Quiet.!: Introverts Unite.! by Susan Cain

There are 5 reasons I have rated this book on a scale of   0 – 10   as: a    - 3- .

While sucky at writing, Ms. Cain is passionate and superb at marketing.  I’m sure her next book will be better.
1 – The topic is trite.
Research into dichotomies is middle-school level writing. 
OK, maybe at a good middle-school.  

This kind of stuff may be acceptable for the Sunday supplement.

I was actually surprised that Susan Cain didn’t delve into correlations between Taurus Introverts versus Sagittarius extroverts.  All this stuff is easy to research these days.  I look for more than dichotomy in non-fiction textbooks.

2 – The material is dated.

The bane of text books is that they are only as relevant as the length of the publisher’s production cycle.

 It used to be two years for many disciplines.  

2 – a.)     This is certainly a textbook.  I’d say Sociology 1A.  This would be required reading, to be covered for a day or two in week 6 of a 15-week course.

2 – b.)    The author, being a journalist, is well aware of these factors and has recently re-issued the book [our paperback copy].

2 – c.)     Her actual material still seems 25, 50, and 75 years old, updated with anecdotal references from the past decade.

3- The merits of what is purportedly an academic book are thin.

I’d guess that there were 300 references/examples cited to support Ms. Cain’s ideas.  These appeared in one of the following three formats: 
1-                   Two-person anecdotes
   a.                   Celia and her husband on page 229
   b.                  or Don Chen on page 45
   c.                   or Greg and Emily
2-                  Multi-Person Small Studies
   a.                   Story Brook University: (p.134) 18 people studied on sensitivity
   b.                  Berlin Academy: 3 groups on solitude
3-                   Famous Name Anecdotes
   a.                   Ghandi (p.98)
   b.                  Al Gore (p.150)
   c.                   Eleanore Roosevelt (p.131)

4. - I’m already clearly on record as finding that journalists are terrible at writing books.!.!.!.

a.)        They do things like include quizzes and self-tests, which might be popular in a Home Edition newspaper.
b.)    In a blind test across twenty books² written by journalists⁶ and read by twenty-five Guerneville Regional Library Brown Bag Book Club members³, only 10% (2 of 20) books⁴ were found to be worth reading by at least 4% (1 of 25) of the readers⁵.

5.      This is a Sunday article expanded well beyond its worth or value..!.!.!.

Neither the premise, the research findings, nor the conclusion bear any merit whatsoever.
It’s nice to re-tread the halls of corporate America.  I was there in the 50’s and 60’s; and its fun to rehash the 60’s and 70’s as Silicon Valley gave birth to its name.  This well-worn regurgitation of sociological clap-trap and personality studies might be great fun for a newspaper journalist like Susan Cain.  Maybe this worked for her as a Doctoral thesis.  No.! Wait, she’s not an academic.!, and there are no insights to probe or new theories.
Unfortunately I can not concur with the “Broadway Publishers”’s note at the back of the book:
·                her writing is not passionate,  it’s droll;
·                her research is not superb, it’s worn out;
·                her stories aren’t indelible, they’re forgettable.