Search Results

(The Hebrew text is followed by an English version) לפעמים, קשה לנו. אנחנו רואים את כל מה שקשה, ומרגישים שזה המון. שזה יותר מדי. הטקסט הבא - שמקורו לכאורה בכתבים מיסטיים עתיקים - מציע "סגולה" מיוחדת: אפשרות להחליף חיים עם מישהו אחר. אבל כמו הרבה החכמות עמוקות, הכוח האמיתי של הסגולה אינו במעשה עצמו, אלא בשאלה שהיא מעלה. כשאתם קוראים את הטקסט ושואלים את עצמכם - עם מי היינו מוכנים להתחלף? (המקור בארמית, אחריו תרגום לעברית) בְּסִפְרִין קַדִּישִׁין כְּתִיב : "מָאן דְּחָמֵי לְחַבְרֵיהּ וּבָעֵי לְמֵיחֲלַף עִמֵּיהּ, וַדַּאי יֵדַע מָה דְּעָבִיד. יֵתִיב בְּלִבֵּיהּ וְיַחֲשׁוֹב תְּלָת זִימְנִין: 'בָּעֵינָא לְמֵיחֲלַף עִם פְּלָן בַּר פְּלָן'. וְאִי וַדַּאי בְּלִבֵּיהּ, וְלֵית לֵיהּ פִּקְפּוּקָא, יֵימַר קֳמֵי קוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא תְּלָת זִימְנִין בְּכַוָּנָה: 'רְעוּתִי לְמֵיחֲלַף עִם פְּלָן בַּר פְּלָן'. וְכַד יְקוּם בְּצַפְרָא, חִילוּפָא אִתְעֲבִיד. חוּלָקֵיהּ דְּהָאִי הֱוֵי חוּלָקֵיהּ דְּהָאִי, וְחוּלָקֵיהּ דְּהָאִי הֱוֵי חוּלָקֵיהּ דְּהָאִי. אֲבָל זְהַר וְאִסְתַּמַּר! דְּלָא יָדַע בַּר נָשׁ מָאי טְמִיר בְּחוּלָקֵיהּ דְּחַבְרֵיהּ, וְלָא מָאי טָב לֵיהּ בְּחוּלָקֵיהּ דִּידֵיהּ." תרגום חופשי: בספרים הקדושים כתוב: "מי שרואה את חברו ורוצה להתחלף עמו, בוודאי ידע מה שהוא עושה. ישב בליבו ויחשוב שלוש פעמים: 'רוצה אני להתחלף עם פלוני בן פלוני'. ואם ודאי בליבו, ואין לו ספק, יאמר לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא שלוש פעמים בכוונה: 'רצוני להתחלף עם פלוני בן פלוני'. וכאשר יקום בבוקר, החילוף נעשה. חלקו של זה יהיה חלקו של זה, וחלקו של זה יהיה חלקו של זה. אבל היזהר והישמר! שלא יודע אדם מה חבוי בחלקו של חברו, ולא מה טוב לו בחלקו שלו." Sometimes, life feels hard. We see everything that's difficult, and it feels like so much. Like too much. The following text - supposedly from ancient mystical writings - offers a special "remedy": the ability to exchange lives with someone else. But like much of deep wisdom, its true power is not in the act itself, but in the question it raises. Read the text and ask yourself - whose life would you exchange yours with? (The text in English is a translation of the Aramaic below it...) In the Holy Scriptures it is said (Translation of the Aramaic) "One who sees his fellow and wishes to exchange with him, let him surely know what he does. Let him sit in his heart and think three times: 'I wish to exchange with so-and-so, son of so-and-so'. And if he is certain in his heart, and has no doubt, let him say before the Holy One, Blessed be He, three times with intention: 'My desire is to exchange with so-and-so, son of so-and-so'. And when he rises in the morning, the exchange will be done. The portion of this one will be the portion of that one, and the portion of that one will be the portion of this one. But beware and be careful! For no man knows what is hidden in his fellow's portion, nor what is good for him in his own portion." Be'sifrin qadishin ketiv: "Man de'hami le'havrei u'va'ei le'meihalaf immei, vaddai yeda ma de'avid. Yeitiv be'libbei ve'yahshov telat zimmin: 'Ba'eina le'meihalaf im pelan bar pelan'. Ve'i vaddai be'libbei, ve'leit lei piqpuqa, yeimar qomei qudsha berikh hu telat zimmin be'khavana: 'Re'uti le'meihalaf im pelan bar pelan'. Ve'khad yequm be'tzafra, hillufa it'avid. Hulaqei de'hai havei hulaqei de'hai, ve'hulaqei de'hai havei hulaqei de'hai. Aval zehar ve'istamar! De'la yada bar nash mai temir be'hulaqei de'havrei, ve'la mai tav lei be'hulaqei diddei."

הירידה ממצפה רמון - נקודת מבט אחרת... (פורסם במקור באנגלית. התרגום לעברית קשה לי... אז אני מתנצל מראש. בפרט התקשיתי עם המונח Perspective Management - ניהול נקודת מבט... מקווה שתסלחו... ותמצאו ערך למרות זאת.) אתחיל בלספר סיפור שהמצאתי - אבל מן הסתם קרה לכולנו בצורה כזו או אחרת:  קיבלנו לפחות כמה הודעות הודעות ב-ווטסאפ, אנחנו או מישהו פיספסנו ארוחת צהריים, ולקינוח קיבלנו מעמית לעבודה הודעה דחופה בסגנון "אנחנו חייבים לדבר". איריס (שם בדוי) יצאה מפגישה אישית עם המנהלת שלה בתחושה שהמנהלת ״מחפשת״ אותה - וממש הייתה צריכה את חוות דעתכם או תמיכתם. אבל אחרי כמה דקות שיחה עם קולגה נייטרלית (זה אתם...) שעזרה לה לנהל את נקודת המבט — תוך שימוש רק בשאלות שחותרות לאובייקטיביות כמו: מה בדיוק נאמר? איזו ראיה תומכת בתחושה ש״מחפשים אותך״? מה גורם לך לחשוב ש״מחפשים אותך״? — והסיפור השתנה. הסתבר שמה שאיריס חוותה כ"ביקורת" הייתה ניסיון ״לחוץ״ של המנהלת שלה לשחרר את ה‑QA לפני דמו ללקוח (או כל דבר ״לגיטימי״ אחר). אף אחת מהעובדות שאיריס חוותה - לא השתנתה; נקודת המבט של איריס - בהחלט השתנתה (בזכותכם! כל הכבוד). וכשהיא השתנתה — גם דרכי ההתמודדות של איריס עם המצב השתנו לטובה. כאנשים — מנהלים וחברי צוות כאחד — כולנו פוגשים אתגרים כל הזמן. זה יכול להיות משבר בעבודה, מערכת יחסים שמתרופפת, או מכה כלכלית: אירוע שבו הנסיבות חיצוניות נראות ״פשוט נגדנו״. כלי משמעותי שיכול לעזור לנו לנווט רגעים כאלה הוא ניהול נקודת המבט . הרעיון : לבחון כמה זוויות, לחפש פירושים חלופיים, ולהבין מצבים ביותר מפריזמה אחת. זה שימושי במיוחד כשנתקעים בצורת חשיבה שלילית או לא‑פרודוקטיבית. למסגר מחדש קונפליקט דמיינו שחבר מגיע אליכם נסער, כי עמית-לעבודה "יורד עליו" בכל הזדמנות — והמתח ביניהם רק גובר. על ידי ניהול נקודת מבט תוכלו לעזור לו לשקול פירושים חלופיים למה שהוא חווה כביקורת. אולי הקולגה באמת מנסה לעזור עם ביקורת בונה; ואולי העמית בעצמו תחת לחץ אישי שמשפיע על ההתנהגות שלו. כשמכוונים את החבר להסתכל דרך עדשה אחרת, ניתן לזהות נתיבים לפתרון הקונפליקט ולשיפור היחסים. למתן (to moderate) מבט שלילי יישום חזק נוסף של ניהול נקודת מבט הוא לעזור לחברים למתן השקפה שלילית. קחו חבר שמרגיש מוצף בפסימיות, ורואה שליליות בכל מקום. יחד, אפשר למצוא דרכי פירוש חיוביות יותר לאותו מצב. ייתכן שהוא התמקד בעיקר בחסרונות והתעלם מהיתרונות. שינוי עדין של נקודת המבט מאיר אפשרויות חדשות ומחזיר תחושת מסוגלות ושליטה במצב. טכניקות לניהול נקודת מבט הטכניקות הבאות יכולות לעזור לנהל נקודת מבט (חשוב: כמעט תמיד יותר קל אם מישהו עוזר.ת לנו לעשות את זה): מסגור‑מחדש (Reframing):  פרשנות מחודשת של מצב באופן חיובי או פרודוקטיבי יותר. לקיחת נקודת מבט (Perspective Taking):  בחינה מכוונת של מחשבות, רגשות ומניעים של אחרים . שאלות סוקרטיות (Socratic Questioning):  שימוש בשאלות סקרניות ולא‑מובילות (למשל, "איזו ראיה תשנה את דעתך?") כדי לחשוף הנחות ואלטרנטיבות. זום ב-זמן:  לייעץ ל"את.ה העתידי.ת" או להחיל את כלל ה-10‑10‑10 (איך זה ירגיש בעוד 10 ימים, 10 חודשים, 10 שנים?) - ובכך להקטין מעורבות ולהגדיל אפשרויות לפרשנות נייטרלית או חיובית. לצמצם ״קפיצות מחשבה״ בדרך:  להפריד בין מה שנצפה לבין המשמעות שהוספנו; לבדוק כל קפיצה בעזרת ראיות סותרות. חיזוק הטיעון הנגדי:  לבנות את הגרסה החזקה ביותר של טיעון של הצד השני, לפני שמגיבים; זה משפר דיוק בהבנת המצב, ואמון בצד השני. האסטרטגיות הללו יכולות לשפר משמעותית תקשורת, פתרון בעיות וקבלת החלטות. הסובייקטיביות של נקודת המבט חשוב לזכור: נקודת מבט היא מלכתחילה סובייקטיבית — מעוצבת בידי חוויות עבר, רגשות והטיות קוגניטיביות. לכן מומלץ לגשת לניהול נקודת מבט עם פתיחות וסקרנות, ולהיות מוכנים להקשיב באמת לנקודות מבט שונות משלנו. האימון הזה מטפח אמפתיה, הבנה ושיתוף‑פעולה — בבית ובקריירה. ובזמן שנקודת המבט סובייקטיבית, מי שמסייע חייב לשאוף לאובייקטיביות — אחרת ההכוונה לא תיקלט. האובייקטיביות של מנהל.ת נקודת המבט היבט חשוב ולעיתים מוזנח בתפקיד מנהל.ת נקודת המבט הוא האובייקטיביות הנדרשת. אם נותן העצה מוטה לצד מסוים, מעורב רגשית, או משדר שיפוטיות — הצד המקבל ידחה את ההדרכה, גם אם היא "צודקת". דרכים מעשיות לשמירה על אובייקטיביות (צ'ק‑ליסט): ☐ להצהיר על תפקיד וכוונה — "אני כאן כדי לעזור לך לחשוב, לא לבחור צדדים". ☐ להפריד עובדות מסיפורים — לנהל מה ידוע לעומת מה משוער. ☐ שקיפות לגבי ניגודי עניינים — לחשוף אותם מראש, או להימנע מהשיחה. ☐ לשקף לפני שמייעצים — לשקף במדויק ולקבל "כן" לאבחנה. ☐ להזמין הפרכה — "מה היה גורם לנקודת המבט הזו להיות שגויה?" אובייקטיביות איננה ניטרליות כלפי התנהגות פוגענית; היא אומרת שהניתוח שלכם הוגן, שקוף, ומנסה להישען על ראיות ואמפתיה. חשוב לזכור… ניהול נקודת המבט מרחיב — לא מוחק — את סל העובדות שאנו שוקלים. שימוש בניהול נקודת המבט בצמוד לטכניקות פשוטות ולהתחייבות לאובייקטיביות, יכול לעזור ולהפוך אירועים מורכבים לשיעורים שניתן ללמוד ולהתפתח מהם.

Mitzpe Ramon — Winding Road — a different Perspective A fictional story that surely happened : Two text messages, a skipped lunch, and a “We need to talk.” Dana walked out of her 1:1 convinced her manager was out to get her. Five minutes with a neutral peer acting as a “perspective manager” — just calm questions like, What exactly was said? What evidence points that way? What would the strongest case for your manager’s intent look like? — and the story shifted. The “criticism” was a rushed attempt to unblock QA before a client demo. Nothing about the facts changed; the perspective did. And once it did, so did her options. As people—managers and teammates alike—we all face challenges that can truly test our resilience and resourcefulness. Whether it's a workplace crisis, a personal relationship in turmoil, or a financial setback, these hurdles can feel daunting and overwhelming. One transformative tool that can empower us to navigate these challenges is perspective management. This approach encourages us to explore various viewpoints and understand situations from multiple angles. It becomes especially valuable when we find ourselves trapped in a negative or unproductive mindset. Reframing Conflict Consider this scenario: a friend approaches you, distressed about a coworker who seems to criticize every move they make, leading to heightened stress and conflict. As a perspective manager, you can help the friend explore alternative interpretations of what they perceive as criticism. Perhaps the coworker is genuinely trying to be helpful by offering constructive feedback, or maybe they're grappling with personal issues that are influencing their behavior. By guiding your friend to view the situation through a different lens, you can unveil new avenues for resolving the conflict and enhancing their relationship. Shifting Negative Views Another powerful application of perspective management is assisting friends in reframing their negative outlook on a situation. Imagine a friend who feels overwhelmed and pessimistic about their current circumstances, viewing everything through a bleak lens. Together, you can uncover less negative—or even positive—ways to interpret the same situation. They might have been focusing too heavily on the negatives while overlooking potential positives. By gently shifting their perspective, you can illuminate new possibilities and empower them to find a path forward. Techniques for Perspective Management Several evidence-backed techniques help people manage perspective: Reframing:  Reinterpreting a situation in a more positive or productive light. Perspective-taking:  Deliberately considering the thoughts, feelings, and motivations of others. Socratic Questioning:  Using curious, non-leading prompts (e.g., “What evidence would change your mind?”) to surface assumptions and alternatives. Time & Distance Zoom:  Advising your “future you,” or applying the 10–10–10 rule (how will this feel in 10 days, 10 months, 10 years?) to cool hot cognition and broaden options. Ladder of Inference Check:  Separating what you observed from the meaning you added; test each leap with disconfirming evidence. Steelmanning:  Building the strongest version of the other side’s view before responding; it improves accuracy and rapport. These strategies significantly enhance communication, problem-solving, and decision-making skills. The Subjectivity of Perspective It’s crucial to remember that perspective is inherently subjective, shaped by factors such as past experiences, emotions, and cognitive biases. Therefore, approaching perspective management requires an open mind and a genuine willingness to listen to and understand others' viewpoints, even when they differ from our own. This practice fosters greater empathy, understanding, and cooperation, benefiting both personal and professional relationships. And while perspective is subjective, the person helping must strive for objectivity—otherwise the guidance won’t land. The Objectivity of the Perspective Manager Another crucial and often overlooked aspect of the perspective manager is the required objectivity. If the person offering advice is biased toward a side, emotionally entangled, or signaling judgment, the receiver will likely reject the perspective—no matter how “right” it is. Practical ways to maintain objectivity (checklist): ☐ Declare role & intent — “I’m here to help you think, not to pick sides.” ☐ Separate facts from stories — keep an evidence ledger (known vs. assumed). ☐ Check conflicts of interest — disclose it, or recuse yourself. ☐ Mirror before advising — reflect back and get a “yes” to your summary. ☐ Invite disconfirmation — “What would make this perspective wrong?” Objectivity doesn’t mean neutrality about harmful behavior; it means your analysis is fair, transparent, and grounded in evidence and empathy. Remember... Perspective management widens—not erases—the facts we consider. Paired with simple techniques and a commitment to objectivity, it helps turn tense moments into teachable, solvable ones.

Matt Might , a professor in Computer Science  at the University of Utah , created The Illustrated Guide to a Ph.D.  to explain what a Ph.D. is to new and aspiring graduate students. [Matt has licensed the guide for sharing with special terms under the Creative Commons license .] Saw this illustration and was fascinated and impressed by it. Wanted to share it. Credit: Matt Might , a professor in Computer Science at the University of Utah , created The Illustrated Guide to a Ph.D. to explain what a Ph.D. is to new and aspiring graduate students. [Matt has licensed the guide for sharing with special terms under the Creative Commons license .]

I had the privilege of being in the room the day the snowball started rolling . This is the anonymized  story of a workplace project I'm still proud to have been part of... The Problem Our company already offered a solid product and business was good , but industry reports and self‑appointed gurus kept telling our (mostly happy) customers that the product was under‑performing . Without a shared benchmark, rumors could fly—even though parts of the product genuinely lagged behind. The company had no objective scorecard to pinpoint where, or by how much, improvement was needed. The Spark That stalemate ended in the meeting that lit the fuse. Leadership pledged to do “whatever it takes,” acknowledged they didn’t yet know what that would involve, and appointed a cross‑functional Focus Team  to surface the gaps and chart the way forward. We all knew the mission was ambitious and technically daunting, and that it would demand a cross‑company effort. “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” —Laozi The team’s first assignment: map the current reality and draft a clear plan of attack. Within weeks, the Focus Team circled back to leadership with a bold, multi‑pronged recommendation: (1) invest in a next‑gen infrastructure powerful enough to leapfrog the competition, and (2) adopt and promote an industry‑wide measurement standard to track real progress . They also proposed (3) appointing change‑champions inside every team to translate goals into daily action . Management green‑lit the plan —and those pillars became the backbone of everything that followed. The Challenge When we huddled with the engineering wizards who would build the new infrastructure, they gave us both optimism and  a challenge: “We can absolutely get better—maybe even become the  best. But how much better do we need to be? And how will we know when we arrive?” The ideal— make the product better , then best —was clear. The missing piece was the yard‑stick. Measuring What Matters Working with partner companies, the team established an industry‑wide measurement framework  and set transparent targets. At last the team had a fair scoreboard. Engineering the Leap Behind the scenes the engineering wizards ripped out and rewrote the core infrastructure —streamlining every bottleneck and architecting a platform so efficient it quietly set a new bar for the industry. Across the company, change‑champions embedded in every development team  pushed the new platform to—and sometimes beyond—its design envelope. They instrumented their code, stared at live dashboards powered by the industry metrics, and turned each spike in the graphs into a fresh optimization challenge. Stand‑ups no longer asked “What did you do?”  but “By how much did you move the needle?” —and the brightly colored gauges made the answers visible to all. Throughout the entire 18‑month climb (and probably to this day), the Focus Team  didn’t fade into the background. They refreshed the metrics, published weekly scorecards, coached the change‑champions, and generally kept every eye on the ball—so momentum never slipped. The Climb Eighteen months later, the darker-orange line below tells the story: we started dead last and climbed, month after month, until we led the pack. Lagging to Leading: The 18-Month Dash Up the Rankings Three Engines of Change Looking back on the climb, it became clear that every leap forward—big or small—was powered by three  intertwined forces. Strip away the code, the process charts, and the colorful dashboards, and these were the motors that kept momentum roaring: Build world‑class infrastructure.   The engineering wizards rewrote the backbone, turning bottlenecks into boosters and quietly setting a new industry bar. Create a fair scoreboard.   An agreed‑upon, industry‑wide metric gave everyone the same ruler and a common definition of “better.” Champion the change.   Passionate advocates in every team translated data into daily action, ensuring progress never stalled. Step by step these engines propelled the team higher until, objectively , the product topped the list. Good, Better, Best. Never let it rest. ’Til your Good becomes Better , and your Better— Best . —Tim Duncan (quoting St. Jerome) And that’s how a single meeting rolled into a snowball that carried the product to first place.

In 1903 George Bernard Shaw published Man and Superman —and bound into the same volume, after the four acts, were two short pamphlets, The Revolutionist’s Handbook  and Maxims for Revolutionists . In the above-mentioned Maxims for Revolutionists , Shaw wrote : “He who can, does — he who cannot, teaches.” which became a very popular quote hailing doers (anyone say self-educated tech entrepreneurs?) and is used to suggest that teaching is a fallback for those lacking practical skills . The quote has become a source of debate (for example in this Quora thread " How true is the phrase 'those who can do, those who can't teach' in your field? ") on the reasons for teaching, criticism of schools, and overall frustration with teachers. While some have claimed that an even earlier and more prominent source for the quote by Aristotle almost reverses the meaning, often attributing the line “Those who can, do; those who understand, teach.” to Aristotle – yet the wording first appears in educational scholar Lee S. Shulman’s 1986  essay, where he deliberately recasts Shaw to praise understanding. This version actually praises the teachers for their extra ability of understanding . Yet, unfortunately for those trying to recover the honor of the teaching profession, that's not exactly what Aristotle wrote in Metaphysics I.1 (981 b 10-13) : “Hence we think also that the master-workers in each craft are more honorable… because they know the causes of the things that are done.” actually praising those who do so well that they know how things work, somewhat pre-echoing Richard Feynman ( Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!  ,1985) who is known for saying: “If you want to master something, teach it.” So, we are still left with possible criticism of teachers and teaching based off of Shaw's words, and sometimes extended to insult consultants too: Those who can – do. Those who can't – teach. Those who can't teach – consult. And yet, as I teach more and more, and try to justify my focus on teaching (more than doing), I wonder – is it possible that all of these opinions are actually in agreement? My point is that if the teacher works hard, to be the best, to be engaging, to educate, to teach – to treat the job as a source of pride and not as a source of income – just like a master-worker treats their creation, then teaching, pursued with the diligence of a master-craftsman, is itself a form of doing; such teachers both “do” and “understand” , leaving their students doubly fortunate. Aristotle+George Bernard Shaw+Richard Feynman by ChartGPT

At the beginning of the millennium, the startup I worked at was recruiting heavily across all the roles a tech company typically requires, and as part of my job, I was involved directly in the hiring process. Recruiting Dilemma (Chat GPT) The relevant part of the process usually went like this: The candidate waits in the reception area. I walk over, introduce myself, and chat briefly about trivial things (parking, coffee, restroom breaks) during the 15-45 second walk to the interview room. We start the formal interview. After the interview, I submit my feedback about the candidate. Repeat with the next candidate. After several iterations, I noticed something troubling: By the time we began the formal interview, I had already formed a strong initial opinion – positive or negative – about the candidate. The formal interview and subsequent assessments had to be exceptionally good or bad to alter this early impression . Let me emphasize that: Within just 15 to 45 seconds of meeting a candidate, I had already formed a lasting opinion. Even after an hour or two of deep-dive interviewing, my initial impression rarely changed. This concerned me deeply because I couldn’t identify the bias clearly, and I worried about how it might affect the quality of our hires. So, I began researching the topic with three critical questions in mind: Was this behavior unique to me, or common among interviewers? (Suspicion: common) Could this bias negatively impact our hiring quality? (Suspicion: definitely) Assuming the answer to the second question is "Yes", how can I mitigate this risk? I'll start with answering the third and most important question: Always test your candidates (focusing on testing the skill and performance for the role they are applying to) —and make the test a major factor of the decision process. Always find objective ways to measure candidate quality. Resumes, interviews, and past experiences are indicators – but they alone cannot reliably predict future performance. Tests and structured assessments are critical tools to complement your hiring process. Here’s what my research uncovered: This behavior is not unique to me. Humans form snap judgments about others extremely quickly. A classic example is the influential 1993 paper by Ambady & Rosenthal, "Half a Minute: Predicting Teacher Evaluations From Thin Slices of Nonverbal Behavior and Physical Attractiveness." They found that people viewing video clips of teachers lasting just 2 to 10 seconds could accurately predict student evaluations given at the end of a semester. Participants' quick judgments based on nonverbal cues strongly aligned with opinions from students who had interacted with the teachers over an entire semester. Traditional interview and selection processes aren't highly effective at predicting actual job performance. A compelling example comes from a 1987 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The study compared outcomes of two student groups at the University of Texas Medical School at Houston after a legislative mandate increased the class size from 150 to 200 students. The additional 50 students were initially lower-ranked and mostly rejected by other schools. Yet, surprisingly, both these students and the initially higher-ranked students showed similar graduation rates , academic performance , and honors , and eventual professional success . In short, your initial impressions are probably – like mine – quick, powerful, and potentially misleading . To ensure you hire well, always rely on structured, objective tests alongside any other process you put in place for the hiring selection process.

Nearly two and a half years ago, I decided to start a journey, of going back to school and pursuing a Masters degree in Behavioral Economics. Two years after the program started, I submitted my thesis (a download link can be found at the end of this post). And this past week, I received my Certification of Eligibility. What have I learned? (and please forgive me for oversimplifying things, but my mythological first boss Victor Wrobel taught me to K eep I t S imple S tupid): People are less rational than we think they are... (small surprise) People are less rational than they should be... (bigger surprise) People are less rational than they think they are... (even bigger surprise) All of this is true, not only in general, but even in cases where it's economically clear what is financially better for them. Behavioral Economics not only offers a better understanding of these observations, but also helps categorize these (mis)behaviors, helps understanding what and why leads people to these (mis)choices, and proposes methods of guiding people towards behaviors that would benefit them. (* If you want a more-technical one-paragraph version, I've added it at the end.) In one sentence I'll say, this program was all I could hope for - and then some. Thank you Prof. Guy Hochman and Patricia Mikowski-Kahn , for the idea and execution of this program, and the full support along the way. A big shoutout to the Reichman University Behavioral Economics program and the team implementing it. Thank you to the staff of teachers and professors - and the class students - you've all made my journey that much better... Not all students study as good as others - and the same goes for teachers. BUT all students love to study, and do their best to be their best - and the same goes for teachers. So thank you to all of you. A special thanks to my study group (you know who you are!) - you made my studies that much more enjoyable. A final thank-you to my thesis advisors, Prof. Jacob Goldenberg and Dr. Moshik Miller - you made the thesis research process a fascinating and enjoyable part of my learning experience and reenforced another principle my first boss taught me - " always choose to work with people who are much nicer and much smarter than you are - and good things will happen ". My thank-you list can not be complete without thanking my better-half and my family for their support and understanding. You made my journey great. (*) Behavioral Economics reveals that people often make irrational decisions influenced by emotions, social norms, and cognitive biases, challenging traditional economic models that assume rational behavior. Central to this field are concepts like Heuristics, which are mental shortcuts leading to biases, and Prospect Theory, which shows how people inconsistently value gains and losses. The field offers practical insights into human behavior, highlighting why and how people deviate from rational choices, and provides tools like Nudge Theory to positively influence decision-making. Its applications extend to policy-making, marketing, and finance, underscoring its significance in understanding and guiding human behavior in economic contexts. ChatGPT+ DALL·E Popular Concepts of Behavioral Economics

When I was in 11th grade, between my 16th and 17th birthdays, I was part of a Youth Delegation sponsored by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign affairs. Israeli youth delegation This was an all-expenses-paid 5 week overseas travel (during school year!), to some location in the Western world (we're talking about the early 1980s, so that bias is not a big surprise). The 70-or-so delegation members were selected from all 11th and 12th graders across the state of Israel. The selection process started with each school sending two candidates (theoretically, we were selected by having good grades, and good attitudes. Knowing myself, I'm not sure what was the criteria :-| But we'll leave speculation out of this). Then, all candidates took an exam (mostly general knowledge about Israel, Judaism and the World, some current affairs). Then, some of us were selected to take another exam, and finally - a face-to-face interview. Then, some lucky 70-80 of us were selected for a 3-day seminar, after which we were coupled-up to girl-boy team, and assigned a destination - a location to where we will travel for 4 weeks or so, meet local youths, and make them see how "normal" we are, and hopefully make them take a leap-of-faith to realize how normal Israel is. Why? Well, as part of the above-mentioned seminar we learnt all kinds of trivia tidbits, and the first one was: If measured by foreign news coverage, then Israel is the second largest country in the world! We would travel to some city - my partner and I were sent to the Midwest of the US - basically bigger-and-smaller towns in the vicinity of Chicago, Illinois. Some of us went to western Europe, and there was even a pair that traveled to Australia... We'd be hosted by local Jewish families who'd take care of us and take us around, starting with picking us up at the local airport upon arrival, and dropping us off at the airport at the end of our stay. Every morning we'd go to a local highschool, and during school-day we'd meet different classes for 6-7 hours in a row, tell them about ourselves and our lives in Israel, with a well-prepared lecture, peppered with anecdotes and trivia tidbits, and end with answering questions we didn't cover in our lecture. Israeli youth delegation - session In the second half of the day we'd meet with local jewry, and try to walk the fine line of increasing their zionism without hinting that they should be making Aliyah. The other super-popular trivia tidbit (in addition to news coverage tidbit from above) which I can't seem to forget, was comparing the size of the state of Israel to the size of... The State of Texas - 24 times the state of Israel (actually, 695,662 km²) California - 15 times (423,970 km²) Lake Michigan - 1 time... (58,030 km²) The funny thing is that as I was writing this post, I re-checked the numbers and they don't really add up, as the size of Israel (20,770 km²) actually fits 34 times into Texas, 21 times into California, and nearly 3 times into Lake Michigan. But nobody called our bluff (and if they would, maybe they'd be even more impressed?). And by far, THE most popular topics for questions were the 5 'D's - the American teenagers would ask us about: Drinking Draft Dating Driving Drugs not necessarily in this order... They were jealous about the effectively-non-existent Drinking restrictions (as of 1980s), were shocked about the compulsory army Draft , less impressed with our Dating or Driving (age 18 or 17.5 at the 1980s) stories and would really grill us about the Drugs (nothing interesting to hear from my partner and I - we were really boring in that aspect).

(The Hebrew version follows the image.) (This is a note to our future selves—so we can look back one day, laugh at what used to excite us, and say “ah, those were the days.”) If you’ve been following GenAI or tech news in general, you’ve probably seen OpenAI’s announcement: Introducing 4o Image Generation . Sure, we already had some seriously impressive LLMs with powerful image generation capabilities—but let’s be honest, most people were getting results that were just okay . Decent. Occasionally great. But rarely jaw-dropping unless you really knew what you were doing. Personally, I was terrible at getting those ultra photo-realistic outputs. You know, the kind that end up fueling the next round of deepfake news headlines. So, I figured I’d give the updated 4o model a shot. Here’s the prompt I used (in Hebrew, shown below the image): Please generate an image in which we see the late Prime Minister of Israel, Menachem Begin, hugging the late Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion. The image should look as realistic as possible, with a beach in the background, and a Star of David drawn in the sand. And here's what I got... For this time and age, I find it impressive. At least today. See you in three years? Ben-Gurion and Begin hugging - ChatGPT 20250327 - בן-גוריון ובגין מתחבקים (זוהי תזכורת לעצמנו לעתיד — כדי שנוכל להסתכל אחורה, לצחוק ממה שהלהיב אותנו ״פעם״, ולהגיד "אה, הטכנולוגיה של פעם".) כל מי שעוקב אחרי חדשות GenAI או טכנולוגיה בכלל, כנראה כבר נתקל בהכרזה של OpenAI שמספרת על יכולות יצרית התמונה שהתעדכנו ב-ChatGPT ובמודל 4o. נכון, כבר ראינו מודלים מרשימים עם יכולות מדהימות ליצירת תמונות — אבל האמת היא שרוב האנשים הצליחו להוציא תוצרים שהם מקסימום סבירים פלוס, לפעמים יפים, אבל לא באמת מרשימים. ובטח לא בעקביות, אלא אם כן המשתמש הייתה מקצוענית. אני אישית אף פעם לא הצלחתי להוציא תוצאות פוטו-ריאליסטיות ברמה של "וואו". מה זה ווואו? אלה שמככבות אחר כך בכותרות על עוד איזה דיפ־פייק מלחיץ... אז החלטתי לנסות בעצמי ולתת למודל 4o המעודכן הזדמנות זה הפרומפט שנתתי למודל 4o שהניב את התמונה שלמעלה: בבקשה תייצר לי תמונה שבה רואים את ראש ממשלת ישראל המנוח, מנחם בגין, מתחבק עם ראש ממשלת ישראל המנוח, דוד בן-גוריון. התמונה צריכה להיראות מציאותית ככל הניתן, על רקע חוף הים, כשבחול ניתן לראות שרטוט של מגן-דוד בחול הים. אותי התוצאה הרשימה. לפחות היום. ניפגש עוד 3 שנים?

When is Quality good enough? Many times when discussing Product Management, we are faced with the following question: How do we know if our product is ready? How do we know if our product reached the "correct" level of quality ? What we usually hear/read are "blanket" statements like " it has to be good enough " (what does "good enough" mean? how do we measure "good enough"?), or " don't compromise on quality" (practically - what should we do? ship when we have zero bugs? and then, if we reached it? we might find a bug the next moment... for how long should we wait with zero bugs before releasing?). Part of the problem is that there are no objective measures for quality or severity of bugs, and how they impact the users of the product. Another part is that product teams find it hard to be objective, as they really want to ship (which is a good thing...). The team has worked hard and for a long time to make this product breakthrough, this innovation, and really wants to finally ship - and see the impact. Yet now, the shipping date gets pushed further and further as bugs accumulate and the team toils to crush them and to reach the "shippable level" quality for the product. As the quotes go "It's easier to make a breakthrough then to follow through.", or "Innovation is 1% Inspiration and 99% Perspiration.". And the perspiration phase is long and frustrating. And yet. The product has to be "good enough". Leading to the question we started with: How do we know if our product is ready? I'd like to claim this same subjectivity can be used to our advantage (more accurately, to help assess the product's quality). Our emotional involvement with our product can be used to shape an opinion about it's quality-level. How? Well, when I'm asked "how can we know if our product is ready?" ( quality-wise , not feature-wise), my first answer is always the same: You know if it's good enough. Be honest with yourselves. Would you be proud to let your family/friends/significant-other use the product at its current quality-level? I believe that when we need to make the quality-call, deciding whether the product is good enough, we can ask ourselves - would we proudly let our friends-and-family use the product? Would we let them invest (their money, their time) in it? If we answer "no, not yet", then the product is simply not ready. No matter what our graphs and dashboards tell us. And if we feel the product is ready to be shown off to people we really care about their input - then our product quite possibly reached a level of quality allowing us to ship it. The very same subjectivity which typically masks the correct answer regarding product quality, can be used to help us prepare a simple yes/no ready-or-not measure regarding the product quality. Would you be proud to let your family/friends/significant-other use your product at the current quality level? Ask yourself. Be honest about the answer. Be honest about the implications. NOTE: This is not instead of standard quality control measures. This is to augment them, and the battle the subjectivity of the human factor assigning importance to specific issues and overall grades.

When Apple shipped the first Apple Watches, they offered many beautiful, interactive and configurable watch faces (FWIW, as was standard for all smart watches... Apple wasn't the first to invent it). The complete watch face list can be found at Apple's site . With the Apple Watch Ultra, they introduced a new watch face, Wayfinder, which offers many complications, to really make the use of Apple Watch Ultra standout. My Wayfinder watch face. But, they also introduced a WWTT moment - What Were They Thinking??? You see, with all this smartness, one day I noticed my watch arms (you know, those things pointing at the hour/minutes/seconds) became noticeably shorter... (see image below) My Wayfinder watch face - with shorter arms 🙁 I did notice that I also got a live compass reading (something I didn't ask for, but was nice...) - but I really preferred the longer arms... Like most users, I thought I did something wrong and somehow messed up with the Watch settings. So I started looking into the Watch app settings, trying to figure out what I need to reconfigure to make the arms longer again. Or make the compass go away. Couldn't find anything in the app. Looked into the Watch settings (on the watch) - and still couldn't find anything. Still short arms. So now what? I did what any user does when stumped with a technology product - and restarted the watch, hoping the short arms would go away. But to no avail. Still short arms. I really hated the short arms (and wasn't too keen on the compass that came with them), so I gave up on the Wayfinder watch face, and set another watch face. And thought - maybe if now I set back the Wayfinder watch face, it'll have the long arms again? Tried it. Still short arms. Now what? Truly gave up. Moved to another watch face. Forgot about it. Until, one day, what reading about watch face features (at Apple's site, link above ), I noticed the following "hidden-yet-obviously-documented" feature of the Wayfinder watch face: ...when you tap the outer edges of the Wayfinder watch face (the ring that displays minutes or hours), it becomes a compass and your current latitude and longitude coordinates appear within the ring. (And needless to say, your watch arms will also become shorter... until you tap again, when the compass will go away - and the arms will grow back!) So, great feature - but why not make it more obvious? Or easier to turn off? Or at least reset when switching to another watch face and back? Or when restarting the watch? Or some other cooler more Apple way. Why make it so hard to find? WWTT???