Complex reality: A Developer Is Mourned and Vilified in Brooklyn

NYTimes     [See also Algemeiner]] A day after the charred body of a prominent Hasidic real estate developer was identified in a smoking trash bin on Long Island, more than a thousand mourners gathered for his funeral in the heart of Hasidic Williamsburg. They grieved for the man they called a pillar of his synagogue and his community, a father of eight who had been quick to donate and quick to lend. 

But if Menachem Stark’s name was synonymous with generosity and good deeds within his community, the developer had acquired an unsavory reputation outside it, his business dealings growing in complexity and controversy as he opened new buildings in the hot real estate markets of Williamsburg, Bushwick and Greenpoint. 

For all the speculation about his financial situation, it remained unclear on Sunday why Mr. Stark, 39, had been kidnapped from outside his office during Thursday night’s snowstorm and eventually killed. An autopsy found that Mr. Stark died from asphyxiation, indicating that he had probably been suffocated; his other injuries included bruises on his neck and back, and burn marks on his torso and hands, the police said. No arrests had been made by Sunday evening. 

From his prosperous-looking brick rowhouse on Rutledge Street in Williamsburg, Mr. Stark had raised a large family and spread his good fortune to his neighbors with an openhandedness that set him apart, friends and community leaders said. 

“This community lives on charitable donations and philanthropists,” said Gary Schlesinger, a leader within the Satmar sect of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish population that fills south Williamsburg. “People like Menachem helping out his poor brothers and sisters.”[...]

Which unanswered questions interfere with one's connection to G-d and spirituality?

I had an interesting discussion with Rav Trievitz this morning. The issue was the importance of identifying common questions which concern people about Yiddishkeit. 

In essence we feel that there are two groups of questions. 1) Fundamental questions which everybody asks at sometime and which need to be answered satisfactorily in order to feel that Yiddishkeit is meaningful and to have a proper relationship with G-d.  These questions are basic questions dealing with the nature of authority and G-d relationship with us. They included things like free will, mesorah, rabbinical authority and conflict between science and Torah, Chosen People, differential roles of men and women and importance of rational thought and innate morality.  2) There are more esoteric questions which would be nice if they were answered but one's connection to Yiddishkeit and G-d are usually not dependent upon getting answers. Examples are understanding the dispute between the Gra and Chassidim, the Chazon Ish's view of how scientific facts impacted halacha, nature of the Mussar movement.

My sefer Daas Torah was written to provide the sources in a wide variety of topics so that one could understand the variety of legitimate views and at the same time be able to individualize hashkofa. It basically is like a self-service grocery story. In contrast my work dealing with abuse is much more focused on getting the correct answers.

What I would like to be able to do is to provide clear answers that most people would find meaningful and satisfactory -  to the fundamental questions -  instead of just providing a range of sources.

The first stage is to identify the most important questions. What questions interfere with spiritual development if left unanswered? You can respond to this post or send them as email (yadmoshe@gmail.com).

Rogatshover letter prohibiting annullments

Interview with Professor Haym Soloveitchik by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

Five Towns Jewish Times     This week the 5TJT is printing Rabbi Yair Hoffman’s interview with Dr. Haym Soloveitchik a professor at Yeshiva University and the leading contemporary historian of Halachah.  Dr. Soloveitchik has just published the first volume of his collected writings.  Dr. Soloveitchik’s father, Rav Yosha Ber Soloveitchik zt”l (1903-1993) was the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva University for 52 years from 1941 until his death.  Rav Soloveitchik zt”l was the grandson of the legendary Rav Chaim Soloveitchik zt”l who revolutionized the Yeshiva world over a century ago with his innovative Brisker methodology.   Dr. Soloveitchik yblc”t was a professor at Hebrew University, where he received his M.A. and PhD, and has taught at Yeshiva University for the last quarter of a century. He was the dean of Yeshiva University’s Bernard Revel Graduate School.  Rabbi Yair Hoffman sat down with Dr. Soloveitchik in his Bronx home to discuss his latest work in an exclusive interview. 

 

YH: Thank you for agreeing to meet regarding your new book, “Collected Essays , Volume I.”  To begin, your great-grandfather revolutionized the Yeshiva system of learning, much in the same way that you write the Baalei HaTosfos revolutionized Gemorah study in the middle ages of Europe.  Did your great-grandfather’s Brisker legacy inspire or inform at all your analysis of the impact of the Baalei Tosfos on Gemorah study?

DS:  No.  My interest in the Ba’lei HaTosafos stems from their centrality in the understanding of the Gemara.

YH: In your book you attribute the emergence of the dialectical system of Talmud study that the Baalei Tosfos are known for – to Rabbeinu Tam.  Could you perhaps give some insight as to how it emerged within him?  Was it merely the next step, the organic – next step after Rashi’s linear approach to Talmudic study was completed – or were there other influences? 

DS: There is nothing inevitable with the emergence of any method, though, one could reasonably argue that you can only begin a systematic comparison of parallel sugyot noting the discrepancies between them if you are confident that you have understood each sugya fully –and Rashi’s commentary gave people that confidence. However, such a confidence is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the emergence of the Baalei HaTosafos. Rashi’s commentary arrived in Yemen in the mid-12^th century, yet no Tosafos movement emerged there.

YH: How would you characterize the approach of the Baalei ha-Tosafos in contrast to, say, the Geonim?

HS. They worked on different assumptions. They were aware of contradictions between sugyas and occasionally attempted to resolve them. However, in instances of conflict, the Geonim generally privileged, what was called ‘the sugya de-shemattsa.’ There was a major, controlling sugya where the issue is discussed in the fullest manner, and the halakhah is in accord with the upshot of this sugya. Other minor sugyas, if they contradicted the major one, were not to be heeded

The assumption of Rabbeinu Tam, on the other hand, was that there were no minor sugyot; all parallel sugyos were of equal standing and form together a harmonious whole. The correct interpretation of any sugya was the one which best fits in, best harmonizes with all the parallel ones. [...]

Tamar Epstein's annulment: Lessons from the Rackman Beis Din

Given the continued silence regarding the justification for saying that Tamar Epstein has been "freed" from marriage without receiving a get - I thought it would be helpful to view a possible source for claiming that her marriage has been annulled. The following is an excerpt of Rabbi Bleich's analysis of Rabbi Rackman's solution to the aguna  problem by annulment [Tradition Fall 1998 pp 105-106]

[Rabbi Rackman writes:]

... a beit din may recognize other intolerable defects in the husband as grounds for a declaration of kiddushei ta'ut. These defects - which are in total discord with any reasonable concept of marriage - include physical and psychological abuse, adultery (which more than ever endangers the life of the spouse), sexual molestation, abandonment, criminal activity, substance abuse, and sadism (the withholding of a get may be viewed as indicating a sadistic nature) ....

Not only do the authors assert that a defect arising after solemnization of the marriage constitutes grounds for annulment but that any defect that may serve as grounds to compel the husband sever the marital relationship by means of a get, mutatis mutandis, constitutes grounds for annulment…. "

Invoking this position in annulling the marriage of a husband who withholds a get is inapt for two reasons: (1) In order to serve as grounds for annulment the defect must have existed prior to the marriage. (2) The defect must be one that, had it developed subsequent to marriage, would warrant coercion in order to compel granting of the get. The authors provide a long list of "defects" in the husband which they allege constitute grounds for a declaration of kiddushei ta'ut, some of which may indeed be grounds for coercion of a get, some of which are the subject of considerable dispute with regard to whether or not they constitute grounds for compelling a get, and some of which do not con­stitute grounds for coercion of a get by any stretch of the imagination.

The most egregious example of the latter is “withholding a get.”Withholding a get is categorized by the authors “as indicating a sadis­tic nature." It is superfluous to debate whether the withholding of a get is ipso facto evidence of sadism or even whether sadism constitutes grounds for annulment. Suffice it to say that the authors' sweeping assertion is contradicted by a two thousand-year corpus of Jewish divorce law. The authors categorically declare that: (I) every woman is entitled to demand a get upon breakdown of the marriage; (2) failure of the husband to comply is indicative of sadism; and (3) sadism is grounds for compelling a divorce. Accordingly, they assert that, since any defect constituting grounds for compelling a get is ipso facto also grounds for an annulment, there is really no reason to go to the trouble of executing a get, much less of forcing the husband to do so! Hence, it follows that, if a woman desires a divorce and the husband does not acquiesce, a get is never necessary. Talmudic discussions regarding spe­cific and particular grounds for compelling a get are irrelevant; the codi­fication of such provisions are superfluous; and perusal of the learned responsa honing the application of such criteria is a waste of time! It must be emphasized that, in the very limited instances in which the principle tav le-meitav tan du is set aside, the wife must present credible evidence that(I) the defect existed at the time of the marriage and (2) she was unaware of the defect at the time of the marriage. ....

=====================
 it is interesting to read Rabbi Rackman's early thinking on the subject regarding the devaluation of the sanctity of marriage if annulment is readily available - see especially page 221. Use "search inside the book" with the terms "Feinstein"

http://www.amazon.com/One-Mans-Judaism-Renewing-Sanctifying/dp/965229263X#reader_965229263X

Dan Pink: The puzzle of motivation

Barry Schwartz: Our loss of wisdom

Camille Paglia: A Feminist Defense of Masculine Virtues

Wall Street Journal    What you're seeing is how a civilization commits suicide," says Camille Paglia. This self-described "notorious Amazon feminist" isn't telling anyone to Lean In or asking Why Women Still Can't Have It All. No, her indictment may be as surprising as it is wide-ranging: The military is out of fashion, Americans undervalue manual labor, schools neuter male students, opinion makers deny the biological differences between men and women, and sexiness is dead. And that's just 20 minutes of our three-hour conversation.

When Ms. Paglia, now 66, burst onto the national stage in 1990 with the publishing of "Sexual Personae," she immediately established herself as a feminist who was the scourge of the movement's establishment, a heretic to its orthodoxy. Pick up the 700-page tome, subtitled "Art and Decadence From Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson, " and it's easy to see why. "If civilization had been left in female hands," she wrote, "we would still be living in grass huts." [...]

But no subject gets her going more than when I ask if she really sees a connection between society's attempts to paper over the biological distinction between men and women and the collapse of Western civilization.

She starts by pointing to the diminished status of military service. "The entire elite class now, in finance, in politics and so on, none of them have military service—hardly anyone, there are a few. But there is no prestige attached to it anymore. That is a recipe for disaster," she says. "These people don't think in military ways, so there's this illusion out there that people are basically nice, people are basically kind, if we're just nice and benevolent to everyone they'll be nice too. They literally don't have any sense of evil or criminality."

The results, she says, can be seen in everything from the dysfunction in Washington (where politicians "lack practical skills of analysis and construction") to what women wear. "So many women don't realize how vulnerable they are by what they're doing on the street," she says, referring to women who wear sexy clothes. [...]

Get refuser alleged to be pedophile - extradited from US for first time

ynet   [see Arutz 7]   A man who fled to the United States without granting his wife a divorce has been extradited to Israel by the American authorities.

This is the first time an Israeli citizen is extradited over denial of a "get" (a religious divorce under Jewish Law), which is not considered a criminal offense – using other offenses he is suspected of. Israel's rabbinical courts hope this will serve as a precedent which will significantly help fight the phenomenon of "agunot" (Jewish women "chained" to their marriage).

 The couple, who are members of the ultra-Orthodox sector from central Israel, were married several years ago and had a boy and a girl. In 2010 the woman filed for divorce, claiming that her husband was treating her with disrespect and contempt, and had invested huge sums of money from their joint account in failed businesses without her knowledge.[...]

Rabbi Eliyahu Maimon, head of the Agunot Department, asked the Justice Ministry's Department for International Agreements to work to extradite the man, who he said posed a risk to public safety as a suspected pedophile. The department, which does not usually ask for extradition over suspicions which have yet to be looked into, decided to proceed with the request due to the get denial and launched negotiations with the American authorities, which bore fruit last week.  [...]

המשטרה: להעמיד לדין את אב בית הדין בירושלים

INN

יחידת להב 433 של המשטרה סיימה את חקירתה בפרשת הרב חיים יהודה רבינוביץ', אב בית הדין הרבני ירושלים.

בין היתר, עסקה החקירה בחשד לפעילות מרמה וגניבה שיטתית מצד קרובת משפחתו עורכת דין לענייני משפחה בהקשר לאותם תיקים ולתיקים אחרים בהם טיפלה.

החקירה החלה בהמשך לבקשת פרקליט המדינה, ובאישור היועץ המשפטי לממשלה, בעקבות תלונה שהוגשה לנציבות התלונות נגד שופטים ולהנהלת בתי הדין הרבניים.

מהתלונה עלה חשד להתנהלות פסולה של הרב רבינוביץ ולביצוע עבירות הפרת אמונים ושימוש לרעה בכוח המשרה, בכול הקשור לניהול חלק מתיקי הגירושין שדן בהם.

ממהלך החקירה עלה כי החשוד דן בתיקי גירושין, שבמהלך הרגיל לא היו אמורים להידון בפניו, תוך שהוא מנצל את סמכויותיו להשפיע על ההליך ועל הצדדים בתיק ולקבל החלטות שלא על פי כללי הדין ושיש בהן ניגוד עניינים, מתוך כוונה לקדם את ענייניהם של קרובי משפחתו ובעיקר של עורכת הדין לענייני משפחה, אשר ייצגה את אחד הצדדים בתיקים אלה.

Italy court overturns paedophile conviction because 11-year-old girl 'in love'

ndtv     Italy's highest court has overturned the conviction of a 60-year-old man for having sex with an 11-year-old girl, because the verdict failed to take into account their "amorous relationship".

Pietro Lamberti, a social services worker in Catanzaro in southern Italy, was convicted in February 2011 and sentenced to five years in prison for sexual acts with a minor. The verdict was later upheld by an appeals court. But Italy's supreme court ruled that the verdict did not sufficiently consider "the 'consensus', the existence of an amorous relationship, the absence of physical force, the girl's feelings of love". [...]

Lying for Shalom – the Sake of Peace by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

5 Towns Jewish Times     “Of course, I did my homework, Mom..”

“No, honey, that donut wrapper belonged to a co-worker to whom I gave a ride.”

“Yes, I will go on the treadmill this afternoon as soon as I come home while you are shopping.”

“No dear, that dress does not make you look fat.”

We have all heard the expression before – mutar leshanos mipnei HaShalom – one is permitted to, well, “change” or obscure the truth in order to maintain the peace.  And lately, it seems that we hear it more and more.

A number of questions arise about this concept.  Is it still something that we should avoid doing – or is it possibly a Mitzvah?  Is it an across the board heter?  Do people have complete carte blanche in these areas?  Or are there, perhaps, some caveats?

Firstly, let’s look at the source.  The Talmud (Yevamos 65b) cites Rabbi Eelaah in the name of Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon.  Rabbi Elazar derives this principle – that one may “change” to maintain the peace from the fact that the brothers told Yoseph that Yaakov their father had instructed them to tell Yoseph to forgive their sin against him.  In fact, Yaakov did not leave any such instruction.  Rav Nosson even goes further – it is not just that permission is granted – it is even a Mitzvah!  How do we know this?  Because Hashem instructed Shmuel the prophet to lie to Shaul the king by telling him that he was bringing something to slaughter to Hashem.  In fact, Shmuel was going to anoint Dovid as king in his stead. [...]

Perhaps the real reason why the Poskim who rule like Rabbi Nosson and yet do not use the language of “Mitzvah” is so that one not get accustomed to lying as a way of life.  Let’s not forget as well that in the first three illustrations above, the lying is, in fact, very counterproductive.  In illustration number one the mother wants the son to do well in school.  In illustrations two and three the wife is concerned for her hsuband’s well-being.  It seems pretty clear that the permission to “change”was never granted to lead a decadent lifestyle.  When it says that one can change to maintain peace it never meant just to avoid arguments when the other person is, in fact, correct.  Such uses of this Gemorah undermine the true meaning of Torah and are an abuse and mischaracterization of the very ideals espoused in this ruling of halacha.  The conclusion is that the only recommended use of the leniency is for illustration number four.  And yes, there is no doubt that this is a Mitzvah.

Should the wife be sacrificed for the marriage or the marriage sacrificed for the wife's happiness?- there is a third way!

Guest post Ploni  December 27, 2013 at 7:13 PM 
update December 30, 2013 - Ploni added important clarifications that I put in the comments section

Michelob says:

" If a woman says she's done, very rarely will you be able to hold a gun to her head and live happily ever after. ... If she is not into it, and is dragged to the therapist kicking and screaming, you are both wasting your time and energy.

Michelob; Your words are very rational, BUT ONLY TO A CERTAIN POINT.

The fellow here does indeed seem to be faced with two very unpalatable choices:

A. Be over and done with it.

B. Fight for fairness, family integrity, reputation, the fact that someone so close to him is waging a smear campaign & using tools that clearly include some extremely serious Halachic & Hashkafic transgressions.

But in actuality, I think that there's actually a THIRD option, too:

To understand the third option, we need to "back up" a bit, and we need to ponder:

What's REALLY behind the current epidemic of broken homes. We read comment after comment of hair-raising מעשה רשעות. How can it be?

Men & women that have lived & built lives together for decades, been through so many joys and sorrows... to have everything disintegrate before their very eyes.... the men here grapple to understand the sudden change -  in reality & feel understandable wrath & frustration...

These women [usually] weren't evil when these men married them. What did someone surreptitiously put into their woman's drinks? What changed these women into veritable WITCHES? The man knows that he WASN'T abusive, and if he was, nobody's interested in telling him where he went wrong, and how he should fix it...

I posit that behind this phenomena there is usually ONE simple motivator:

THE WOMAN IS SEARCHING FOR HAPPINESS, OR AT LEAST SEARCHING TO ESCAPE HER OWN EMOTIONAL TURMOIL, whether depression, anxiety, etc, etc.

She cried out & expressed her pain to others; perhaps relatives, perhaps strangers ... and those "helpers" connected her with "professionals", and those "professionals" based on their own inflated egos, personal vendettas, political agendas, etc. KNEW the source of the woman's pain.

The "professional" instinctively knew whom to blame:

THEY BLAMED THE WOMAN'S PAIN SQUARELY ... ON THE HUSBAND.

These "professionals", trained in the art of influencing others, succeeded in changing the woman's world-view. The woman's friends, influenced by popular writings, easily concurred... empathized with her... offered her "resources" in her "plight"....

But they forget to hear the husband's side of the story..... So self assured were they in their world-view, that it wasn't necessary to hear his side.

But everything I've written thus far isn't really my main point, because even if they HAD attempted to mediate between the two... even if the woman HAD gone to therapy ... chances are that it would be too late - as the damage had already been done.

And this leads me to what I believe is the REAL solution....

Please read on...

Concerning men & women that have lived & built lives together for decades, been through so many joys and sorrows … & the woman was convinced that it’s time to go…. I posited that …

THE WOMAN IS SEARCHING FOR HAPPINESS, OR AT LEAST SEARCHING TO ESCAPE HER OWN EMOTIONAL TURMOIL, whether depression, anxiety, etc, etc. … and that her pain is being blamed on HER HUSBAND.

The woman’s mindset seems to be that “happiness” is something she needs to receive from the outside - her husband, or “someone” needs to “give” it to her, and that she “deserves” to receive it… Once the marriage is irrevocably broken, perhaps she feels that her husband CAN’T and / or surely doesn’t want to give it…..

Might she be mistaken?

Could it perhaps be that…?

… The only AUTHENTIC happiness she’ll ever have is the type she’ll find INSIDE HERSELF. Perhaps someone can convince her to stop looking OUTSIDE for something missing INSIDE?

Perhaps she’s looking for the wrong KIND of happiness… and the RIGHT kind is actually free for the taking?

Here are the 5 types of happiness, according to Martin Seligman (I’m cheating a bit, because he talks about well-being, while I’m calling them happiness).

Perhaps she should stop looking for types 1 & 3, and start looking for types 2, 4 & 5?

In fact, maybe they can still … look…. Together?!

1- Positive emotion: pleasure, rapture, ecstasy, warmth, comfort, and the like. A life lived with these aims; he calls the “pleasant life.”

2- Engagement: is about flow - being one with the music, time stopping, and the loss of self-consciousness during an absorbing activity. Engagement is different, even opposite, from positive emotion; for if you ask people who are in flow what they are thinking and feeling, they usually say, “nothing.” A life lived with these aims; he calls the “engaged life.”

3- Relationships: He doesn’t explain it here, but I think it seems self-explanatory.

4- Meaning and purpose: belonging to and serving something that you believe is bigger than the self. Humanity creates all the positive institutions to allow this: religion, political party, being Green, the Boy Scouts, or the family. A life lived with these aims; he calls the “meaningful life.”

5- Accomplishment: success and mastery. People try to achieve just for winning’s own sake 

===============

DT. An example a couple came to me seriously considering divorce. The husband though a brilliant and successful talmid chachom and businessman was very focused on the lack of respect he got from his wife and children. He had become very controlling - insisting for example that the whole family sit attentively for a half an hour drasha every Friday night. His wife took the children's side when they got bored in the middle and left the table. The wife objected to the control he insisted over every aspect of her life and that of the children. At the same time he had become very hurt by her criticism and claims that he was unreasonable and out of touch with normal human feelings. In short the husband and wife blamed each other for their unhappiness and that of the children. The obvious solution was they should get divorced after 20 years of marriage. But they couldn't do that because several of the children were either looking for a shidduch or would soon start. 

Solution. I suggested that the husband was too focused on getting respectful for his genuine spirituality from his family in a manner which was inappropriate. I suggested he spend more time with genuinely spiritual people that would appreciate his insights and analysis. That he did and his need to control and demand respect eased up. At the same time he became more sensitive to his family and realized that he was not presenting appropriate material and issues for them to be able to appreciate. This backing off actually produced the respect he had been craving all along.

At the same time both the husband and wife felt that the other would let lose an emotional attack at inappropriate moments - such as at the Shabbos table or at a time when they didn't feel up to defending themselves. The normal response was to yell back which only escalated the conflict. I suggest a simple technique. No matter how strong their upset - they could not lecture their spouse if the spouse raised up an index finger to signal now was not the time - but later. Surprisingly that was really all that they needed to create a sense of control and respect and the yelling and screaming disappeared.

In sum, this family of genuinely loving and generous people  - who were imbued with deep spiritual feelings - was self-destructing because their spiritual and psychological needs were not being fulfilled through each other. A rather minor adjustment from 2 sessions created the proper conditions for mutual growth and appreciation. It didn't solve everything - but it did enable them to get nachas from each other and for the children to regain respect for their parents.

A.D.H.D. Experts Re-evaluate Study’s Zeal for Drugs

NY Times    Twenty years ago, more than a dozen leaders in child psychiatry received $11 million from the National Institute of Mental Health to study an important question facing families with children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Is the best long-term treatment medication, behavioral therapy or both? 

The widely publicized result was not only that medication like Ritalin or Adderall trounced behavioral therapy, but also that combining the two did little beyond what medication could do alone. The finding has become a pillar of pharmaceutical companies’ campaigns to market A.D.H.D. drugs, and is used by insurance companies and school systems to argue against therapies that are usually more expensive than pills. 

But in retrospect, even some authors of the study — widely considered the most influential study ever on A.D.H.D. — worry that the results oversold the benefits of drugs, discouraging important home- and school-focused therapy and ultimately distorting the debate over the most effective (and cost-effective) treatments. 

The study was structured to emphasize the reduction of impulsivity and inattention symptoms, for which medication is designed to deliver quick results, several of the researchers said in recent interviews. Less emphasis was placed on improving children’s longer-term academic and social skills, which behavioral therapy addresses by teaching children, parents and teachers to create less distracting and more organized learning environments. 

Recent papers have also cast doubt on whether medication’s benefits last as long as those from therapy.  [...]

Medication helps a person be receptive to learning new skills and behaviors,” said Ruth Hughes, a psychologist and the chief executive of the advocacy group Children and Adults With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. “But those skills and behaviors don’t magically appear. They have to be taught.”[...]

A subsequent paper by one of those, Keith Conners, a psychologist and professor emeritus at Duke University, showed that using only one all-inclusive measurement — “treating the child as a whole,” he said — revealed that combination therapy was significantly better than medication alone. Behavioral therapy emerged as a viable alternative to medication as well. But his paper has received little attention. [...]

Most recently, a paper from the study said flatly that using any treatment “does not predict functioning six to eight years later,” leaving the study’s original question — which treatment does the most good long-term? — largely unanswered. 

“My belief based on the science is that symptom reduction is a good thing, but adding skill-building is a better thing,” said Stephen Hinshaw, a psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and one of the study researchers. “If you don’t provide skills-based training, you’re doing the kid a disservice. I wish we had had a fairer test.”