Point and Circumference ~ Kippat Binah

Lost causes are the baby of the Syndrome Individual. By definition they are unattainable. It follows that if they are attained, the individual is in for a lot of real honor. It is not accidental that people who work on Nobel Prize projects can stand a lot of frustration over long years. Crick, in his What Mad Pursuit, addresses the problem. The Syndrome Individual courts failure when he pursues lost causes.

The chances of success as far as lost causes go fall in the area of Statistical Alpha; actually they are almost nil. On the other hand, there is no blame attached if the goal is not attained.

We know that the really successful people work within the middle range of the risk-taking curve.

Documentary Victory can be most important to the Dr. Fitterman Syndrome Individual. If he cannot be successful, he can, however, be right. Put differently, success is not his forte — but he receives a lot of satisfaction from being in the right. JUSTICE is involved, and JUSTICE is on his side. Documentary Victory is winning the battle, as far as Justice is concerned.

The sequence of Documentary Victory goes somewhat like this: I do all you tell me in order to succeed. I tell you beforehand that this course of action cannot be successful. The course of action is not successful. I have gained a Documentary Victory. Sometimes a trifling event can suffice to trigger this reaction. If the Dr. Fitterman Syndrome Individual just feels that the way suggested by the other is simply wrong, when things do in fact go wrong he gains the gratification of a Documentary Victory.

What is a Pragmatic Victory? I should like to clarify the distinction between a Documentary Victory and a Pragmatic Victory. A Pragmatic Victory is gaining what you were after. The size or importance of the object in question are immaterial.

Herbert Fensterheim, the co-author of the book Don't Say YES When You Want to Say NO,[1] brings a case of buying a drink in a cinema when this is not allowed. He narrates the story of how he managed to buy two drinks, which was all he wanted, and brought them back to his friends. The point, however, is that he did not show them to the bartender, the person who had told him it was forbidden. He was not interested in demonstrating to the bartender that he had outwitted him, or he would have lost the drinks. He was not interested in showing who was right. The two drinks were a Pragmatic Victory.

A Pragmatic Victory means that you have succeeded in a project, in obtaining a job, a Professorship, or a prestigious position, or even, to return to our example: two glasses of lemonade. The key word at the basis of a Pragmatic Victory is success.

A Documentary Victory requires much less work, thought, invention and exertion than a Pragmatic Victory.

A Pragmatic Victory is much harder to gain than a Documentary Victory. A Pragmatic Victory requires planning, the convergence of many factors and a great deal of work in order to turn a project into a fact. Sometimes, however, people who want a Documentary Victory — those touched by the Syndrome, and therefore unable to obtain the object of their will — put in as much real effort as possible in order to achieve at least a Documentary Victory. They are likely to leave no stone unturned, just in order to create an alibi, to escape the accusation that they did not do enough or did not sacrifice enough in order to gain their objective.

The compensations offered by Documentary Victory must be quite considerable to outweigh the real gratifications of a Pragmatic Victory, put differently, Pragmatic Success.

Obviously enough, this happens exclusively within the framework of the Dr. Fitterman Syndrome, which displays a severe prohibition to succeed combined with an inner weakness of character that might not have been part of the personality in the first place, and is probably no worse than an acquired characteristic, but once there, has become part and parcel of the personality.

Some brilliant diagnoses were his while he worked at the Chicago hospital. They were due partly to his non-conformist personality and partly to the different tools, to speak metaphorically, that he owned (previous studies of medicine at other Universities). Many times he found the right solutions to complicated medical problems. When the big bosses were at a loss, not knowing what to do, they frequently called in M.M. Fitterman.

The trouble with Chicago was that he had not yet received the MD and that was supposed to take another couple of years. During that time he earned no salary. He stayed with rich and devoted friends and was free, as far as he himself was concerned, from money problems.

Suddenly, when things all around were going well, he decided that he had to go home in order to support his family, a fatal mistake, made again and again. (The first time was when he left Basel University to go to the States.)

Actually there were no pressing money problems. The idea of earning a livelihood was basically sound but not urgent and could have easily waited a couple of years. It was not his burning problem. His burning problem was gaining the MD. Anyway, what sort of position was he likely to obtain without being a doctor?

The professor for whom he worked was astounded to hear that Fitterman expected to leave the Chicago hospital. He offered to pay this brilliant man a small monthly salary out of his own pocket. Dr. Fitterman did not accept this proposal. The friends with whom he was staying begged him not to leave. They loved him, as did most of the people whose acquaintance he made.

It should be pointed out that he simply flourished among the brilliant minds among whom he moved. This event in his life belongs formally with the Not-Completing-Projects symptom, but basically to his being forbidden to satisfy his Will, and gain his objective.

A great deal of pride justified by his talents, natural gifts and his learning was at the basis of his personality.

His pride was perhaps not easily perceived, but it was there. Since he was likely to be measured by his achievements, and as he never really held any important formal position or positions in the field of Medicine, he usually left a part of his field of specialization outside the ken of his non-intimate friends. He always had something in reserve to cling to, in order to insure his own worth in his own eyes. This extra expertise he was not going to expose, and thus invite criticism.

If his acquaintances had known of the "professions" that he mastered, they would have been likely to criticize him for not utilizing his professional knowledge properly. That's why he always left some of his accomplishments untold — as an inner reservoir of self esteem.

As a matter of fact, he was expert in several important fields of endeavor, each of which could have proven the basis of a successful academic career.

Practically speaking, the pride at the basis of his personality prevented him from accepting or persisting in work at a minor position like librarian at the Physics Library at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, while working on the chemistry project that Professor Adler had to offer him. (He held the position for about two months in the sixties – about 1965.)

By comparison, Professor Nathan Spiegel worked for years as a librarian at the History Library in the Hebrew University before he was given academic appointments. He came from Poland at 56 with the title professor and no Hebrew. Nathan Spiegel enriched the Hebrew bookcase with seventeen important books before he died at the age of 90. He left at death two further books that were already planned; on the first of which he was working. His motto, adopted from Latin tradition: "nulla dies sine linea" (“no day without a line” — i.e., without many lines).[2] He was also, unfortunately, the victim of Documentary Victory, a couple of days before his death. He said that he prefers to be doctored at his home, rather than go to the hospital, as he felt that if taken there, he would not return. But he was too weak to fight and insist on his own opinion.

Perhaps this is the place to inform the reader that M.M. Fitterman was appointed Chief Rabbi of Curacao, one of the Antille Islands, and held the position during the year 1967-68. His contract was till 1970 but he felt that intellectually this was a waste land and left after one year.

Following this successful year he went to the States and worked with Professor Bluepharb at the North Western University on skin cancer (melanoma). Professor Bluepharb hoped to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine for this research. M.M. Fitterman thought that he would need some sort of valid document. He devoted one year to writing a thesis in the realm of the History of Medicine at the Mid Western University and was awarded the Ph.D. in June 1969. A Ph.D. is regarded in medical circles as a very welcome and prestigious addition to the M.D.

It might be noted parenthetically that Francis Crick had not yet completed his doctorate at the time when together with James Watson he uncovered the structure of the DNA.[3]

As it happened, some other scientist forestalled Professor Bluepharb, who was unjustly suspected of appropriating the other doctor’s data. Following this debacle Dr. Fitterman obtained the position of Chief Rabbi of Argentina and served in this capacity for two years. On the theoretical level, this success will be dealt with below.

Curiosity, both scientific and personal, was a salient trait of M.M. Fitterman. Curiosity is one of the most powerful psychological drives that has put man on the moon and satellites in space in an unprecedented effort to know the secrets of the universe. It is this drive which is responsible for our preoccupation with science and research.

Curiosity about life and about people was an integral part of Dr. M.M. Fitterman's personality. He once remarked to me how much he was craving to arise from the dead 400 years hence in order to see Jerusalem, to see its new buildings and development. On a more realistic level, his burning curiosity brought him the inner life stories of the men and women with whom he came into contact and might have brought him the international fame that he desired if he had only followed the advice of the famous Hebrew poet Avraham Shlonsky (1900-1973) — recording and publishing his memoirs. It is obvious from his multi-faced career that writing came easily to him.

M.M. Fitterman's curiosity was spread over many fields of endeavor (Biochemistry, Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Talmud, Literature, People). This might have been a contributing factor in his not leaving his mark in any of them.

Dr. Fitterman's relations with people were very warm. He possessed an incredible insight of what happens in the life space of another. Everyone was for him a special personality, most interesting and worthwhile to listen to. (This was in no way a Dale Carnegie technique with Fitterman.)

Primacy Effect — first putting forward events in his life and the presentation of his personality, situation and aims, both long term and short term — worked wonders for M.M. Fitterman. The first impression Dr. Fitterman made was invariably extremely favorable. That was before people saw how he worked and how he did not realize his potential — without, of course, knowing the underlying cause. It was even accepted that the period of enchantment with his personality would not last more than six months. (Needless to say, not everyone followed this dismal prophecy.)

Generally speaking, Dr. Fitterman displayed a most positive approach to people. Everybody was charmed by his talk. His range of knowledge was extremely wide. With a poet, Dr. Esther Cameron, for instance, he talked with expertise on Pushkin and Mayakovsky.

It was the less strong, whether personally, or socio-economically, who found in him a firm friend. They did not require him to present formal achievements. His friendship wore the character of a confidante rather than that of the friend whom you are likely to consult in difficult situations, or who can give you good applicable advice on the spot. Rather, he could tell me twenty years after the event, the kind of approach I should have adopted at the time in order to get the right results. I believe that he could not give himself good advice when needed, and his insight after the event was as good as (or better than) my own could have been. But "why," I asked him, "didn't you tell me that at the time?" He had no answer.

His relations with women never went beyond sheer friendship. The furthest they got was their confiding in Dr. Fitterman their most personal secrets. Some of those were fellow students at the University of Basel, with whom (whether men or women) he kept up warm relations over the years.

He was religious, but once during the war while in dire need in Tashkent, he did not hesitate to approach prostitutes, not for their professional services, but for material help which he obtained. He stressed that they asked him to remember them "צום גוטען", as he put it "to the good".

M.M. Fitterman was a very good speaker with no fear of the public. He could talk extempore without a hitch and without preparation on any subject, whether scientific, medical, political, personal, general or specific. There were scientists, working at home, who were happy to stop their work when Dr. Fitterman arrived, in order to listen to him. As far as politics were concerned, if you wanted to know ahead of time what was going to happen, and how things were going to develop within the range of six months up to a year, you just had to listen to Fitterman. I asked him once how he managed to learn so much. Was it from "catching" things haphazardly, while seeing many important people, or attending significant events. Obviously he never missed an opportunity to talk with or see interesting people. He even got invited to an event with Albert Einstein, and he told us that Einstein was very depressed. This was after the Bomb. As far as learning was concerned, though, he assured me that it was not acquired accidentally, but during long nights of study. (This was confirmed by what we knew of his personal habits.)

Definite information which friends ask him to give them, he is not always willing to supply in full, or he does not give it at all. I should say that this trait belongs with his not acting in accordance with the wishes of the other.

But the second, apparently more important facet of his covert refusal to tell all he knows on the subject or all his listener is asking for, is to be found in his not wanting to be taken advantage of, to be "sucked dry" in the words of R.D. Laing (p. 88). Once when we were there for the Sabbath, he let drop (unwarily I should say) a remark concerning the ideological roots of a problem. I immediately understood what he was talking about. He, just as immediately, was sorry that the remark had escaped him, and refused to follow the subject. I let him stay with the satisfaction that he did not explain the subject, that he managed “to save” the explanation from being taken from him. This behavior was not accidental — it was normative with him.

The third facet of Fitterman's not giving information is the need to be needed. This behavior is not uniform in every field. If it is a question of research, he will let you know quite a bit, possibly because it flatters him that he is asked, that he is the expert. The joke is that it turns out that indeed he is an expert — and in one or two sentences can clarify an area — out of his “informal” expertise, that it takes to study an excellent book on the subject.

What was said of Richard Feynman, the Nobel Prize winner, that there are two ways of solving a problem; either you go to the library, or you go to Feynman, was just as true of Fitterman.

David Shapiro ascribes to the obsessive-compulsive’s attention “intense sharp focus.” [4] Apparently, memory depends on good encoding, paying sharp focused attention to the event. Decoding can be only as good as encoding. M.M. Fitterman, who possessed some of the obsessive-compulsive’s traits, is to be credited with as perfect a memory as possible.

He possessed an extraordinary memory and would repeat and describe any event that happened to him and that he remembered with extraordinary clarity and wealth of detail.

His stories usually gave inside details of events in his own life or in the lives of others. For example: In Switzerland he met a former governess of the children of the Royal Family in England. She recounted the ways in which the boys were educated. (I have a hunch that this kind of education was the basis of what William Golding did with the young prince in "The Scorpion God".[5]) She also told the story of what happened when Gromyko, the Russian foreign minister, conducted a conversation with Elizabeth II immediately after her coronation, a conversation in which she failed to give the required impression.

The intrinsic interest of the recounted events was another ingredient that made his narratives interesting. His being so well informed about details constituted an additional contributing factor.

As noted, his warm relations with people and his insatiable curiosity as to their intimate lives provided him with plenty of material. What happened to him personally was even more varied and interesting than what happened to others. Some of his own experiences, the dangers and suffering he had to go through and that he witnessed, were simply gruesome. He once remarked to me that it is as though he had lived 400 years. It was, he said, because of the war [World War II] that he came to know so many people. His knowledge, intelligence and analytic powers were such that whatever he recounted provided an illuminating insight.

When telling what happened to him or to others, he did not immediately come to the point. He told the specific event that he was narrating through an existentialist technique, so to speak, just as it happened, and no shortcuts.

Not coming to the point for as long as possible was in keeping with his relinquishing information in slow stages. Here again we discern the unwillingness to give, stressed by R.D. Laing. But with regard to telling a real-life story, this was his real strength. Furthermore, he never summarized a story. He let it happen before your eyes. If there were questions you wanted to ask, he was willing to answer them, but never before he had finished the main narrative. Things that he merely read about he recounted with as much pathos and understanding, as if those people were personal friends.

Avraham Shlonsky, the noted Hebrew poet, told him in the sixties that if he would just write down what happened to him, he would become the most famous prose writer in the world. It is quite obvious that Shlonsky was right. We should not forget for one moment, though, that success for M.M. Fitterman was the forbidden fruit.

Apart from this, I suspect that some of the traits of the obsessive compulsive must have co-existed alongside his other traits — and these compelled him to fulfill other obligations that were unimportant that appeared to him to be more urgent at the time than writing. But this only by way of an alibi. He simply could not do it, despite the ease with which he wrote. As Chief Rabbi of Argentina he published a monthly Bulletin and he wrote most of the articles. When he arrived in Israel in 1961 he was a correspondent for an Argentine newspaper in the Yiddish language.

From the theoretical point of view it can be argued that this behavior belongs with minimization. Really, however, the position is much worse. He does not use his potential in order to fulfill his emotional needs. Like Theodore Herzl he needs fame, if possible international fame. But the Hidden Blueprint thwarts him.

His erstwhile plan to gain international fame was to become a doctor, an M.D., and to find a cure for cancer. In practice he specialized in cancer research, especially melanoma, i.e. skin cancer. Dr. Fitterman, in the early seventies, worked in the cancer ward in Hadassah Tel-Aviv under Professor Stein. One patient, a prominent and rich person whom Dr. Fitterman was treating and whom he appreciated as a person, said to him once: “You have studied cancer for thirty years, and all they have taught you is to lie well.” Dr. Fitterman was trying to hide from him his real condition and give him some hope. Anyway, Dr. Fitterman’s expertise in cancer diagnosis was astounding. When in the Rambam Hospital in Haifa, doctors gave up on our close acquaintance, Dr. Fitterman ascribed the critical black spots to her age. His diagnosis — which proved correct — was based on the place in the x-ray picture where they were found.

Dr. M.M. Fitterman postpones doing required things. On the whole he is very active and energetic. But when it comes to doing what is required — then it is a different story. It is easy to understand why. Based upon this characteristic, the following theoretical considerations can be derived.

A. Doing the thing is going to be enjoyable, therefore he keeps it for the future as something good to be enjoyed in the future. He has few real satisfactions and this particular plum he keeps for the future. (The trouble is that postponing doing things gets the honey out of the action.)

B. Doing the thing promptly would be too much self-discipline. In fact, it would feel to him like submitting to someone else, and he has to keep his feeling of personal freedom intact as a reaction formation to killing Will.

Let us take a simple case about which we know enough. Someone put in a good word for him in order to get him a coveted job. Fitterman has already applied, though the outcome is still unsure. Fitterman as we know, is also a “simple” negativist. Now, if he says, "thank you" to his future benefactor (in case he is offered the job) the outcome is quite likely to be negative. (If he says that he will do it, he is bound not to do it.) Therefore, having probably some insight into the mechanism, he does not say "thank you" to the person involved, or he simply waits for a clear outcome. The outcome is not always as good as expected. Mostly it is not. There seems no point in thanking for something that hasn't materialized.

The next time he needs another recommendation from that person, he just cannot get it. His would-be benefactor has invested a lot of time, energy and most important, prestige, (it turned out that he recommended a most unsuitable person) with no visible results, not even a simple “thank you.” He refuses further involvement with Dr. Fitterman. Dr. Fitterman counters with a lot of bitterness and resentment.

Sometimes when he wants something very much, he just plays it cool and does not perform the necessary actions that would in a normal course of events without any “Jump” techniques (on which later) bring him the coveted object. He pretends to be indifferent and then fools himself that he does not mind. This would seem to be a reaction formation in the terms of Anna Freud. As noted in the chapter on Negativism, Sigmund Freud discerns a reaction formation through the sharpness and vehemence of the relevant characteristic.

Indifference — is a mask to hide his real feelings. Actually, he is most eager to receive this or that bonus, in his case, the MD. Put differently, indifference is a defense mechanism against straightforward grasping, against being swamped by desires that cannot always be immediately satisfied.

There are two approaches to work and M.M. Fitterman almost invariably chose one of them.

A histogram (widely used in economics) is a graphic presentation of data, displaying slow increases (or decreases) in a bricklaying fashion.

This model presents very fast radical changes. The two ways of doing things may best be explained through examples.

The bricklaying model may be likened to a savings plan. Every time you put in some money, the amount in the savings plan goes up. It is a sure thing. On the other hand, certain high-risk securities exemplify the Jump model.

Another example: writing a book. If you invest so-and-so many hours into writing — the book gets written. Every time you work on it, pages are added.

The Jump model, however, applies to getting the book published. Not every time you apply to a publisher, your book is accepted. Real success depends to a high degree on the Jump model — otherwise called luck.

The great advantage of the bricklaying model is that you get returns for your efforts. It works without exceptions. Working for a salary implies the bricklaying model. Working on a commission or being an entrepreneur, means using the Jump model.

A romantic person like Dr. Fitterman likes to invest most of his energy in the Jump model — which, it might be stressed, requires as much work (or more) as the bricklaying model.

Dr. Fitterman was the son of a basically Romantic culture, the Polish culture, with its irridenta longings, in contrast to the Jewish culture which is basically pragmatic. He was always hoping for something good to turn up to save him from being unknown and dying in obscurity.

It is enlightening to contrast M.M. Fitterman's use of the impulsive style with David Shapiro's Passive Impulsive Style.[6]

Shapiro is right when he ascribes the impulsive style to weak people. The people who just cannot come to a decision (see "Obsessive-Compulsive Style") find it easier to act on impulse (see p. 139).

Impulsive action frees the personality from inhibitions and from accumulating fears. According to Shapiro, the neurotic who has opted for the impulsive style “does not have an interest in satisfaction" (p. 142).

The Syndrome Individual does not have to posses all the features pointed out by David Shapiro in Impulsive Styles, but one thing is clear: He wants results fast. Therefore the impulsive action model suits his needs. He is tempted by opportunities that do not always really exist.

He is dominated by the "Saltus" model that ipso facto requires fast action to the detriment or complete exclusion of regular work. Still, Dr. M.M. Fitterman puts in a great deal of work of the histogram variety into the study of medicine. Even when ill in a hospital he studies medical books (alongside Jewish texts). But somehow it is not “it.” Not what is required when he is given a real chance in the sphere of medicine.

A related point: If the immediate opportunity does not materialize, time and effort are lost. The histogram model is neglected. In the long run we know that it is the histogram model, regular work, that brings in results. Even the "Jump model" must rest on the firm foundations of the histogram.

Let's take an example from the world of finance. In order to earn money on the stock exchange, you must have some money, some sort of nest egg, however small, that you accumulated prior to entering the stock exchange. Put differently, that you accumulated through histogram methods.

It appears to me that the Syndrome Individual was originally a strong character but his strength was gradually and successively attenuated. Its residue remains visible in a passively strong personality. What I mean is that he was always able to get up from the latest debacle and think out a new way that should lead to success. I would label this as a passively-strong personality.

Dr. Fitterman is basically a rebel. How else can his not preparing the relevant material for lessons — put differently, his not doing required homework on time while studying medicine in Switzerland — be explained?

He has to be a rebel. If he were not a rebel, he would not go and study medicine in the first place.

Since he wants to be a doctor and to study medicine, it is ipso facto forbidden to him.

The focal problem would seem to be how did the short-term-action, which David Shapiro ascribes to the impulsive style, develop in a Dr. Fitterman Syndrome person who is evidently an obsessive compulsive, generally speaking (if we make further use of Shapiro's categories).[7]

It appears to me that the great number of frustrations which the Syndrome Individual has to undergo — still coupled with his basic talent develops in him a signal lack of Tolerance for Ambiguity. Short term goals can be carried out easily. The point, however, is that they don't involve real planning or execution of plans for a career.

They obviate the problem of low-tolerance-for-ambiguity actions and they substitute unplanned action for planned. But this action scatters, rather than focuses the effort and results can hardly be those desired by the personality.

Occasionally anger can flare up out of the blue when M.M. Fitterman discussed the Academy (the universities) and government institutions or actions, without regard to what party is in power (never anything personal). Otherwise he is a sunny and charismatic character. People are happy to see him. The bookstore owner where he used to buy his books told me that he was a very open personality. He used to buy books on medicine and literature or intellectual stuff, “and it never went without a joke or some other pleasantry or story.”

Biorhythm

Dr. M.M. Fitterman is a night person. He studies at night. It might be argued that people feel more secure at night since there are no distracting tasks in view. Obviously, not everyone needs this sort of prop. This illustrates a basic insecurity at the bottom of the personality.

Those two characteristics, “Anger” and “Working at night,” are put under one heading because there is one underlying cause at the bottom: Anxiety. Anger inhibits anxiety; and a basic anxiety makes him work at night even during periods when there is no time pressure. For M.M. Fitterman working at night has nothing to do with a possible lack of time, but is dictated by the feeling of security that night offers.

There can be little doubt that Dr. Fitterman's decision making process was as bad as could have been expected.

The reason is probably simple. As the late Professor Yeshayahu Leibovitz used to say, "There is no such thing as 'the man was wounded in his leg.' A man is one organism, therefore we can only say, 'the man was wounded'."

If almost everything is wrong with the personality, why should decision making not go wrong, especially since decision making involves such crucial factors as knowing what you want and acting on it. Put differently: A good decision making process strives at optimization, after considering the various factors, the pros and cons, and the available possibilities and opportunities.

As E. Appelman puts it (in a different context): “Secure adults have an overall well-organized, unified principal system, which provides a consistent mechanism for information processing, with the ability to notice conflicting and incongruent attitudes and to discuss them coherently.” [8] M. M. Fitterman does not have such resources at his disposal.

The main factor to be considered, however, is the individual's Will (as far as compatible with existing environment). With Dr. Fitterman as well as with anybody else suffering from the Syndrome, it is just Will that is the crucial problem and the focal point of the Syndrome from which radiate all the symptoms. How could we ever believe that decision making can be normal, even concerning small neutral matters?

If Will, though still extant, be basically forbidden, it follows that the majority of decisions will be wrong and are made to spite his Will.

Let us take the example of Professor Shraga Abramson. He was also educated in the Novaredok Yeshiva. He told me that he gave Chaim Grade the details of life in a Yeshiva Ktana [a Yeshiva for the young] on which Chaim Grade based his description of life in the Novaredok Yeshiva in his book Zemach Atlas (originally subtitled The Yeshiva). The life story of Shraga Abramson is very different from that of Dr. Fitterman. Orphaned at five, the eldest of four boys, at the age of fourteen he was left in Poland by his mother who had to emigrate to the U.S. For a time the young Abramson worked part-time as a book binder. At nineteen he emigrated to Israel (then Palestine). He told me in detail the story of how he secured exemption from the Polish army (if mobilized, he would have lost three years). His approach in his interview with the officer in charge was frank and open. He explained that he had no future, no livelihood in Poland.

Eventually he became a respected Professor at the Hebrew University, a Department Head, a world renowned scholar in his field and the recipient of the Israel Prize twenty years before his death, at age 80. His field of scholarship? The Talmud, not out of his original orbit of knowledge.

The young Abramson was in a position where he could not play games with Documentary Victory. He had to be responsible. Later, his choice of area of studies was a maximization of what he already knew — a further enlargement and expansion of Yeshiva studies. With this choice, he hit the very middle of the risk-taking curve, which boils down to his taking no risks.

Dr. Fitterman’s first choice in pre World War II Poland was jurisprudence — as he told me. While he served in the army, however, he was wounded and must have been greatly impressed by the doctor's craft.

Still, in Russia in Ural at the Molotov University he studied Biochemistry, and Physics as a secondary adjacent subject; only later he decided to make the switch to medicine. Leaving Ural and Soviet Russia and departing for Poland after the end of World War II was certainly a very good decision, but it involved leaving behind unfinished studies.

He told me in the middle of the seventies when Jewish scientists from Russia started arriving in Israel, that he was asked by one of them, the sinologist Dr. Rubashov, a brother of the President of Israel, Zalman Shazar, whether he had already received his Nobel Prize for Biochemistry or Physics, as somehow in Russia they had missed this information. Professionally, Fitterman left behind him a promising career in Biochemistry and Physics.

In choosing Medicine he was taking risks if we consider the risk-taking curve. Nothing in his father's home or the Yeshiva studies had prepared him for this field of knowledge, but he felt free to choose whatever interested him. Again — basically a good decision. It is of interest to note here that the Roman Emperor Diocletanus (245-316) issued an edict to the effect that a son has to follow the profession of his father. The reason for this law was financial. If the profession remained the same for the son as for the father, it was easy to trace the people and to extort taxes. But the injury done to the individual, with the resulting stemming of individual talent and the harm to the development of society-at-large, is incalculable. I am not advocating this sort of thing. But practically speaking the son, or daughter, who follows parental footsteps is in for a lot of advantages. He/she is conversant, without investing any effort, with the topics that were discussed at home at the breakfast table and that lead to success in the profession (e.g., the case of President George Bush and his son the President George W. Bush). A novel field involves a lack of basic experience as to “the ropes.” M.M. Fitterman’s choice of a profession means a completely novel environment. He did not even have behind him biology lessons at high school, which he did not attend. The fact that he managed to pass the Polish matriculation (fairly stiff) after six months’ study does not equal six years’ exposure to biology studies. He was taking a maximal risk. Given his talents he might have flowered as a doctor and scientist were it not for the Hidden Blueprint. He had something of the genius about him.

[1] See Herbert Fensterheim and Jean Baer, Don't Say YES When You Want to Say NO (New York: Dell Publishing Co.) 1975.

[2] Yoram Bronovski, “No Day without a Line” [Ein Yom Beli Shurah], Tarbut Ve’Sifrut, Ha’aretz, 8 September 1995, p.8.

[3] James D. Watson, The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of the DNA, New York: W.W. Norton, 1980.[3]

[4] David Shapiro, Neurotic Styles (New York: Basic Books, 1966), p. 27.

[5] See William Golding, "The Scorpion God" in The Scorpion God: Three Short Novels. London: Faber & Faber, 1971.

[6] See David Shapiro, Chapter 5, “Impulsive Styles,” pp. 134-156.

⁶ See Shapiro, chapter 2, “Obsessive-Compulsive Style,” pp. 23-53.

⁷ Eva Appelman, Ph.D. “Attachment Experiences Transformed into Language,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 70 (2), April 2000.

Chapter V: BASIC PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DR. FITTERMAN AND THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Biorhythm

Dr. M.M. Fitterman is a night person. He studies at night. It might be argued that people feel more secure at night since there are no distracting tasks in view. Obviously, not everyone needs this sort of prop. This illustrates a basic insecurity at the bottom of the personality.