Susan Cain, the author of a recent book on introverts, argues that human society is similar to a beehive. Each of us has a specialized role to play. It takes all types. The introvert does the deep analysis, and the extrovert does all the talking and leading.
However, corporations discriminate. Introverts are paid less than extroverts because they’re not considered promotable. As Jack Welch writes, "introverts stagnate in large organizations. They can work hard and deliver to expectations or beyond, but they rarely get their due… Extroverts tend to outshine introverts [because] their outsize personalities earn them chances to make presentations to higher-ups, always a good way to accelerate the career-changing process of getting out of the pile."
In other words, you can always hire an introvert if you need an analyst, or someone to check your ego. Then, when they're no longer needed, you can drive them away by switching to an "open office" plan.
Schools like Harvard Business School are filled with extroverts, with nary an introvert in sight. Extroverts are the future leaders of business, the top 10% who will make 50% of the money, and grab the lion’s share of society’s resources.
“Extroversion is in our DNA,” writes Cain. But not in everyone’s DNA. Half of us (or more) are introverts. Corporations fight over the rare group of extroverts with additional desired traits (intelligence, lack of shyness), by offering exorbitant compensation and stock option packages. (See the book: Leadership is Innate). Sure, there are a few introvert leaders around, but they are the exception.
That's OK, according to Cain, because introverts are not usually money-motivated. But if you replace the words “introvert” and “extrovert” with “women” and “men,” would it still be OK? Is it OK for society to direct resources to one genetic class over another?
Does an introvert choose to be that way of his own free will? It certainly feels like free will to follow your innate interests, desires, and comforts… However, the question should be: can we choose our interests themselves? And the answer is, of course not. Our interests, desires, motivations, passions are what's genetic, part of our design, who we are. (Like an elevator that "chooses" to go up and down of its own free will because that’s the way it’s designed.) An introvert (freely) chooses introverted behavior because that’s the way his brain is wired. If you don’t want something different, it’s the same as not being able to choose it.
Cain says people do what they're "expected to". But feeling pressure to live up to social expectations is simply another innate trait. Most people do, but others do not. For example, if you’re born gay and your parents put pressure on you to conform, you will rather endure great difficulty than live up to their expectations. People only do what society expects if it resonates with their inborn nature.
Genes are recipes for the development of the brain. But just because the brain is a complex and dynamic system doesn't mean traits are not innate. Yes, the brain has an internal state (memory) and the ability to vary its outputs based on inputs (context sensitivity) and its internal state (model). There is no contradiction to say that traits may be both situational and innate. We're wired for many eventualities and situations: being in a group, being alone, etc. Yet, given the same situation (e.g. being in a group setting) without an overriding trait or passion (e.g. Bill Gates overcoming his introversion at a software conference), the trait tends to be more fixed.
Evolutionary experience shows that having a distribution of traits, or specialized actors, makes society more robust. A gene is merely a special form of matter that transports past evolutionary experience to the present. But that doesn't make it fair.
Introverts are "born that way". Given this, assuming we don't know ahead of time whether we'd be born an introvert or extrovert, how should we design society to be fair to all genetic parties? Most likely, with a system of redistribution, from the genetic-haves to genetic-have-nots, until such time everyone can choose extrovert genes for their children. However, some elites, like Harvard's Michael Sandel, are fighting to limit that option.
