det. (Latter) Tak. (Bifald) Jeg vil være tydelig med, hvad jeg siger, for jeg tror virkelig vores kontorer burde opmuntre afslappede, sniksnak caféagtige interaktioner -- I ved, den slags hvor folk kommer sammen og har en heldig udveksling af idéer. Det er godt. Det er godt for indadvendte og godt for udadvendte. Men vi har brug for meget mere privatliv og frihed og meget mere selvstyre på arbejdet. Skole, det samme. Selvfølgelig skal vi lære børn at arbejde sammen, men vi er også nødt til at lære dem at arbejde alene. Dette er især også vigtigt for udadvendte børn. Det er nødt til at arbejde alene, fordi det er delvist derfra, dybe tanker kommer.
Stop the madness for constant group work. Just stop it. (Laughter) Thank you. (Applause) And I want to be clear about what I'm saying, because I deeply believe our offices should be encouraging casual, chatty cafe-style types of interactions -- you know, the kind where people come together and serendipitously have an exchange of ideas. That is great. It's great for introverts and it's great for extroverts. But we need much more privacy and much more freedom and much more autonomy at work. School, same thing. We need to be teaching kids to work together, for sure, but we also need to be teaching them how to work on their own. This is especially important for extroverted children too. They need to work on their own because that is where deep thought comes from in part.
Okay, nummer to: Gå ud i vildmarken. Vær som Buddha, få jeres egne åbenbaringer. Jeg siger ikke, at vi alle nu skal gå ud og bygge vores egen hytte i skoven og aldrig tale til hinanden igen, men at vi alle kunne have godt af at trække stikket ud og komme ind i vores egne hoveder lidt oftere.
Okay, number two: Go to the wilderness. Be like Buddha, have your own revelations. I'm not saying that we all have to now go off and build our own cabins in the woods and never talk to each other again, but I am saying that we could all stand to unplug and get inside our own heads a little more often.
Nummer tre: Tag et godt kig på, hvad er inden i jeres egne kufferter, og hvorfor I lagde det der. Så udadvendte måske er jeres kufferter også fyldt med bøger. Måske er de fyldt med champagneglas eller skydivingudstyr. Hvad end det er, håber jeg, I tager disse ting ud ved hver given lejlighed og beærer os med jeres energi og nydelse. Men indadvendte, da I er jer, har I nok impulsen meget grundigt at beskytte, hvad er inden i jeres egen kuffert. Det er i orden. Men bare engang imellem håber jeg, I vil åbne jeres kufferter så andre kan se, for verden behøver jer, og den behøver de ting I bærer.
Number three: Take a good look at what's inside your own suitcase and why you put it there. So extroverts, maybe your suitcases are also full of books. Or maybe they're full of champagne glasses or skydiving equipment. Whatever it is, I hope you take these things out every chance you get and grace us with your energy and your joy. But introverts, you being you, you probably have the impulse to guard very carefully what's inside your own suitcase. And that's okay. But occasionally, just occasionally, I hope you will open up your suitcases for other people to see, because the world needs you and it needs the things you carry.
Så jeg ønsker jer alle de bedst mulige rejser og modet til at tale mildt.
So I wish you the best of all possible journeys and the courage to speak softly.
Mange tak.
Thank you very much.
(Bifald)
(Applause)
Tak. Tak.
Thank you. Thank you.
(Bifald)
(Applause)