Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World that Can't Stop Talking by Susan Cain

While most of what is said in Quiet about introverts and what makes them tick is not revolutionary, the implications made about how society views and treats introverts made me rethink the path our institutions take kids on. As Cain defines it, an introverted person feels most comfortable in low stimulation environments.  Rather than enjoying a party with lots of people, an introvert would rather a deep conversation with one person. By contrast, an extrovert loves overstimulation, and is likely to be gregarious and upbeat. As American society has evolved, these types of people have become idealized. Ever since the advent of the salesman, these outward social skills have become necessary to move forward in the business world and other sectors. Interviewers look for these types of people, and companies and schools have begun to organize themselves for extroverts. Work in big groups has become emphasized more and more, while solitude has been degraded.  Kids that don’t want this type of interaction in schools (introverts) are thought to be maladjusted or even depressed. This attitude has negative effects both for the community at large and for the introverted individual.

             Firstly, the introverted person is being kept in a situation that is not suitably for succeeding. The more contemplative person has to expend all of his energy to interact with people in an outward manner, leaving little left for the work that is necessary. This is specifically true in our schools. A greater and greater emphasis has been put on group work. This can be very stressful for an introverted kid. They are forced to spend all day trying to “make friends”, when “making friends” really just, means outward relationships towards many classmates. This can sometimes be extremely hard, especially in big social situations like the lunchroom. In this way schools are built for extroverts, who are ½ to 2/3 of the population.  However this is by no means the model that has always existed and is not the model that the Jewish tradition relays overall. Those that have great impact on the nation are primarily, but not limited to, those that were recluses beforehand. Moses, Jeremiah, Jacob all fit this introverted stereotype. While they certainly are able to lead and be great, they don't need to be fervently outgoing to do so. We learn in groups of two, where each partner is able to have a big voice in the conversation, rather than big groups.

            This  new groupthink is also a detriment to the companies that fully practice it. The lack of privacy will hurt the productivity of those that are introverted in nature. They will have less of say because they will not be able to put their word out. These people have much to contribute.

            The applies evermore so at camps. Recently, I had a discussion about whether books should be allowed at camp. While, its true that we want to create a group, which singular activities can inhibit, to many kids, having these activities is a social necessity as much as having friends is to others. In many ways I don’t see how movies are all that different. However, a real, though separate, argument can be made for the inappropriateness of the movies, which is why they are banned from many camps. Even if we allow books, why is it even views negatively? Why do we have this culture that extroversion is idealized?  By doing so, the culture as a whole will suffer by to some extent alienating 1/3 to ½ of the population.

            I found most of Cain’s points illuminating and insightful. However, the book was largely comprised of stories that aren’t integral to the argument she (and I) am making. The argument can be found just as well in the Ted talk she gives HERE.

Expanding the Palace of Torah by Tamar Ross

In Expanding the Palace of Torah, Tamar Ross discusses the intersection between Orthodoxy and Feminism, looking at thinkers in the past and then speaking of her vision for the future. While most of the feminist thinkers are willing to redefine Orthodoxy for the sake of feminism, Ross is not willing to do so. Within her controversial framework, the goals that feminism desires can be gained through the existing Halakhik language. For the most part, the controversy that surrounds this book is actually not about feminism, but is about how she views Halakha. Since there is literature on these questions to her theory beyond my ability (found here and here), I am going to limit the theological discussion to a couple points at the end.

            After I read this book, I decided that I wouldn’t be able to write about it in this forum. The topic of Orthodoxy and Feminism seems to be one that I should not be able to have a strong opinion about. Although I don’t have such a problem with different people having different roles (e.g. Kohanim and Yisraelim), how is it fair for me, as a male, to decide what others should feel and/or do? How can I have a sympathizing view of something that does not directly affect me? At the same time, the Rabbis that made the Halachos as we know them, needed to make formal rules for the entire community, ones that we accepted to be bounded by as a community. It is here that Ross’ “vision for the future” came in for me. I realized that part of my apprehension was the fact that I know women that are significantly more versed in these topics than I am. Even more so, there are more and more women learning as much if not more Torah on a daily basis than I. In many ways it be these people, who should be working out the intersection of these values. This is precisely what Ross views as what will happen. The more women that delve into traditional sources, the greater voice they will have in the Halakhik discourse. Although Ross puts this together with her view of Halakha, it seems that it does not need to be so. A greater women’s voice in the discourse can only add debate, which is more firmly entrenched in rabbinic culture than anything.

            Practically, I don’t know how this will, or should, play out. I think most would agree that a change with the Agunot situation would be positive, but other than that, each Halakha (or minhag) would be on a more discretionary basis. Perhaps, adding of women to the Halakhic conversation won't measurably change things that we do in or out of synagogue. What it would do is give women representation in the system that their community lives by. That perspective may be all that is needed to make the system be “up to date” while still being able to keep to the traditions that we have held for so long.

In terms of the theological points Ross makes I would just like to make a couple of points. Ross discusses a revelation from G-d that is constant. There was not one revelation that is the source of all knowledge, and everything came after it is secondary. Rather, G-d is still revealing himself to us in the ideas that come up every generation. I always hoped that there was somewhat of a middle ground. The Torah was reveled to us at Sinai, but I would like to think that the general flow of Halakha has a guiding hand. Also, while Ross’ view of feminism can be easily said with this theory, it is not fully tied with it. Secondly, Ross views Halakha as a system where we have to subordinate ourselves to those before us, where the Rabbis have us in a bind. I never saw it that way. As a people, we accepted the Talmud Bavli. While they did make rules for us, we had to accept the corpus for it to have effect. At this point we need to accept this choice, but it was a choice we as a people made, not an overbearing arrangement.

            Since this is a sensitive topic to some, please understand that this was me free writing. I may have misstated myself, so feel free (as always) to comment and interject. I may have not always used the right wording, but to be fair I am a math major after all. 

           

Good to Great by Jim Collins

Good to Great is required reading for Presidential Fellows in YU, and I understand why. The book goes through basic concepts that, through research, seem to be integral in creating and sustaining a great company from a good one. Ideas such as these should be integral to people who are on the path to leadership in the Jewish and greater community.

At first glance the study seems to be statistically valid. Collins goes through the study that he did, comparing companies that were similar, but then one shot up in stock prices dramatically over 15 years. It’s actually this fact, that the study seems valid, that I don't think I am going to read books of this kind. There is a major flaw in the research done in this book; a flaw that I feel is made constantly in similar books. While its true that those companies which the study followed did embody the qualities detailed in the book, there is no evidence to say that there aren’t other companies that were not researched did not follow these same guidelines. There are also other companies that have grown without these methods. This is only furthered by what has occurred in the years since the book was released. Companies that were praised consistently in the book have fallen in the market since. Companies like Fannie-Mae and Circuit City are not doing well, and are doing even worse than the general market has been. This seems to imply that the research was to some extent created by using information that was not complete.

These objections to Good to Great seem to be the breaking point for bloggers and reviewers of the book. Those that see this as a problem, write off this book as moneymaking scheme building off Collins’ earlier books. Those that don't see this as a problem love the book. In my view, there is a huge middle ground. While by no means is Good to Great a conclusive method to make a great company. However, there are many things that Good to Great bring out that are at least corollaries of making a good company. The book details many ideas, many of which I will not go through here, but I would like to focus on one of them. The beginning of the book, focuses on the idea of Level 5 leadership. A Level 5 leader is able to focus completely on the company, not falling to nepotism or other factors. (S)he is able to care about the companies needs and doesn't look for his own glory or fame. Good to Great is full of messages like this that, while it does not prove conclusively, should be in our minds when we are trying to take the things we are active in from good to great.

May we all be able to take our own endeavors from a position where they are doing a good job to a great one.

The Pun Also Rises by John Pollack

While this post about the Pun Also Rises is certainly not punctual (I opunned this book months ago), I am writing about this now because of the impuntus of (believe it or not) Linsanity, but I will get to that later.  The book goes through many issues dealing with puns, including their biology, history, nature, and how involved they are in culture. The author, John Pollack, while having been Bill Clinton’s speechwriter for many years, is also a champion from the O’ Henry World Pun Competition that happens every year. One can clearly see this throughout the book, as he throws in many subtle puns throughout the prose. He first discusses how the mind comes up with a pun, showing it not to be a puny matter. Ironically, the word pun has never really had one definition. He shows twelve different types of puns, which he defines in the broadest way of a play on different meanings.

Pollack then goes into the history of puns, which was the part I found most interesting. Punning is extremely old, and has been consistently used ever since. Archeologist have found many carved paintings of pictures that could be perceived two ways. Jesters, writers, and other entertainers have used the device for centuries. Pollack laments, however, that the pun has lost esteem in the eyes of the punblic. People view puns as a pungent odor like a punch in the face, looked upon as a punitive punishment that necessitates a groan or a “Shut up, Sam!” (For those that understand). This is the part that I, to an extent, disagree with Pollack. While its certainly true that people do wish to punish people who pun with a punt, when they have a chance to, these same people feel no reason to be punctilious about not punning. And, this is where I bring in Linsanity.

Ever since Jeremy Lin came on the scene, he has gotten the Knicks on their limprobable linning streak, pundits Lin the sports arena, and many others on social media sites have been saying a seemingly linfinite amount of puns with the name Lin. Linsanity has lindividually linaugurated a linformal pun extravaganza (see here) that go from linadequate or linappropriate to lincredible. But why were these funny? Don't they deserve a groan? While at this point, this reaction has started to come out of the fact that it has been overdone, many people that had hated puns before felt fine doing it lin this context. And, that would be precisely my argument. People love to pun, and when it is culturally acceptable they will certainly oblige. It is only when there is a seemingly common punderstanding that puns deserve a groan that they get that reaction. Why this has happened, I do not know, but I feel certain that pun hating has been created by general society, but it is not a true reaction of the individual.  Perhaps it is a jelousy of those that have a punchant for it, but I really don’t know. What do you think? (Leave comments below).

The Pun also Rises was a great read for those that love puns and word play (everyone?). It gave me a better understanding of what punning is and its place in society. I would definitely recommend.

P.S. Did you catch any of the ten Lin puns? Because if not, no pun lin ten did.

The Fragile Species by Lewis Thomas

In the Fragile Species, Lewis Thomas gives a truly unique view of biology, medicine, and science in general, written in a fantastic prose style. He looks at certain factors in the fields of biology and medicine in a historical fashion, viewing what we have now in context of the larger historical framework. Unlike other fields, we always seem to have a huge trust in what science we know right now. Especially those that are less knowledgeable in the fields, it always seems like we as a community have constantly unveiled the hidden parts of the universe. Thomas is wary of this hubris. He shows not only how much we don't understand, especially in the realm of disease, but he also shows how this hubris has been proven to be misplaced time and time again. For a long time, bloodletting was the way doctors believed they could cure. Eventually, the scientific community figured out that these practices were in fact doing more harm than good. Thomas is afraid that we are having a similar understanding now. If we feel that we have come to the apex of human understanding we lack the capacity to move forward effectively.

            This theme of human hubris flowed throughout much of the book. We are a fragile species that in many respects are just part of the world. History, in the broadest sense, has shown this time and time again. For the religious person, this is a mightily important idea. We should understand that even though we have a huge capacity, we are humble in the face of G-d. At the same time, this is important in a secular level as well. The understanding of our place in the broad context of the world is important for each of us to see the opinions of others and move forward as a people. It helps us to not take things too seriously when they aren’t important. For some reason, I have been seeing recently more and more of this type of overreaction. Whether it is about Rav Bina or in one of the YU papers, people have been making more controversy than warranted (perhaps, some things do in fact need to change). Many times this stems from an extremism that comes from a lack of humility about one’s opinions. Feel free to disagree.

            Thomas then moves on to topics of how we live together, by looking at the general animal kingdom. He tries to prove the thesis that animals that show the ability to work together have the ability to survive throughout the history of the world. While I don't think he is able to prove it in the empirical sense, he lends much support to the idea through different animals that have thrived or failed with this characteristic. Within any community, this idea should be just as true. Our ability to cooperate with each other will eventually determine to what extent we are able to thrive.

Lewis Thomas writes about important topics, looking at them through a different lens. He writes about these topics in a way that is easy to read and easily accessible. I would definitely recommend Thomas’ writings.

                                                        Next Week: Good to Great

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!