Here are my criticisms, in list form.
1. It over-generalises.
It reads very much like a book I've recently read on dyslexia. Written by a dyslexic, the book was all about how dyslexics are brilliant, gifted and misunderstood people. There were many over generalisations about how dyslexics think, learn and act... and a 'the world is against us' air about it. This book is similar. The extrovert/introvert difference is but one part of our personalities. McHugh very often describes introverts as deep thinkers. I don't think that deep thinking is a function of introversion - but something else (they Myers Briggs profiles have a thinking/feeling category). I know many introverts who are not thinkers. They have no constant internal monologue happening, they are not particularly reflective, they are not really interested in thinking profound thoughts. But they are introverts. McHugh flags his difficulty in isolating his introversion from other parts of his personality (p35) and I think this is perhaps the biggest weakness with the book. Perhaps it could be better titled "ISTJ*s in the church".
2. I think it's written to the American church.
Things are a little different here in Australia. Megachurch isn't where we are at. I don't think most Australian christians would classify Jesus as an extrovert.
3. McHugh confuses the struggles of humanity with the struggles of introverts.
On page 50 he writes, "While extroverts commonly feel lonliness when others are absent, introverts can feel most lonely when others are present, because ours is the aching loneliness of not being known or understood." But this 'introverted' loneliness is surely what loneliness is - felt by introvert and extrovert alike! The life-of-the-party extrovert can be desperately lonely while entertaining a crowd. The 'aching loneliness of not being known or understood' is felt even more acutely by the person who has heaps of friendships - even deep friendships - and is still unsatisfied.
4. McHugh misunderstands extroverts (ie. McHugh misunderstands me!).
I'm an extrovert and I need loads of time by myself. Intense people stuff wears me out too. I'm a thinker. I have a constant, noisy internal monologue happening. I treat my ideas as my children. While I can do broad and shallow, I much, much prefer to spend time with one or two really good friends.
5. I'm not sure why, but his complete lack of reference to children and parenthood** annoyed me.
6. His bent towards a mystic spirituality is one that I don't share.
*or whatever he happens to be.
**The only mention of parenthood that I can recall, was when he was talking about how extroverted parents mess up their introverted kids.
I'd be interested in what others think. Particularly introverts - Jean? Helen? And extroverts - Nathan? (I'm thinking this would get on Nathan's nerves even more than it got on mine!) Everyone, actually. I ordered my copy from the book depository. It didn't cost much. Read it and tell me that I'm ungracious and wrong and I'll repent.
In a couple of days I might write a list of things I liked about the book to balance things up a bit.
How bout I just borrow it from you in a couple of weeks...
ReplyDeletesure. but you have to read it.
ReplyDeleteAn introverted "feeler" fights back! :) - Just let me say, that as an IF in Myers Briggs, I like to think of myself as a "thinker" and someone who reflects :) - who doesn't. But the T/F divide in Myer's Briggs has actually no bearing on whether or not a person is a "thinker" as such or has profound thoughts. It's rather the judging function. I know plenty of Ts who are not deep thinkers at all. See here from Wikipedia:-
ReplyDeleteThinking and feeling are the decision-making functions. The thinking and feeling functions are both used to make rational decisions, based on the data received from their information-gathering functions (sensing or intuition). Those who prefer thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical, causal, consistent and matching a given set of rules. Those who prefer feeling tend to come to decisions by associating or empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved.
As noted already, people who prefer thinking do not necessarily, in the everyday sense, "think better" than their feeling counterparts; the opposite preference is considered an equally rational way of coming to decisions (and, in any case, the MBTI assessment is a measure of preference, not ability). Similarly, those who prefer feeling do not necessarily have "better" emotional reactions than their thinking counterparts.
I should add that you are quite right - the I/E divide has no bearing on it either.
ReplyDeleteI love this stuff. I got "Type Talk" for Christmas and had boatloads of fun. (Stereotypically my personality to love this stuff, actually.)
ReplyDeleteOver-generalisation is a huge problem with this sort of thing. For one thing, the strength of the preferences are different for each person and even that aside, we're all different. Secondly, to reiterate, it's not about whether you think or feel - it's the way you react to and analyse information. Thirdly, a personality is something that's neutral and it's certainly not a limitation.
I was hoping that the book would focus on the idea that no personality is better than the other. No one should be beaten up (whether extravert or introvert) for not feeling comfortable having the personalities associated with the "perfect" Christian - for instance, the natural "salesman" or "hostess" who are of great "practical" value in evangelism and making newcomers feel welcome.
Yes, I wonder whether this book might be useful - at least everybody gets a go! I've been considering reading it. http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/life/resources/over_my_shoulder_naomi_reed/
ReplyDeleteMmm. I read the same book, I'm an INTJ. There were pieces that seemed to say that no personality is better than another: when McHugh describes the introvert's church journey as more of a spiral versus the extrovert being more of a straight line. He doesn't criticize the extrovert and gives the introvert pause for thought about how we're ok the way we are.
ReplyDeleteI wrote a review about it on my own blog, http://www.patricia-weber.com as a business coach for introverts. It did resonate with me because I believe that there are too many negative myths (memes) about introverts.
Do you also think it might be because of the cultural differences?
Or as you said, the difference in the spiritual views?
Intriguing discussion!
Hi Patricia.
ReplyDeleteYes, there were many parts that said that no personality is better than another. But in my experience (and this might be cultural) extroverts struggle with who they are just like introverts do.
I found the chapter on 'the extroverted church' pretty hard to read. He takes the worst of American evangelicalism - using Eugene Peterson's quote - "American religion is conspicuous for its messianically pretentious energy, its embarrassingly banel prose, and its impatiently hustling ambition" and calls that 'extroverted' christianity. That's not extroverted christianity - it's just shallow christianity! Over the page he decries the use of the word 'introverted' to describe a bad, inward looking church, writing - "While the authors are not referring to introverted individuals, to apply the term introverted to this kind of church is only to heap coal on the fire of an already-damaged introverted psyche." (p29) But I feel similarly insulted hearing American stupidity described as 'extroverted'!
While the book never says that introverts are better than extroverts, the subtext of a lot of it is that introverts have a monopoly on depth - which I think is untrue.
I like his sections about introverts and extroverts working together.
Thanks for your comment.
"I know many introverts who are not thinkers. They have no constant internal monologue happening, they are not particularly reflective, they are not really interested in thinking profound thoughts."
ReplyDeleteThis particular comment caught my attention because it's somewhat related to a realisation me and a few of my friends came to a few weeks ago.
Extroverts who talk a lot tend to think in words, or with a monologue. Introverts who don't talk as much tend to think in pictures, or 'movie clips' (ie. like a video playing in their head). At first it just seemed like a difference between my husband and I (he, the extrovert, thinks in words; I, the introvert, think in pictures and movie clips) but then we asked my sister; my father; one of my best friends; etc etc and each additional person we asked confirmed the original realisation.
So a lack of internal monologue doesn't mean a lack of thinking.
Of course we didn't survey hundreds so there could be exceptions to the rule, if it's even a rule at all.
A qualification needs to be added, too. The 'word' thinkers still use pictures when they're recalling an actual memory or directions to a location.
Just searched again for this post. I'm reading the book now, about 3/4 through, and can't hold it in any longer:
ReplyDeleteI think you were too kind.
The title is the title of a book that deserves to be written. Unfortunately, he didn't write it.
Instead, we get 'Navel Gazing 201: How to Stop Gazing at Your Own Navel and Deeply Inspect Somebody Else's...and Perhaps Hear the Voice of God Coming Out Of It'.
For a book that's meant to be about church, it reads far too much like Introverts in the Local Social Club. He keeps talking about how we find fulfilment, discover our gifts, develop profound relationships, blah blah blah. If he ever tries some spiritual direction on me, I'll clock him. And then say, see, introverts can be extroverted, and gain energy from the exercise.
Now, that's a rant. I'm cranky because it means nobody will write the right book, and we're left with this. Sigh.
Oh, and if Leah ever reads this, I'm an introvert who thinks in numbers. And who likes to be different...!
So what should the real 'introverts in the church' say?
ReplyDelete[So pleased it made you mad too!]
Well, first up, I should add...
ReplyDelete7. He seems to be under the impression that suffering is not normative for a Christian. I lost count of the number of times that his motivation for clearing up some introvert/extrovert issue was so the introvert could be happy/fulfilled/productive/feel normal/fell accepted. Suffering for the sake of the extrovert? Nope. Couldn't find it anywhere. Bearing with each other? That's only for the extroverts.
Seems to me the most useful stuff is when he stops talking about himself...and talks more about others. So, how to relate to extroverts, useful. How to make sure churches don't exclude introverts by expecting all to be extroverts, useful.
In the end, the I/E divide is just one spectrum that we all fall on. There's dozens more, many of them just as significant. The Ideal book, which Plato may already have written in his head, would do the compare/contrast between I and E, then figure out how this background helps us to do church/small groups/discipleship etc better.
But, to shoot the messenger, I don't think McHugh is the guy to write it. He doesn't seem to have stuck in any ministry position long enough to persuade me that his solutions have even worked for him.
I read this book because I thought it would help me understand better my experience of church as an introvert.
ReplyDeleteIt didn't. I think it takes the focus away from serving one another to focusing on what works best for me and my personality type.
I'm glad this book has been written because it at least articulates the need for introverts to be considered in church life. But sadly this book doesn't do it well.
Jenny - Could you write that up on your blog? Also maybe give us extroverts any hints we might need...
ReplyDeleteAnthony - you could do the same.