A day after the fatal car accident, 'Egged' published a mourning ad expressing its condolences to the six bereaved families who lost their loved ones in the horrific accident, but the company 'forgot' to mention the names of the six victims, sparking a major uproar. On social media, users expressed outrage at the company's 'opacity', MK Lavi demanded that the company's chairman publish a new ad, and MK Yachimovitz angrily asked: Aren't the Haredim human?
Two days later, the company published a new ad, this time with the names of the dead, and the commotion subsided a little, which leaves the stage for psychosocial reflections: Did 'Egged' really make a mistake? Would we, if we were in the position of the company's vilified Haredi advisor, act differently?
It's easy to say: Sure, it's insensitivity, it's treating a person as a number, without a name, ultra-Orthodox society as a whole as a faceless black mass, and so on. But we must remember that all these words are spoken after That the ad was published and the storm broke out.
Not before.
In professional language, this phenomenon is called "hindsight." This is no longer an expression or a cliché, but an empirical psychological diagnosis. Social psychologist Prof. Israel Lieblich has been arguing for years that the institution called the "Investigation Committee" is a distorted, useless, and above all meaningless arrangement. The reason: After the event has occurred, it is not possible, with all the good will, to observe the events from an objective point of view. It is simply not possible.
Lieblich conducted a simple experiment. He asked American and Israeli participants to give a probability of an outcome in the face of an unknown world situation [for example, a god-forsaken war between Britain and the Gurkha tribe in India], and divided the people into two groups. Those who did not know the outcome of the war and those who did, or more precisely thought they did, since Lieblich had given them misinformation.
The results were unequivocal: those who supposedly knew the outcomes were unable, despite their deliberate effort, to estimate a different probability than the outcome. Those who did not know gave completely different results. In other words, the knowledge embedded in the participants' brains was stronger than any human ability to estimate the decision-makers' situation beforehand.
Any commission of inquiry, then, is illogical. It is easy to judge Ehud Olmert's decision-making system on the results of the Lebanon War, in light of the knowledge of its dire consequences. However, the judgment will be distorted, as it will be influenced by the results and will not objectively examine the Prime Minister's decision-making process when he was not yet aware of the results.
The ultra-Orthodox consultant for Egged, whom I don't know at all, made a decision not to publish the names of the dead. It may have been a wise decision. But after the publication of the ad, and the harsh treatment by influential figures who determined that this was an omission and a lack of transparency following the storm that arose, we are not at all able to consider logically whether his decision-making system was perfect or lacking.
So before you rush to attribute obscurity, evil, malice, and malice to the Haredi advisor Aryeh Frankel, try to understand that you have no ability, even if you wanted to, to know how you You would drive.
Join the Haredim 10 Facebook page >>
Join the X page of Haredim 10 >>
Want more news, videos and stories? Join the Haredim 10 WhatsApp channel >>
