The Secret Life of Pronouns by James Pennebaker

Not particularly a linguist myself, I was surprised how much enjoyment I got out of this book. In some ways, my perspective on the world changed. Pronouns make up a large part of our sentences, yet we rarely pay attention to what they are saying. In his vast research, Pennebaker does. From findings about deep seeded depression, to figuring out if people are lying, Pennebaker delves into the hidden meaning of the pronouns we use. One instance, which I was actually able to test out myself, is how pronoun usage can gauge a person's self esteem. Ill explain the theory within the framework of the Obama campaign. Apparently, many advocates on the right noticed that Obama was using a lot of I words, or first person pronouns. Wanting to put Obama in a bad light, they argued that by using so many I words, Obama was showing how he was only focused on himself and arrogent. Pennebaker decided to test this theory out. Interestingly, he found that Obama was in fact using less I words than any president in recent memory. Instead, Obama was using a lot of we pronouns. Ironically, Pennebaker came to the same conclusion as those on the right did, but for the opposite reason. Using a lot of I words denotes low self esteem because it shows a need to put yourself and your accomplishments out there, rather than letting them talk for themselves. Conversely, we pronouns shows that one does not feel this and is confident with themselves. So in fact, this overconfidence exists in Obama (whether that is good or bad is up to you) but is shown through the we pronouns he is using, not the I ones. You can look through your old emails to both professors and friends and see if you saw what I did. When talking to a superior, I frequently used, subconsciously, a ton of I words, as I must have wanted to upgrade myself. The opposite happened when I spoke to those under me. Now conscious of this fact, it made it very difficult to write emails, as I was focusing on every word (thank G-d it's become easier now). While reading this, you may have noticed I have been using a lot of I words myself. That is actually due to something else, which I will get to later. There were other things that Pennebaker looked at that correlate with mental health and self esteem. More willingness to use larger words and sentences also work with this model. According to this, it should make sense for us all to use more we pronouns,  but there is a concern about honesty. In the Kerry campaign, Kerry started using a lot of I pronouns. His advisors thought that he should be using more we words, so Kerry shifted completely, using we words almost exclusively. What this shows, however, is a level of dishonesty. And perhaps, this is one of the reasons Kerry lost the election. When people say "we are going to do this" but really they mean "you are" or "I am" it conveys a sense of deceit. In fact, this was one fo the ways Pennebaker was able to test lying. So, at the begining of this post, you see me using a lot of I words. That is not because I am depressed, but because I read this book (perhaps you did too) and I am explaining what I thought, not what we thought. Here using those pronouns should show I am telling the truth (unless I know this, in which case I could be lying. Mind Blown). Another lie detector was a large use of emotion words. Rather than explaining what happened which was either good or bad, just saying it was positive without the information backing it up can also hint to lying. After taking the testimony from witness stands, the average person could tell whether the person was lying half the time. Pennebackers research (computer software) could tell 76% of the time. While this is not perfect, it is certainly better than what a person can tell. Perhaps most interestingly, the research was able to tell if a guy and a girl talking liked each other. This is a little more complicated, so I will leave it to you to read it in the book.

            All in All, I thoroughly enjoyed this book about pronouns. I find that my speaking, listening and writing has gotten deeper because of it. 

Game Theory A Short Introduction by Ken Binmore

              If you have never seen the "Very Short Introduction" series, the books are really fantastic. In a somewhat dense, but elegant manner, experts in different fields give introductions to many topics spanning across hundreds of topics. They are a really good way to go from knowing nothing on a topic to understanding the basics in 100-200 pages. This one was on game theory, but I may well read one on the Dead Sea Scrolls soon.

              Essentially, Game theory is the study of decision making. It tries to find out when people will decide to cooperate with one another, and when they won't. Most famously, this is seen in the Prisoner's dilemma, while there are many more that further the arguments and give different theories. In this example specifically, both of the prisoners will decide to rat out the other one because of their Nash equilibrium. A Nash equilibrium is when you have one option that no matter what the other person choses, you get the better result. In the prisoner's dilemma, it makes sense for each prisoner to separately mess the other one over. However, this is not their best option had they worked together and trusted each other. Essentially, a major challenge that game theory poses is how can we get people (and ourselves) to collaborate with one another (even if we don't have a collaboratorium) when the situation doesn't make us do so.

                I saw this happen first hand while I was a counselor for a day camp in a hotel for Passover. The counselors as a group were talking about whether it would make sense for the twelve or so of us to split the tips that we receive (that is how we were getting paid) or should we only get what the parents of the kids in our group give us. Mostly because I was reading this book at the time, game theory was all i could see. There are two types of utility that we could get as a group. Obviously, we each wanted more money, and many felt that they would do a great job, but there was also a value of wanting it to be fair. Like in the dilemma, there was an option that would have given the most utility. If everyone works hard and we split it then it is both fair and maximal money. However, as the dilemma teaches us every single other counselor decided to try and get the most tips, and of course some people ended up not getting a comprable share. While this wasn't exactly the same situation, it got me thinking about how we can fix this problem.

             I saw a similar example in a british game show called Golden Balls that I think can give us some insight. While the show is somewhat different because there is no Nash equilibrium, this still happens. The first possible solution is to change the rules of the game as is done here. In this situation he changes the way the game is played so it makes sense for the other guy to help. While this does lead to a positive result, I wouldn't necessarily say it makes the people virtuous. This also fails to solve the larger issue, instead it focuses on one example at a time. Therefore, in my estimation the way to solve it is this. Here, no tricks are needed. They have worked hard together and trust one another, so they will help one another. In essence, this is the power of community. When we are fighting for common goals and realize the value in one another we can solve the prisoner's dilemma. Game theory talks about how this happens with kin, ina  avery similar manner. People's love for their kin will override these tendacies. The question is how do we get this feeling to go over to the entire community, country and world?   It happens in armies and workplaces, why can't it happen at large?

            For the past two summers (and this coming summer), I have been a counselor in Machal in Camp Stone. Part of the Machal program is a community building exercise, trying to take a group of 15 year olds and create a bonded community. I have seen it happen twice, and I hope that we can make it happen again. What makes me nervous though, is that it takes an extremely intense summer like Machal to inculcate this value. What I can hope is that the campers will come out of the summer and spread it to their communities.

                        Generic ending about the Beit Hamikdash being built if we can do this.

              I would definitely recommend this book to anyone interested in economics or the way people collaborate. It really gave me insight into game theory, and I feel that i have gained knowledge of a new subject from such a short book.

A Time to Betray by Reza Kahlili

             Reza Kahlili, a pseudonym to protect his identity, was a revolutionary guard in Iran that became a CIA agent. In a Time to Betray, Reza relates the story of how he became the man to betray his native country and what happened while he was an agent for the CIA. Forgetting for a minute what I learned from the book itself, it really was a thrilling read. The feelings Reza has from his memories of the events that shaped his life are consistently evident. The pain and loneliness that goes along with his journey is palpable. This leads the reader to not only know the poor situation the regular Iranian is currently in, but it also makes one empathize and feel for them.

            After going through some of his childhood and the ways the government was viewed throughout it, Reza decides to attend college in UCLA. It is there that he truly interacts with America. Never thinking as a Muslim extremist, Reza continues to realize the problems with the way Iran is being run. Still, when he goes back he is stationed as a computer technician in the Revolutionary Guards of Iran. At this point the Guards have taken over the country and in many ways have made it an army state. There is a haunting scene where he goes to the Prison with his friend so the friend can see his children who have been imprisoned for no reason. He describes in detail some of the torture that was inflicted on the innocent prisoners. Ill spare you it here, but it highlighted the atrocities that were going on. Eventually, on a trip to America to visit his aunt, Reza contacts the CIA and an in time becomes an agent informing them on whats going on in the revolutionary guards.

            What becomes fascinating is how he has to relate to his family. He is working at a job he does not believe in (still finding it meaningful, as he is really working for the CIA), and has to be a "good" soldier. His parents berate him for his job seeing the revolutionary guard, and therefore Reza,  as being the cause of the problem in the country. He is able to live in a world where his parents hate him for what his job is, his wife doesn't understand, and he needs to act in a fake manner while he is at the office. One can only imagine what Reza had to go through, lying to everyone at the same time, especially when he believes as they do. I found that inspiring, to see what a person can do when they believe what they are doing is the best for those surrounding them. If Reza can do that, surely we can all do a little more to help our communities.

            I also found it inspiring how Reza was able to rise up from the family and community he grew up in. While his parents certainly did not have this mindset, much of the world Reza grew up in had a disdain for those things that are not iranian or Muslim. Reza was able to rise up from this bigotry and understand that it was not the truth. Even more impressively, Reza was able to stay firm to his beliefs even when he was berated with extremist ideology at work and even had to conform to it for a large portion of the day. Still he was able to rise up and do what needed to be done. While his immediate family shares the same sentiment that Reza does, wanting nothing of the army and extremist state they are living in, tehy do nothing about it. It is impossible to fault them for this, however, it makes Reza's feats so much greater because of his ability to take thought and put it into real actions. It is completely different to believe in something than it is to live with the consequences of that belief in a real way. His ability to take his belief system and to risk his life for it is a strength I hope we can all strive for (although I hope none of us ever need to be put into such a situation).

        Overall, A Time to Betray was a great read. It was thrilling and informative about the situation in Iran. I can only hope that the situation gets better for all our sakes, especially for those Iranians that are being oppressed by such a rule. 

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.