It’s been several years since I’ve read Introvert’s Advantage, but a few of the points of criticism seem a bit off. I’m catching a whiff of Pi. The writer is doing something which reminds me of something I do myself, and I only realize that tunnel-vision was affecting my perspective in retrospect. Something will seem ‘clearly’ more or less true because of some precept I’ve already got in my head, and I’ll only be able to see how short-sighted it is later on (i.e. shortsighted in that I won’t recognize how the external reality was something slightly different than what was going on in my head, that the precept didn’t exactly match the external reality as well as I was thinking it did at the time). Overall, it seems to me like the reviewer is primed (as a neurobiologist) to listen to certain ‘scientific’ information- as if a very specific criteria for ‘scientific’ has been constructed in this person’s head, and they're automatically dismissing information that doesn’t easily fit into the template they’ve constructed. Like I said, it’s been years since I’ve read the book, but I seem to remember it being more helpful in the way of explaining ‘introverted’ than this reviewer is making it out to be.
Perception being directed maybe too far inward, focusing on the preconstructed template far more than external reality (or rather, mistaking fragments of the preconstructed template for fragments of external reality).
Of course, it’s possible that I’m the one who’s doing it, and the reviewer isn’t doing it at all. It just seems to me, though, that when someone exaggerates a point (the way this reviewer, imo, is exaggerating the lack of worth in this book’s description of ‘introvert’) to the extent they appear somewhat short-sighted, it’s more because of some issue within the person more than it is because of some issue with whatever/whoever they are criticizing. I just know that personally, in reading it, I got the impression that person is trying to resolve their own issues between that divide between proper ‘science’ and psychology- and their own issues interfered a bit with their review, with the ability to take in what’s really there and evaluate it’s worth effectively (some baby fragments got thrown out with the bathwater). It’s almost embarrassingly clear in IxxJs when this is happening (which I suspect is Pi-dom related).
[edit:] Even if it weren't mentioned that the reviewer is INFJ, I'd still think there was some of this going on (I wouldn't even presume the reviewer was any specific type, I'd just think this was going on). It embarrasses me a little to see it going on in other people because it really embarrasses me when I notice I'll have been doing it myself.
I think what the reviewer is doing is commonly referred to as "having another axe to grind". I don't think she was being fair either to the author or the reader. The scientific studies referred in the book are very illuminating and this is the best part of the book, although I think Lainey said it was part of a graduate thesis of some sort -- which shows, because the rest of the book is pretty disappointing. It doesn't indicate any advantage in being introverted, but instead points out all the disadvantages and supplies handy tips on how to meet people, date, get jobs, go to parties, raise kids, etc. The tips were all fairly elementary and aimed toward getting introverts to act more like extroverts than focusing on introverts' strengths. Something like MBTI would have been very helpful at this point, discussing different types' naturally extroverted function -- that works better for me than trying to pretend I'm an extrovert (seriously, I've tried it, and it's disastrous).