Nachshon and Action Bias

Don't miss an episode! Subscribe to the Madlik podcast: Spotify | Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts

and Join Madlik on Clubhouse every Thursday so you can participate in our weekly live discussion of the Parsha

Link to Transcript here: https://madlik.com/2024/01/24/nachshon-and-action-bias/

What is the Action Bias?

The action bias describes our tendency to favor action over inaction, often to our benefit. However, there are times when we feel compelled to act, even if there’s no evidence that it will lead to a better outcome than doing nothing would. Our tendency to respond with action as a default, automatic reaction, even without solid rationale to support it, has been termed the action bias.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_bias

https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/action-bias

Nachshon was rewarded for his personal heroism at the Red Sea, by being honored with bringing the first sacrifice at the dedication of the Tabernacle. Interestingly, in the Biblical verse describing the event, he is not referred to by the title of Nasi, as are the other Tribal Leaders. His distinction was personal courage. The lacuna implies that there was more to the story. Consider, something must have been amiss to precipitate his shortly being replaced by Caleb, as head of the Tribe of Judah. It does not appear he had a particularly praiseworthy or distinguished career of positive accomplishments as a Nasi. Indeed, to the contrary, his tenure as Nasi was problematical. It was marred by the catastrophic events summarized below and, as insinuated by the Midrash, his role in the Korach Rebellion.

The miraculous Exodus from Egypt and parting of the Red Sea presaged an intense and tempestuous period of approximately two and one-half years. During this compressed time frame, the Torah was given at Mount Sinai; the Sin of the Golden Calf occurred; the Sin of the Complainers and Graves of Desire ensued; the Tabernacle was built and dedicated; a war was fought with Amalek and won; the Sin of the Spies that doomed the generation of the Wilderness unfolded; and the Korach Rebellion erupted and failed. Nachshon passed away some time during this period.

He appears to have participated in many, if not all, of these events; playing a positive role in some, like the Tabernacle and, tragically, a negative one in others

Tosafist, Rabbi Joseph ben Isaac ^[35], provides a most interesting back-story on the Sin of the Golden Calf that sheds light on Nachshon’s personality. It seems that Aaron contemplated appointing Nachshon, Caleb or one of the other greats at the time to be the interim leader, until Moses returned from Mount Sinai. He hoped this would assuage the dread that had taken hold of the people about who would be their leader, if Moses failed to come back. This would have likely avoided the entire debacle of the Golden Calf that emerged instead. However, Aaron second-guessed himself. He presumably knew his brother-in-law Nachshon well and yet, he felt Nachshon would not have voluntarily stepped down when Moses returned. Similarly, Caleb and the other putative leaders he might have selected. He reasoned it was better to avoid the controversy and resentment it would have generated and bloodshed that would have ensued.

Chizkuni expresses a somewhat similar concern in explaining why Nachshon was not called a Nasi, when he was honored with bringing the first sacrifice of the Tribal Leaders, at the dedication of the Tabernacle. He posits that if Nachshon had both been called Nasi and received the prestigious honor of being first, then he would have lorded it over the other Tribal Leaders. It is hard to imagine the most humble Moses or Aaron acting similarly.

Nevertheless, this appears to have been a genuine concern in relation to Nachshon.

It is suggested there is also the issue of his recklessly putting himself in danger at the Red Sea, which is not an admirable quality. The Talmud {Kiddushin 39b) cautions a person against risking peril in reliance on miracles. Curtailing the predisposition to be courageous from turning into hubris and impulsive and reckless conduct is no mean achievement. It requires constant vigilance, practiced self-control and judicious restraint; made all the more difficult, because it often seems counter-intuitive, given the typical acclaim showered on those displaying bravery.

Rabbi Menachem Azariah of Fano recounts how it is well known that Nachshon sanctified G-d’s name by plunging up to his nose into the surge of the waters of the Red Sea. However, he goes on to point out there is no saint on Earth who only does good acts and has not also sinned.

Nachshon’s unrestrained courage and resolve, the very force of his personality that ennobled him, may have also negatively affected his judgment and put him in harm’s way. The difference between the positive expression of the character trait of bravery and the negative impulse of hubris is often, in practice, just a matter of degree. The Talmud notes and Maimonides explains, our inborn character traits are neutral; they may be sublimated in pursuance of a higher purpose or misused. Thus, a person who has an otherwise ruthless killer instinct can, with the right motivation, become a gifted surgeon, excellent butcher or talented mohel. As discussed below, Nachshon’s unrestrained courage and zeal and his unbridled love of G-d, may have fueled his impulse to pursue a more intimate, intense and boundless connection to the Divine, despite it being inappropriate under the then prevailing circumstances.

https://www.torahmusings.com/2020/06/why-did-nachshon-and-the-other-nesiim-join-the-korach-rebellion/ by Leonard Grunstein

Consider the implications of the action bias when a new leader’s instinct is to “shake things up” in an organization. Yes, the status quo bias reminds us that people tend to focus on the downsides of change while ignoring the downsides of not changing. However, the action bias is a cautionary tale that the status quo is not always a bad option, and that certain leaders may pursue change for less than noble reasons. Whether a leader wants the status quo or change, he/she/they need to be cognizant of biases every person brings into the conversation.

In Miriam’s case, she uses the action bias perfectly; she proactively brings instruments to celebrate, but only uses them when a miracle actually occurs (i.e. she doesn’t hold a preemptive party). But since most of us are not like Miriam the prophetess, we should remember that our actions are seldom perfectly calibrated.

Debbie Friedman’s Favorite Heuristic Joshua Rabin, Published in Moneyball Judaism Feb 1, 2023