More, LOTS more

  

Back when I was but a boy, still optimistic about my ability to learn math, my teachers taught us the concept of “estimating” (also known as “guestimating”). The idea was that we could approximate what the answer should be like before we did any computations so we could compare what we got with what made sense and that way, we could see if our math was completely off base. At the time I felt like the estimate should have been enough because, even then, I knew that there was precious little use for math in the world. Leave that up to the professional mathetizers and I’ll stick with the lottery winners and hire them mathetizers to do the work.

As I aged (for lack of available and desirable options) I recognized that the value of estimating is that it reinforces an understanding of the relationship between numbers. Once you see how the answer SHOULD look because you have a sense of how the pieces operate, you stand a much better chance of seeing why a potential answer is wrong. If you know the answer should be a negative, or has to be more than either of the parts, then an answer that doesn’t fit that schema can be discarded.

This type of understanding of numbers is rudimentary, but, more importantly, it is fundamental. If I go to the local fast fooderie and pay with cash, I don’t want my server to take my cash and give me change without considering what, approximately, my change should be. I want to hear him or her say “that can’t be right!” Otherwise, typing errors or other tech-interface mis-actions will be believed regardless.

Why do I mention this? I’m glad I asked. I’m also glad I didn’t wait for you sheep to ask because I can’t always count on you people to wade in and find your voice. So I’m here for you. Mostly because I’m awesome.

I was having a conversation with someone recently about the value of math instruction and he pointed out that he didn’t like when, when he was but a wee lad, his teachers forbade the use of a calculator during assessments because, in their words, “you won’t always have a calculator handy.” He laughed at them in retrospect and reminded the huddled masses that he always has his phone with him. Har har we all chortled (chortling is the cool way to laugh kids). And secretly I cried inside.

What I predict is that people in the service industry, doing the kinds of basic work that serves as the backbone of any society will start doing worse and worse jobs. The guy basing his fee on the square footage of my living room floor will use his phone to measure and then compute and if the resultant acreage (It’s a big room) is illogical, he will trust the technology. The guy figuring out how many miles I can go before my next oil fill will mistype a number into his device and I’ll end up on the side of the road next to a flaming hunk of imported metal.

The same can be said for teaching spelling – understanding WHY words are constructed the way they are not only helps sharpen the memory, but allows people to intuit the meaning of unfamiliar words by looking at roots and affixes. Relying on AI to “correct” words will lead to the wrong words’ being used (the “Damn you autocorrect” syndrome) and the wrong message’s being conveyed. We cannot dress up laziness and call it “the future” and turn it into a positive.

The Lower Order Thinking Skills which I value so highly, having been subcontracted to technology will disempower the sectors of society which are based on those skills and there will be no intuition – no developed memorization skills, no experience of spotting the error, and no understanding of the relationship between values. There will be no practice of approximating a proper answer because “who needs to do basic math?” There will be no insight into WHY math works the way it works and therefore there will be no critical sense willing to question when an answer doesn’t fit, on its face.

We will not be taken over by robots, technology and AI. We will be (and already are) handing over the keys to the kingdom in a slow regression that we call progress. We will become reliant on technology and so convinced that our deeper analytical skills are so developed that we needn’t worry about the basics. And the robots won’t have to do much but exploit our foundational stupidity and we will go to our doom in neat and orderly lines.

Confusing Food With Food

I want to create a menu. I do love to cook but this is a menu of foods I am not going to make, but that I would like others to make and then take pictures of. You might even want to eat it. Don’t know, don’t care.



Here is what is driving the menu: wrong color foods.



Ok, so the colors are not “wrong” per se, but are certainly unexpected.



So, for example, a plate of spinach fettuccine (or for non-kosher consumers, squid ink pasta). Got it?



Let’s get started:



At that table there should be a bowl of techina made from black garlic seeds and a brown butter/black garlic oil. Also, golden grape jam for spreading.



Start with a pasta bar with 3 choices:

Squid ink/black

Beet pasta (pink/red)

Spinach pasta (green)



To pour over it, we have a choice of a green cheese sauce or topped with a tomato sauce made from yellow tomatoes. Such things exist, or so I have been told, and I imaging the contrast of a bright yellow sauce with a green (or black) pasta would be striking. Or a green cheese sauce on a green pasta might just be gross looking!

Sushi made from Lingcod

I want a corn salad made with purple onions and red corn. Yes, red corn is a thing. Maybe chop up some non-green peppers. Not as unconventional, but tasty and colorful.

Wax beans on the side and a white pumpkin pie, plus some grilled purple cauliflower and purple broccoli, and white and purple asparagus.

The corn, alternatively, could be used to make a red/blue creamed corn or a red or blue corn-based corn bread, tortillas, or chips to go with the dips above.

Next, a tzimmes made with purple/blue and red carrots, or maybe just white ones. And a mashed potato dish made from purple potatoes, but still savory.

Slice up some white sweet potatoes very thin and fry them up.

Serve with a glass of blood orange juice.

For dessert we have a lot of options:



Dried rings of pink pineapple

Slices of white or yellow watermelon

Golden raspberry compote

Red kiwis

White cherries and white strawberries served next to a chocolate fountain filled with white chocolate

I was considering a red banana pudding but the pinkness of the red banana flesh seems fleeting.



So start shopping, cooking and taking pictures of the meal that will mess with your senses.

My official position on the use of AI in the classroom

 

Yes, here it is. I have reviewed my thoughts, catalogued my experiences and quantified the qualifiers, and here it all is.

First, the question: how do we, as instructors of writing, hold students responsible for writing literary responses when there is the specter of AI writing to contend with?

I think that this requires that we re-evaluate exactly what we are trying to accomplish in our instruction of writing and the writing process. I have dealt with many of these issues here and here and I will be repeating some earlier sentiments (apologies) but then crafting them into practical applications by the end of this piece.

As I have written elsewhere, I am a fan of establishing a strong foundation of concrete skills for students to rely on and build upon. We cannot absolve students of the need to be able to do simple arithmetic just because they have access to calculators. Not only will there be situations in which the calculator is inaccessible, but the thinking skills (read: neural passageways) that are developed train the mind to be able to do other types of thinking -- it is an exportable strength. The patience and strategizing-organization that the brain must employ are not limited to doing simple arithmetic, but to all problem solving situations. So the skills, important on their own, are essential in conditioning the brain, preparing it for unforeseen challenges. Stretching before a basketball game makes the muscles more capable on the run home as well.

I reiterate, then, that students still need to learn, acquire and master skills and in my 10th grade (grade level) class, this means mastering a particular structure for a thesis, a body paragraph and a transition. To me, these are non-negotiable elements to proper and complete student writing. Sure there are many ways to go about structuring essays and thesis statements, but in my class, I use a specific form and formula. The resultant essay is "cookie cutter" but it is complete and does the job. AI cannot teach these skills so my job is somewhat set. And if I'm concerned about the AI involvement, then I can (have and will continue to) require students to practice these skills in the absence of technology. Yes, this smacks of hiding my head in the sand, but I don't think that we can abandon the ol' pen and paper. Unless a student has fine motor skills issues, I believe that any students can write (or dictate, in a situation in which the accommodation is a scribe) a sentence that follows a formula. I believe that a student whose accommodation is the use of a computer can be monitored in the classroom as he types a single paragraph. Either a lock-down browser or simply an observant teacher and a well-placed computer can dissuade a student from using an automated system instead of his own head. Students (at least on this level) need to be drilled repeatedly, tested to see that they can make a thesis, build a paragraph which connects text and idea and then set up a transition which reaches back to complete a thought and introduces the one next expected via the thesis.

Earlier today, I sat down with the ChatGPT website and fed it one of my essay prompts, verbatim. I then had it generate 10 "different" responses. I put that word in quotes because it often churned out identical sentences and phrases (in fact, were I to try and detect whether an AI composed a response, I would first run the prompt through and then look for repeated phrases and structures in the responses I evaluate because the LLM repeats itself). What the computer came up with wasn't horrible but it could not predict structures that I taught in the classroom, even if I used phrases like "proper thesis" or "transition." The writing was generically competent and even (mostly) textually accurate but would not satisfy the requirements of my class. Paragraphs lacked specific detail, included over-generalizations and external information and relied on broad statements. The ideas were left unconnected. I believe that a student, trained in how to create a thesis, a body paragraph and a transition in my class would see clearly the failings of the AI generated response, and if not immediately, would see them after more direct instruction to help him or her acquire this specific skill.

The solution then (in my not-so-humble opinion) is to isolate the two categories of skills and address each one differently: students should be required to construct the necessary elements of a literary essay without technological mediation. Simple as that -- if we are concerned about the use of AI, require that all work is done in class and without computers (or without unmoderated computer use). This will address issues of Lower Order Thinking Skills and will ground the student in the relevant and class-established expectations.

AI provides the opportunity, though, for the evaluation (a Higher Order Thinking Skill) of text and frees up the student from HAVING to create the material to be evaluated. This is its power -- it speeds up a process that we could do if we wanted. If we can't do it without a computer then we shouldn't be relying on technology. But if we can, and just want to move on to other things, then the AI is a great tool. The real problem I'm seeing is that people use technology instead of developing the skills so they can't evaluate the product created outside of their brains. If I am used to having a computer compute my averages in class but I don't udnerstand how those averages are computed than I won't see the problem when the computer generates a result which is wrong. If I can't read a map or plan my own trip, then I can't assess whether computerized directions might be in error. Attaching motors to pump my legs if I don't know how to walk won't make me a faster runner -- it will cause me to fall on my face.

The real skill that we have to cultivate then, after we get through the basics of content creation is content revision, and by using the AI to make the material to be revised, we can craft tens and hundreds of equivalent samples that students can then work on. The student can then practice the higher order thinking skill of evaluating and revising, assessing and commenting without having to spend the time creating the base materials with which to work. But this only works if the student understands how to make that basic content so he has something to compare the AI creation to. In the actual work by the student, the technology is unnecessary as the practical skill of revising is easily accomplished on paper so we no longer have to worry about the reliance on AI. And if the assignment is on revision, to ensure that it is done authentically, we can collect the work, not just the finished, revised work. We can say, like a math class, that the student can use a calculator but we have to see all the work.

The assignment, then, has a variety of steps and two distinct components:

1. Assign a text

2. Assess the reading (through quizzes, short responses, class discussions)

A. instruct on the format of a thesis, body paragraph and transition

B. practice elements of item A repeatedly

3. Assign a lockdown-browser, or by-hand timed assessment requiring elements in item A

THEN

4. Feed the prompt(s) for step 3 into an AI text generator

5. Have students "grade" the product of step 4, comparing it to the obligations expected because of item A

While larger writing assignments can then follow, especially if they are based on work generated in-class, or even AI material revised by the student and brought up to class-spec. If we are starting a larger assignment from absolute scratch, and we have no particular format or stylistic demands, then we might require running the completed product through an AI checker (which I don't particularly trust), but at that point we are as concerned about the student's honesty as we would be of a student whose tutor does most of the writing when essays are assigned to be completed at home (which cannot be caught by a plagiarism checker).

In any case, we free ourselves of the ChatGPT of Damocles because we have established that the student has the actual skills expected and then can apply them in an authentic way.

Teaching writing is about teaching the process of creation so we need to evaluate the steps in the process and stop being worried that a final result which materializes out of thin air is suddenly suspect. There is no assessible process when the assignment is left to be done away from school, begining to end so that is a less effective measure of any specific process-based skill anyway.

True strength

 I was driving in my car last week, headed to the airport to pick up a child and a spouse. Newark airport has redesigned terminal A so I'm still getting used to the new layout. Here's a weird detail -- as you approach the terminal there is an entrance onto the road from the left side and it isn't one of those long ramps that allows cars to merge; it is a 90 degree left turn into the fast lane. I was unaware of its existence until a large car decided to inform me by lurching all the way across my lane and half of the next lane over before beginning his left turn. I swerved to the right, hoping that, early in the morning, there would be precious few cars alongside me. I also hit the horn (which I rarely do) and slammed on my brakes. This adventure in multi-tasking had a number of effects. First, I (AFAIK) did not die, so there's that. But I also found my right hand splayed across the passenger seat. I had no conscious thought of doing this, but the instinct to protect a passenger is very strong in this one. Had there been a porcupine in that seat, he or she would have been safe but I would have become a pin cushion.

A similar instinct kicked in when I walked my kids outside. I would hold a daughter's hand simply because, heck, I happen to like my kids. But if she were to stumble at all, I somehow (possibly magically) instantly squeeze her hand to keep her from falling. No one taught me to do this. I don't think about it, I just do it.

So when I was reading the haftarah from yesterday, and I encountered the story of Uzzah, I became, shall I say, "perturbed." Yes. Yes, I shall.

Perturbed.

In the story (2 Samuel 6:6), the ark of the covenant (cue Indiana Jones music) was being transported via wagon to a new resting place. Uzzah, son of Avinadav, walked along side it, and when, at one moment, an ox moved in a way that caused it to shift, Uzzah instinctively reached out his hand to stop the ark from falling. But, by touching what he was not allowed to touch, he incurred the death penalty. It doesn't seem fair. All he was trying to do was protect God's honor - you can't let something so holy fall on the ground. And on top of that, he probably didn't stop and think; he just acted. Why should he get punished for something out of his control, and something driven by the holiest and purest of desires, to safeguard the ark?

I did a little digging and found that I wasn't the only person troubled by this. And each person, sometimes citing some sage or another, sometimes speaking on his own, tried to explain what it really going on. Here is one example https://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=60155.20. And I get it. After a bunch of reading and thinking, I can derive a nice homiletic explanation which applies to our daily lives et cetera, et cetera. But I still don't like it.

First, a piece of background (and I'm getting foundational info from the Artscroll Chumash, page 1168. There are more formal citations on other webpages so feel free to check them out, but I'm not waiting for you).  The ark was not supposed to be transported via wagon. The commandment was for it to be carried. In fact, the medrash learns out that the ark carries itself and sustains those who carry it, so they do not need to worry that it is too difficult. It does the heavy lifting. Putting it in a wagon might seem more efficient, or simpler, but it isn't what was commanded. Uzzah let that happen. He didn't defend God's honor by championing the actual obligation of carrying. He stepped up to "protect" only after he had shown that he wanted to be next to God but only on his own terms.

So in this moment, Uzzah forgot that the ark didn't "need" him and he felt that he, as a human, was essential in keeping God "safe" (as it were). That's a message that I have seen on websites. But I think it goes beyond that. I think that the underlying message is about the need for awareness and intentionality, even when it seems that instinct is just as effective.

When I pray, am I aware of the words that I say? Each moment? Every time? Or do I say them because "that's what we are up to" and I have said them so often that it happens automatically? When the chazzan says kaddish, do I respond "yehei sh'mei..." because I am thinking, at that second, about actively and consciously praising God's name, or because I click into automatic and respond? This doesn't mean that I don't mean the words as I say them. It means my decision to do it has stopped being a decision. And when it comes to protecting my little baby as she takes her steps, or my passenger as I drive to the airport, that automatic response is perfectly appropriate. But in our approach to the divine it isn't enough. Uzzah wasn't wrong in his motivation, but he also wasn't acting from within an intentional schema. He lunged because he saw God's ark just like anything of value and we act without thinking to protect anything valuable. Admirable but not what God wants. God doesn't even want us to do things pro forma -- with conscious intention to do them but without the thoughts surrounding our actions as a proper decision to express a specific and unique emotional connection at that moment. Think of Shmu'el statement to Sha'ul in 1 Sam 15:22 -- does God desire sacrifices? He wants you to listen to what he actually commands. Don't do it because YOU think that that is what is necessary. We should do what GOD says is necessary.

Uzzah, consciously or not, was doing what HE thought was right. Now, maybe it is hard to blame him. It is tough to defeat instinct. It requires a level of personal awareness which is really (really) hard to achieve. Some huge percentage of our actions are either purely instinct (try NOT flinching when the ball comes straight back behind home plate, even though you know there is a net to protect you) or learned responses which eventually border on instinct. And there is a reason that the major league catcher is such a prized commodity -- he can control his responses so that he doesn't flinch in that crucial moment. Uzzah was acting like a guy in the stands. That's great if all you aspire to is being a guy in the stands. But if you want to be a major leaguer, you have to be aware in that moment to such a degree that nothing you do is instinct even though it seems to be.

When we pray, when we put on tefillin, or when we give tzedaka or do any other mitzvah, are we doing it

a) automatically because that's what we do

b) as a learned response because we figure that's what we are supposed to do

c) because in that moment, we have slowed time down, considered all the options, and realized that this is what we are commanded to do

Uzzah acted according to A or even B. He needed to act under scenario C. No, it isn't easy. No, it isn't fair. But if we want to merit walking carryng the ark, then we have to be ready to shoulder that burden and take every step consciously.

Jocks, each

I wasn't planning on getting angry today. I was planning on spending some quality Passover time eating too much and avoiding my work. These are time honored traditions.

And I also have tried real hard to avoid commenting on some stuff I have seen going on in the Jewish community because, hey, I wanna be good, so I wanna keep my mouth shut. So far, so good. But not today and not now.

There has been some hubbub within the Jewish community over the last few years because of a couple of young gentlemen who are rising stars in certain athletic fields. If I recall correctly, one is a baseball player and one is a basketball player and aren't we all SO proud of them for holding on to their Jewish heritage while climbing the ranks and maybe, one day, breaking the glesseleh ceiling that has kept religious Jews from the elite ranks of professional athletes.

Note - I am not dealing with the young woman who plays ping pong*, or the basketball team in Texas or anyone who runs any marathons. I'm talking about these two, and then one other, individuals because they are what's in my head right now.

In the case of these two gentlemen, much has been said about all the accommodations they make to minimize any potential desecration of the sabbath so that they can continue their upward movement without having to compromise their adherence to halacha. Sort of.

Listen, I like sports as much as the next guy, or at least the guy next to him. But it just seems to me that competing is not what Shabbat is about. Finding ways around the laws so that one can continue to compete doesn't seem right to me. Call me crazy, or fundamentalist or a Martian, but in my ever so humble opinion, Shabbat is not for hard-core competition. I recall, years ago, when a student in my class asked the rebbe if there was anything wrong with playing basketball on Shabbat if there is an eruv. The rabbi cautioned that it could lead to score keeping and writing things down, and it might lead to driving to games or who knows what else, but at the least, it would lead to a cheapening of what Shabbat is. And, yes, I'm being hypocritical because I have been known to play games on the Sabbath so there is certainly some measure of competition going on here. But I think that there has to be some halachic distinction between playing a 48 minute, semi-pro basketball game at an arena and trying to win a game of casino at my dining room table.

So, yeah, I'm sickened by this hero worship. But I have held my tongue so that everyone can suck at the existential teat of fame by group-affiliation. Look...he's a religious Jew and he is playing minor league ball so my identity as a religious Jew doesn't have to inevitably indicate that there is no chance for my proving to the world that I got game.

Today, however, I saw an article on the ESPN website about a student at what is called a "Jewish Day School" (it is a pluralistic school with which I have no personal affiliation). He runs. I'm not saying I understand why, but he runs. And he developed a connection to his religiosity and decided that it was inappropriate for him to engage in competitive running on Shabbat. In fact, according to the article, he researched it and cited a well known and respected Jewish authority (the Ta"Z) to support his decision. So he wasn't going to run. Kudos to him.

But then the coach of his team was quoted as not understanding the decision, and trying to convince him to run ("Oliver's coach showed him, using numbers, how his absence would impact the team's chance to win") Imagine that. At a Jewish school, the coach was trying to guilt a student who was expressing his Judaism into doing something that went against that student's Jewish ideals. Disgusting, if you ask me. The kid could have found a way out but he wanted to live his convictions and the AUTHORITY FIGURE tried to push him away from being his authentic self. The other kids on the team froze him out (""If you're not going to race, don't show up. No one wants to see your face."). His mother tried to push him into it saying he "owed" it to his team. Not that he owed anything to a few thousand years of tradition, just to a bunch of high school kids who wear shorts and run o that they can get a medal. Good job supporting your son, ma. His own cousin questioned the decision.

How are we not shaming THEM? How are we not teaching the middot that celebrate adherence to halacha? Why are we so fixated on winning and proving to the non-Jews that we are like them, so much so that we sacrifice some aspect of our own actual beliefs? Why didn't the school hold this runner up as a model of something incredible and special? How could they let this peer pressure and bullying go on?

Why do we look up to those who justify their pushing the envelope and not those who say "I'm happier following the rules as they are, not as I need them to be?" Maybe orthodox Jews aren't meant to be professional athletes. Maybe we are meant to be orthodox Jews for whom Sabbath observance is more important. I admire this one student not because he represents the Jewish community, because, sadly, the community has become corrupted. I admire him because he represents what the community SHOULD be.




*yes, I should be lauding the young woman for her decision to default rather than play on Shabbat but I haven't seen an article which says that she was pressured by her Jewish community to abandon her spiritual identity.

A clearinghouse of ideas.

Over the last few days, my randomly firing brain has spewed out a few separate ideas. None is especially fleshed out - some have major plot gaps, and I haven't found a way to connect them all. I am posting a couple here that I was able to commit to words before each flew away. All rights to these ideas are reserved by me so if any strikes your fancy and you want to develop it, please contact me so we can discuss licensing and royalties. Daddy gots to get paid, y'all.

1. We start, flashing back to a small area in the deserts of Arizona. A group of wandering pioneers decides to establish a town.

A few years down the road, the town founders, worried about [and here I don't know what threat to create] so they set up a doomsday/failsafe plan. This would be triggered by the presence of the word "drowned" in a death report. Unlikely for a town in the desert so they thought it cunning and [for some reason inherently related to the "threat" drowning would be an important indicator].

Cut to modern day. Guy watering his lawn. The spigot handle breaks. He takes out a screwdriver and unscrews it. Towards the end, water pressure shoots the screw up into his forehead, knocking him out. He falls back onto his lawn as the water keeps shooting out like a fountain into his face, drowning him.

Police come, the body is taken to the morgue where the coroner confirms that, in the middle of a desert, a guy died of drowning. This sets off the doomsday device which drives the plot to save the town (or, if one were to imagine that this drowning in fact IS what the founders were worried about, to avoid the threat the founders first imagine].




2. In which a man discovers a horrible conspiracy!

A guy realizes that in this artificial existence that we call life, the "overseers" [whoever is really in charge] have been giving us hints about the fake nature of our world, and yet we never see them. Every celebrity or politician is an actor playing a role of playing a role. The names are structured using literary and psychological devices.

Consider the names of the supposed "bad" guys according to the scripted drama sometimes called world War 2
HITler
MUSSolini
Names start with a verb indicating violence or disorder. [Hero-hito was considered a God by his people, a clear example of Hero worship, which is a bad thing]
And after the war, STALL In, CRUSHchev
The names betray the characters ' evil.
And the good guys?
CHURCHill
TRU MAN
names designed to evoke or trigger a sympathetic response in the audience.
Other characters exist, like the leader who wanted a SDI (Star Wars defense) named Ray-gun.
The guy tries to convince everyone that the world is a scripted set of lies. Cut to chase scenes.




3. The thought keepers. In the future scientists have dealt with the issue of forgetfulness. People were missing memories and having more thoughts than they can possibly juggle and recall. So science created human computers. These organic machines serve as cloud storage for every single thought. They shadow their human counterparts, connected by a neural net that outsources the brain in real time. Every thought and idea is filed and catalogued and each is available for recall at any time. When a person dies, his heir get access to all his experiences and ideas.
But what happens when some of the walking, talking, and telepathically connected new humans get kidnapped
Or
when someone starts hacking into the neural net, stealing ideas?
Or
the thought-keepers try to develop thoughts of their own

The four Sons

 Yes, the following will be sexist in that it plays into stereotypes (and sad truths) about the household, but I feel that it is honest and responsible to its source material and the cultural norms of the time in which it was written.

I believe that there is a different way of understanding the discussion of the four sons in the Haggadah. We read this on Passover and myriad commentators have tried to look at the spiritual and esoteric possibilities but I shall now advance a more straightforward reading:

It was the day before the Passover. The mother was hard at work, scrubbing, moving, checking, and cleaning. It was difficult work but she was not alone. She had her daughters with her and all were slaving away.

In walks child #1 -- he is respectful and curious. Not so great around the house, but he will make a great lawyer. Or maybe a doctor. That's OK too.

He approaches his mother and asks "What are all the laws that are guiding you in all of this work?" The mother smiles sweetly and says "the laws of Passover, dear. Now hush or I won't have time to make you dessert."

The second son walks in. He could care less about anyone but himself and looks down (literally and figuratively) on his mother and sisters in their cleaning. He asks "What's the point of your doing all of this?" 'Your" not "our" -- he wants no part of the cleaning. His mother says "Zip it, kiddo -- I cleaned your room so I know where you stash your girlie magazines. You are just lucky that your father hasn't found out yet, or else nothing would save you."

In comes the next child, the quiet contemplative one. He is so wrapped up in thought that he almost stumbles over his sister who is on her hands and knees washing the dirt floor so the dirt will be K for P. "Watcha doing?" he asks. The mom comes over and says "We are using our elbow grease to clean up. Big changes like getting ready for Passover need hard work, from everyone, including you, me, and even God."

Meanwhile another child has been standing in the corner, totally confused. He has been watching the women in amazement and has heard everything his mother has said. He is at a complete loss. He still doesn't know the rules that mom sent son #1 to study. He wants to be involved so his mom won't go through his drawers, like the second son. But he has been watching so asking "what are you doing" like his brother did seems a dumb idea. So he just stands there. His mother notices. She comes over and whispers "I'll tell you a secret, one that mothers teach their sons: I'm doing this for all of you because I love you. If you help, you can show me how much that means to you."

That last child picks up a rag and starts wiping. Yes, he does a poor job of it and, after he leaves, his mom has to undo and redo everything he "helped" with, but he has developed the right attitude about helping and that will help in the future.