Meh. I've taken several Myers-Briggs tests and always come out just barely on the extrovert side of the scale, so I can identify with a lot of the feelings and thoughts that introverts have. I'd probably describe myself as an ambivert, since I can see both sides - there are times and situations where I find myself needing to escape, curl up with a good book and recharge my batteries, but other times when I enjoy big groups, depending on my mood and how busy life has been lately.That being said, this book didn't do it for me. It felt like a long diatribe bashing how horrible those big, mean extroverts are. The author uses very negative language and tone when she's describing the extroverted personality type and I don't think that adds anything to the dialog or understanding of how we can get along with different personality types. She makes it feel like extroverts are all bullies without empathy who are only interested in getting their way all of the time. Nuance, which is supposed to be a trait of introverted people, seems totally lost in this situation. The language she's chosen for this book make it feel like she has a VERY large ax to grind. I think the author's biases bled into the book way too much. I understand that not everyone likes extroverts and that introverts can feel bullied by the more extroverted people out there, but this book would have had more resonance and been a lot more interesting without the author's personal bias injected into what felt like every topic.There were some interesting discussions about the science behind why we are who we are; that genetics, neurology and life experience all play roles in our personality development in complex ways that we may never fully understand. Unfortunately, from my perspective, the author misses the opportunity to really connect the science with her audience because of the tone and language that she uses.The author's premise - that American society isn't structured to benefit introverts is true, to an extent, but I think it misses the larger point that American society is structured in a way that really doesn't benefit most people, whether they're introverted or extroverted. There are only a small handful of people that could tell you they've never felt the way the author describes feeling. We've all had situations where someone at work or school bullies their way into a discussion and their idea becomes the policy because they spoke loudest. It sucks. But it happens to all of us, unless you are on the most extreme extrovert end of the scale. We all have to learn ways to adapt and deal with people on an individual level. Each one of us will run into a forceful person (or two, or ten) at some point in our lives. But it seems that the author's only answer is that American society needs to change from top to bottom to suit introverts. It feels like, given the opportunity to find ways to bring people together through understanding, the author has made the choice to say instead that we should emulate East Asian societies, which prize introversion and shun extroversion - essentially reversing the tyranny of the extrovert (as she sees it) for the tyranny of the introvert. In my opinion, that's not the answer - there are valuable things that extroverts bring to the table in society. By over-simplifying her premise into black and white, she misses the opportunity to discuss all the shades of grey in between the two extremes. Maybe I just don't get it. This is the second book I've read recently that had huge hype and didn't really deliver. Maybe it's just not my cup of tea. Either way, this book didn't really connect with me.As a final note, I know that the author is a Goodreads author and may (or may not) actually read the reviews posted here. If you do read this Ms. Cain, please, please, PLEASE do not take this as a personal attack. I think you have an interesting idea and would love to learn more about the science behind personality and deal more with coping skills for everyone. I think this could be a really stellar book (or follow up book) if you widen your focus and cut back on the harsh language. It would reach a lot more people.