Search Results

An English version, followed by Hebrew one - גירסה בעברית תופיע אחרי האנגלית Unfortunately, the state of Israel is in political and social turmoil over actions the coalition and government – led by a majority of 64 members-of-Knesset – are taking. There's lots of criticism about what is being done, even more criticism about how it is being done – and counter-criticism about the right and the responsibility of the majority to rule and to make changes, and "what are you complaining about? we were elected to make changes, and you'd do the same if you were elected – and you did the same when you ruled" and "why didn't you do all these basic things when you ruled?" and more of the same language. I find the current discourse in the Israeli society is very frustrating, and the language used is quite extreme and apocaliptic. And yet. I believe things will be better. Of that I'm sure. But then what? What will happen the day after tomorrow? What should materially change here for the better? Here are my two cents. We must change the discourse from one of "my rights" and "my entitlements" ("I have a right to...", "I am entitled to...") to a "your rights" - and "my commitments" ("You have a right to..." and "I am committed to..."). For that we need to two fundamental pillars upon which to lay the foundation of change and hope. The first is that we all must contribute. Something. Some form of national service is required. For the greater community. There may be exceptions - but they must be exceptions. Small exceptions. Agreed upon exceptions. And, if you're unwilling to contribute - maybe you should not vote? After all - you're not interested in playing by the rules - so shouldn't there be a limit to your impact on the rules? The second is that some basic laws should not be negotiable. Some form of constitution is required. Minimalist. Basic. And very (very!) hard to amend. Too much regulation is never good. Too many processes are never good. So very basic, very minimalist. But the rules of the game should not be easily changeable, hence must be protected as a constitution. The rest is in the details. Not easy to achieve (not the basics, not the rest, not the details) - but that's my two cents. Good luck to all of us. למרבה הצער, מדינת ישראל בסערה פוליטית וחברתית על רקע פעולות של הקואליציה והממשלה - בראשות רוב של 64 חברי כנסת, שינויים מהותיים במדינה. יש הרבה ביקורת על מה שנעשה, עוד יותר ביקורת על איך זה נעשה - וביקורת נגדית על זכותו (ואחרויותו) של הרוב לשלוט ולבצע שינויים, ו"על מה אתם מתלוננים? נבחרנו לעשות שינויים, והייתם עושים את אותו הדבר אם אתם הייתם נבחרים - ועשיתם את אותו דבר כשהייתם בשלטון" ו"למה לא עשיתם את כל השינויים שפתאום אתם מציעים - כשאתם הייתם בשלטון?" ועוד ועוד טרוניות ותלונות. אני מוצא שהשיח הנוכחי בחברה הישראלת הוא מתסכל במיוחד, ומשתמש בשפה קיצונית ואפוקליפטית ששמעתי מזה הרבה זמן. ועדיין. אני מאמין שיהיה טוב יותר. אני בטוח. אבל אז מה? מה יקרה מחרתיים? מה צריך לשנות כאן באופן מהותי לטובה? הנה ה-מחשבות-בגרוש שלי. אני בטוח שכל מקבלי ההחלטות ומעצבי המדיניות צמאים לדעתי, וקוראים אותה כאן. צריך לשנות את השיח מ-שיח של זכויות (״מגיע לי...״) ל-שיח של מחוייבויות ודאגה לזכויות האחר (״מגיע לך...״ ו-״אני מחוייב.ת ל...״). לשם כך אנחנו נדרשים לשני יסודות מהותיים, שעליהם אפשר לבנות בנין של שינוי ותקווה. הראשון הוא שכולנו חייבים לתרום. משהו. נדרש שירות לאומי כלשהו. למען הקהילה. יכול להיות שניתן לפטור חריגים - אבל הם חייבים להיות חריגים. ומעט מהם. ובהסכמה. ומי שלא מוכן לתרום - אולי לא יצביע? בכל זאת - מי שלא מעוניין לשחק לפי הכללים - אולי צריך להיות מוגבל ביכולת ההשפעה על הכללים? השני הוא שכמה חוקים בסיסיים צריכים להיות (מעשית) לא-נתונים-למשא-ומתן. נדרשת צורה כלשהי של חוקה. מינימליסטית. בסיסית. ומאוד (מאוד!) קשה לשינוי. יותר מדי כללים - זה גם לא בריא. אז חוקה מאוד בסיסית, מאוד מינימליסטית. אבל כללי המשחק לא צריכים להיות ניתנים לשינוי בקלות, ולכן יש להגן עליהם כחוקה. השאר בפרטים. זה לא קל (לא הסכמות הבסיס, לא מה שבא אחר כך, ובטח לא הפרטים) - אבל אולי זה בסיס למשהו שאפשר לבנות עליו מדינה שכולנו חלק ממנה - וכולנו גאים להיות חלק ממנה. בהצלחה לנו.

As part of school project, while preparing a presentation, a super-smart person on our team (you know who you are!) proposed we add to the slides - our personal mottos. Wow! Boom! We all loved the idea - and adapted the presentation accordingly. By definition, a motto is "a short sentence or phrase chosen as encapsulating the beliefs or ideals guiding an individual, family, or institution." (Oxford Dictionary, google search result). I've been using this concept numerous times since, including at an event with close friends, where we all contributed - and guessed contributors of - mottos. But why? Why do people like mottos? I believe it's because when someone offers you a motto (whether their own, or quoted) - they offer you a brief snapshot of who they are, what are their beliefs and what they value - a brief and unique perspective of themselves. And since I really appreciate perspectives, here are some of my favorites (including the one that started it all - which is the first one on the post, just right here after the line!) I did my best to correctly attribute them where relevant. If you have corrections - please LMK. [Quote first. Attribution follows) The same boiling water that softens the potato, hardens the egg. It's what you're made of. Not the circumstances. (Mel Robbins) Be Kind. Intelligence, Talent, Appearance - are given, but Kindness is a choice you make. So be Kind. The only difference between people who succeed and those who don't is that successful people didn't give up when they encountered failure. Don't worry about things you can't control. Save your energy for things you can change. Anyone can find a problem. Only people with the right attitude solve it. You can’t slow down progress. You can choose to be the last to adopt it, or the first to benefit from it. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is. (Benjamin Brewster. Probably. See Quote Investigator) Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe! (Albert Einstein. Or not. See Quote Investigator) The Harder I Practice, the Luckier I Get. (A golf player. Or not. See Quote Investigator) Good, better, best. Never let it rest. (Un)til your good is better and your better is best. (St. Jerome) Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans. (Allen Saunders. Not John Lennon. See Quote Investigator) Common Sense is Not So Common (François-Marie Arouet, a.k.a Voltaire, 1696-1778)

במסגרת ה״איזה כיף פה בארץ עם כל מה שקורה פה״, לראשונה בחיי (אני חושב) הלכתי לאחת ההפגנות. לא זו של ההייטק, סה״כ אני שוב סטודנט. של פריבילגים, בעיר מגורי, במרחק הליכה מהבית, ובלי פקקים... באופטימיותי קיויתי שאני הולך להפגנה של ״מה קורה פה? כדאי שנתאפס על עצמינו לפני שהכל ייחרב״ (או לפחות זו ההפגנה שקיויתי שאני הולך אליה. רמז - לא בדיוק). הינה שתי התובנות שלי מההפגנה: (1) איומים בנזק כלכלי לא ישפיעו על השותפים של ביבי - הם רגילים ומוכנים לחיות באיומים. הם מאמינים (כמו שגם אני מאמין לצורך הענין) שמה שנכון לעשות, נכון לעשות - גם אם ילווה בנזק כלכלי. [על ביבי זה משפיע, הוא מבין היטב את ההשלכות הכלכליות - אבל מה האלטרנטיבה שלו? מי עוד מוכן לתת לו להיות ראש ממשלה?] (2) עד שלא יישמעו קולות (בהפגנות, ובתקשורת) של ״גם אנחנו לא בסדר. יש צורך לתקן. אבל לא להרוס ולבנות מחדש אלא בשותפות״ - אף אחד לא יספור את ההפגנות חוץ מאילו שתומכים בהן גם ככה. הקולות בהפגנות הם: אתם לא בסדר. אוסף של מושחתים. אנחנו (ורק אנחנו) מושלמים. תפסיקו להתנהג חד-צדדית. בואו נדבר. אני מדבר על קולות בסגנון: חפרנו לעצמינו בור. לא ספרנו אתכם. היינו כל כך בטוחים שאנחנו - ורק אנחנו צודקים. אנחנו מבינים שיש מה לתקן. אצלינו. ואצליכם. בואו נדבר. אני אנסה לחשוב ולדבר כך. מקווה שלא רק אני. אז שיהיה לנו שבוע טוב. (אומרים לי שאני נאיבי ואופטימי. זה נכון במובן מסויים - בגדול, למרות הכל, אני מאמין שיהיה טוב.) (* זה פוסט חברתי באופיו - אבל אני ארשה לעצמי לפרסם גם ברשת המקצועית. סליחה אם בזבזתי לכם 2 דקות.)

לכבוד חג החנוכה (ובאיחור של שבוע), רק תמונות של החנוכיה, בכל הלילות. חג שמח! In Honor of Hanukah (and a week late), the Holiday of Lights, only pictures of the Hanukah Lamp, all 8 nights. Happy Holidays!

לרשום בווייז: פארק צבעי רמון יצא לנו להיות באיזור מכתש רמון - איזור עם כמה וכמה מסלולים רגליים יפים - אבל לא היינו ערוכים למסלול רגלי. עם זאת, לא רצינו לוותר על טיול - ו״מצאנו״ את פארק לאומי-צבעי רמון (הקישור מוליך לאתר של רשות הטבע והגנים, אבל כל גיגול פשוט יוליך אתכם לשפע של מידע). המסלול שסימנו עביר לרכב משפחתי (עד כדי אזהרות מפני הצפות). בכיוון הלוך, מכביש-40 לחניון בארות, מהכניסה של פארק צבעי רמון, כל הדרך הינה על כביש סלול - שניתן גם לחזור בו. עם זאת, בדרך חזרה ניתן לחזור על כביש עפר (סימון שבילים אדום) שעביר לרכב משפחתי - וייתן לכם תחושה של נסיעה באמצע המדבר... ממש כאילו אתם ג׳יפ. ממש מומלץ לעצור לקפה בחניון בארות - יש שם מתחם יפהפה שכולל שירותים, מאהל, וקיוסק בסיסי - וגם נקודת תצפית, עם שתי משקפות חזקות מאוד בצד הצפוני של החניון. נקודת התצפית נועדה לתצפית כוכבים - אבל גם באור יום זו חוויה מהנה לצפות במשקפות. זמן הנסיעה במסלול ״נטו״ היא כ-30-40 דקות, אבל קחו את הזמן, תעצרו בנקודות עניין ובחניון בארות - והנה לכם טיול של שעתיים-שלוש, לא כולל זמן הגעה וחזרה מהמסלול - ואפילו לא תזיעו. * הערה חשובה אחת (וחצי): - הפנייה מכביש 40 לדרך העפר המובילה לראש המסלול מותרת מכיוון דרום בלבד. (בעברית זה אומר שאם אתם באים מכיוון מצפה רמון (ולא מכיוון אילת), אתם צריכים *לעבור* את הכניסה לפארק, לחפש נקודה חוקית ומותרת לפניית פרסה זהירה - ולחזור חזרה. - ועוד יותר חשוב - בכל מקור אינטרנטי שקראנו על המסלול, מציינים כי הכניסה לפארק היא מ״כביש 40, בין סימני ק"מ 86–87״ - אבל מנסיעה בשטח ראינו כי הירידה היא בין סימני ק"מ 87–88 - אז שימו לב למה שקורה בשטח...

אחרי הרבה זמן, ובאיחור אלגנטי של חודש (מאז שטיילתי), הנה תמונות מהמסלול של נחל דולב. זה מסלול יפהפה, של כ-7.5 קילומטר, שיצא לנו לעשות בסוף תקופת החגים. לקח כ-שעתיים וחצי - אבל בקבוצה של 5 אנשים אני מעריך שייקח יותר קרוב ל-4-5 שעות. סימון השבילים ברור ברוב המוחלט של המסלול, ורק בשתי נקודות צריך לשים לב: 1. במפה שלמעלה - הפניה החדה מערבה קצת אחרי סימון הקילומטר הראשון (לא להתבלבל ולהיכנס לתוך כרם... 2. בקילומטר ה-4.5 לערך, ליד המאהל (החוקי), כשמתחילים לפנות חזרה, ומטפסים צפון-מזרחית, קל לפספס את הסימון שבילים. הפניה עצמה לשביל האדום (שפונה מהשביל השחור עליו היינו עד עכשיו) די ברורה - אבל הסימון על השביל (בהתחלה) קצת נעלם. חוצמיזה - מסלול מהמם, מוצל בחצי הראשון - ונפלא לפתוח בו את היום.

(First submitted as term paper in the course: Psycholinguistics: Language in Persuasion, September 2022) Introduction “Misunderstanding is the cause of 90% of all conflict” claims Freshley (2016), a professional meeting facilitator and trainer. Though Freshley does not offer support for this claim, it does resonate with the Sapir/Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativism (Whorf, 1939/2012, p. 138): “Are our own concepts of ‘time,’ ‘space,’ and ‘matter’ given in substantially the same form by experience to all men or are they in part conditioned by the structure of particular languages?”. Simply put, the Sapir/Whorf hypothesis questions whether people speaking different languages perceive the world differently, and as such are prone to more misunderstandings and conflicts. While presented as a question, Whorf suggests that the answer is in the affirmative: Language influences the way individuals perceive the world - individuals who differ in their primary language perceive the world around them in different ways. Whorf (1939/2012) believes this is the result of the way the brain processes words related to the real world. Therefore, conversely, one must wonder whether a globally shared language would improve the world. A brief review of the literature reveals what opportunities and costs a globally shared language may carry, and we propose a possible third option, which we feel offers a balance of the opportunities and costs. Discussion The idea of a single common language is not a new one. The Bible tells the story of the Tower of Babel. According to Judaic biblical sources (Genesis 11, 1-9), all humans spoke a single language and decided to use the opportunity to build a tower that would reach the sky, with a declared goal of uniting all people. That story had a sad ending, as God deemed their actions unworthy, destroyed the tower and dispersed the people all over the land. Later Judaic interpretations (ben-Horkanos, 8th century) claim that God’s wrath was because the people of Babel used the single language to create a dehumanizing society, where the only important thing was The Tower. According to ben-Horkanos, the society of builders would treat the loss of a brick as a big deal – and the loss of human life as meaningless: “What did they do? They baked bricks… If a man fell and died, they paid no heed to him, but if a brick fell, they sat down and wept… ‘when will another one come in its stead?’”. Irrespective of the interpretation, the story suggests that a single language – like almost any development by humankind – may be used for good – or might be used for evil. Considering Freshley’s (2016) claim that misunderstanding is the source of conflict and taking the premise of linguistic relativism to its extreme allows us to hope that a common global language could lead humankind to be more understanding and experience less conflict. In addition to the decrease in conflict and misunderstanding – cooperation would increase and improve. Yao & Lim (2019) found that people who share a language are better at solving problems together, increasing trust and overall laying the ground for people to want to work together. A globally shared language would allow for more and easier trade among people. Lohmann (2010) establishes that language barriers have a negative effect on trade between people and nations. To quantify this obstacle he developed the LBI (Language Barrier Index) and added LBI to a version of the gravity equation of trade introduced by Rose (2004). Employing the measure, Lohman was able to show that the higher the language barrier, the lower the trade. This finding implies that the lower the barrier – the more trade, leading to more people being involved in trade, and more people benefitting from trade – thus increasing the global utility and social good. While the good of a globally shared language is plentiful (decreased conflict, decreased misunderstanding, increased cooperation and trust, increased global trade and welfare), some researchers feel it may come at a cost. First and foremost, if all humankind “dropped” their current primary language, to adopt a globally shared language – humankind would risk losing the traditions and culture associated with the defunct languages, as Nuwer (2014) suggests in Languages: Why we must save dying tongues. Furthermore, there is significant research in multiple disciplines establishing the value of bilingualism. This value may be lost should the world move to a single globally shared language. In the most basic consequence, Perani & Abutalebi’s research (2015) found bilingualism may delay dementia by an average of 4 years. Bilingualism not only impacts quality-of-life at old age, but Yang & Yang (2016, p. 134) also identified “the positive impact of early childhood and adult bilingualism on the attention system”. However, perhaps one of the most surprising values associated with bilingualism is that of creativity (Ricciardelli, 1992). Research shows a positive impact of bilingualism on creativity, whereby bilinguals are more creative than monolinguals. Conclusion In summary, there are numerous advantages to humankind sharing a global language – yet displacing local languages or dropping bilingualism comes with significant costs. While we could claim one side out-values the other, we would like to propose the findings may point at a third alternative – a globally shared language, to serve as a second language(*) – alongside the local languages. This would enable humankind to retain the benefits of traditions and cultures associated with local languages and bilingualism – while enjoying the benefits of a shared global language, allowing for many conflicts to be managed better – by people understanding each other. (*) Side Note: It is interesting to note that Zamenhof’s creation of the Esperanto language in 1887 (described first in in Dr. Esperanto's International Language) may be considered as a step in this direction, as Yaffe (2017), claims that Zamenhof himself thought Esperanto to be a second language – augmenting local languages.

It is almost the (Hebrew) new year, and it's time for introspection. See where we've improved, where we didn't. What we've done better, what we've done worse. What we're taking upon ourselves to improve next year. The ability to change is a basic human trait, a unique skill - and if we don't use it to improve ourselves - it's like deciding not to use both legs or to close one of eyes - it's an ability we have and it's a shame not use it. Got to change. Got to move. Don't stand still - you're giving up on a super-power you have.

Though living for less than 40 years, Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) left a strong impression on the world in multiple domains, including Mathematics, Physics, Philosophy, and Theology. Part of his legacy includes The Pascal Wager, where he argues that using logic and reason, a person should live as though God exists and according to God's will. His reasoning is as as follows: If there is a God, then a person acting accordingly to God's will can expect to has infinite gains (as represented by Heaven), while a person disobeying God stands to face infinite losses (as represented by Hell). If there is no God, there by acting as if there is a God (and obeying this non-existent God) only faces limited losses (missing out on some fun...). So weighing all options - claims Pascal - should lead a person (pursuing to maximize gains and minimize losses) to act as if there is a God - and according to God's will. While Pascal's Wager has more holes than a good Swiss cheese (and you can read some of the criticism it faced [and still faces] here), it recently crossed my mind when I heard a conversation between two friends, one a practicing-orthodox-believer and the other self-proclaimed-secular (on the verge of claiming to be an atheist). They were discussing a third friend, who was going through bad financial, and bad health, and overall rough, times. The secular friend was telling the orthodox friend that the orthodox friend should pray for the third friend, as that person needs any help they can get. And I wanted to ask my secular friend: If you don't believe prayers help, since no one listens to them, why propose your orthodox friend pray for the sake of the third friend? And if you believe the prayers help, and someone listens to them, then most theologians agree that God listens closely to those for whom it's the first time of praying... so the secular friend would help more by praying themselves (and not "outsourcing" the prayers to the orthodox friend). No? (*) Like Pascal's Wager, this question also has many holes in it. But it did (and does) remind me of Pascal's Wager, so I decided to write it down. So there you are. "The Sherwin variation of the Pascal wager" (no need to add this one to Wikipedia's list of variations)

(First published in Hebrew. Link here.) In the three weeks between 17 Tammuz and Tisha B'Av, known in Hebrew as "Y'mei Ben HaMetzarim" - the days between the straits, I get to engage, read and learn from the legends of destruction of the (first and second) Hebrew Temple. The Gemara in Tractate Gittin, on the backside of page 55: says "Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: Happy is the man who fears always, but he who hardens his heart shall fall into mischief". The Gemara continues with three stories that form the basis for understanding the problems in the people of Israel that led to destruction of the Temple. But while the stories are sad and painful to read - yet relatively obvious to understand, delivering clear messages of fundamental problems in the behavior of those generations (leading to the destruction of the first temple - and some 650 years later, the destruction of the second temple) - the opening sentence, quoted above, has always been difficult for me to understand. The quote of Rabbi Yohanan (who quotes the verse from a proverb) - "Blessed is the man who is always afraid and hardens his heart will fall evil" is unclear to me. Why is fear good? And how does is fear "contrasted" it with the hardening of heart (which is portrayed as the opposite of fear, as a bad thing)? And how is this proverb leading up to the stories following it, and to the behavior leading to the destruction of the temple? And this year, on Tisha B'Av (2020), I believe I finally understood. The fear the King Solomon is praising in Proverbs (and subsequently, Rabbi Yohanan in Gittin) is not the usual fear of "something external frightens me". The "good" fear is an inner fear - it is a fear of "can it be that I'm mistaken?" In the context of an argument, or even just a discussion, can it be that my convictions are wrong? Maybe I'm not listening and attentive enough? Perhaps the other's claims are more worthy of consideration, of greater weight? Maybe I'm too "locked in" to a certain way of thinking? Happy is the man who fears always - Blessed is a person who is always willing to consider the possibility that (s)he is mistaken, open to listening attentively to what is being said, and to examine again (and again) the claims of the other person. he who hardens his heart shall fall into mischief - he who always "just moves on" to their next argument, and ignores the inputs and thoughts of the other - will bang their head against the wall - and even if they're right sometimes - they will always be alone, and never learn and grow. This does not mean that one should not take a stand or position, and act on it - but it is worthwhile and important and it is always worthwhile to seriously examine the counter-arguments. And when you do not do it enough, are not open to learning, the person "hardens his heart," and "falls into evil." The story will probably not have a happy end. Now, the three stories following Rabbi Yohanan's statement are clearer - read on, and see how almost every character "misses", doesn't listen or consider any other option or opinion, or the the possibility that someone else may "hold the truth", and insists on the righteousness of their path. So "locked in" their way of thinking, unwilling to consider any other way of thinking - and leading to the next level failure, culminating in the destruction of the Temple(s). ** Inspired by my parents, who taught me so much - and most of all - not to take anything for granted - and never to assume. Specifically, my father's favorite ending statement to anything he says, "what do I know?" Thank you both.

Change Happens and Will Happen. Whatever your role in the organization is, select at least one of the following roles in the change: Driving the Change - an active role, and promoting the change, within your domain or across the organization. Being part of the Change - your domain must change too, and you yourself must change. Supporting the Change - it's not your domain, and maybe it's not you - but others need to go through a change - and they'll need support, moral or actual. Be there for them. PS> This is a side note, since when you're part of an organization, in most cases - it is not for you to oppose the change. But just to cover all bases - yes, sometimes you must Oppose the Change. You believe it's wrong. It will make things worse. So step up - and oppose the change. Speak what's on you mind, propose and alternative - and if needed, take a stand. This usually comes with a cost - and maybe you'll need to quit. But that's what we're here for. To make a difference. To make a Change. Or oppose it.

Growing up, Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988) was one of my favorite authors (and still is). If I'm not mistaken, I have a printed (!) copy of every book or novel he ever published. In one of his most known books, Stranger in a Strange Land (1961), which I recently re-read. In the books, Heinlein introduced the character of Jubal Harshaw, in re-reading the book, I re-fell-in-love with two of Harshaw's statement, which I chose to quote today. He said about Love that it is "a subjective condition in which the welfare and happiness of another person are essential to one's own happiness" And on Art and the mastery of Art, he said: “Anybody can look at a pretty girl and see a pretty girl. An artist can look at a pretty girl and see the old woman she will become. A better artist can look at an old woman and see the pretty girl that she used to be. But a great artist - a master - can look at an old woman, portray her exactly as she is, and force the viewer to see the pretty girl she used to be.”