Take a photo of a barcode or cover
54 reviews for:
The Worm at the Core: On the Role of Death in Life
Jeff Greenberg, Tom Pyszczynski, Sheldon Solomon
4.0 AVERAGE
54 reviews for:
The Worm at the Core: On the Role of Death in Life
Jeff Greenberg, Tom Pyszczynski, Sheldon Solomon
4.0 AVERAGE
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
Loved this book so much, shifted my perspective on life and my self. I found an immense gratitude for life came from learning about death.
I haven't been this fascinated by a nonfiction book that wasn't a textbook in a long time. This is an insightful look into one of our unique curse/blessings as human animals: the awareness of our own inevitable death. In a clear and even sometimes entertaining way, the authors present findings from psychological studies relating to mortality salience and terror management theory a.k.a. how we deal with existential dread. I took a class on death and dying in college and loved it - this book has greatly expanded my knowledge on the subject and left me with lots to ponder. Since it's a subject that literally everyone can relate to, I can't recommend this book enough. I would go so far as to say skip Ernest Becker's The Denial of Death (which the research in this book is largely based on but, in my opinion, is quite outdated) and go right for The Worm at the Core.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
A thoughtful and considered book, by people who have earned the right to be considered experts in their field.
I can't remember where I first heard about Terror Management Theory, but the concept seemed exciting, so here I am.
It seems much of this work is based upon books by [a:Ernst Becker|6274858|Ernst Becker|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] which became popular in the 1970s but didn't gain much traction. This book is the attempt to provide scientific rigour to Becker's theories, by augmenting them with more than 30 years worth of evidence-based research.
Which, oddly enough is why this book (for me) amounted to little more than a collection of missed opportunities.
In study after study, the authors reported experiments in two types of subject groups - those who were encouraged to think deeply about the nature of their own death, and those who were encouraged to think deeply about some other subject, such as their own experience of pain. The researchers then compared their test subjects' responses to a wide range of questions.
In just about every case study, the authors claim conclusive findings without providing any data to back up their assertions. Frequently unquantified expressions such as "This group preferred - " or "There was a tendency to - " filled the book with woolly factoids which, although probably true, makes no distinction between a significant number or a majority of one.
In one study which did quantify its results, the distinction is made between 10% of one group, and "over a third" of another. But no indication is provided relating to the sample size. If you're dealing with a dozen test subjects, this difference could be as small as three people.
Other missed opportunities relate to insights which were startling by their omission. Maybe these factors were edited out, but for a book which examines our relationship with death, I was baffled at their lack of inclusion.
Missed opportunity 1) The nature of sacrifice is discussed with no mention of the link between the "green man" of celtic mythology and the image of a "suffering Christ". This sacrificial narrative - of Jesus being sacrificed and conquering death at Easter - is fundamental to the West's relationship with death and, in turn, our place in the earth.
Missed opportunity 2) Lots of talk about the relationship between sex and death without any reference to ample studies documenting increased sexual activity / arousal / birth rates after exposure to death.
Missed opportunity 3) No mention of Ash Wednesday and the period of lent, in which Christians are reminded that they are from ashes - and to ashes they will return. The whole nature of lent is based on our reconciling our relationship with death. Similarly, no mention of Halloween or the Day of the Dead, which also acts as a Momento Mori for everyone to maintain a relationship with mortality. For that matter - no mention of Momento Mori, period.
Missed opportunity 4) A section on the meaning of life that mentions Victor Frankl with no reference to [b:Man's Search for Meaning|4069|Man's Search for Meaning|Viktor E. Frankl|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1535419394l/4069._SY75_.jpg|3389674], and mentions Albert Camus with no mention of [b:The Myth of Sisyphus|91950|The Myth of Sisyphus|Albert Camus|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1347654509l/91950._SY75_.jpg|48339830], which is probably the most important work on embracing the pointlessness of life for its own sake. The book even goes on make a passing reference to [a:Epictetus|13852|Epictetus|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1608045067p2/13852.jpg] without ever once pausing to draw the reader's attention to the unquestionable value of Stoic philosophy to anyone struggling with grief.
A lot of this book relies on the significantly outdated (and largely debunked) theories relating to self esteem. If you're interested in that debate, I suggest you have a look at [b:Selfie: How We Became So Self-Obsessed and What It's Doing to Us|35294963|Selfie How We Became So Self-Obsessed and What It's Doing to Us|Will Storr|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1496530761l/35294963._SY75_.jpg|56660514]. This book makes an oft-repeated claim that self esteem insulates us from the negative affects of death terror. Maybe it does, but in the experiment quoted, the elevated performance of the subject who had their self-esteem raised may well have been less worried about an electric shock because they were enjoying a dopamine hit from being told they did well. This is very different to having high self esteem.
Significant leftist bias
From a Structuralist point of view, you can also tell a lot about how authors see the world by the choice of language they use. It gives you an insight into the lens which determines their model of the world. To be fair, the authors cited Marx and Kierkegaard in their introduction, which should have been taken as fair warning.
Throughout this book, the repeated assertion is made that thoughts about death tend to make people more insular, less welcoming of strangers, more likely to favour people of our own heritage, and more likely to follow strong leaders. The underlying implication in all these examples is that conservative traits are negative traits.
Other research in this book shows that thoughts about death also lead to people doing more of what they value the most. For example, somebody who enjoys playing computer games is apparently more likely to want to play games after being reminded of their own mortality. Somebody obsessed with the guitar is more likely to play more after being reminded of their own mortality. Somebody who smokes 60 a day is more likely to smoke after the same experiment.
It would be interesting to see if the ubiquitous increases in levels of nationalism, racism, etc were replicated if the control group was a group of hard-line leftists. Would reminders of death actually make these people less liberal (since their identities and sense of value are built around that world view)? But the experimenters apparently had no interest in that experiment. Because, much like a goldfish, you can't see the water you're already swimming in.
As an example of this bias, the authors use masculine and feminine pronouns in the same paragraph - with feminine to discuss positive traits, and masculine to discuss the negative. Here's an example from page 60:
The book takes a mostly fair look at non-western cultures, but occasionally fetishizes these as models of enlightenment and wisdom in ways that would convince you that their shit never stank. I've nothing against a healthy admiration for any culture, but this narrative was so blanketed in the myth of the Noble Savage that it was almost comedic.
By the way, men also hate women because women make them hard, and that reminds men that they are animals, which in means that men realise that they are going to die. I'm glad we got that cleared up.
Somebody wrote that with a straight face.
I can't remember where I first heard about Terror Management Theory, but the concept seemed exciting, so here I am.
It seems much of this work is based upon books by [a:Ernst Becker|6274858|Ernst Becker|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] which became popular in the 1970s but didn't gain much traction. This book is the attempt to provide scientific rigour to Becker's theories, by augmenting them with more than 30 years worth of evidence-based research.
Which, oddly enough is why this book (for me) amounted to little more than a collection of missed opportunities.
In study after study, the authors reported experiments in two types of subject groups - those who were encouraged to think deeply about the nature of their own death, and those who were encouraged to think deeply about some other subject, such as their own experience of pain. The researchers then compared their test subjects' responses to a wide range of questions.
In just about every case study, the authors claim conclusive findings without providing any data to back up their assertions. Frequently unquantified expressions such as "This group preferred - " or "There was a tendency to - " filled the book with woolly factoids which, although probably true, makes no distinction between a significant number or a majority of one.
In one study which did quantify its results, the distinction is made between 10% of one group, and "over a third" of another. But no indication is provided relating to the sample size. If you're dealing with a dozen test subjects, this difference could be as small as three people.
Other missed opportunities relate to insights which were startling by their omission. Maybe these factors were edited out, but for a book which examines our relationship with death, I was baffled at their lack of inclusion.
Missed opportunity 1) The nature of sacrifice is discussed with no mention of the link between the "green man" of celtic mythology and the image of a "suffering Christ". This sacrificial narrative - of Jesus being sacrificed and conquering death at Easter - is fundamental to the West's relationship with death and, in turn, our place in the earth.
Missed opportunity 2) Lots of talk about the relationship between sex and death without any reference to ample studies documenting increased sexual activity / arousal / birth rates after exposure to death.
Missed opportunity 3) No mention of Ash Wednesday and the period of lent, in which Christians are reminded that they are from ashes - and to ashes they will return. The whole nature of lent is based on our reconciling our relationship with death. Similarly, no mention of Halloween or the Day of the Dead, which also acts as a Momento Mori for everyone to maintain a relationship with mortality. For that matter - no mention of Momento Mori, period.
Missed opportunity 4) A section on the meaning of life that mentions Victor Frankl with no reference to [b:Man's Search for Meaning|4069|Man's Search for Meaning|Viktor E. Frankl|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1535419394l/4069._SY75_.jpg|3389674], and mentions Albert Camus with no mention of [b:The Myth of Sisyphus|91950|The Myth of Sisyphus|Albert Camus|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1347654509l/91950._SY75_.jpg|48339830], which is probably the most important work on embracing the pointlessness of life for its own sake. The book even goes on make a passing reference to [a:Epictetus|13852|Epictetus|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1608045067p2/13852.jpg] without ever once pausing to draw the reader's attention to the unquestionable value of Stoic philosophy to anyone struggling with grief.
A lot of this book relies on the significantly outdated (and largely debunked) theories relating to self esteem. If you're interested in that debate, I suggest you have a look at [b:Selfie: How We Became So Self-Obsessed and What It's Doing to Us|35294963|Selfie How We Became So Self-Obsessed and What It's Doing to Us|Will Storr|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1496530761l/35294963._SY75_.jpg|56660514]. This book makes an oft-repeated claim that self esteem insulates us from the negative affects of death terror. Maybe it does, but in the experiment quoted, the elevated performance of the subject who had their self-esteem raised may well have been less worried about an electric shock because they were enjoying a dopamine hit from being told they did well. This is very different to having high self esteem.
Significant leftist bias
From a Structuralist point of view, you can also tell a lot about how authors see the world by the choice of language they use. It gives you an insight into the lens which determines their model of the world. To be fair, the authors cited Marx and Kierkegaard in their introduction, which should have been taken as fair warning.
Throughout this book, the repeated assertion is made that thoughts about death tend to make people more insular, less welcoming of strangers, more likely to favour people of our own heritage, and more likely to follow strong leaders. The underlying implication in all these examples is that conservative traits are negative traits.
Other research in this book shows that thoughts about death also lead to people doing more of what they value the most. For example, somebody who enjoys playing computer games is apparently more likely to want to play games after being reminded of their own mortality. Somebody obsessed with the guitar is more likely to play more after being reminded of their own mortality. Somebody who smokes 60 a day is more likely to smoke after the same experiment.
It would be interesting to see if the ubiquitous increases in levels of nationalism, racism, etc were replicated if the control group was a group of hard-line leftists. Would reminders of death actually make these people less liberal (since their identities and sense of value are built around that world view)? But the experimenters apparently had no interest in that experiment. Because, much like a goldfish, you can't see the water you're already swimming in.
As an example of this bias, the authors use masculine and feminine pronouns in the same paragraph - with feminine to discuss positive traits, and masculine to discuss the negative. Here's an example from page 60:
For example, a narcisist who fancies himself a great runner might be at the track every day with casual joggers from the neighbourhood. He goes to great lengths to ensure the joggers know he can run faster than they can, and he works hard to solicit their admiration, but he's not likely to be found anywhere near the track when aspiring Olympic athletes drop by. Facing more able competition would paint a much less flattering picture of his actual skill and would fail to elicit the adulation that comes from zipping past the locals. In contrast, a runner secure self-esteem would be proud of her accomplishments but more interested in self improvement than winning. She would be eager to run with Olympic athletes; that way she could get inspired, learn from them and get an accurate gauge of her skills.
The book takes a mostly fair look at non-western cultures, but occasionally fetishizes these as models of enlightenment and wisdom in ways that would convince you that their shit never stank. I've nothing against a healthy admiration for any culture, but this narrative was so blanketed in the myth of the Noble Savage that it was almost comedic.
By the way, men also hate women because women make them hard, and that reminds men that they are animals, which in means that men realise that they are going to die. I'm glad we got that cleared up.
Somebody wrote that with a straight face.
Best book I’ve read to date. Everyone struggles with anxieties of mortality and this book illustrates just how we subconsciously combat those fears for better or worse. Many people create rigid world views to quell the reminders of looming death which causes wars, intolerance, and slandering toward the “others”. This is the us vs. them mentality that has been so destructive throughout history. I’d recommend this book to everyone, whether you constantly struggle with existential worries or are unaware of your biases toward constructing a rigid worldview. It delves into existential psychotherapy and gives advice on how to build confidence in your ideas and beliefs without thwarting those held by others.
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
slow-paced
medium-paced
I had to read this book for class otherwise I don't think I would have read it. It's depressing and generally not a fun read. It took me forever to finish. I just finished it today because I have a midterm due on it tomorrow.
My students, to whom I have confessed my unwavering love for Sheldon Solomon for whose most beautiful mind I would run away from my family for, also know my love for his (and Tom Pyszczynski and Jeff Greenberg's) research. This book is an accessible-to-all, engaging explanation of TMT, a theory that we all benefit from turning our conscious processing minds on to.