You Got to Have Friends

The other day, while at the periodontist, the hygienist, Kelly, who I have known for a number of years, mentioned how she could not understand how people that live alone with no friends or family survive.  I agreed with her intuition by explaining that connections with others are a lifeline.  Her comment reminded me of the Bette Midler song:  You Got to Have Friends.  The song points to the fact that friends are essential to bringing us joy and helping us deal with the uncertainties and difficulties that life might bring.

D. H. Lawrence’s classic novel, Women in Love, devotes a chapter to a wrestling match that the two male protagonists, Rupert and Gerald have.  In the context of the story, the match does not represent an act of violence, but rather a way to explore closeness, trust and vulnerability without relying on language.  Although the physicality between the two may be an innuendo of a homoerotic relationship, that is not the intent of Lawrence.  Instead, the author communicates to the reader how the two men, through the intensity of the match, share a special form of bonding that is physical, emotional and existential at once.

During my adulthood, my mother told me I always had managed to make friends from the time I was a child.  I still am in contact with some of the kids I have known since childhood one of whom I have stayed in regular contact with throughout the years.   However, my closest friend, Jack Trachtenberg, I met in college while at the University of Pennsylvania. 

I have a clear memory of our first encounter.  Before we came to know each other, a few weeks into my first semester as a freshman in 1963, I had observed Jack in McClelland Hall, a place where people living in the dorm could study.  His small stature sitting next to a heavy set, borderline obese student gave them the appearance of the odd couple.  They would be sitting together strewn with textbooks at their table both in intensive study.  At about the time I saw them together, I was experiencing some difficulty in my math class and asked around if anyone knew someone proficient in math.  A fellow student pointed to that same overweight student telling me his name was Arnie Klein, and he was excellent in math and quite generous in helping others with math.  Sure, enough Arnie was willing to answer some of the questions I had; I had yet to even talk to Jack. 

Shortly after, while walking to my dorm room after seeing a show at Irving Auditorium from a show at Irvine Auditorium, I spotted Jack walking alone on Spruce Street.  I approached him, introducing myself explaining how I had observed studying with Arnie, and then with freshman zeal I rambled on discursively about the latest research done on the convolutions of the human brain.   The theory had been generated some years before after a postmortem investigation of Albert Einstein’s brain had shown it to have a vast network of convolutions that may correlate to human intelligence.

As luck would have it, Jack was a pre-med student and was actually interested!  Our shared values and commonalities outside of our studies nurtured our relationship, and we quickly became close friends.   The term “Grok” first employed by Robert Heinlein in his bestseller sci-fi work, Stranger in a Strange Land, I believe best describes our bond.  When an individual groks with another, there is a profound and intuitive understanding that the two share with each other.  The term grok reminds me of the Black vernacular use of “digging one another” that implies going so deep in another’s skin that you can feel that person’s pain.  Digging connotes something much deeper and more significant than understanding.

          Because of the mutual trust we shared, we could confide in one another in the best and worst of times without fearing the loss of our special bond. I will not elaborate on the many circumstances in which we supported one another, but as many, if not all of you have experienced, it’s wonderful to have a friend that you know will always be there, through thick and thin for you.  Because we knew we could contact one another at any time, the barrier of distance did not separate us or weaken our bond.  We have utilized that ancient communicating device called a telephone as a means of maintaining our connection.  When I came East to visit family and relatives, we always would take time out to see one another in person rather than some form of digital not in person meeting.

  When you are growing up you have little choice who your neighbors or classmates are.  With age and breadth of experience, you begin to develop your own interests and likes that may gravitate you to certain types of people.  However, by the time one is older taking on deep and meaningful relations with another such as my solid relationship with Jack, is not a likelihood.  This is why I consider my connection with Howard Bricker, who was in his ‘70’s while I was in my ‘60’s when we first met, so rare.

How we met remains crystal clear in my mind.  I had read about the card game bridge and, though unfamiliar with it, knew it required skill and mastery beyond mere luck.  I had been curious about it for some time so Lisa and I took a class offered for seniors.  In the class, the teacher divided us into groups of four and, conveniently, we were sitting next to another couple, Howard and Noreen, who became our learning partners.  As we introduced ourselves to each other, all four of us felt comfortable sharing who we were.

Bottom line was that Noreen, Lisa, and I gave up on becoming experts in bridge.  Howard, on the other hand, honed his skills in gaining some expertise in playing bridge. More importantly, Howard and I formed a connection based on our diverse backgrounds rather than any love for the game of bridge.  As an example, we shared a love of language.  While serving in the U.S. Navy, given his high language aptitude, Howard was chosen to study and become fluent in Russian.  A feat he accomplished quite well.  The Navy employed him as a decoder of Russian messages in Okinawa.

 Howard was a biblical scholar who had studied Hebrew.  In fact, he was so knowledgeable in Jewish customs, that a rabbi that knew him suggested he convert from Catholicism to Judaism.  He let me know that he jokingly responded to the rabbi informing the latter that that wouldn’t be possible because he could not give up bacon.  I knew from the start that Howard was not your typical “Joe,” but a person with such broad knowledge that I Iikened him to be a polymath.  After I had told him of my own successful and unsuccessful ventures in life, we began to form a strong bond.

In addition to the bridge lessons, we started playing golf together on a regular basis where, on the links, our relationship developed.  As our relationship grew, Howard confided in me about a tragedy that had occurred in his and Noreen’s life, when several years before his oldest son had drowned trying to recover a boat that not been moored correctly.  Subsequently, we shared our religious beliefs as he attended my temple when I was leading the services one Saturday, reciting my original bar mitzvah when I was 13.  He invited me to his church during Lent where we would talk and share fish dinners with the other congregants.

Lisa and I went to Howard’s 80th birthday and met all of his family.  About a year later, Lisa and I received a phone call from Howard’s son, Andy, who gave us the sad news that his father had died of a heart attack.  When I heard this, I felt the pain of sorrow take over my body.  It just seemed so unfair that such a wonderful friend was gone. I went to the memorial service, gave a eulogy to Howard with his family letting me know that Howard really cared and liked me.  I let them know both how sad it was that he had died, but also how glad I was to have the opportunity to have met him and become his friend.

The late Arnold Lazarus, my former major advisor at Rutgers University, where I received my doctorate in psychology, made an interesting comparison between marriage and friendship that I agree with in his excellent book:  Behaviorism and Beyond.  He pointed out that insofar as friends do not live under the same roof year in and year out their shared intimacies are intensive rather than extensive.  In a marriage, each partner shares the responsibility of what life is like under the same roof:  Cleaning diapers if there are children, doing the laundry, taking care of necessary repairs, and doctor’s appointments etc.  These shared burdens require the need for some degree of emotional privacy for each partner. 

Unlike in some countries, marriage does not imply ownership, but rather a place where each partner allows the other his or her individuality to pursue their own contacts beyond the marriage.  My wife Lisa spends a great amount of time as a local President of The National Council of Jewish Women.  I am proud of the work she does.  She like I has many friends and acquaintances outside our marriage.  Our mutual understanding allows us both the necessary psychological movement to pursue our own interests and not encroach on our partner’s rightful territory.  Lisa never short circuited neither my very intense relationship with Jack nor the relationship with Howard that blossomed late in my life.   A lesson I have learned through these important friendships and within my marriage are both of extreme value to us humans who as Aristotle stated are “social animals.”  I believe they are the nutrients of life that assist in both our enjoyment and longevity of life.  

Baseball’s New Rules

Major League Baseball has encountered difficulty in maintaining its appeal to younger people who have appeared more inclined to view either professional football, hockey or basketball.  Unlike the latter three sports baseball is not a sport divided by quarters or halves where the end of the game occurs when time has expired.  Baseball beats to a different drum than to the rapid movements displayed in either of the other three sports.  Cell phones along with social media in replacing slower more contemplative habits, such as reading from hard copy news, have increased the pace of life.

To confront the challenges of the sound bite generation, the stewards of baseball understood they had to, in some way, quicken the pace of the game.  Until some recent changes became agreed upon by the league, many ballgames lasted well over three hours.  After incorporating the changes I will discuss, the length of the average game dropped to 2 hours and 36 minutes.  I am quite sure shortening the duration of a baseball game has helped with overall attendance at games.

In the past batters and pitchers could call time out without being penalized.  For example, at any time during an at bat, hitters could step out of the batter’s box and call time out.  The new rules curtailed this habit by only allowing hitters to step out of the batter’s box one time per at bat.  Likewise, pitchers could step off the rubber at any time when pitching and take some time to refocus on the batter.  Now pitchers are required to throw a pitch to a batter within 15 seconds when bases are empty and 18 seconds with are runners on base.  If a pitcher exceeds the time limit, an automatic ball is added to the count of the batter.  Furthermore, with a runner on base, a pitcher is only allowed to check the runner two times or two throws to whichever fielder is covering the runner (usually first base).  If the pitcher exceeds two throws without picking the runner off, the runner is automatically allowed to go forward one base.  For example, if a base runner is on first base and a pitcher throws over to the first baseman more than two times, the base runner goes to second base.  This would be similar to a balk made by the pitcher in which the player on base advances one base.

The size of the bases have been increased from 15 inches to 18 inches to make the base more visible with the hope of reducing injuries to players attempting to steal a base.  This rule has encouraged more attempts at base stealing that I feel adds to the excitement of the game.  The new regulations restrict the infield shift by making it necessary for two infielders to stay on their side of second base.  In the past, infielders could shift where they played their position toward the side where the batter was most likely hit.  In 1946, Lou Boudreau, player manager of the Cleveland Indians employed what was labeled the Boudreau Shift when Ted Williams, the Boston slugger came to bat.  Subsequently, when the Red Sox faced the St. Louis Cardinals in the 1946 World Series, the Cards utilized this same shift on Williams.  Williams, a pull hitter by nature, could not beat the shift, batting .200 in the Series, as he went 5-for-25, well below his season batting average.

To reduce the length of games that are tied, thereby going into extra innings, the player making the last out for each side in his part of the 9th inning is placed on second base to start the 10th inning.  If the game goes beyond 10 innings the same rule applies for further extra innings.  Finally, the latest revision in baseball is the automated ball-strike rule (ABS).  Here the player, be it batter or catcher-pitcher, has the right to review the umpire’s call whether it is a strike or a ball.  Each team is allowed two such reviews, per 9 innings, that remain in place if the player’s challenge corrects an umpire’s mistake.  However, if the umpire’s call was correct, whichever team challenged the call, loses one of the two chances.  Two such errors in judgment by a club ends that team’s opportunity to question an umpire call.    To date, batters are more likely to err in asking for a recall than catchers. This could be due in part to the fact that batters are more emotionally involved in the decision making than catchers.  Moreover, catchers probably have a better angle than batters in deciding whether to challenge a call made by the home plate umpire.

A rule enforced earlier allowed teams to challenge plays on the field with the same proviso: If the team was incorrect upon review of the umpire’s call on two occasions, that team was disqualified for the remainder of the game from any further challenges of close plays.  The result of these changes has lowered the anger volume of managers and players toward umpires with whom they have disagreed.

I like all of the above baseball revisions with the possible exception of the infielders not permitted to shift to guard against a hitter’s strength.  I believe that batters need to learn how to use as much as the field as they can rather than a hitter always hitting to his strength by pulling the ball.  However, because pitchers have dominated batters for the past several years, I am ambivalent about this rule.  Batting averages have significantly dropped in the last 10 years or so where today the compiled average of hitters is only .247.  The era of .300 hitters has disappeared.  The number of player strike outs is at an all time high.  When the pitcher on your team is hurling the strike outs, that fan is happy.  But when both teams are striking out at ridiculously high rates, the game becomes less interesting.  The resounding crack of the bat hitting the ball is key to the thrill of baseball.  So, if the infield rule helps batters, I would keep it.

There are a few reasons why baseball currently appears to favor the pitcher over the batter:  1) Hurlers are throwing the ball with greater velocity; 2) Breaking balls are used more frequently with more spin on the ball; 3) Starters no longer pitch the entire game but give way to bullpen specialists. 

Because hitters’ averages had dropped to .237 in 1968, that year was designated the year of the pitcher.  The action of runs and hits was on the decline.  In an effort to assist baseball hitters, MLB reduced the height of the pitcher’s mound from 15 inches to 10 inches.  Some of the pitcher’s leverage was reduced due to less downhill angle causing less velocity and movement.  This allowed hitters to see the ball more clearly resulting in higher batting averages.  In short, by simply changing the configuration of the pitcher’s mound, the game allowed for better hitting and more excitement.

 Given the above, why not consider reducing the pitcher’s mound from 10 inches to 5 inches. The Atlantic League provides another option where it was decided the mound would be moved back 12 inches from home plate.  The result was fewer strike outs, more balls in play, higher batting averages, and more walks recorded.  Rather than move the pitcher’s mound 12 inches back from home plate, MLB might consider a smaller distance, such as 6 inches, so the mound would be 61 feet rather than 60 feet, 6 inches from the batter’s box.

In conclusion, I view the recent changes related to a player’s chance to challenge umpire calls along with increasing the tempo of   the game as positive ones.  However, I believe the current imbalance of pitchers dominating hitters needs to be addressed.  I have proposed two possible revisions in baseball to aid batters in confronting pitchers:  1) Lower the pitching options would increase fan interest by adding excitement to the game.  mound or 2) Move the pitching mound back 6 inches away from home plate.  I believe employing either of these two options would increase fan enthusiasm and add excitement to the game.

War in Iran

Lisa and I just finished reading The Pursuit of Happiness by Jeffrey Rosen.  The book discusses where the founders of America obtained the knowledge to create the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.   Most important was the manner in which they went about their everyday lives in pursuing what they considered virtue rather than pleasure in guiding their political decisions and the institutions that they built.  They learned many of their ideas by reading stoic philosophers in addition to more modern philosophers such as John Locke and David Hume.

 President Washington provides one of the best examples of how they applied this idea in their everyday lives.  Washington embodied republican virtue that modeled restraint, duty, and public service.  Although Washington had been known to have a temper, he understood that letting his anger control his emotions was not a suitable way of leadership.  As opposed to other heads of state, Washington had no interest in being president of the United States for more than two terms.  Washington set the stage for his successors by employing the power granted in his role as president for the good of the people and not for his family or for himself.

During the President Trump’s first term in the White House, I read an article in the Wall Street Journal outlining the way he went about making decisions when he was becoming a real estate mogul.  His style of decision making was based more on instinct than deliberate thinking.  The type of behavior is the antithesis of the stoic template embraced by the founders who understood the importance of restraints and moderation.  They recognized that these latter characteristics needed to dominate their way of thinking rather than decisions coming from their impulses that might result in unplanned and unruly consequences.

One current example of “unruly consequences” is the manner in which President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu initiated attacking Iran.l  Trump may have believed that the ease and rapidity with which he went into Venezuela and captured Nicholás Maduro would be similar to his ridding Iran of Ayatollah Ali Khomenei.  Although Israeli and American forces successfully assassinated the Irani leader, Iran’s dictatorial government did not vanish.  Rather, it appeared that the Irani leadership hardened becoming more rigid and ironbound tightening its hold on dissidents.   But the bigger surprise to both Trump and Netanyahu came when Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz not permitting any ships delivering oil to pass through.  Because oil carried through this Strait represents 20% of the world’s oil, this has caused a lot of pain to the many countries supplied by this oil.  Although the United States produces its own oil, Americans have seen the price of gasoline going up significantly caused by Iran’s power to close the Strait of Hormuz to vessels carrying oil.  This has resulted in an increase in inflation that has affected the pocketbooks of American consumers.

The global crisis that the Iranians have caused by closing off the Strait of Hormuz affects Europe in an even greater way because before the conflict, EU countries were already grappling with high energy costs and declining industrial competitiveness. The bloc’s energy system will become more vulnerable with the price spikes resulting in the fuel shortages.  

Thomas Friedman, columnist for the New York Times and no-Trump fan, recently published an editorial:  NATO, Please Help.  Trump Has No Strategy for Iran.  Friedman points out he understands both Europe’s resistance in assisting in a war they had no part in initiating, and the fact that Trump has not been particularly helpful in supporting NATO against Putin.  I agree with Friedman in seeking European assistance in view of the fact that the whole Western alliance is in dire “straits” due to Iran’s actions.  Furthermore, In ignoring Trump’s pleas for help, I believe European leaders are cutting their nose off to spite their face.  This lack of unity in the West occurred because of Trump’s egoistical views of himself in the world.  They have caused a rupture in the alliance that the United States has had with its Western allies.  But whereas Trump is both pompous and a fool, Iran’s leadership is repressive and evil.  I ask you, Europe, put away your anger and hurt you have toward Trump and do what’s right for both you and the world.

.

      On Antisemitism

My wife, Lisa, and I recently saw, Giant, a play on Broadway, featuring John Lithgow, the American actor, playing Roald Dahl, the truculent children’s book author from Great Britain.  We had previously seen Lithgow recite by heart some stories by Ring Lardner while playing the roles of the characters in each story.  Quite a performance.  Lithgow performed admirably as the embittered Dahl adapting a British accent in playing this part.

The core of the play, written by Mark Rosenblatt, was an event that took place in August of 1983, when Dahl wrote a book review in reference to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon saying the following: “Never before in the history of man has a race of people switched so rapidly from being much-pitied victims to barbarous murderers.” Subsequently, he underscored his comments in an interview with Michael Coren of the New Statesman when he stated: “I mean, there’s always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere, even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on Jews for no reason.”  Despite the fact that Dahl never apologized for his antisemitic comments, his books sold millions of copies during his lifetime.

  In approaching the age-old problem of antisemitism, I have begun my discussion with Dahl to illustrate the complexity of this issue.  Dahl was in Britain’s Royal Air Force during World War II, had been married to the American actress, Patricia Neal, and had found fame and success as a story book writer for children.  He was educated and quite bright so why did a man of such background become not only anti-Israeli, but also by his own admission, antisemitic?

Of course, Dahl is only one person so he represents a mere microcosm to the vaster popular antisemitic tropes heard with much greater intensity presently.   Much of the current anger toward Jewish people started after October 7, 2023 when Hamas led an attack on Israel killing 1200 people and took around 252 hostages into the Gaza Strip.  This act resulted in subsequent bombings by Israel in an attempt to destroy Hamas.  What everyone was seeing on their television screens, however, appeared to be the deaths of many Palestinian civilians with little accounting of how successful Israel had been in wiping out Hamas.  The repeated broadcasts of Israel’s bombing the Gaza Strip resulted in world outrage and condemnation of Israel.

Particularly painful for many Jews like myself was that former progressive groups that many Jewish people had supported were now condemning Israel’s actions.  Younger people, such as college students, were chanting: “Free Palestine from the river to the sea.”   The meaning of this, whether understood or not by those that shouted it, meant abolish Israel as the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea are the geographic locations encompassing Israel.  The irony of this, as I pointed out in an earlier blog, is that Israel more than any other country in the Mid-East treats women with respect and does not persecute those that people that are not heterosexual.  Suddenly, Israel along with being Jewish no longer received the support of young people that could be classified as progressives.

Although President Trump is not an antisemite, a reaction to his refusal to accept the election results of 2020 when he was defeated by President Biden, spawned conspiracy theories that some of his past followers have integrated into their thinking.  Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes and Candace Owens are some high-profile people that have taken on far Right positions with their commonality being in denigrating Jews.  Many influencers of their ilk without any evidence to support their claim, believe that Jews were responsible for the murder of Charlie Kirk.  The consequence of all this is that both extremes of the Left and Right, although polar opposites, have come down strongly against Jewish people.

When it comes to antisemitism, social media has added gasoline to the fire spreading messages to their followers that don’t have a vestige of truth.  Podcasts say all sorts of things such as the Old Testament is about genocide and violence.  But going beyond social media, according to Yoram Hazony, in an interview with the American author and columnist, Ross Douthat, enlightened rationalists have dropped God and tradition that represent particularism.  They oppose the Jewish Bible in seeking out a universal truth that is accessible to everybody.

The distinction between being critical of Israel and being an antisemite is one of utmost importance.  Jews in both America and Israel are critical of the manner by which Benjamin Netanyahu is leading the Israeli government.  The view of Jewish congregations toward the conduct of Israel has been polarized pretty much throughout America.  I have witnessed this with my own two eyes.  But though many may detest Israel’s behavior, for the most part, they have not forsaken this Jewish Homeland.  But the reaction to these people is similar to Roald Dahl when he claimed to not only hate Israel but also to be an antisemite.  Here the disdain for a Jewish State, as manifested by Zionism, extends to anyone of the Jewish faith.  If one disagrees with Trump like so many do, that does not make that individual an anti-American.  Foreigners that dislike the way Trump is running the American government would be foolhardy if they were to hate all Americans.  But somehow that same type of judgment has created ill feelings by many, both from the political left and right, toward Jews.  Consequently, in various places from in the Western world, there have been attacks on individual Jews or their temples.  Unfortunately, this ubiquitous atmosphere of hate toward anyone calling him/herself a Jew has necessitated congregations in hiring security to protect the real possibility of an attack.  Those that belong to temples have incurred an additional expense, that of security, as part of their membership to these houses of prayer.

In his interview with Douthat, Hazony saw antisemitism is much more far reaching than Israel’s battles with its neighbors.  Hazony stated that antisemitism runs far deeper than foreign policy. Rather, foreign policy is one of the tools that antisemites employ to denounce those of the Jewish faith.  He told Douthat that a small group of people with a lot more influence than their numbers would indicate is an irritant to many people.   Foreign policy may have ignited the smoldering hot ashes but those ashes were there prior to the attack by Hamas that precipitated Israel’s reaction.  

Perhaps most disturbing about antisemitism is that it comes from both those that are educated as well as those that are not.  Mr. Dahl represented the educated when he made his disparaging remarks about Jewish people.  It did not appear to matter to Dahl that his British publisher, Tom Maschler, was the child of Holocaust survivors.  A recent article in the New York Times, pointed out that Jewish officials, whether supportive of Israel or not, throughout America have been confronted with a wave of antagonism.  Unfortunately, as the Times article stated:  “For some, the line between anti-Israel protest and antisemitism feels increasingly blurred.”

Childhood Play

To my delight, upon shopping for a toy for my grandson, Noah Bernard, who just turned 2 years old, I discovered several board games for children.  In locating the game, Candy Land, the cover indicated it was for children 3 years and over.  But because Noah already shows signs of being gifted, I believe he will be playing the game before his next birthday.  As a very young child, I have fond memories playing Candy Land with my brothers.

 I recently read an article in the New York Times about the woman, Eleanor Abbott, who created the game.  Ms. Abbott was among the many who were afflicted with the disease of polio when it hit the city of San Diego in 1948.  While recuperating in the hospital that year, she observed the many sad faced children who had been stricken with the same illness.  The sight of these children motivated Ms. Abbott to design a game in 1948 that would bring the joys of childhood into their homes.  The rules of the game were quite simple:  There was a trail of colored spaces leading to the end of the path with a picture of a Candy Castle.  A player would draw a color-coded card from the deck and then move to the nearest space matching that same color.  There were sweet stopping points:  Peppermint Stick Forest, Gingerbread Plum Tree and Gum Drop Mountain.  If a player drew one of those pictured cards, she would advance her piece to the space marked by the picture.  As a young child playing the game, the candied path of this game remains etched in my mind

Ms. Abbott created the game for young children that did not know how to read or juggle with numbers.  All they had to do was match the color of the card they drew with the nearest space on the board with that same color.  Because Noah already not only understands the difference in colors but can also name the different colors, I am confident that he will soon be an expert in playing Candy Land.  I am happy to say, not only for the sake of children like Noah and myself, but also for Ms. Abbott, who received handsome royalties when the game of Candy Land gained the novelty of television advertising to become wildly popular in the market of children’s toys and games.

As Noah becomes older, I hope to instill in him the great fun I had as a child playing other board games such checkers, chess, monopoly, clue and scrabble with my brothers and friends.  I hope Noah will be able to enjoy these games in the company of his peers in the future.  Playing games like these teaches young people how to socialize with their peers along with learning to follow the rules and regulations that are a part of any organized play.  The social skills developed by children in participating in activities that require engagement with their siblings and friends are invaluable to their upbringing.  When they are in front of a board game, children need not obsess with an iPhone or iPad.

  Groupthink

My colleague and friend, Chuck Sooter, asked me to write a blog about Groupthink.  Because I consider this both a most important and relevant topic of discussion today, I agreed to do it.  Noting the origin of the term, it was first used by William H. Whye Jr., the author of The Organization Man, who coined the term “groupthink” in a 1952 Fortune magazine article to describe a “rationalized conformity” in corporate and government decision-making.  Subsequently, Irvin Janis popularized the term in 1972 in an article appearing in Psychology Today when he analyzed past foreign policy disasters.

Both Whyte and Janis borrowed the term from George Orwell, who first used the term “doublethink” in his classic work, 1984, that was published in 1949.  Doublethink maintained the dictatorship, described in 1984, by forcing party members to believe in opposing ideas and accept them both as true.   Groupthink pressures people to suppress doubts and align with group members even when the group’s position may not be rational and unable to support the extant data.

Well before the term groupthink existed, Abraham Lincoln, as president of the United States, understood the peril of homogenous thinking underpinning excessive loyalty.  Lincoln recognized the danger of advisors echoing their leader resulting in decision-making without dissent.  In her book, Team of Rivals, Doris Kearns Goodwin points out how Lincoln intentionally appointed cabinet members who openly disagreed with him.  In this context, Lincoln encouraged debate rather than unilateral support of an idea a cabinet member may have  had.  Lincoln could do this because he was secure enough within himself to accept criticism.

The problems inherent in groupthink manifested themselves when President Kennedy, who had maintained past President Eisenhower’s military advisors, led him astray into the Bay of Pigs disaster in Cuba.  It became obvious that the mission with its potential disastrous consequences was not addressed.  The Cuban expatriates were left hanging with no support when U.S.  forces abandoned them.  The Bay of Pigs fiasco has been attributed to groupthink insofar as all of Kennedy’s advisors saw the Cuban problem the same way without contemplating consequences.  

Kennedy changed his view of decision making when he took on advisors who no longer saw things alike but were able to discuss their differences.  Kennedy’s ear was open to alternative approaches.  This tactical way of seeing problematic issues helped him make what subsequently was seen as the right move in the Cuban missile crisis that occurred later.  His confrontation with Khrushchev, in 1962, forced the latter to remove his missile bases, an existential threat to the United States, from Cuba.  Because I lived through the intense nerve ending of this period, I very much remember those scary days when we were all seating at the edge of our seats awaiting a tragedy.  Because Kennedy had the wherewithal to no longer employ likeminded advisors, what could have been a disaster was averted.  

Of the many flaws Trump has, I believe the most serious one is the way in which his advisors act as followers in placating him rather than, on occasion, disagreeing with his intuitions.  He chose cabinet members, not by looking at their competence, but rather by seeing whether they agreed with the views he held on to various issues.  This has created the confirmation bias Trump has had in his decision-making that has disallowed the give and take of further rational discussion. Listening to people that agree with you rarely leads to a thoughtful analysis of worldly issues related to the complicated issues of governance.    If this is how Trump made his decision when Netanyahu and he initiated war against Iran, let us hope and pray that the fragile situation in the Mid-East does not unravel and worsen. 

Apparently, unlike Lincoln and Kennedy, who were secure enough within themselves to accept criticism, Trump does not appear able to accept rebuttals, and that can result in unexamined alternatives that can lead to unintended  consequences.

The Contagia of Social Media

When I was teaching psychology in Bangkok, Thailand over 10 years ago, I attended a classical concert there.  Before the show I purchased some food at a café inside the concert hall.  To my surprise I observed several couples more engrossed with their cell phones paying little attention to whomever may have been their partner.  The smart phone. along with its extensive overuse, had spread to Asia.

The smart phone and social media are the consequences of the progress in technology.  Most products of technology have benefited us all.  Everyday life would not be the same if we were without electricity or automobiles at our disposal, once the case over a few centuries ago.  But unbridled use of technological innovations, such as the smart phone and social media, can lead to deleterious outcomes.  Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist and professor at NYU’s Stern School of Business, has conducted several studies that have shown the ill effects of social media on Generation Z (Gen Z), the age cohort born between 1997 and 2012.  Social media, such as TikTok and Instagram, emerged around 2010 when those born during that time frame became adolescents.

Haidt’s investigations have shown an increase in anxiety, depression and social withdrawn, first in 2010, with this trend continuing in subsequent years.  Some critics of his research have complained that he is merely showing a correlation between the increase in mental health issues and the onset of social media.  However, his studies have revealed that other age cohorts have not manifested this sudden increase in psychiatric symptoms.  Moreover, the data Haidt displays in his book illustrate a sudden precipitous rise of these symptoms in the year 2010 and afterwards.  He has done multiple studies of different groups and different locations with similar results that suggest the widespread nature of the negative impact of social media on teenagers.

Haidt’s work has demonstrated how female adolescents, especially, can suffer from social media when they compare their looks to other females their age that have posted photos on these platforms.  There is a self-imposed competition these adolescent females engage in based on physical appearance.  Often these teenagers do not realize that their peers “doctor” their photos to falsely improve their appearance.  Young females are more conscious of the way they appear vis-á-vis their peers than male teenagers are. This leaves them more susceptible to this type of disinformation often found on algorithmic social media.

Attempts to mitigate the ill effects of social media are now being considered in the United States and other countries.  Australia already has enacted a law disallowing youth under the age of 16 from creating or keeping an account with social media.  This is probably not a coincidence in that this is the same age suggested by Haidt to prohibit the use of social media by youth.  America, unlike Australia, has not enacted national laws forbidding the use of social media by adolescents until they reach a certain age in part due to the 1st Amendment.  This Amendment prohibits government from censorship; also limiting the federal government’s reach on this matter is the   propensity to allow individual states to make these decisions on their own.  Accordingly, with the help of parental backing, different states have begun to adopt measures limiting social media use to adolescents in educational settings.  Thirty-five states have implemented smart phone bans in schools with some of these schools not allowing students to have access to their smart phones the entire school day. 

The rate of change caused by technology has never been as fast as it is currently.  The advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI) will only accelerate the rate of change societies will face throughout the world.  This is why it is imperative that the leaders of these countries begin to address the consequences of AI before it becomes a technology gone amok.  We waited too long to rein in social media.   Hopefully, we will not make the same mistake with AI, a technology that can offer a vast amount of improvement in our daily lives but also has the potential to be ruinous. 

Two Pieces:  Fiction and Non-Fiction

My wife, Lisa, and I recently returned from a most relaxing vacation at Kona, Hawaii (the big island).  My goal on that trip was simply to take in the fresh air, swim and catch-up on reading the many back issues of the New Yorker, I had yet to peruse.  For those not familiar with the New Yorker magazine its content consists of interesting essays regarding people or places, a few poems and one short story by young and old writers who have successfully published their work.  The length of all this content often comes to about 100 pages with the essayists all being skilled at the craft of writing.

Of the many essays and short stories I read, I would like to share two of those that really stuck out in my mind.  The first, a fictional piece called Jubilee by Jhumpa Lahiri, a female author born in Bengal but raised for the most part of her life in America.  Short stories in the New Yorker ordinarily represent a slice of life that end elliptically often leaving the reader, somewhat puzzled, wondering where the story will go next.  As the story unfolds, the author’s captivating prose takes you inside the mind of the protagonist whetting your appetite for more when suddenly, almost unexpectedly, the story concludes. At times, I have found the lack of a clear-cut ending where there is no closure to be quite frustrating.  However, I continue to read these stories more for the beauty of the language than for receiving the satisfaction of a completed tale.  After I have finished stories of this nature, they are quickly put out of mind with little memory retention. 

But on occasion, I may find myself reading a story that has a more typical structure of a beginning and ending.  Jubilee by Jhumpa Lahiri fits this description.  This story, semi-autobiographic, is narrated from the perspective of a 10-year-old Bengali girl growing up in London who comes from an Indian family who have immigrated from India.  One feels the author’s struggle to navigate her outside world of British culture with its concomitant rituals along with the world of her parents’ Bengali customs, language, and expectations.  She remembers feeling both included and excluded in a celebratory event occurring in London.  Later in her life, she reflects on this year in her life when she sees more clearly the issues, especially, that of her mother had to face with the hardened paternal customs of her native culture vis-à-vis life in London.  This then is a coming-of-age story when a young girl begins to recognize what it means to be a female migrant dislocated from her native culture trying to adapt to an entirely novel way of living.

A Family Doctor’s Search for Salvation,written by Joshua Rothman,is the second piece, a non-fiction essay, I wish to discuss.  Reading this story brought tears to my eyes.  It tells of a pediatrician, Greg Gulbransen, who accidentally killed his son by running him over in his driveway.  Rather, then taking time off at the suggestion of his colleagues, he immediately returned to his heavy case load attending to his patients and their families.  It was not paranoia when he said: “Everyone was watching me.  I was the most watched person ever—a pediatrician who backed over his own kid.”  I cannot imagine a fate much worse than that of a parent accidentally ending the life of his/her own child.  Parents (and I have personally known some) have an inordinate amount of difficulty recovering from the premature death of a child but what Greg Gulbransen suffered from was far worse.

Indeed, he sought professional help with his therapist pointing out to him that it is impossible to control every event in one’s life.  But even this knowledge could not alter the fact that it was he, and not someone else, behind the wheel that killed his son.  The psychic pain that Dr. Gulbransen faced may have destroyed many an individual. It had been rumored by some of his colleagues at the hospitals, where he consulted, that he might take his own life.   On the contrary, his reaction to this catastrophic event in his life resulted in his taking on the enormous project of reducing the pain and suffering of those beyond his work.  This was in addition to his own practice that he diligently kept and pursued.  He became involved at Mott Haven Houses in the Bronx where he brought his skills as a human first, and second as a physician, to help drug addicts.  The people he saw were hanging on to life by a thread many of whom had overdosed and barely survived.  He brought them food, assisted in their medical care and did whatever was needed to keep them alive.  But he was not just performing these benevolent acts unreciprocated.  Although the people he assisted could not reimburse him for his services, he needed these people he helped for his own healing.  There was a mutuality he felt in their stories that would become a part of his own.

When the news would cite a medical emergency in other communities, often he would make the time to reduce the suffering of those in need.  He rarely went on vacation working ceaselessly during the week.  But somehow, he thrived on his contribution he made to those he assisted.  As he put it, “I wanted to show Scott and Julia (his children) how, when the shit hits the fan, you behave like This.” 

Greg Gulbransen’s goodness was not part of a system or religion but rather was personal and even arbitrary.  They say that sometimes good can come from the bad.  This couldn’t be truer than in the case of Dr. Gulbransen.  Rather than succumb to a tragic event in his life, he fortified his existence in caring for those in dire need of help, perhaps experiencing the flow that athletes have described at the peak of their skills.  Dr. Gulbransen’s resilience and acts of goodness allowed him to overcome his grief and make the world a better place.

Spike Lee Does the Right Thing

This past Monday we all took some time off to celebrate the great black leader, Martin Luther King Jr.  One of the many gems in Reverend King’s speeches was: “It is not a sign of weakness, but a sign of high maturity, to rise to the level of self-criticism.”  As Robert L. Woodson, an American civil rights activist, recently pointed out in an article in the Wall Street Journal, it is sometimes necessary for leaders to confront the enemy within.  He goes on to say that black families have suffered from the moral decay so essential to their well-being.

Like Mahatma Ghandi in India, Martin Luther King Jr. did not advocate violence but rather non-violence as a means of social protest.  Roland Fryer, a black economist and professor at Harvard University, has written that Reverend King understood some black protests to have been rooted in violence.  Reverend King claimed violence, as a means of protest, would alienate many white people from supporting black causes such as civil rights.  Years ago, I remember, a woman that was dating a friend of mine comment on a black protest that turned into violence and mayhem in the Los Angeles area.  Her reaction to the violence was: “I really am giving up on black causes.”  It is important to realize that this woman was neither a racist nor a segregationist.  The destruction done to communities in and around Los Angeles televised throughout the country apparently had made her uneasy and uncertain about protesters’ aims.

Fryer, in his column, addressed the brilliance of Martin Luther King Jr, in his employing a non-violent means of protest, to change public opinion.  The underlying point is that non-violent protest showed a Democratic increase in support of civil-rights protests in the 1960’s.  However, violent protests had had the opposite effect precipitating media coverage to “law and order” candidates typically from the Republican party.  Accordingly, Martin Luther King Jr. had the insight and wisdom to understand the forces behind behavior change that would have a positive influence on the American public.

Spike Lee’s latest film, “Highest 2 Lowest,” points to a healthy evolution in his role as a director.  Lee never has been shy about highlighting the impact of societal racial issues at the root of the problems blacks face in their everyday lives.  For example, his film, Jungle Fever, demonstrated quite clearly the negative social impact of interracial dating had on the couple depicted in that picture.  The movie reminded us of the theme in the play, Romeo and Juliet, and the very well received theatrical and subsequent movie release of West Side Story.  The theme to all three of these works was the insurmountable barrier that confronts couples in love when they come from different ethnic and cultural groups.  Eventually the couple represented in Spike Lee’s film, a male black architect and an Italian American woman, are overwhelmed by the societal and personal tensions they experience during their relationship.

Lee’s film, Malcolm X, was both an accurate and wonderful portrayal of Malcolm X’s life as depicted in his autobiography, coauthored by Alex Haley.  The destructive racial outbursts Malcolm X had to bear are graphically shown in Spike Lee’s movie.  The impact of these abuses on his life and, the struggle he countenanced in raising himself above the violence of the racial oppression he was exposed to are central to Malcom X’s story.  One can begin to understand Malcolm X’s hostile reactions to white society by knowing that two of his early childhood homes were burned down by white supremacists.

Lee’s underscoring of racial issues came to a head in his film:  Do the Right Thing.  In this picture, Lee’s message to the public appeared to be that black outrage and violence were the only ways of dealing with the racial oppression that confront so many Afro-Americans.  The script title, Do the Right Thing, gave substance and meaning to blacks fighting back with violence to correct the injustice and violence brought on by white hatred toward them.

Lee’s latest work Highest 2 Lowest, a screenplay he adapted from an earlier film, High and Low, made by the famous Japanese director, Akira Kurosawa, offers a more complex view of what it means to be an Afro-American.  The protagonist in this film is Denzel Washington, who gave an unforgettable performance as Malcolm X in Lee’s earlier movie.  The two of these men, as they did earlier, appear to reinforce each other’s greatness in movie making.  Rather than give the plot away spoiling a movie well worth seeing for those who have yet to view it, I will discuss some of the underlying themes that emerge in this film.

Inasmuch as the film’s cast is almost entirely that of black actors, racial oppression by white society is no longer the core of Highest 2 Lowest.   Rather it deals more with class conflict and the moral pressures amongst Afro-Americans in vying for success and fame.  In the movie, Denzel Washington plays a successful entrepreneur of music, the Highest, while ASAP Rocky, is a rap singer, the Lowest, that kidnaps the best friend of Washington’s son.  His purpose is to make Washington pay a ransom if he wishes the safe return of this boy.

Unlike the Kurosawa film, Denzel Washington, and not the police or legal authorities, is central in bringing home justice.  The two of them participate in a confrontation where rap takes the forestage (ASAP Rocky, among other things, is a rapper in real life).  During their clash, Washington pleads with ASAP Rocky not to go down the same road as his wayward father.  Here Lee is focusing on the issue so many blacks face when their father goes astray, a problem he never had to face because he was raised in an intact family in Brooklyn by both parents. 

Washington has likewise pointed to the importance of intact families being a huge asset in the raising of our children and how often, the black father is absent.  He has been quoted in saying the following: “If the father is not in the home, the boy will find a father in the streets.  If the streets raise you, then the judge becomes your mother and prison becomes your home.”

In Highest 2 Lowest, Lee has gone beyond racial oppression in addressing some of the problems that exist within black society.  Some film critics have viewed Lee’s movie as a shift to a more conservative stance insofar as the external societal oppressors of what progressives’ label as systemic racism is not a primary feature of this film.  I think they are mistaken in putting a political label on Lee’s work.  A more accurate perception of Highest 2 Lowest is that the film concentrates more on problems within the black culture as opposed to outside forces.  In this sense, Lee is following the advice of Martin Luther King Jr. who pointed to the value of self-criticism, a viewpoint most difficult to adhere to when discussing one’s own race, ethnic group or culture.  The black community has looked up to Spike Lee, as a most successful Afro-American director, who has not been influenced by outside societal forces.  I hope they, as well as the rest of us, take the time to see this most noteworthy movie.

O. Henry’s Gift to Us

The recent column by David Brooks in the New York Times, We’re Living Through the Great Detachment, somberly details the falling out of love among our youth.  A comparison from the 1980s to the 2020s shows fewer high school students dating than previously with current marriage rates hovering at an all-time low. According to the data he presents, Brooks arrives at the sad fact that Americans are experiencing less love now than in earlier times.  He concludes that “to be loveless is to be on autopilot and disengaged from life.”

The enduring popularity of O. Henry’s short story, The Gift of the Magi, a love story written in 1905, would appear to be at odds with the above observations that Brooks makes.  O. Henry’s story title frames it as if its underlying theme is a religious one.  The Gift of the Magi alludes to the three wise men that play a part in the nativity scene by travelling hundreds of miles to present the infant Jesus with gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.  Although the time of the story is Christmas Eve, the plot centers around the deep love that a young couple feels toward one another.  In my discussion of this very beautiful tale, I will be sure not to let any spoilers slip in.  Many of you, my readers, I am sure are familiar with the story.  For those that have never read it, I highly recommend you take a break from your schedule and peruse it. 

The story is considered one of O. Henry’s best because it has a universal appeal in which most readers can identify.  The love and affection reflected by the couple probably has been experienced by most of us.  I hope those who have never felt this way, at some point in their life’s journey, can experience it.  It is such a strong feeling that it may render a change in the way you see your life in relation to the everyday tasks of living.

It is the way O. Henry spins this tale that makes it so unforgettable.  It is told through the eyes of the omniscient third person narrator with little dialogue or conversation between the young couple until the end.  This narrative sets the tone and captures the reader’s attention to the description depicted of each partner’s desire to bring happiness to the other.  But both have a dilemma, the story’s opening sentence: “one dollar and eighty-seven cents.” That is all Della, the wife, has to buy her beloved husband, Jim, a Christmas present.  She sits on the “shabby little couch” in her apartment teary eyed, weeping not knowing what to do.

When Della looks out the window, suddenly, she realizes what   she needs to do, and when she does, O. Henry lets the reader see Della’s facial expression change from gloom to a “brilliant spark in her eyes.”  I cannot go further without revealing the plot containing the ironic twist so much a part of O. Henry’s style.  Much like Hemingway, every word in the story is necessary with no need for extra words or phrases.

Artificial intelligence has the capability of beating the best chess players in the world along with doing many other things such as writing essays for college students.  But the regurgitation of all human knowledge, the base of AI, is not equal to the creative impulse of a skilled writer such as O. Henry.  My bet is any attempt at a reproduction of The Gift of the Magi by AI would result in an inferior product.  That said those of who have never read this story, read it, and enjoy it as a most pleasurable gift O. Henry has given you.