Do the quiet ones rise to the top of society?

Are the benefits to being a quiet person?

Some people are known to talk a lot and communicate freely. The idea being that free speech is appreciated or rewarded in society. But is this actually the case? There are sayings which may not or which may be based in reality.

For example:

• The strong silent types.
• Speak softly and carry a big stick.
• Move in silence.
• It's always the quiet ones you'll see at the top.
• It's always the quiet ones you'll have to look out for.
• Loose lips sink ships.

In the current social media "lit" culture we see people encouraged to speak up, speak out, express their opinion, etc. At the same time we see other people dishing out the consequences to those who dare speak up, speak out, and express their opinion. What does society really want? And who really rises to the top?

In the past quietness was valued. Free speech from what I can see has never actually been appreciated. It just happens that there is the illusion or myth that free speech is appreciated. Why is this illusion promoted if it's not supported by the data? Or perhaps there are many ways to interpret the data?

Speech is valued when it's what people want to hear when they want to hear it. Does this imply that quietness is a tactic used by those who seek success? Does this mean it's time to delete Twitter, Facebook, and other "social media" apps?

Quietism vs activism

George Fox came to the conclusion that the only real spirituality was achieved by paying attention to the Holy Spirit (the godhead) through silence, and founded the Quaker movement on this basis – one which shared much resemblance with "Quietist" thought.

Both Islam and Christianity have a cultural tradition known as quietism. In the case of Islam that quietism is specifically to support any Islamic ruler '

In fact, the cultures of being quite go further than this. So this indicates that there is an activist culture and a quietist culture. The two different cultures have different modes of how they integrate into society. The activist wishes to change society to suit their views. The quietist accepts society as it is without seeking to change it in an active manner. This is not to say that all who are quiet are quietists or that activists cannot be quiet. We know from history that the illuminati (the real illuminati), as well as many historically oppressed groups (underground railroad) had to rely on secrecy, on being quiet.

Contrasting Salafi quietists to the Jihadists of the Islamic State, journalist Graeme Wood notes that while both believe that God’s law is the only law and are "committed" to expanding Dar al-Islam (the land of Islam), Salafi quietists share other quietist Muslims' concern about disunity in the Muslims' community. Wood quotes a Salafi preacher as saying: “The Prophet said: as long as the ruler does not enter into clear kufr [disbelief], give him general obedience,” even if he is a sinner.

The Christian version of quietism isn't about being quiet. The Islamic version also isn't about being quiet. These beliefs are about being pious, about being a good Christian or good Muslim. But they do present

Which approach is better in your opinion?

What do you think? Is the culture of silence the way to be? Or is the culture of speaking out, speaking up, being the whistleblower, the way to be?

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_quietism_in_Islam
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quietism_(Christian_philosophy)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quietism_(philosophy)