PERCEPTION, WHOSE? *

 

One of my favorite Jewish jokes goes like this:

Two people have an argument and go to the rabbi to rule who’s right. After hearing the first person, the rabbi says, “You’re right.” The second person protests that he hasn’t had a chance to state his case, and after he does, the rabbi says to the second person,” You’re right.”

A third person hears the whole spiel and protests. “Rabbi, they can’t both be right.”

To that, the rabbi says to the third person, “You’re right, too!”

 

That says it.

 

It depends on perception. For storytelling purposes, it’s called point of view (POV) and it makes all the difference.

 

I’ve had feedback that said something a character was saying was factually incorrect, urging me to correct it. “You don’t want young readers to think this is so,” the feedback goes.

But it was correct. It was right from that character’s perception.

 

This is why I have an aversion to politically motivated fiction, confusing a version of secular piety with the truth that a particular character’s perception is what it is. Writing a POV well must be the character’s truth, not “what you want young readers (or any readers) to think.”

 

*Never mind the grammatically challenged title of this post. Scrambling language rules wakes one up, at least according to my POV. 🙂

AS WE ENTER THE GATES INTO YET ANOTHER YEAR...

 HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL

ITS LEAVES FALLING

ON THE PATH

TO A MORE PEACEFUL

MERCIFUL

FUTURE

🍂🍂🍂🍂🍂🍂🍂

🍂🍂🍂🍂🍂

🍂🍂🍂

🍂

THINKING of POLLS

 

This morning, I am thinking about polls. Not “the Poles,” who are the people of Poland, but these pesky things asking for our opinion.

 

I have just gotten yet another of these spam emails asking me to answer a survey, a.k.a. pole, on what I think of this, that, and the other. I labeled it SPAM and onto the great ethernet it went unanswered.

 

Unless you have turned off and unchecked all information in the last few decades, you’d know that opinion polls have become unreliable as far as election results are concerned. My sense is that they were never reliable as far as anything and everything is concerned. The so-called “science” of polling just isn’t scientific.  

 

We’ve heard the analysis and excuses that go something like this:

Polls are conducted via landlines, and people with landlines no longer reflect the population.

People lie because some answers are deemed “uncouth.”

The pollsters asked the question in the wrong way, either ineptly or deliberately.

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah. All the above. But there’s the uglier reality that most polls are bought and paid for by interested parties and are meant to be used not as information but for persuasion.

Why is this “ugly” you might ask?

Because the underlying reality of our species is that most of the time most of us go with the majority opinion. If most people think thus, barring any true knowledge to the contrary, we go with what most think.

 

Herd mentality is part of most species. Ours is no exception. Individuals lack expertise regarding most public matters. How many of my friends have the expertise in climatology or energy science or economics? Yet they seem to hold strong convictions on climate change, nuclear energy, and the best way to do the most good for most people.

 

How did we come to our convictions?

 

We went with what most people say.

 

How did we know what most people say?

 

We listened to the polls.

 

How did the polls know?

 

Because we told them.

 

It gets worse: we penalize individuals who think for themselves. It’s safer in a group, and those who are not joiners are a threat.

 

So, yes, I’m thinking about polls. I’m a conventional person, not a rebel or a prophet. But I don’t answer polls anymore and I pay little attention to media when they insist on quoting approval polls or polls that measure beliefs.

VERSIONS of the GOLDEN RULE

 

When faced with a seemingly unresolvable ethical dilemma, I resort to The Golden Rule.

 

Most know the New Testament version:

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you".

(Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31)

 

But there is another version, as worded by Rabbi Hillel in the Talmud:

“What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.”

 

As the Talmudic story goes, A non-Jew approached Hillel, asking to be taught the entire Torah while standing on one foot. Hillel responded with the Golden Rule, and added, “the rest is commentary. Now go study.”

 

Between these two versions, I prefer Hillel’s. There are many things I would like “done to me” that others wouldn’t like done to them. People are different that way, and vive la différence. I find I prefer the approach through negation. It comes closer to respecting others.

 

But even here, there are those things you would hate that others don’t. In other words, the Golden Rule is still golden, but the duty to use discernment is never discharged.

I was faced with such a dilemma only the other day. The Golden Rule helped me take the harder route. Did I choose right? I can’t make this claim. But I stand by the way I went about trying.

INSTEAD OF TRYING HARDER…

 

…TRY SOFTER

 

I’ve been contemplating this bit of advice, seemingly more a play on an idiom than wise, when out of the cloudy sky it came to me.

 

Trying softer. Yes, that.

 

After a mistake or mishap, maybe instead of doubling down, consider gentleness on the next move. Consider a redo more carefully planned.

 

After getting a NO, consider letting it sink, but slowly, instead of throwing an inner tantrum. Then, proceed with caution and consideration of what just happened.

 

After getting stonewalled, instead of bashing my head against the wall— consider resting next to the wall and catching my breath.

Gentleness with self diffuses into gentleness with others and a wind that transforms into a soft breeze.

 

{A soft hug}

©Art by Maya Golek Apter. Dreaming dog is Brandi Apter