Author Archives: Tin Man

iPad

Posted on by

On Sunday I finally gave in and bought an iPad.

I’d been thinking about it for almost a year. Since my iPhone has retina display, I knew I didn’t want an iPad until it had retina display as well. So when the new one finally came out a couple of months ago, I realized I no longer had an excuse not to buy one.

But I still waited — one, because I like to let other people be the guinea pigs when it comes to new products in case there are any glitches; two, because after the initial launch, I wanted to wait until they were back in stores so I could get the instant gratification of buying one and bringing it home…

And three, because of this nagging feeling that I didn’t really need one.

See, even though the iPad is just so cool, and even though I’d played with other people’s iPads before, I just didn’t know what I would actually use it for. What could I do with it that I couldn’t already do with my iPhone? How could I justify spending all that money?

I knew I wouldn’t be reading books on it; that’s what my Kindle is for. One thing I love about the Kindle is that it’s not backlit. I don’t like staring at a backlit screen for too long, especially right before I go to bed; I deal with occasional insomnia, so staring at a big glossy screen late at night is something I try to avoid. And the size and weight of my Kindle make it perfect for my long train commute to work and for reading on the subway.

Also because of my sleeping issues, I don’t like to hang out in bed if I’m not actually planning to go to sleep. So I wouldn’t want to wake up in the morning and instinctively grab my iPad from the nightstand and start distracting myself with it. If I’m ready to wake up, I want to just get out of bed.

I also don’t like paying for apps. In more than three years of owning an iPhone, I’ve paid for just four apps. (I just checked: Doodle Jump, I Love Katamari, Pac-Man, and Scrabble.) I don’t know why I hate paying for apps; I have no problem spending an extra 3-4 bucks on dinner or $13 for a two-hour movie, but buying something intangible just seems like a waste to me unless I’m going to use it a lot. I figure I’ve already paid enough money for this device; why do I have to spend more money to do things with it?

Speaking of paying extra, I also knew I wasn’t going to buy an iPad with 3G (or now, with 4G LTE). In addition to spending $130 more for it, I’d also have to pay for a monthly data plan. Because the iPad is so big, I wouldn’t plan on taking it out and about with me too much, and if I really needed internet access on the go, I could just pull my compact little phone out of my pocket.

So the main thing I figured I would do with an iPad is surf the web while sitting on the couch without having to strain my eyes while looking at my phone. But again, I wouldn’t want to use it too much at night.

So would it really be worth spending so much money on it?

Should I just wait until the rumored mini iPad comes out later this year, as expected?

The thing is: sometimes a pro/con list only takes you so far. I could afford it, and it just seemed so damn cool.

So on Sunday I bought one.

I chose a black, 32GB, WiFi-only model, as well as a $40 smart cover. I decided on 32GB because I figured it was only $100 extra for twice the storage space of the 16GB, and if I have this thing for a few years, there might be now-unconceived uses for it that will require lots of storage space.

So I bought it, and then that night I couldn’t fall asleep because I kept wondering if I’d made a terrible mistake. Great, I’ve spent almost $700 (including tax) on something I might rarely use. And if I do use it too much,  I’ll turn into yet another 21st-century electronic zombie couch potato.

It’s been a few days and I’m still not convinced it’s worth it. There’s a two-week return period. I’ll probably keep it, but I’m still wondering if I should wait for the smaller one. I guess if I decide I want the smaller one in a few months, I can just sell back this one.

Those of you who have an iPad: What do you mostly use it for? Are you using it in ways you didn’t expect? Are you finding it more useful than you expected? Or is it just a cool toy (which is not necessarily a bad thing)?

How did you figure out what you wanted to do?

Posted on by

It’s your turn.

I can’t figure out how to figure out what I want to do next in my life career-wise. So I thought I’d ask my readers.

How did you figure out what to do with your life?

Did you always know? (If so, you might be one of the lucky ones.) Or did you stumble across it? Or purposefully investigate different options? Or something else?

I really want to know.

Thanks!

Is Jonathan Alpert Right or Wrong?

Posted on by

An op-ed caught my eye in the New York Times yesterday. The headline: In Therapy Forever? Enough Already.

As someone who has been in psychotherapy more or less since I was 17 years old (except for a period of one year, another period of two years, and another period of several months), and as someone who recently switched therapists after 11 years, and as someone who is fascinated by psychotherapy in general, I knew I had to read it.

Well, I read it, and it bugged me on and off all day. I read it two or three times yesterday and again this morning.

I read it the first time with shame. I asked myself: have I been in therapy too long? Are my problems more solvable than I think they are? Maybe I don’t really need therapy in order to fix them?

But if that were the case, wouldn’t I have fixed them already?

<rant>
The guy who wrote the piece, Jonathan Alpert, is apparently a psychotherapist who has a book coming out this week: Be Fearless: Change Your Life in 28 Days. It’s common practice for newspapers to publish op-eds by authors who have books coming out; op-eds are often marketing tools. But to me, this piece just smacked of blatant marketing. I went to the author’s website, and right there on the front page it says: dubbed “Manhattan’s most media-friendly psychotherapist.” Those are also the first words on his “About” page. Being “dubbed Manhattan’s most media-friendly psychotherapist” is a good thing? If I were looking for a new therapist, that would be a complete turnoff. It makes Mr. Alpert sound like someone who’s more interested in getting publicity and making a name for himself than in helping other people. I would want a therapist who thinks his primary job is to help his clients, not to become famous.
</rant>

In addition to his coming off as kind of a dick, I take issue with some of what he says in his op-ed. For example, if a woman comes to him because she’s in an unhappy relationship:

…I ask what might be missing from her relationship and sketch out possible ways to fill in relationship gaps or, perhaps, to end it in a healthy way. Rather than dwell on the past and hash out stories from childhood, I encourage patients to find the courage to confront an adversary, take risks and embrace change. My aim is to give patients the skills needed to confront their fear of change, rather than to nod my head and ask how they feel.

OK, but psychotherapy is not just about solving problems. Some of us have lifelong psychological issues that pervade our lives, that derive from troubled childhoods, where we learned patterns that have kept us stuck, and we can’t be “cured” by antidepressants (because we’re not actually depressed) or by solving one specific problem and then quitting therapy.

He also writes:

In my experience, most people seek therapeutic help for discrete, treatable issues: they are stuck in unfulfilling jobs or relationships, they can’t reach their goals, are fearful of change and depressed as a result. It doesn’t take years of therapy to get to the bottom of those kinds of problems. For some of my patients, it doesn’t even take a whole session.

Fine. But sometimes an unfulfilling job or relationship or whatever is not the real problem: it’s just a symptom of the problem. If you just fix the relationship situation or the job situation, you might just be treating the symptom, not the underlying disorder, and the disorder will just re-manifest itself in another problem.

It seems like a very American, surfacey way of dealing with things. It brings to my mind Annette Bening’s character in American Beauty, this hard-working, high-achieving, outwardly perfect-seeming woman who just thinks positively and tries to ignore or bury anything that’s troubling under the surface. Don’t explore anything: just achieve and move on to the next life goal! Again, so very American.

But what the hell do I know. After all, Alpert is right in one sense: if your therapy isn’t working, it is time to move on. Things weren’t working anymore with my old therapist, so after months of trying and waiting, I moved on — to someone who’s more interactive, more willing to give me fresh insights.

Still, this whole idea about “achieving life goals” — it seems so American. And so late 20th century/early 21st century. People didn’t used to talk about “life goals.” I mean, life goals are a good thing, I guess. But the concept comes from our having moved on from a religion-based world. If you don’t believe in God or an afterlife — which I don’t — then you have to provide your own meaning in life, and that comes from setting goals for yourself. I think it’s a more truthful way to live, but god, it was a lot less complicated when you just felt stuck in your station in life and worked the fields until you died, right?

It’s really annoying to have to come up with “life goals” when you have no idea what those goals should be. What are my goals? I’ve been struggling with that question ever since high school, and I’m no closer to finding them than I ever was.