Skip to main content

NY Times Opinion by Devorah Baum: Jewishness

In response to a NY Times piece in the Opinion section We Are All Jew-ish Now, with the synopsis "Jewishness” can be the sensibility of whoever feels unsure of who they are — a bit peculiar, a bit funny", I wrote the following:

Comment #1

The more basic one, that most Jews would agree about, is Jewish means being of Jewish ancestry. Beyond that, Jews themselves think that being Jewish means remembering the Holocaust, being ethical, working for justice and equality, and for being intellectually curious.

Personally, as someone who is married to someone of Jewish ancestry, and whose friends over the past four decades have been almost exclusively Jewish, I've sometimes wondered why. My own musings, based on certain facts of behavior, is that Jews, especially the ones that I know, are highly intelligent, highly verbal, and interactive communicators. Conversation is rarely about taking turns and has always been a bit more intense and intellectual, but then again, that's me too.

Comment #2

In a previous comment, I wrote about the more salient aspects of Jewishness, but one that I have mused about was triggered by an article on The Matrix movie. I don't remember the actual reference, but it had to do with perception. I don't have the original article, but I imagined it had something to do with the multiplicity of perception.

My own personal take has more to do with wondering why all of my major personal attachments have been with Jews. The most obvious reason is that we share high intelligence, along with a strong verbal ability and an interactive style, but I have a few more personal ones. Maybe it is because we have a feeling of being successful outsiders. Maybe it is the strong concern with ethics, justice, and equality. Maybe it's my mitochondrial DNA line, of the same branch as 30% of Jews, although, in fact, I know that my spouse is not from that branch. Who knows?

Comment #3

I can see the point of being the successful outsider, even though one is an insider by intellect or ability, and one's outsider perception can lead to great insight, comedy being one venue. It is certainly possible for many of us to experience this sense of not quite fitting in, but the internet has had the opposite effect, making insiders of the fringe. Although our connectivity can bring together diverse and positive elements, allow us to find people, ideas and materials that were not available locally, it is also how misogynists, racists, and antisemites find their brethren.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst by Robert M. Sapolsky My rating: 5 of 5 stars I finished reading this crying. It is a work of neurobiology, social science, anthropology, and history, but ultimately it is a work of great humanity, suggesting ways that humans, our groups, our systems, and our societies can be made better. View all my reviews

Don't learn to code. Learn to think.

A response to  Don't learn to code. Learn to think. : Below is is my usual response when I see an article stating that everyone should learn to code:  Rather than programming, it is more important to impart the thinking of computer science (CS) than a specific implementation. Programming can be an end point for some students, but it is likely that programming itself will be increasingly automated, so that one needs more the general concepts common in CS. Even then, programming itself is to some degree a grunt task that one progresses beyond:  The following are typical components of a CS degree: algorithms & flowcharting systems thinking logical systems and set theory object-orientation & patterns probability, statistics, mathematics All of the above can be useful in an increasingly automated and data-driven world.

A Journey — if You Dare — Into the Minds of Silicon Valley Programmers

My responses in a NY Times comment section for the book, Coders: The Making of a New Tribe and the Remaking of the World by Clive Thompson : #1 - Link Although I've been a software developer for 15 years, and for longer alternating between a project manager, team lead, or analyst, mostly in finance, and now with a cancer center, I found it funny that you blame the people doing the coding for not seeing the harm it could cause. First, most scientific advancement has dark elements, and it is usually not the science but how it is used and sold by business people that is the problem. This leads to the second problem, in that it is not coding that is in itself problematic, but specifically how technology is harnessed to sell. It is normal and desirable to track users, to log actions, to collect telemetry, so as to monitor systems, respond to errors, and to develop new features, but that normal engineering practice has been used to surveil users for the purpose of selling. Blaming