Coming Back Stronger by Drew Brees

As the title suggests, Coming Back Stronger is Brees’ story of fighting through adversity to eventually win the Super Bowl with the New Orleans Saints. The idea is made explicit dozens of times. Never give up, and always look for the positive in the situation you are in. Believe that G-d  is putting you on the right path, and in this way, your adversity will only make you stronger. However, the story Brees tells does not seem to be a typical adversity story. Hollywood movies usually tell us of fanciful adversity stories, ones where someone goes from having absolutely nothing to having it all. Stories like The Blind Side fit this paradigm in the sports media.

While I certainly don't want to downplay Brees’ struggles they seem meager in comparison to the stories we usually hear. The basic adversity Brees describes is a parent’s divorce as a child, a torn ACL in high school, and his major injury a torn labrum, a shoulder injury which is obviously really bad for a quarterback, while playing for the San Diego Chargers.  While these circumstances are certainly not ideal, and I am sorry for what he had to go through, they seem trivial compared to others. He still had loving parents, a brother that never left his side to help him as a child. He always had the great ability to throw a baseball and football. Football players go through injuries, so nothing seems so spectacular about Brees’ adversity. Ironically, it is exactly this fact that drew me (pun intended) to the story and to Brees as a person.

Hollywood isn’t real. In most situations, while we can to an extent relate to the characters in movies, we cannot ever feel their pain, or understand what they are going through. I can learn very little from Oher in the blind side because it is too big, thank G-d my life has not given me that type of adversity. However, the same is not true for a person like Drew Brees. While I have not ever gone through something like my parent’s getting divorced, I can certainly imagine it happening to me or to one of my close friends. The fear of not being able to continue his life’s passion is a very real fear, one that we all may feel from time to time. The fact that much of his strength comes from G-d was particularly enlightening. Brees’ faith, as described in the book, is a simple faith. Believe that G-d always has a plan for you and see the opportunity that He gives you. He even once compares the pain he has gone through to a furnace of a blacksmith (p.90), imagery that the Rabbis used to describe the necessity for our slavery in Egypt. It is a sincere deep faith that helps him get through anything life hands him. That is real and relatable. Brees furthers this from the simple way the book is written. The book is seemingly Brees’ stream of consciousness going through his entire story. It is merely a man writing his thoughts. He is not trying to convert anyone, not trying to preach. He is just relaying his experience as he felt it, hoping that it can help others get through their own adversity.

Brees’ emotional style makes Coming Back Stronger a great read. Brees is a true role model to football fans and non-football fans alike. As a religious person, he has been able to get to the top of his field, breaking the passing record this year, while helping many people along the way. May we all learn to see the good in our adversity, so that we are able to always come back stronger.

Next Week: Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard

Seinfeld and Philosophy by William Irwin

-->

Hellloooo!! ladida. Seinfeld and Philosophy is part of a series of books looking into famous movies and TV shows and inspecting them with a philosophical or psychological mindset.  I found this project to be fantastic, if not necessary. When watching TV, we should not only be trying to take a break or chill, not that there’s anything wrong with that!, but we should be studying what we are watching, allowing it to help us understand humanity or other things better. When we are doing these secular things, we can elevate them and a make them worthwhile in this fashion.  I have found this blog very productive for myself, for this exact reason.  As Socrates said, “an unexamined life is not worth living”.  If we fail to this we allow our minds to fall to shrinkage.

Socrates’ statement is especially relevant to Seinfeld. Much of the show is Jerry and his friends hanging out talking about the minutia of every little detail of their every day lives. However, it seems unlikely that this type of examination is what Socrates was talking about . We should all be examining our lives with the intent of making us into better people. Jerry seems to be losing the forest by consistently only looking at the trees never getting past the details of non-important events. The conversations are a goal to themselves rarely leading to greater understanding, yada yada yada. Many times it is very hard not to fall into the trap that the Seinfeld characters fall into, but it is something that we should all be aware of.

Before I even heard of this book, I always thought of Seinfeld in a discourse in existentialism.  The word IS absurd. Seinfeld tries to show how all the little things we do when we go to the dry cleaners or a dinner party are part of the “theatre of the absurd”, having no real meaning. And just being societal constructs we have created. This comes to a crescendo in the final episode. The entire episode recaps just how absurd their lives are, and really all of our lives, as we relate to the “New York four”.  At the end (Spoiler alert! Can you really have a spoiler alert for a show that came out a decade ago?) Jerry, George, Elaine and Kramer are stuck in a cell together for a year. It is reminiscent of the same thing they would be doing outside the jail, in Monk’s coffee shop.  Jerry asks George a question about the top button of his shirt and the show ends with George wondering if they had had this conversation before. In fact they have, the opening scene of the pilot episode begins with it. So our characters have spent nine years and they have come back to were they started. The show about nothing ends with nothing changing, because everything is absurd. While, Seinfeld and Philosophy does not talk about this point, it does mention how Kramer is stuck at Kierkegaard's Aesthetic stage of existence, the lowest level of human reality. I think this approach to Seinfeld is sound and I am forced to stuff my sorrys in a sack that the author did not invoke it.

While the idea for the book was certainly interesting, and deserves a pop in for the big Seinfeld fan, it was many times repetitive and rarely informative. While I certainly believe that we should be looking at Seinfeld through this lens, for the casual reader I would say No Book for you! I have read some of both Psychology and the Simpsons and The Matrix and Philosophy, and both were much more enlightening. Giddy Up!

Ideas and Opinions by Albert Einstein

What surprised me most about Ideas and Opinions was how it showed Einstein as not only a scientific genius, but also as a political activist, a German and a Jew. The book catalogs different speeches, letters, and essays given over by Albert Einstein.

Coming from a German background, Einstein has a mixed view of the United States. He extols the freedom given to all people, but at the same time hates the capitalist culture. He argues that it inculcates a focus on wealth, and eventually lends to an imbalance of wealth. He therefore, later argues for socialism, not only on the national scale, but also on the worldwide scale, with a World Government that would collectively govern the increasingly connected world. He even argues that Judaism is the forbearer of these ideas, with charity and justice being it's main ideal.

While this is certainly one way to look at how the Torah would make a government, it is equally possible that a capitalist society, where each individual believes in charity and justice, would also be a Jewish ideal. It seems the Torah focuses on a mindset of the individuals involved that would create a great society, irrelevant of its structure. Of course, how one reads the verse “Put a king above you” will be relevant here but it is another matter. Einstein furthers his point when talking about what is a Jew. He argues that someone who is not religious is still a Jew, therefore, it cannot be the defining factor. He argues that charity and Justice has always been what we as a people are fighting for in this world and that is what makes a Jew.  I feel that this view is equally problematic. A person that is not charitable is still a Jew. So what exactly does make a Jew? I’ve never really been sure, but the closest I have come to answering this question is the idea of a moral and religious tradition. I carry this tradition with me, even if I don't follow it myself. It is not only the commandments, nor charity, but the totality of the tradition that has been passed down for thousands of years.

Maybe its because our names are spelled the same way, but there were many times that I have had exactly the same thoughts as Einstein. Specifically, when talking about the intersection between Science and religion, Einstein has an interesting take. By definition, they should not intersect. Science tells us what is, while Religion tells us what should be. Science tells us how it is possible that we talk, while religion tells us what we should do with our speech. They therefore, compliment each other. We need to know both what is and what should be to have functioning lives. Something Einstein does not mention, however, is when this dichotomy is broken. This most notably happens with the story of creation, where is seems religion is telling us what is. Even here I don't think this is a problem. (If interested, see my views on that here.)

Later he talks a lot about how much Jews owe to Zionism. The ability to create our own state a place were we can show the world the values that Judaism teaches in a full functioning society is ever important. Einstein goes on to explain that a state is even more important because of the anti-Semitism seen in Europe (this was before the Holocaust). He argues that anti-Semitism is born out of a natural hate of seeing someone be better then you. He says that people see Jews performing well (due to caring about intellectuality) and upset they cannot do the same. When they are able to knock the overachievers off the ledge they will do whatever they can to do so. While this concept was certainly interesting, does it hold up? Were we always overachievers in times of anti-Semitism? This is a question for someone with a greater Jewish History background than I. 

There are a series of letters between him and the Prussian academy, talking about Einstein’s decision to undo his German citizenship and to leave all the academies. While it is not necessarily courageous to leave all that behind, considering the anti-Semitism that was rampant in the 1930s in Germany, I found it fascinating that as acculturated a Jew Einstein was, he stood by his morals leaving all the academies that he held dear.

A theme that runs throughout the book is Einstein’s belief that people need to be proactive in the world and try to make it a better place. “The world will be destroyed not by those who do evil, but by those that watch them without doing anything” was an idea that he said many times. May we all learn this lesson.  (cough...cough...Machal)

The end of the book, is Einstein explaining all of his basic theories, specifically general and special relativity. Considering his immense achievements and his brilliance, I was suppressed to see how humble Einstein consistently was. He was always downplaying his achievements, seeing that there was so much more work to be done. It was amazing to see someone with so much to be haughty for, never succumbing to it.

Next Week: Seinfeld and Philosophy

How to Think Straight about Psychology by Keith Stanovich

Psychological studies are often taken with cynicism. Many feel that they are common sense, random, or just ridiculous. In this book Stanovich shows why we believe this, and how true psychology follows the same rigorous standards than those of the other sciences.

            By its nature psychology is easy to fake. We can look around our lives and come up with theories that explain what we have seen. These aren’t real experiments but they feel correct as they follow our experiences. We accumulate this common sense and expect it to help us live our lives. Many times psychological experiments follow the trends we saw ourselves. So how are they any better than us? Firstly, Stanovich attacks this “wisdom” that people have that is essentially folk wisdom that has never been tested.  The reason that experiments often follow our wisdom is because we have created folk wisdom that is contradictory in nature, to the extent that no matter what the psychologist said we would say it “makes sense”. We would tell someone to “look before you leap”, but at the same time say “he who hesitates is lost”.  We may say “it’s better to be safe than sorry”, but its also better to have loved and lost than not have loved at all. Opposites attract, but “birds of a feather flock together”. I should do my work now because “if not now, when?”, but I should also “cross a bridge when I come to it”. Because of these contradictions, we have fooled ourselves that we understand all situations because they all fall into these categories, when in reality we don't understand it at all. It is the job of a psychologist to find out which is the correct one in a certain situation. The reason we love these cliches so much is because they cant be falsified. No amount of further research will prove them to be false. This fools us into thinking we understand the world, when we really don't.

            Because clichés are easy to manufacture there is a lot of pop and pseudo-psychologists that portray the field poorly. They come up with claims that cannot be proved incorrect, sounding really smart but really having nothing of value to share. From this comes a rule. The more a thing can be falsified, the better claim it is. Real psychologists try to make falsifiable claims.

Another problem people have with psych studies is when they know of someone where it wasn't true. However, like all predictions, scientists are only working in probabilities, it isn’t always true, just usually true. Knowing someone that smoked for many years but did not develop cancer, does not prove that smoking doesn't cause cancer, and the same is true for psychology.

Stanovich goes over many more ideas that really pervade all sciences and explains how they hold just as true for psychology. He is upset at pseudo-psychology that tarnishes the name of the field. If people were to really look at psychology as it truly was, we as a people could learn more about how we interact with each other.

How to Think Straight About Psychology was a great read that taught me a lot about psychology but even more about how science works in general.