The Five [Egyptian] Stages of Grief

The Five [Egyptian] Stages of Grief

If you're familiar with psychology studies, those words are not new to you.

Briefly, Kubler-Ross model, or better known as the five stages of grief, is basically a model of coping with death, from the denial stage to the acceptance stage.

The five stages are Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. And to be quite frank here, this model is applicable in our everyday life, though on different levels and scales.

For the past few days I have been meaning to dedicate this blog to some politics, basically to vent some thoughts and reflections and to apply what I know in psychology on the Egyptian society and what we have become in those past few months, or maybe the whole year since the overthrown dictator.

So, let's try to apply this model on the developments of the revolution and the consequences and so on. Let's take for example the ongoing and the never-ending, in my personal view, clashes that happened in the 25th of Feb, 9th of March, 8th of April, 15th of May, 28th of June, 23rd of July, 1st and 3rd of August, 9th of September, 5th and 9th of October, 19th of November and last but probably not least the 16th of December.

Let's start:

1. Denial: At first when the Police and CSF withdrew from the streets and the army took to the streets to (protect) people, everyone was happy; and you can't really blame people because everyone thought nothing would be worse than Hosni. So when the Army first attacked protesters on the 25th of Feb, everyone denied its happening and here was the first uses of the word thugs to justify any inhumane acts.
2. Anger: Moving to the 9th of March when the disastrous issue of the virginity tests took place and everyone was angry and furious. And later on when only one courageous lady decided to speak up and defend her rights and sue whoever gave orders and/or did this. Not to mention the ongoing detaining of civilians and throwing them in military prisons. Which never stopped to this day.
3. Bargaining: Now let's make a deal, we'll appoint Kamal El Ganzoury as a new Prime minister so you people can go home and we'd get this whole thing over with so everyone can sleep at night- despite the innocents' questions about the blood of the martyrs and the beating of the protesters and detainees. Ganzoury is appointed, old people are satisfied because they thought like Shafeek and Sharaf, Ganzoury too should take his chances and we shall wait for him to do an action. [But nothing new ever took place]
4. Depression: We're close; we've injected the nation with so much depression that hope is almost vanishing and everyone is starting to just whine about their personal experiences and sufferings since this revolution started, but no one is happy because at least now we have a voice. This seems to be coming to an end anyways. Let's just sit home and weep for the martyrs and the economical conditions of the country, and wait. I'm obliged to mention here that when the internet and phone services were cut off, the government made a huge move that caused it the loss of millions of dollars, if not billions. None of the ignorant ever remembers this.
5. Acceptance: We've made it, by the end of 2011 everyone at home, specifically those who never bothered to go out and join the sit-ins in Tahrir or even the protests, everyone accepted Ganzoury, Tanwaty, the army, SCAF (Supreme Council of Armed Forces). I mean, what can we do? It's just 6 months and we'll have our own president finally, the one that we will vote for, the one that we will choose. Yeah right, because we're dreaming. Let's just accept this and go home.

مات الجدل

مات الجدل

أعلم أن المسألة قد ماتت في الأذهان و سقط الجدل و ماتت أساليب النقاش المقنعة ، و غرضي ليس الإقناع ولا التحايل ولكن مجرد استفسار بسيط جداً:

الكثير و الكثير من محبي الإستقرار و عبيد الديكتاتورية كانوا يطرحون نفس التساؤلات المبتذلة و التي نسمعها يومياً ، ولكن أكثر الأسئلة التي كنت أتمنى الرد عليها رداً يُخرسهم حتى تحمر وجوههم هو: هما أصلاً إيه اللي خلاهم يعتصموا و يوقفوا حال الدنيا؟

منذ قليل فقط ورد في مخيلتي هذا المشهد البسيط:

كلنا نواجه المتسولين و الشحاتين في نفس الأماكن كل يوم و كل أسبوع و يظلوا في نفس المكان لأعوام و أعوام دون أن يكلوا أو يملوا ، فيصبح وجودهم "ديفولت" في المنطقة و لا يعيرهم اهتمام المارة و ينشغل الجميع بالذهاب إلى أعمالهم كل يوم بدون أن تختلف نظرتهم لهذا الشخص أو الجماعة.

في نظري فهؤلاء حالهم شبيه إلى حدٍ كبير بالمعتصمين، فالكل يطلب شيئاً ما، والشحات مهماً كان كاذباً أو مخادعاً أو ما إلى ذلك ، فإنه إلى حدٍ ما فقير، و فقره هذا كان نتيجة لمجتمع سافر لا يبالي بالإهتمام بالفقراء، لذا فيصبح مطلب المعتصم هو نفس مطلب الفقير (على الرغم من أنه واردٌ جداً أن يكون المعتصم "ابن ناس قوي") ، و المطلب هو العدالة و العيش بكرامة.

عامةً ، ليس هذا ما أود قوله؛ إنما أود أن أشير إلى أن الفقير قد أصبح شيء مُسلم به في الشارع و لا أحد يعيره الإهتمام، بينما يُشكِّل المُعتصم أزمة مالية و إقتصادية و سياسية و خراب عجلة إنتاجية للبلاد. كيف؟ كيف و إذا كان المُعتصم هو طالب حق لا يعيره أحد الإهتمام حتى يكاد يكون كالمثل القائل "بنؤذن في مالطة"؟ كيف و قد ظل هذا المُعتصم يبيت في العراء و البرد القارس ليلاً يبحث عن سبيل للحرية من أجل الآخر النائم في العراء أيضاً ولكن دوناً عن إرادته؟

لقد أصبح المُعتصم يُشكّل خطراً للدولة بينما بات الجائع الفقير المتسول شيئاً مسلّم به في المجتمع حتى أصبح وجوده أو عدم وجوده أقل من عدد في إحصائية ليست لها أي فوائد إجتماعية.

الكثير من التساؤلات ، و الإجابة واحدة: مجتمع فاشي...

You "read faster" with a longer line length but "prefer" shorter

You "read faster" with a longer line length but "prefer" shorter

Have you ever had to decide how wide a column of text you should use on a screen? Should you use a wide column with 100 characters per line? or a short column with 50 characters per line?
It turns out that the answer depends on whether you want people to read faster or whether you want them to like the page!

Research (see reference below) demonstrates that 100 characters per line is the optimal length for on-screen reading speed; but it’s not what people prefer. People read faster with longer line lengths (100 characters per line), but they prefer a short or medium line length (45 to 72 characters per line). In the example above from the New York Times Reader, the line length averages 39 characters per line.

The research also shows that people can read one single wide column faster than multiple columns, but they prefer multiple columns (like the New York Times Reader above).
So if you ask people which they prefer they will say multiple columns with short line lengths. Interestingly, if you ask them which they read faster, they will insist it is also the multiple columns with short line lengths, even though the data shows otherwise.

It’s a quandary: Do you give people what they prefer or go against their own preference and intuition, knowing that they will read faster if you use a longer line length and one column?

What would you do?

You Have “Inattention Blindness”

You Have “Inattention Blindness”

This is an example of what is called “inattention blindness” or “change blindness”. The idea is that people often miss large changes in their visual field. This has been shown in many experiments.

So what does this mean if you are designing a website or something on a computer screen? It means that you can’t assume that just because something is on the screen means that people see it. This is especially true when you refresh a screen and make one change on it. People may not realize they are even looking at a different screen. Remember, just because something happens in the visual field doesn’t mean that people are consciously aware of it.

Source HERE

Of capitalism and 'Money'

Of capitalism and 'Money'

(Excuse me for the long post)

The generation of our parents, this generation of the 40's and 50's is mostly a generation that experienced a hard time with capitalism and the effort to earn their living. And by that I do not mean that the rate of consumerism was high, yes, people needed to consume, but mostly we'll find that the means of luxury were very, very simple; a gum with less than one piaster, a small ball to play in the streets - if there was balls in the first place.

Money to them meant nothing more than something not very essential, so long as they are blessed with the gift of life and don't need more than their basic needs, which are already there..kind of. Life was simple. People were less of consumerists and more of human beings.
Those are the people who grew up to have the clash with our generation, that of the 80's and 90's. Technology played the essential role for consumerism, first personal computers and phones, then laptops, smartphones, iPods and iPads. Being technology freaks was the companies' aim to rise with consumerism and the abuse of simple minds. You accepted it, I accepted it, we all did, unwittingly and defeated. It has become essential to use technology to be able to keep one's pace with the world, and even with work, which is the main capitalistic world, you cannot have a job without "Computer skills", and anything of that sort.

Back to parents and us: what I want to say here (Don't mind that I usually go off track and forget my main points!) is that this non-consumerist generation-our parents-has become, to us, some sort of tight-fisted society, while to us consumerism means to keep yourself updated with the rest of the world.
We are the money wasters and they are the tight-fisted. And nothing comes in between to pacify or save this gap.

What Capitalism does here, other than enslavement, is that it indirectly or even directly broadens this gap between us, and inside the same generation of ours. We're not equal, basic life needs to us are not basic life needs to our parents or to the poor. The more money we got, the bigger these basics are, and the bigger the basics are, the less aware we are of the poor. That's what Capitalism wants. That's what the governments want. And that's how exactly it is going.

I'm currently reading-almost done though-"Utopia" for Ahmed Khaled Tawfiq, and despite the fact that this novel is way more disgusting that I thought, and way darker than I imagined (I really had struggles at the middle and even thought of not finishing it), the novel describes exactly the course of the present into the future. I can't say nor want to believe it will be really like that, but after all the rich are already building their own colonies, the poor is dying yet still want to believe one of this new generation will revolt and save the planet. And we all wait.

On a final note, I loudly admit I'm an iPhone user and I'm a consumerist like we all are. But the point is to not dwell and to spend some time in being humans rather than money-wasters.
Think about it.