Everyday Thoughts on Life

The Art of Date Improvisation

2010-09-22T17:37:00.000-07:00

I used to believe that planning dates was an important thing. Figuring out all the logistics in advance seemed like the best idea. However, over the past year or so, my mindset has completely changed. As someone who lives radically in the moment, I rarely make any plans at all more than a week in advance, I don't even start considering date ideas until at least the day before the date, and I never solidly plan any date anymore. Instead, I mentally sketch a general idea of what I might feel like doing and leave plenty of room for improvisation. The result of an improvisational approach to dates? Dates are a lot more fluid, a lot more enjoyable, and any obstacles or deviations completely fail to bother me. I welcome change and unexpected turns of event.

There are several crucial elements to improvisational dates. In many ways, improvisational dates are very similar to good jazz solos, but there are certainly a few differences.

Have an Array of Possibilities Beforehand
Improvisation isn't about coming with stuff completely out of thin air. Instead, it's about having a wide range of possible directions to go, and choosing them in the moment, in accordance with the present mood. As such, before the date begins it's vital to have a mental list of possibilities. This can be a list of various venues that you might feel like visiting, or this might be a list of various activities that can be done at a given location. Your array or choices can be as broad or as selective as desired. A simple improvisational date list might be as simple as Outdoor Activity (go for a walk, play frisbee, kick around a soccer ball, or play at a playground) followed by a Meal (grill steaks at home, grab a burger from In-N-Out, or pickup Chinese food) and then relax at home (listen to new CD, play video games, cuddle and watch a movie, or play cards). That simple improvisational framework offer 48 possible dates, consisting of only three different activities. The vastness of your array of possibilities is limited only by your imagination.

Establish Proper Expectations
This one is fairly obvious, but it's also an absolutely crucial one. Given that improvisational dates aren't always "tried and tested," it is important that both you and your date have no solidly set expectations for what will or will not happen. Disappointment and dates don't mix especially well and they often don't end well, either. As such, it is important for you not to count on certain things happening or working out perfectly, and it's important for your date not to have any misconceptions about what you might end up doing or where you might end up going. The simplest way to eliminate false expectations in your date's mind is simply not to tell her where you're going or what you're doing. Not only does this circumvent any misconceptions or problematic expectations, but it also serves to enhance your aura of mystery.

Be Confident and Decisive
Since improvisional dates often change on whim, it is critical that you remain perfectly confident and firmly decisive. Displaying these two leadership qualities well communicates the subtext that you can be trusted and that no obstacles deter or bother you. When you are confident and decisive enough, your date will never even know whether a given adventure was pre-planned or improvised. In her mind, it all flowed together so smoothly and seamlessly that it hardly seems like the result of improvisation. When things don't go as smoothly as planned, she has the opportunity to see that you can dynamically handle situations as they arise. Either way, you win.

Improvise Based on the Energy of the Date
Since the chief focus of the date isn't the venues visited and the activities done, it's important to keep the interpersonal vibe the central focus of the date. The best choices are made based on the level of energy and the present vibe of the date. If the two of you are starting to reach a lower-level of energy, it probably isn't a good idea to go for a three-mile run or begin an indepth discussion of quantum physics. Likewise, if the mood is starting to get more personal and connected, it probably isn't a good idea to do something that involves competition or puts too much physical or emotional space between you and your date. Instead, the way you improvise should capitalize on the flow of energy and serve to further direct it. Some of the best dates are ones that have contrasting levels of energy or vibes. This serves to engage both people's emotions more fully and creates a more visceral experience.

Most Importantly, Have Fun!
In the end, the whole point of improvisional dates is to have a good time doing some fun things with a person that you like. As such, it is important to only choose elements that will be mutually enjoyable. If one of the ideas you previously thought of doesn't seem like a fun choice, don't do it. If none of the options you have in mind seem fun, then throw them all out and choose something else. If something you're doing is even more fun than you expected, then do it for longer. If something you thought would be fun ends up being quite dull, don't waste any more time on it--change activities right away! There are few things more enjoyable in life than having an amazing time with someone you enjoy being around.

Text Game - Always Have An Agenda

2010-09-15T23:32:00.000-07:00

Both Roissy and Aunt Haley have written blogs today on text game. The simple fact is, in today's world, texting is the primary means of interpersonal distance communication. Phone calls are rare and mostly unnecessary. E-mails are too cumbersome and inconvenient. Contrarily, texts are short, quick, and direct. As such, the art of text game is to capitalize on the positive qualities of texting while minimizing the losses associated with the limitations of the medium.

As someone who has been texting and IMing girls for years, I've directly experienced the impact of most of the pros and cons of texting. From my experiences, the most important rule of text game is: always have an agenda. The reason for this is that texting is a poor substitute for practically anything else. Given the extremely limited amount of information communicated, texting is a poor way to attempt any serious attraction or comfort building. It is also a very poor medium for conversations of any depth. Instead, it is best used mainly for the following things:

Invitations/Propositions
This one is self-explanatory. The purpose of your communication is to invite a girl to a specific event. There are two ways to handle this sort of text. Either you can send a full detail invitation which requires only a confirmation text, or you can send a minimal detail invitation that requires the girl to ask for additional details if she's interested.

Frame Communication
The purpose of a frame communication text is to convey some aspect of your personality to a girl. Teasing a girl, ignoring a direct question, referring to a girl in a certain manner, or reframing a question or statement are all examples of dominant attraction-building frame communications.

Connection Pings
The purpose of these texts is to establish a brief moment of connection and possibly to determine a girl's present emotional state towards you and/or life. These can be as direct as, "Hi how r u?" or more indirect in the form of a non-needy trial/feeler text.

Information Gathering
These texts are used when you wish to find out something. Often the entire exchange is merely a question and an answer. In other cases, this is used as a prelude to a date invitation. The key to a good information gathering text is brevity and clarity. Phrase the question in the simplest unmistakable form possible.

Information Transmission
Occasionally there is a change of plan or some intervening circumstance that will require you to inform a girl of something. In these cases, keep it simple and communicate no more than you need to. The point is simply to keep her informed.

Anything else besides those things is mere unnecessary fluff. Tight game requires one to completely eliminate needless fluff. Whenever you send a text, always know exactly what the purpose of the communication is. If there's any doubt about whether you should send a certain text, or why you're sending a certain text, just delete it. The main point of text game is to set up a date in order to spend some quality one-on-one time with a girl. All other aspects of text game are simply a means to that end. The best way to tighten up your text game? Stick to the basics, always have a specific agenda for every single message you send, and don't spend much time or energy texting. Texting should always serve to enhance your life--never to distract you from living it.

Adventures and the Masculine Soul

2010-09-09T16:01:00.000-07:00

There is always a depth of the human soul that is never fully seen or fully experienced. Since the experience of life is a temporally-bound journey always in motion, the desires and pleasures of a man aren't static. They change. They vary. Yet, each various stage of life and pursuit reveals a part of the soul. The dynamic nature of existence makes it all but impossible to grasp the full depth of any person's soul, including one's own soul. Instead, any part of life or oneself is a small piece of puzzle, a mere fraction of the totality of being.

While often conquering challenges is what motivates and drives men, there is also a supreme pleasure to be found in embarking on adventures. Adventuring and exploration have been manly pursuits since the dawn of time. There has always been a natural curiosity within the heart of a man, leading him to wonder what lies beyond his present horizons. Masculinity flourishes in asking that question and setting forth to discover the answer. While the danger and challenge of an adventure may be a part of the appeal, there is something deeper and more profound that drives a man to expand his world. Some things are done simply for the sake of seeing what they lead to. The appeal of an adventure is that what is currently unknown will become known. A man desires to discover new things. There is a profound pleasure in the very process of discovery.

The process of discovery takes many various forms. Some men love to explore our planet and visit new geographical locations. Some men love to explore the inner workings of people and how they tick. Some men love to explore and study a certain area of life in depth, often involving exploration of the theoretical and intellectual sort. Some men love to do things that have never been done or attempted before. Regardless of what aspect of life or the world is being explored, the same core desire for adventure is what unifies all of these various quests for discovery. Masculinity thrives on the impulse to discover.

Recently, in my own life, I have found a strong desire to explore and engage in various adventures. I've been opening myself up to visiting places, doing new things, and connecting with different sorts of people than I usually would. What motivates me? The desire to discover. The curiosity that I feel towards what lies in a certain direction that I haven't been. In embarking on these various quests, I have found that there is a supreme joy in the process of discovery, almost regardless of the specifics of what is discovered. A couple of weeks ago I visited a city that I hadn't been to before, with the intent of running a little errand. The errand itself only took about 15 minutes, but I was so fascinated by the city that I found myself walking around for nearly two hours just seeing what was there. It was a rather novel and exciting experience. The city had its own unique vibe, mix of people, and array of interesting places and shops. The pleasure was in the discovery of a small, yet interesting, corner of the world that I had never experienced before.

Similarly, recently my brother and I decided to start a small business of our own. Right now we're in the process of working out the logistics and we won't actually be up and running until a couple of weeks from now. In the process of figuring out the best way to approach the business, I couldn't help but feel excited about the newness of it all. As I examined my feelings, I found that the main joy I felt wasn't because it seemed like a challenge to surmount or because it might result in additional cash flow. Indeed, this venture certainly won't immediately provide nearly enough money to enable me to leave either of my day jobs. Instead, the reason I feel so excited is because it is an adventure. What excites me is the mere fact that we're trying something new. I really don't know how it will go. But, I also am not especially concerned with the outcome. Whether this turns into something profitable and sustainable, or whether it fizzles and merely breaks even, either way the experience of starting this sort of a business will be something thoroughly new and wholly enjoyable.

Masculinity thrives in the presence of novelty and in the pursuit of the unknown. Men do not resist the urge to discover new things and broaden their world. Instead, they allow their inner desire for exploration to motivate them to go new places, meet new people and try new things. Through these experiences there is a natural broadening of the soul and a greater awareness of the depth of life and being that inescapably emerges as a man pursues that which curiosity draws him towards. Adventuring requires a level of confidence that a man can face challenges as they arise. It requires a boldness that does not fear something simply because it is unknown. It requires a willingness to risk one's time, well-being or material assets. Regular adventureing keeps life meaningful and exciting, keeps a man's heart engaged and passionate, and serves to remind others that our world is a compelling and endlessly interesting place. Nothing feels better than discovering something new and exciting!

It's Easier To Make It Than To Fake It

2010-09-07T18:40:00.000-07:00

The popular slogan, "Fake it until you make it," tries to convey the idea that simply by trying to do something and trying to have the right frame of mine, eventually a person will reach the point where it becomes easy and feels natural. According to such a mindset, copying external behaviors and mannierisms leads to genuine change of personality, given enough time. My own conception of making personal progress is a bit different, however. In the well-known quote from Star Wars, Yoda offers the sage advice, "Do or do not, there is no try." The mindset conveyed by Yoda in that quote is simply this:

Action is what defines you.

Regardless of what goes on in your mind, and what perspectives you think you have, the simple fact of the matter is that who are you is created, expressed and perceived on the basis of what you do. When you take an action, it directly impacts reality; how you perceive yourself, how others perceive you and what results you reap are directly tied into the actions you take. Actions come in many forms. Whether physically doing things, creating things, going places, speaking to others or even speaking to yourself, all these things impact reality.

When you adopt this mentality you realize that there is no such thing as "faking it." There are only actions that you have taken and actions that you haven't taken. Whenever you're confronted with a new situation, the right question to ask is, "How do I want to act, in this situation?" Whatever attitudes you choose to adopt and actions you choose to take are very real and can impact life profoundly. The only limitation at that point is the mental array of options that you offer yourself. The more various possible actions that you are aware of, the greater the flexibility of choice you have.

The secret to acting well is to have a wide mental array of options and a decent grasp of the possible outcomes of each action. Having an expanded palette of options and an ability to predict outcomes is the result of life experience. The more various things you've considered and tried in the past, the more possibilities you will have in the present. Similarly, in order to adopt a specific persona, it does not much matter what type of things you've done before or how you've thought about situations in the past. All you need to do to be able to adopt a new persona is to have a clear idea about how such a person would think about things, what such a person would say to people, how such a person would carry himself, and what sorts of things such a person would do.

Adopting a new persona, then, is as simple as understanding the mindset and external manifestation of such a persona and acting in accordance with that understanding. At you first you find yourself asking, "How would a confident person handle this situation?" or "What would a wealthy person do in this situation?" or "How would an empathetic person connect with this individual?" The more you act in accordance with your new persona, the sooner you find yourself simply asking, "How should I handle this situation?" or "Given that I have plenty of money, what do I want to do in this situation?" or "How can I best emotionally connect with this individual?"

Since actions define your essence, there is no such thing as faking it. The only difference is how much you have internalized a given persona. The more you are used to thinking about things a certain way and acting a certain way, the more you truly believe that you are a certain sort of person. The change in mentality and the change in actions occur simultaneously, and they are inseparable. Insofar as one acts differently, there is genuine change. Insofar as actions remain the same, it matters not how much one thinks that they think differently. The key to inner change is simply to know who you want to be and then to be that person. You are not bound by who you have been in the past or what you have done before. Be the person you want to be and act the way you want to act. There is no way to fake it.

Silence: A Subtle, Yet Powerful Ally

2010-08-26T17:22:00.000-07:00

Silence isn't something that many of us are naturally appreciative of, particularly in social situations. So accustomed to an endless flow of words, it's easy to feel a growing tension whenever silence lingers during a date or in a group setting. As I learn to relax my pace of life and social flow, I have begun to develop a deep appreciation for social silence. While it might first seem like something to be avoided, a fuller analysis reveals that there are more instances where silence confers positive benefits than where it hinders relationship.

Game Application: On first dates, especially, silence is a very powerful thing. Once attraction has already been established, allowing silence to linger serves to do several things. First, the tension that naturally accompanies periods of silence serves to further build and heighten attraction. Second, by demonstrating that you are comfortable with being silent around your date, you give her implicit permission to also relax and enjoy simply being; after the first few times, this works to develop more comfort. Third, by not constantly carrying and directing the conversation, there is space for more two-sided interactions, which is great for establishing real connection. Fourth, the periods of silence offer space for non-verbal communication, which is generally more powerful and efficacious than verbal communication, especially in any romantic setting. Lastly, the simple fact that you aren't saying anything means you aren't killing attraction by saying too much or saying the wrong things.

Non-Game Applications: Silence is what affords people space to think more deeply, sort through their own thoughts and feelings and make internal progress on a topic. As such, leaving ample room for contemplation is a vital technique which is usable within a broad array of settings. In a teaching setting, leaving more room for answers encourages further thinking by those who aren't quite as swift to think of an answer, or who are more hesitant to express their thoughts. The more silence you allow, the greater the depth of learning that can occur. Similarly, in a coaching or counseling relationship, space is one of the most crucial elements of the relationship. In both instances, since any real change must emerge from within, it is crucial for a client to be fully aware of their own thoughts and feelings, which only occurs with ample mental space. Even on a personal level, silence is an indispensible ally. Embracing silence always results in a greater depth of personal peace and a higher level of awareness. As a spiritual practice, silence is one of the most challenging and yet most valuable rituals an individual can engage in. Whether used for the purposes of prayer, meditation or simply stillness, silence provides the space needed for a soul to connect with the divine.

In all these instances, silence is something that is incredibly powerful. The slight discomfort that might be felt initially can hardly compare with the rich benefits offered to one who appreciates and fully utilizes silence. In social situations, silence is not golden simply because it is the absence of speech. Instead, silence itself is a positive good that is underappreciated and often underutilized. Only as a person begins to see the positive power that silence has to offer, can that silence be harnessed for personal and social enrichment. Once that understanding is reached, however, there is scarcely a limit to its potential for positive effect.

The Insightfulness of a One-Line Marketing Slogan

2010-08-24T17:03:00.000-07:00

This morning, as I was driving to meet with a new potential client, there was a sign that caught my attention. It read, "Everyone drives used cars." At first glance, it seemed like the typical appeal-to-popularity type of marketing gimmick used to convince you, as a consumer, to join the masses (real or imaginary) by making the same choice they all are supposedly making. My second thought, in analyzing the one-liner from a logical basis, immediately shocked me with the profundity of the statement. It wasn't merely an appeal-to-popularity. It was a statement of logical fact. That simple fact is one that has been quite obscured to us, due to mental conditioning.

When considering cars, as consumers, we are taught that there are two extremely different categories of vehicles: new and used. These categories of vehicles are presented to us as polar opposites. New vehicles and used vehicles are sold at different places, for different prices by different sorts of people. New vehicles are presented to us a superior choice, FAR more valuable than any used vehicle could hope to be. Used vehicles (except when being described by a salesman) are old, decrepit things that are merely functional, but not especially desirable.

That one-line slogan cut through all of that socially-conditioned thinking. The simple fact is, the only actual difference between a used one, is simply that it has been owned by someone. But even an ostenibly new vehicle can quite accurately be described as "used" a mere week after its purchase. The moment the car is even driven off the lot, its market valuable depreciates, and it may properly be classified as a used vehicle. Hence, the statement "Everyone drives used cars," is a mere declaration of fact. The fact that we have accepted the taxonomies offered to us and created an artificial mental distinction between new and used vehicles is a sign that we often embrace the modern tendency to taxonomize things without giving them much thought.

The other insight this slogan offers is that social status is mostly a mental illusion. Social perceptions play an undeniable role in influencing the decisions we make and the judgments we make of others. A person's car is a sort of status symbol. Regardless of the actual substance and being of a person, people use psychological shortcuts to judge a person. I recently read about a fellow who performed a social experiment. He scheduled dates with two different women. With the first woman, he dressed up really nicely and picked her up in a brand new Bentley. With the second woman, he wore very casual clothing and picked her up in an old beat-up car. The content of the dates themselves were essentially the same. Yet, the way the two women viewed him was extremely divergent. While one had an extremely positive view of the fellow, the other woman described him as a "loser." The exact same guy was perceived in completely different way, simply based on the way he dressed and what car he drove.

In that regard, the brilliance of the slogan is in the way it highlights the way we often don't even see things through our own eyes, nor do we judge things rationally. Instead, we often allow other people's judgments and categories to be used in lieu of our own. We accept the inaccurate and agenda-driven perceptions of others and use them as a shortcut to thinking things through on our own. Humility offers us an alternate way to approach life and people, by pointing out the wisdom of suspending judgments and by pointing out the potential pitfall that arises when overcategorizing various aspects of life.

The Essential Ingredient for Meaningful Teaching

2010-08-18T19:17:00.000-07:00

The most effective sorts are teaching are the ones that are student-centric rather than curriculum-centric. While curriculum-centric teaching focuses ostensibly on what students "ought" to know, student-centric teaching emphasizes that which students will actually find personally meaningful. This is not a paradigm generally embraced by teaching institutions. Curriculum-centric teaching is the norm in American public schools, private schools, and churches today. This misplaced focus is one of the major reasons why most teaching is perceived as irrelevant. If the goal of teaching is for students to be better prepared for life and better equipped to face various challenges, then it is imperative that students learn things that practically impact their lives. In order for students to learn things that practically impact their lives, it is necessary that whatever is taught directly addresses things that pertain to students' lives.

Curriculum-centric teaching does not effectively meet this need since curriculum-centric teaching has several instrinsic limitations. The first limitation of curriculum-centric teaching is that curriculums are developed by the people who teach, based on their own impressions of what students will find useful rather than being developed directly based on feedback and inquiries from students. The second limitation of curriculum-centric teaching is that it is fairly inflexible. Since curriculum-centric teaching typically emphasizes specific lessons that must be taught in a specific order, there is little room for day-to-day flexibility or deviation from the scheduled content. Additionally, since curriculums are generally developed and refined over a period of time and not prone to be changed rapidly, many of them are based on the real or perceived needs of students in times past, rather than being developed in response to the needs of today's students. The third limitation of curriculum-centric teaching is that it is uniformly "taught" to a broad range of students, whose varying levels of foundational knowledge and learning styles serve to negate the effectiveness of what is taught. Curriculum-centric teaching cannot be easily adapted to the needs of individual students or groups of students.

Student-centric learning, contrastingly, focuses on what students actually need to know. It is form of responsive, dynamic teaching, rather than being static and inflexible. For a teacher to teach students content of relevance, it is indispensible for teachers to be aware of what matters to students, what students struggle with, what students think about, and how students think. For this sort of awareness to be developed, teaching must be a relational experience rather than a merely "academic" one. An atmosphere of open dialog and direct student feedback must be continually cultivated. Simple "factual" communication is insufficient to gauge what students are actually learning. Instead, two-way communication must be the foundation of learning.

As an illustration, there is a profound difference between a teacher informing a student of a fact, and a teacher answering a question posed by a student, even if the hypothetical content is exactly the same. When a teacher informs a student of a fact, this may be a fact that the student does not care about, has no deeper comprehesion of, or already knows. However, when a student poses a self-motivated question, the answer then given is one that is desired, likely unknown and one which the student is prepared to develop a comprehension of. The best way to prepare students to learn is by encouraging them to ask questions, showing them how to ask questions, and having an environment where question-asking and open discussion are encouraged.

Upon the foundation of open dialog and relational learning, is it certainly possible to teach specific lessons about specific topics, since relevance has already been established. After (or even during) the teaching of specific lessons, it is best if there is room for direct feedback about the helpfulness and relevance of the lesson. Apart from establishing that a specific topic is relevant to a student, however, there is limited usefulness in teaching specific lessons. Relevance is the most essential ingreident for meaningful teaching. Anything that is taught must be relevant to the students' lives, comprehensible by the students, and taught in a manner that ensures students are able to connect with the way it is being taught.

The focus in developing lessons should be on quality, rather than quantity. Rather than throwing lots of factual content at students and hoping for them to retain some of it, teaching would be far more effective if most of the time were spent on seeking to develop relationships with students and determining topics of relevance. A few lessons that are highly relevant far outweigh the practical value of many lessons with limited relevance. This is a paradigm that is utilized by effective salesmen, effective couselors, and effective entrepreneurs. Developing a strategy that ensures relevance to the target market is the key to success for those sorts of jobs. If a similar paradigm were adopted towards teaching methods, the quantity of teaching and time spend teaching would decrease, while the quality of the lessons taught would increase exponentially.

The Facades We Use

2010-08-17T18:43:00.000-07:00

With some friends, deep and meaningful conversation flows naturally. With other friends, the conversational depth almost never exceeds that of a puddle. In the past few days I've had some extremely rich and fulfilling conversations with friends. One friend and I were discussing how people connect with each other. There is always the general social conversation that most of society favors: small-talk, polite inquiries into well-being, topics deemed of general interest. While that helps keep things comfortable and light, in many ways it's a way of avoiding deeper connection.

Though many people secretly crave deeper connection, most people also are fearful of being genuine or vulnerable with others. In group settings, this insecurity is even more pronounced. While people might be willing to discuss things that are more personal in a one-on-one context, in a group setting there is much more general hesitance to express one's true thoughts and feelings. Of course, apart from some expression of one's true thoughts and feelings, neither friendship nor deeper connection can occur between two people.

Facades of all sorts inhibit such connection. Whenever we act or speak in such a way as to disguise our true thoughts or feelings, we are utilizing a facade. Fundamentally, there are two types of facades. Some people have cultivated an unconscious facade. They are not aware of the social-exterior they display (or at least attempt to display) to others. Most people who have an unconscious facade also expect others to utilize a similar facade, and actually have a harder time connecting with those who do not have a similar facade. Such people generally feel a desire to connect with others, but are unaware of their own insecurities and fears which prevent deeper connection.

Another sort of facade is the intentionally-crafted sort. This type of facade is not an accidental or subconscious creation, but instead is consciously developed with the explicit aim of effecting social interactions. Those who have crafted facades generally possess a deeper awareness of their own mannerisms, behaviors, and speech patterns as well as a heightened awareness of social norms and the perceptions of others. As a result of "trying on" various personalities and testing various mannerisms, they generally are fairly easily able to see through the facades of others, and also are more able to manipulate the perceptions of others.

The other kind of person, the most rare sort, is the truly genuine person. Such a person generally does not utilize a facade of any sort in social interactions. Truly genuine people generally are genuine for one of three reasons:

Some are completely oblivious to social norms and perceptions and therefore violate all sorts of social norms simply on accident. These sorts of people tend to be social misfits who aren't necessarily disliked but generally have a harder time fitting in with any social group.

Some people are extremely naturally assertive and therefore take no thought for whatever social norms they violate. They do what they like, say whatever they're thinking and simply leave their words and actions unfiltered. These people are often perceived as jerks and assholes, but also are admired and loved by some, simply for their unapologetic (and often raw) genuineness.

Some people have completely worked through their own insecurities, and as a result of having a deep self-acceptance, in meekness they offer themselves to the world as they are, unconcerned with the judgments of others. These kinds of people are often aware of social norms, but neither adhere to the social norms, nor flagrantly violate them. They have a certain grace and easy-going presence about them.

Those people who are very genuine have a greater capacity for developing deeper and more lasting connections based on genuine respect. Yet, the path of being genuine is not an easy one to walk. In a culture that is quite superficial and expects a certain level of superficiality, it takes boldness and humility to be aware of social norms without being enslaved to them. Yet, the eschewing of facades is a necessary prerequisite to connecting with people more fully. Both the fear-based unconscious facades and the crafted and calculated facades generally do more harm than good. They keep people socially "safe" while simultaneously preventing people from building the relationships they desire.

A Glorious Mess

2010-08-11T14:04:00.000-07:00

As I was listening to some new music, I began to ponder the human condition. Sometimes people puzzle me. Sometimes I puzzle myself. For being intelligent beings, it often boggles my mind how much chaos, drama and complication surrounds human life. Human existence isn't something that is nice, predictable or formulaic. It's anything but.

The simple truth is, we are imperfect people, living in a broken and disconnected world. Each of us is trying to make sense of it. Each of us looks for meaning in life. Some discover that the only meaning behind it is that there isn't any meaning. Some find fulfillment in the arms of a person. Some find satisfaction in a particular hobby or pursuit. Yet, there isn't a single one of us who doesn't occasionally feel out of place. As if this world isn't quite the right sort of place. As if we're merely outsiders. Maybe we shake those feelings off and try something new. If only we can discover the right secret, everything will feel right.

So we make mistakes. We try new things. We go new places. We meet new people. In search of... something. We're not really quite sure what. Sometimes, we feel that we've found it. The new somethings enamor us, and for a few moments everything feels okay. But, the feelings never last. The spell is broken and the feelings of disconnection return. It isn't okay to feel so out of place, is it? There's so much that we're supposed to be thankful for. Why does everything seem to be a struggle? Even when everything seems superficially well. How are you doing, they ask? "I'm fine," is the standard reply. But, are we? What does it mean to be fine?

As my thoughts transcended, I began to ponder what God must think of humanity. Does He love us in spite of our flaws and imperfections? Does He manage to find some enjoyment in us despite our endless quest for happiness in all the wrong things? Why did God create us, knowing that we would stray? Why would He create a world which He knew would be a fallen and broken world, tainted by sin and defaced by human rebellion? He seems to find joy in the midst of all it. How does He manage that?

Maybe God doesn't like things that are simple, perfect, and formulaic. What if God created our world not in spite of its fallenness, but because of it? What if God loves people not in spite of their flaws, but because of them? What if God enjoys watching and participating in the little stories of our lives exactly because they are dramatic and full of drama? What if God gave us a broad range of emotions, because there is meaning and purpose in experiencing all of them? What if God delights in the chaos and unpredictability of it all? What if He takes pleasure in the small and large ironies? What if God is less concerned with sin and punishment and more interested in the journey and direction of our lives?

What if this world isn't merely a mess? What if God didn't want to create a perfect universe? What if God made things exactly the way He did, because He wanted it to be a glorious mess?

Just a thought.

A Faux Democracy

2010-08-04T17:46:00.000-07:00

Those in the know have well been aware of the fact that though America is a purported representative democracy, in truth it is neither representative, nor is it a democracy. Though allegedly the will of the people is what governs our land, there is no longer even a pretense of such a structure. The governmental system of checks and balances that was instituted by our Founding Fathers has completely broken down. The system is running amok, and has effectively negated the checks and balances that were emplaced to prevent tyranny.

As today's news heralds the overturning of the California ban on gay marriage, so the power structure is again revealed for what it truly is. Twice, the people of California voted that only marriage between one man and one woman should be recognized by the state of California. Proposition 22, enacted in 2000, was struck down by the state Supreme Court in 2008. For that reason, Proposition 8 was proposed for the November 2008 election, giving the voters another opportunity to express themselves. The voters again chose to define marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.

Yet, today our government has yet again declared that they do not serve the will of the people. The legislative, executive and judicial branches of the government have again demonstrated that their agendas are more important than the will of the people. Each branch continues to overstep their legally-appointed bounds, as we see the judicial branch effectively working to create their own laws, through striking down or reinterpretting those laws they deem unfit. The legislative branch is more than happy to spend taxpayer dollars and pass oppressive laws in spite of public opposition to various acts and pieces of legislation. The executive branch readily oversteps their boundaries by involving us in unapproved wars, violating clear rules of procedure in enforcing the law and engaging in scare tactics as a means of extorting citizens.

The writing is on the wall. Anyone who misses the clear revelation of the power structure in America is either ignorant or living in denial. The American government is not concerned with the well-being of its citizens. Presently, government qua government functions only to further its own agendas and perpetuate an increase in governmental power. Today marks another victory for tyranny and oppression. For those of us who love freedom and who believe that the only legitimate role of the government is to serve the interests of its constituents, this new ruling is yet another harbinger that America is no longer a nation that believes in either of those key principles. We are living in a faux democracy. Even those things that we directly vote for are not given serious consideration by our overlords.

A Post Worth Highlighting

2010-07-30T19:33:00.000-07:00

I just came across this post by Phoenixism and the vital truth of what he wrote really struck me. In a lot of corners of the Roissyshere, there seems to be an extreme overemphasis on female physical beauty, almost at the expense of all else. While there is token mention of various personality traits that are desirable, there is exceedingly little emphasis on character traits or consistently honorable behavior. While such an emphasis on externals alone does seem to make sense, given the general focus on short-term relationships and the irreligious nature of those whose voices are heard, yet such reductionism is still dangerous to internalize.

Phoenixism's post, entitled, "The Plain Jane and the culture of artificiality," addresses this very issue and raises the question of whether what men think they want is preventing them from finding what they actually seek, relationally. This excerpt from ths post boldly points out the truth:

We men are fond of sanctifying the the gilded image of feminine perfection while failing to live out our own sense of perfection. I see way too many men in this community who are ragingly superficial while acting the part of mindless clowns, which is fine because this gig will work and it will get some guys laid. The problem as I see it is that their own personal offerings do not invoke the quality of female perfection they act entitled to. The woman they desire and not-so-discreetly reward is the flashy temptress who willingly immerses herself in the same social outlets the men do and which affords both the ability to meet on mutually artificial terms. Men seek the brainless, whored out image they have learned from television and the rest of pop culture. Men, playing the feminine role of pretentious attention whore only serve to encourage and proliferate the same behavior in women who are their natural mating demographic.

The dating scene amongst the majority of 20-somethings (extending into their early 30s, as well) seems one that is etched with subdued superficiality and half-hearted standards when in fact the overriding impulse is one of purely physical and visceral pleasure.

There is a strong tendency, especially in those who are seeking new ways of perceiving and approaching relationships, to kow-tow to the current cultural trends and adopt such mindsets, almost uncritically. Given that Game theory places a strong emphasis on appearance, social status, and external communication, it is quite easy to fall into the trap of changing one's ideals, without even realizing that a change has taken place. When a man begins to be acutely status-conscious, he consider the implications of every word, every garment, every public interaction and every woman he dates. While an awareness of the social impact of certain things isn't harmful, it is quite easy to become enslaved to the whims of other peoples' perceptions, instead of adopting a fixed, rational foundation for considering what should be done and said. That is a trap which must be avoided, since much is as stake. As Phoenixism points out in his post, often the superficiality that many men absorb causes them to overlook women who might make much better relationship prospects.

Insights on What Is Actually Taught In Classrooms - Part 2

2010-07-28T16:51:00.000-07:00

Continued from Part 1.

Neil Postman summarizes the messages that are taught through the classroom environment as primarily these:
1 - Passive acceptance is a more desirable response than active criticism.
2 - Discovering knowledge is beyond the power of students.
3 - Recall and the collection of unrelated "facts" is the goal of education.
4 - Authority is to be trusted and valued more than independent judgment.
5 - One's own ideas and those of one's classmates are inconsequential.
6 - Feelings are irrelevant in education.
7 - There is always a single, unambiguous Right Answer to a question.
8 - Each subject is unique and distinct

He goes on to provide some examples of how these lessons are played out in adult life.

Take, for example, the message that recall - particularly the recall of random facts - is the highest form of intellectual achievement. This belief explains the enormous popularity of quiz shows, the genuine admiration given by audiences to contestants who in thirty seconds can name the concert halls in which each of Beethoven's symphonies had its first public performance. How else explain the great delight so many take in playing Trivia? Is there a man more prized among men than he who can settle a baseball dispute by identifying without equivocation the winner of the National League RBI title in 1943 (Bill 'Swish' Nicholson.)

Recently we attended a party at which the game Trivia was played. One young man sat sullen and silent through several rounds, perhaps thinking that nothing could be more dull. At some point, the question arose, 'What were the names of the actor and actress who starred in My First Nighter?’ From somewhere deep within him an answer formed, and he quite astonished himself, and everyone else, by blurting it out. (Les Tremaine and Barbara Luddy.) For several moments afterwards, he could not conceal his delight. He was in the fifth grade again, and the question might have been, 'What is the principal river of Uruguay?' He had supplied the answer, and faster than anyone else. And that is good, as every classroom environment he'd ever been in had taught him.

Watch a man - say, a politician - being interviewed on television, and you are observing a demonstration of what both he and his interrogators learned in school: all questions have answers, and it is a good thing to give an answer even if there is none to give, even if you don't understand the question, even if the question contains erroneous assumptions, even if you
are ignorant of the facts required to answer. Have you ever heard a man being interviewed say, 'I don't have the faintest idea', or 'I don't know enough even to guess', or 'I have been asked that question before, but all my answers to it seem to be wrong?' One does not 'blame' men, especially if they are politicians, for providing instant answers to all questions. The public requires that they do, since the public has learned that instant answer giving is the most important sign of an educated man.

What all of us have learned (and how difficult it is to unlearn it) is that it is not important that our utterances satisfy the demands of the question (or of reality), but that they satisfy the demands of the classroom environment. Teacher asks. Student answers. Have you ever heard of a student who replied to a question, 'Does anyone know the answer to that question?' or 'I don't understand what I would have to do in order to find an answer', or 'I have been asked that question before and, frankly, I've never understood what it meant? Such behavior would invariably result in some form of penalty and is, of course, scrupulously avoided, except by 'wise guys'. Thus, students learn not to value it. They get the message. And yet few teachers consciously articulate such a message. It is not part of the 'content' of their instruction. No teacher even said: 'Don't value uncertainty and tentativeness. Don't question questions. Above all, don't think.' The message is
communicated quietly, insidiously, relentlessly and effectively through the structure of the classroom: through the role of the teacher, the role of the student, the rules of their verbal game, the rights that are assigned, the arrangements made for communication, the 'doings' that are praised or censured. In other words, the medium is the message.

Have you ever heard of a student taking notes on the remarks of another student? Probably not. Because the organization of the classroom makes it clear that what students say is not the 'content' of instruction. Therefore, it will not be included on tests. Therefore, they can ignore it.

Have you ever heard of a student indicating an interest in how a textbook writer arrived at his conclusions? Rarely, we would guess. Most students are unaware that textbooks are written by human beings. Besides, the classroom structure does not suggest that the processes of inquiry are of any importance.

Have you ever heard of a student suggesting a more useful definition of something that the teacher has already defined? Or of a student who asked, 'Whose facts are those?' Or of a student who asked, 'What is a fact?' Or of a student who asked, 'Why are we doing this work?'

Now, if you reflect on the fact that most classroom environments are managed so that such questions as those will not be asked, you can become very depressed. Consider, for example, when 'knowledge' comes from. It isn't just there in a book, waiting for someone to come along and 'learn' it. Knowledge is produced in response to questions. And new knowledge results from the asking of new questions; quite often new questions about old questions. Here is the point: once you have learned how to ask questions - relevant and appropriate and substantial questions - you have leaned how to learn and no one can keep you from learning whatever you want or need to know. Let us remind you, for a moment, of the process that characterizes school environments: what students are restricted to (solely and even vengefully) is the process of memorizing (partially and temporarily) somebody else's answers to somebody else's questions. It is staggering to consider the implications of this fact. The most important and intellectual ability man has yet developed - the art and science of asking questions - is not taught in school! Moreover, it is not 'taught' in the most devastating way possible: by arranging the environment so that significant question asking is not valued. It is doubtful if you can think of many schools that include question asking, or methods of inquiry, as part of their curriculum. But even if you knew a hundred that did, there would be little cause for celebration unless the classrooms were arranged, so that students could do question asking; not talk about it, read about it, be told about it. Asking questions is behavior. If you don't do it, you don't learn it. It really is as simple as that.

Not only is Postman highly critical of the current goals and methods of learning, but he goes further by beginning to suggest what the goal of education should be. Rather than the goal of education being to know a large quantity of decontextualized information, the goal of education should be that students should be capable of learning relevant things. The goal isn't to learn stuff, the goal is to learn how to learn and what to learn. In today's classrooms, few people are taught how to learn, and no-one is taught what to learn. This is a major flaw with our present educational paradigm. It is one which requires a remedy.

The necessary means of achieving those two goals cannot possibly be a standardized approach, since every person is different. Individuals differ in their learning styles and they also differ in what they need to know. There can be no single answer to the question, "How does a person learn?" Instead, there are many various answers. Likewise, there can be no single answer to the question, "What does a person need to learn?" What a person needs to know to function well in life diverges greatly from one person to another.

While the educational goals that Neil Postman hints at are somewhat different than those that I view as the main goals of education, yet it remains that his observations are incisive and his perspective is clearly valuable in considering the best methods of education.

Insights on What Is Actually Taught In Classrooms - Part 1

2010-07-26T22:28:00.000-07:00

Education is something that matters deeply to me, because what one learns profoundly impacts the way one functions in life. Education is something that matters to individuals and something that matters to society as a whole. Even within the blogosphere, education is something that people are currently contemplating. Not long ago, Dave in Hawaii wrote a blog summarizing some of the key things that are taught in schools, according to John Taylor Gatto.

While my inquiry into the ideal method of education is still far from complete, the insights that Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner offer in their book, Teaching as a Subversive Activity, strike me as profound and novel. Inquiring minds will find these excerpts are excellent food for thought.

"The medium is the message" implies that the invention of a dichotomy between content and method is both naive and dangerous. It implies that the critical content of any learning experience is the method of process through which the learning occurs. Almost any sensible parent knows that, as does any effective top sergeant. It is not what you say to people that counts; it is what you have them do. If most teachers have not yet grasped this idea, it is not for lack of evidence. It may, however, be due to their failure to look in the direction where the evidence can be seen. In order to understand what kinds of behaviors classrooms promote, one must become accustomed to observing what, in fact, students actually do in them. What students do in the classroom is what they learn (as Dewey would say), and what they learn to do is the classroom's message (as McLuhan would say). Now, what is it that students do in the classroom? Well, mostly, they sit and listen to the teacher. Mostly, they are required to believe in authorities, or at least pretend to such belief when they take tests. Mostly, they are required to remember. They are almost never required to make observations, formulate definitions, or perform any intellectual operations that go beyond repeating what someone else says is true. They are rarely encouraged to ask substantive questions, although they are permitted to ask about administrative and technical details. (How long should the paper be? Does spelling count? When is the assignment due?) It is practically unheard of for students to play any role in determining what problems are worth studying or what procedures of inquiry ought to be used. Examine the types of questions teachers ask in classrooms, and you will find that most of them are what might technically be called "convergent questions," but which might be more simply called "Guess what I'm thinking" questions. Here are a few that will sound familiar:

What is a noun?
What were the three causes of the Civil War?
What is the principal river of Uruguay?
What is the definition of a nonrestrictive clause?
What is the real meaning of this poem?
How many sets of chromosomes do human beings have?
Why did Brutus betray Caesar?

So, what students mostly do in class is guess what the teacher wants them to say. Constantly, they must try to supply "The Right Answer." It does not seem to matter if the subject is English of history or science; mostly, students do the same thing. And since it is indisputably (if not publicly) recognized that the ostensible "content" of such courses is rarely remembered beyond the last quiz (in which you are required to remember only 65 percent of what you were told), it is safe to say that just about the only learning that occurs in classrooms is that which is communicated by the structures of the classroom itself. What are these learnings? What are these messages? Here are a few among many, none of which you will ever find officially listed among the aims of teachers:

-Passive acceptance is a more desirable response to ideas than active criticism.
-Discovering knowledge is beyond the power of students and is, in any case, none of their business.
- Recall is the highest form of intellectual achievement, and the collection of unrelated "facts" is the goal of education.
- The voice of authority is to be trusted and valued more than independent judgment.
- One's own ideas and those of one's classmates are inconsequential.
- Feelings are irrelevant in education.
- There is always a single, unambiguous Right Answer to a question.
- English is not History and History is not Science and Science is not Art and Art is not Music, and Art and Music are minor subjects and English, History and Science major subjects, and a subject is something you "take" and, when you have taken it, you have "had" it, and if you have "had" it, you are immune and need not take it again. (The Vaccination Theory of Education?)

Each of these learnings is expressed in specific behaviors that are on constant display throughout our culture...

Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner present a compelling case that what is taught is school isn't primarily the content that comes to mind when we think of the various subjects that are hypothetically being taught. Instead, the most powerful and enduring lessons that are taught in classrooms are ones concerning structure and method. Personally, I find it no coincidence that my own personal experiences with formal education yield similar observations.

Male Attractiveness Relativity

2010-07-20T17:21:00.000-07:00

A man's attractiveness often varies from group to group. While a woman's attractiveness is fairly constant and unchangable, a man's attractiveness is both malleable and perceptually relative. How he is perceived (by both men and women) depends on who he is seen with and what his interactions are like. Those who are students of social dynamics and human attractiveness know that there are three major factors that signal a man's attractiveness in the dating market:

- Leader of men
- Protector of loved ones
- Pre-selected by women

Women mostly judge a man's attractiveness by his social prowess. A man who displays confidence, is charming, well-connected, and is admired by others is seen as very attractive. However, women rarely judge a man's attractiveness directly. Typically, there are many mental shortcuts used to quickly assess a man's attractiveness. This is one of the reasons why pick-up artist materials work well. They teach shortcuts that enhance one's perceptual sexual market value. Alpha mimcry techniques work quite well to fool people short term. While there is a difference between apparent connectedness and genuine connectedness, the heuristics used to measure connectedness and confidence do not allow for such a distinction to be made. A few moments of observation are used to judge a man's attractiveness, though such a judgment may not be accurate.

For example, if a man enters a venue and immediately walks over to talk to someone, as an observer you have no way of knowing whether this fellow is already friends with that person, or if they are a perfect stranger to him. If a man walks into the room with a pretty girl next to him, he immediately appears desirable, even though she may just be a friend or his sister. Due to the use of heuristics in judging a man's attractiveness, first impressions are incredibly vital. While making a great first impression and subsequently not dropping the ball are the key to picking up strangers, the game is entirely different within longer-term social groups. Yet, the same fundamental rules still apply.

When extremely limited information is available, the first impression is practically all the information a person or a group of people have about a man. However, with each new interaction, more information is acquired and a man's attractiveness is reassessed. First impressions are either further established or discarded. Someone may make a great first impression but subsequently show themselves to be less confident, charming or connected than initially perceived. Alternately, sometimes a person makes a poor first impression but consistently shows themselves to be a high quality person in future interactions. First impressions are not discarded easily, but they certainly are not etched in stone.

Because each group is different, the same man may be perceived very differently by various groups. Accordingly, his relative attractiveness may diverge greatly from group to group. At work, a man may seem very distant, detached and anti-social, while with his college buddies he is the life of the party. A man may be seen as very positive and uplifting person by church friends, while viewed as cynical and sarcastic by his family. These perceptual differences are often partially rooted in reality and partially skewed by inaccurate perceptions or extenuating circumstances. Observers who notice a man's interaction with one group may reach extremely difference conclusions about him than observers witnessing him interacting with a different group.

Is one set of observations a more accurate determinant of his attractiveness than another? I think not. Instead, it seems clear that a man's attractiveness genuinely varies. A man who acts anti-socially at work may genuinely be quite unattractive within that context. But, the same man may be extremely attractive when he is with a peer group that includes several hot girls he's dated, some cool friends who genuinely look up to him, and a few people who are very happy to have him around. Not only are perceptions of a man's attractiveness quite subjective, but his very attractiveness may vary greatly from one group to the next.

For those men who seek to apply Game as more than a short-term fix, they have to seek their ideal element and capitalize on that. Where is a man perceived as the most attractive? Why is he perceived that way by them? How can he capitalize on attraction-builders and minimize attraction-killers? Inner Game is about knowing yourself, your strengths and your weaknesses, and utilizing that knowledge to your advantage.

Entry-Level Job Options In A Recessed Economy

2010-07-19T13:43:00.000-07:00

While it isn't my primary occupation, I run a small life coaching practice. A client came to me seeking guidance concerning finding a job for her son. He's a young fellow who is fairly capable, but isn't especially confident in his abilities and hasn't bothered pursuing any higher education. He's held a couple of short-term jobs, but by choice he has never been employed for more than a couple of months. As such, at this point he desires a job, but isn't quite sure what sort of opportunities are actually available.

In other times, the answer to this would be fairly simple. He could simply find an entry-level position or a retail job in the area and be employed quickly and easily. Of course, with the present state of the economy, that simply isn't an option. Indeed, I have several friends who have been searching for any sort of entry-level work without fruitful results. One friend of mine recently landed a job that pays on a "commission-only" basis. However, since it's a politically-oriented job rather than an economically oriented one, there really is no way to earn any serious money on commission. In practice, his pay is below minimum wage.

Since I have had personal experience with alternative forms of employment and earning money, here are a few ideas for those who wish to be doing something with their lives in the midst of our presently recessed economy.

1 - Merchandising
While it isn't the simplest and easiest job in the world, there is plenty of money to be made with only a modicum of effort, if only you know how to approach it. Unlike many jobs, buying and selling things requires no job applications, no interviews and no commitment. All you have to do is find a way to make a decent amount of profit by buying things at low prices and reselling them at higher prices. The best way to do this is to choose items where your profit margin is greater than $30. Hot electronic items and popular consumer goods are a good bet. Simply scour the internet (eBay, Amazon, Craigslist...etc) for an item that is selling for far less than it's value and resell it at a higher price. I have two friends who consistently make good money doing this. At $30-$40 profit per sale, you can make nearly $28K per year if only you average three transactions per day. With a bit more effort, you can make even more money. All it takes to succeed at merchandising is basic math and good searching skills.

2 - Utilize Social Connections
This is one of the best means of actually getting a job. While submitting job applications and going to interviews is a fairly hit and miss process for entry-level work, having connections can land you a job with much less effort and hassle. If you are part of a community, especially a mixed-group community, there are often many job opportunities available to you that are acquirable simply through social leverage. Last time I was looking for a job, I landed a great part-time job simply because I was aware of opportunities that weren't available to the public. With that job, the resume submission and interview process were mere formalities. I have a long list of friends who acquired jobs through their social circles. Churches are one of the richest sources of non-application job opportunities.

3 - Personal Skill Marketing
While work of this sort isn't necessarily as steady and consistent as the other options mentioned, there is still quite reasonable demand for personal skills of all sorts. Rather than seeking a job, simply assess your own skills and market them in order to supply a steady stream of work. Can you mow a lawn? Start offering yardwork services. Are you good at house cleaning? Start a cleaning service. Are you skilled in an academic subject? Offering your tutoring services. Are you great at childcare? Look for nanny jobs in rich areas. There is plenty of money to be made if you simply market the skills you already have. Anything that you land is money in your pocket. There is no need to apply for jobs or go through interviews. Just make a post on Craigslist and/or other specialized websites. Go door-to-door and pass out flyers. I have earned more than a few dollars marketing my skills in various ways, and I know quite a few others who have done the same. A couple of friends have even established businesses this way.

4 - Missionary/Organization/Volunteer Work
This last option isn't a lucrative one. But, that doesn't mean it isn't a highly viable choice. Rather than seeking a means of earning money, there are a good number of options that are adventures in themselves. Plenty of different missionaries, organizations and even families are always looking for people to help them in their endeavors. Often, in exchange for your services, they will provide room and board. Doing something like this gives you an opportunity to step outside of your comfort zone, develop various skillsets, and interact with people who have a different approach to life. Taking advantage of long-term or short-term opportunities is a great way to avoid the job market altogether, while experiencing sides of life that many people never see. These sort of opportunities (especially international ones) also look very good on resumes, which may provides future employment opportunities.

Misunderstanding the Recession

2010-07-14T14:51:00.000-07:00

It should be no surprise that journalists have very little conception concerning the true cause of the high unemployment rates faced in America today. Accordingly, it also should be no surprise the the proposed remedy is absolutely worthless and counterproductive. An article in the news today, entitled "Why Everyone Suffers When Job Seekers Give Up", clearly misses the mark with its analysis of the economic realities.

Among the surprises in last month's job report was the downward slide in the unemployment rate from 9.7 percent to 9.5 percent. Most of the time, high unemployment rates are bad and low unemployment rates are better. But when the percentage of out-of-work Americans dipped in June, it was driven largely by a 652,000 drop in the labor force.

Some job seekers might see this, on its face, as a good thing--fewer labor force participants means less competition for jobs. The truth is much less helpful. When able workers drop out of the job market, their households make do with less income, and their long-term financial health may be threatened, as savings are depleted. The aggregate economy suffers, too, as it chugs its way out of recession--it loses their contributions as workers and their buying power as consumers.

The aggregate economy might suffer from workers abandoning their jobs and ceasing productive ventures, but the economy does not suffer at all from job seekers abandoning seeking jobs. Since they currently are producing nothing of economic value, their continuing to produce nothing of value results in no economic net change. It only reduces the amount of job candidates for the infinitessimally small amount of available jobs from a supermassive number to a merely extremely excessive one. How will companies ever find suitable candidates now?

The growth in discouraged workers is clearly correlated with the high numbers of long-term unemployed--as people who have spent a year or two looking for work unsuccessfully begin to lose the will to keep searching. With five job seekers for every job opening, and some jobs not likely ever returning, the search has been incredibly difficult for many. This is worrying, says Sung Won Sohn, an economist at Smith School of Business and Economics. "If you look at the total unemployment, about 50 percent are long-term unemployed ... and I suspect that a lot of these people are just dropping out of the labor force, saying 'this is just a waste of time,'" Sohn says. "It's not only an economic problem but a social problem as well. Many of these people are very able--they're in their forties, fifties, they still have quite a few years left in them."

Oh my, what a shocker! After unsuccessfully searching for a job for a long time, people are really giving up the search? I never would have guessed! How could they be so socially irresponsible? It's obviously not a waste of time to keep applying to jobs with a negligible chance of being hired and a slim chance of even getting an interview.

Discouraged workers can't help the economy move toward recovery, as they generally can't contribute to the aggregate demand without generating income, paying much in taxes, or consuming much, Autor says. Over the longer term, some discouraged workers will never return to the labor force and may depend on financial support from family members, or public programs such as federal disability benefits or Medicaid. "In addition to the losses these individuals suffer as a result of not remaining active in the labor market, their withdrawal is also an expensive proposition for the public," Autor says. "Prime age adults who exit the labor force permanently will generally receive considerably more in public benefits and transfer income than they will pay in taxes. Thus, in net, their withdrawal increases the dependency ratio, that is the ratio of non-workers to workers."

Now we're getting a little closer to the real issue. Although, a pivotal point is being missed. Not only are discouraged workers incapable of helping move the economy towards recovery, employed workers are similarly unable to help move the economy towards recovery. Our economy is lying in shambles because of the pervasive government intervention into the economy, the oppressive weight of taxes and regulations, and the global lack of understanding the long-term impact of debt, on a national or an individual basis. There is nothing economically wrong with discouraged workers depending on support from family members. However, when there exist public programs that support those who are not contributing economically to society, it distorts labor incentives. When the available jobs are extremely hard to get, and when there is incentive to give up and rely on government support, guess what choice people will generally make? The problem has two sides, but both sides have the same root cause. They are two sides of one coin. The reasons behind the lack of jobs and the reason why people can survive without jobs are one and the same: government intervention.

Retraining programs will likely be key to getting discouraged workers back into the workforce. "What's worrying is you have this sea of unemployed people who seem to not have the right skill sets for where jobs may be being created in this economy," says Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist at MFR, an economic consulting firm in New York.

Of course, the solution advocated by our all-wise media is the same one propagated in society at large. If we just had more education and training programs, our economy would be better off. If people were better trained, or had more specialized training then there would be plenty of productive economic activities for everyone. As with most of the diagnoses and solutions offered by our benevolent social guardians, nothing could be further from the truth. The problem isn't a matter of education and training. Higher education is becoming increasingly useless in the modern economy. The reason we have an inadequate number of jobs is because incentives are distorted due to the government tinkering with labor prices, levying excessive taxes, creating an ever-increasingly incomprehensible labyrinth of regulations, and monkeying with the monetary system through the Federal Reserve System.

The solution is a return to true laissez-faire capitalism, where people can actually be rewarded for working hard and being innovative. Until there exist enough incentives for innovation and jobs for those who wish to be employed, it should be no surprise that people are abandoning the search for work. Until the systemic obstructions to the creation of jobs and economic innovation are removed, the incentives are distorted enough that people are simply going to play it safe. But, again, we the people are having the same tired cliches fed to us. More training, higher education and endless perseverance are the keys to individual economic stability. The problem couldn't possibly be a systemic or institutional one.

Wayward Beings

2010-07-13T17:02:00.000-07:00

One theme that recurs frequently in the pages of Scripture is the idea that human beings are wayward and sinful. From the third chapter of Genesis and the Fall of Man until the Great White Throne of Judgment mentioned in Revelation 20, the entire Bible is about people being wayward. We do what we shouldn't do, and don't do the things we should. We pursue things that lead to destruction and avoid things that lead to restoration and life. We value that which is transitory and illusory while denigrating that which is really of worth. All of us live this way. All of us fairly consistently behave in counterproductive manners.

I was reminded of that potent and inescapable fact as I was conversing with my younger brother. Despite being fairly young, he has more wisdom than many people even twice his age. Recently he has been reading through the books of Job, Psalms and Proverbs. As we were discussing the ways various people perceive things, the things people value and the behaviors people exhibit and reward, we were both struck by the simple realization that people really do live almost precisely contrary to the way the Bible teaches. In almost any area of life, wherever society encourages one mindset or set of behaviors, the Bible advocates precisely the opposite path.

Modern Values
Selfishness
Hedonism
Independence
Self-sufficiency
Quid pro quo
Material wealth
Arrogance
Exclusivity
Striving for gain
Instant gratification

God's Values
Unconditional love
Pursuit of holiness
Interdependence
Reliance on God's provision
Sacrificial giving
Spiritual prosperity
Proper assessment of self
Inclusivity
Contentment
Patience

The dichotomy is quite stark. Today we are relentlessly taught to "look out for number one." We are bombarded with messages that material wealth is the key to success, happiness and social status. We are reminded that "you have to depend on yourself because people will always let you down." We value the pursuit of personal happiness more than we care to enhance the lives of others or live by God's moral code. We are told to "be irrationally confident" and "to err on the side of too much cockiness rather than too little." They say that "there is no such thing as unconditional love" and therefore we should never expect it or give it. We are inundated with messages that religion and spirituality are empty or soul-killing things that prevent abundant living. We are encouraged to have an excess of self-esteem, regardless of the rightness of such an opinion. Cliques and snobbery are encouraged, and those who aren't sufficiently exclusive in their social connections are frowned upon. We are taught to give less than we receive, and never be the first one to give. This dichotomy is powerful, pronounced and deeply ingrained in our mental processes.

Yet, it is all backwards. And, throughout human history, it always has been. The clear division that we see between societal values and God's value is not something peculiar to our era. Rather, this is a social phenomenon that has existed since mankind came into being. It is one which afflicts us all. I am no stranger to valuing the things I shouldn't, pursuing things that are transitory and viewing myself through the distorted lenses of my own perceptions or societies perceptions. The disease of sin is an infectious one which spreads and takes over unless it is resisted. The only cure is spiritual renewal, which comes from submission to God and bathing oneself in the words of God.

"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God." (Romans 12:2)

This is also why I am firm believer in Christianity. The Christian metanarrative is the only one that properly explains why we are such wayward beings, attests to sinfulness being an abnormal condition, and offers a solution to that dilemma. Some worldviews postulate that though we are broken beings we are as we always have been, and therefore there can be no solution. Some worldviews deny that there is anything wrong with humanity. Thank God that though there is a disease in humanity, there is also grace and room for redemption. It just takes a bit of humility and the hard work of repentence.

On The Odd Apparent Disconnect Between Religiousness and Intelligence

2010-07-02T14:43:00.000-07:00

There are a great many odd and peculiar ideas in our world. Recently, I was pondering one of the most odd of all of them. Even just the other day, someone responded to one my posts with the entirely off-topic comment:

You seem so intelligent, Silas, therefore, your religiosity puzzles me.

My initial thought upon reading such a comment was, "How could I possibly be intelligent and not be religious?" Of course, the simple fact is that I couldn't be both intelligent and non-religious. There are a great many people who can be intelligent and yet non-religious, but I most certainly am not one of them. Yet, there, in precisely that paradox, is the simple truth revealed. Intelligence has very little to do with the veracity of one's beliefs. Intelligence may be correlated with the complexity and depth of one's worldview, but never with the correctness thereof. The intelligent mind takes the apparent facts that it is confronted with, and formulates the best possible explanation of those facts. Yet, the conclusions that are actually reached are inextricably dependent on the apparent facts that are observed and pondered.

In many ways, the human mind is like any other tool. If you give a man a hammer, he will be quite puzzled how to use it, unless he is also equipped with and familiar with nails. A screwdriver is quite a useless and perplexing tool to one who hasn't seen a screw. Similarly, intelligence is only a practically useful tool to those who are properly trained in how to use it. There are proper ways of thinking and improper ways of thinking. There are correct applications of the mind and incorrect applications. If one uses thinking only to justify erroneous conclusions, then one may be using one's mind, but the justifications that are made are in opposition to reason. If one uses thinking only to prevent future thinking, then one is using intelligence merely to destroy intelligence. For this reason, it is imperative that a person of intelligence not only be intelligent, but also have the wisdom necessary to properly use such intelligence.

Additionally, even supposing that one does possess the needed skills to properly use their intelligence, it remains that there must be suitable material to ponder and reasonable premises with which sound conclusions may be formed. Much as a hammer isn't especially helpful when one only possesses bent nails, and a screwdriver is of no help when one only possesses sheared screws, so intelligence is of little benefit when one is only equipped with faulty premises. And this is precisely the modern plight!

After all, in any case of inquiry, it is certain that there is only one right explanation of a thing, while there are a vast array of wrong explanations. If we were to inquire into why apples fall off trees towards the earth, there are a near infinite number of possible explanations that could be given. Perhaps apples like to be nearer to tree trunks than to tree leaves. Perhaps, apples are overly warm from being in the sun and are drawn towards the cool of shadier places. Perhaps, apples are migratory creatures who seldom stay near their birthplace. Yet, despite the fact that there are a near infinite number of possible explanations, there is one only possible explanation that is both plausible and true. Hence, whenever explanations are offered, there are always infinitely more possible fallacious explanations than true ones. In practice, there are always more real faulty explanations than true ones.

Due to the rise of advanced civilization and the connecting of the globe, ideas have spread faster than at any time prior in human history. The past three hundred years, in fact, have given rise and voice to a variety of major ideas and have propagated them broadly among minds, both great and small. Unfortunately, as error is more plentiful than rightness and lies are more plentiful than truth, many of the ideas that have been broadly accepted are fallacious. More than just being fallacious, a good many of them have more than a quantum of insanity about them. The explanations of many things are, as far as they go, logical and consistent enough. However, that which some such theories (like materialism) leave unexplained is broad enough in scope to leave the explanatory power of such theories utterly deificient. Alternately, that which other theories (like macroevolution) explain is far more than can possibly be deduced from the evidence. Most popularly held modern ideologies possess one of those two flaws: either they explain far too little, or they explain far too much.

Logic dictates that when proper syllogisms are used in conjunction with valid premises, the conclusions that follow are similarly valid. However, logic also dictates that even when using proper syllogisms, if the premises are invalid, the conclusions that logically follow are also invalid. The problem with modern thought is that much of our collective body of conclusions rest upon foundational conclusions and premises that are faulty, and provably so. Once a few faulty conclusions were reached and accepted as valid, they then began to be utilized as foundational premises for the derivation of further conclusions. Now, we find ourselves with an entire cathedral of thought, marvelously constructed, with remarkable ornamention. Yet, the cathedral is built upon a foundation of sand. Nearly a century has passed since we passed beyond what Francis Schaeffer termed the Line of Despair, where the abandonment of reason began in earnest, and hopelessness in any quest for truth became prevalent. In F. Scott Fitzgerald's first novel, This Side of Paradise, published in 1920, he brilliantly captures the essence of his generation with this memorable quote:

Here was a new generation, shouting the old cries, learning the old creeds, through a revery of long days and nights; destined finally to go out into that dirty gray turmoil to follow love and pride; a new generation dedicated more than the last to the fear of poverty and the worship of success; grown up to find all Gods dead, all wars fought, all faiths in man shaken...

That philosophical foundation, which we now call modern thought or existentialism, is founded on precisely those tenets. All Gods are dead, all wars have been fought, all faiths in man have been shaken. There is no ultimate answer to anything. Instead, there exist only disconnected fragments to be discovered. So it has come to pass that the intelligent minds of our day have fed and feasted upon such tenets and the ideological developments that have been built upon those tenets. Yet, we have not stopped long enough to consider whether our presuppositions are true. For this reason, the apparent disconnect between religiousness and intelligence now exists. No one can be intelligent, accept the modern premises, and be religious. Simply stated, if the premises accepted by modern society are valid, then it is thoroughly irrational and unintelligent to be religious. The problem, however, is not one of religion or intelligence, but rather of the premises accepted by modern society. G.K. Chesteron aptly describes such a modern tendency towards blind acceptance of highly debatable tenets, in his book, The Everlasting Man:

...but this habit of a rapid hardening of a hypothesis into a theory and of a theory into an assumption has hardly yet gone out of fashion.

Statements are made so plainly and positively that men have hardly the moral courage to pause upon them and find that they are without support.

With each passing year, as those questionable inferences continue to be taken for granted, the pathways of intelligence and religiousness appear to grow even further apart. Yet, the conflict was never between religiousness and intelligence. The wedge that divdes the two is the great body of faulty assumptions that underlie the entire worldview of contemporary Western society. The intelligent but gullible mind of today is logical and rational enough, but since such a mind has a great many misconceptions which are perceived as facts, such a mind is also one that rejects religion prima facie. The intelligent but skeptical mind has either reached the conclusion that religion and mysticism are a necessary part of sane human existence, or yet remains in a state of intellectual limbo. There is no true disconnect between intelligence and religiousness. The apparent division between the two is merely an illusion, widely propagated by misplaced faith in tenets and principles which are highly debatable, at best, or provably false, at worst.

Custom Cocktails: Tangerine Dream

2010-06-29T18:28:00.000-07:00

Normally, since I just mix various drinks for fun, I wouldn't even think of writing a blog about one. However, I was recently inspired by Ulysses' post, Saturday Cocktails, and decided that it would be fun to share my take on custom cocktails. Ever since I turned 21, I've enjoyed trying various sorts of alcohols and developing my own personal palette. As an insatiably creative sort of person, I rarely stick with the basics for long. Hence, for as long as I have been seriously into alcohol, I have been experimenting with various different ways to make drinks.

My philosophy on drinks is that the very best drinks not only taste amazing, but they also look quite stunning. In fact, that's my general philosophy on anything one eats or drinks. While food or drinks that taste good certainly aren't bad, there seems to be an exponential effect that enhances the sensual experience of something of that appeals to more than one sense. The presentation, then, is at least as important as the final flavor of a drink or dish. Of course, it often takes a little more effort to make something sparkle and shine, but that little bit of extra effort goes a long way. Whenever entertaining guests, having a lucky lady over for drinks or even just relaxing with a drink myself, I like to pull out the stops and craft a sensational experience.

A couple of weekends ago, I was in the mood to create a new cocktail. Without further ado, here is the recipe for my new cocktail:

Tangerine Dream

Ingredients:
1 measure Vitali or Skyy Vodka
1 measure Triple Sec
1 1/2 measure Orange Soda
4 Ice Cubes
(optional) 3 fresh Blueberries

Instructions:
Pour the vodka and Triple Sec into a cocktail shaker and add the ice cubes. Shake thoroughly and then pour into a martini glass. Pour the orange soda into the martini glass. If desired, garnish with fresh blueberries.

Note: For a slightly crisper, sharper cocktail, use Vitali Vodka. For a smoother cocktail, use Skyy Vodka.

This last weekend, several friends came over for an afterparty at my place, and I quickly whipped up a few of these drinks. Everyone thoroughly enjoyed them. We sipped on our cocktails while enjoying an old black & white comedy classic. It's always hard to go wrong with cocktails that look as incredible as they taste. That's the way we do it at my villa!

Biblical Wisdom: Debt-Free Living

2010-06-28T18:28:00.000-07:00

Some things are so deeply ingrained in my worldview, that I scarce can read about the way others handle things without a deep sense of puzzlement. That which seems to be common sense is so consistently and assiduously avoided by many of my contemporaries that sometimes I genuinely wonder whether people even rationally ponder the decisions they make. Today, as I was reading Talleyrand's post on Fairy Gold, I was struck with exactly such a feeling. Talleyrand discusses that which offers illusory temporary wealth at the expense of long-term happiness and financial well-being, and his post hits the nail right on the head. He writes:

Higher education is a form of fairy gold. When student loans started becoming the rage decades ago, the idea was to make higher education “accessible to everyone."

Another example of fairy gold is our governments deficit spending and the deficit spending of the American public, with credit cards and home loans and car loans, all making them feel wealthy on the belief that more money would always come.

While I am always subconsciously aware of the fact that numerous Americans do have large student loans and readily spend beyond their means, whenever I stop to actually think about the implications of such choices, it truly baffles me. Why would any intelligent person take on any personal debt, outside of a mortgage or a business venture? Yet, I know countless people who are overwhelmingly laden with debt. Student loan, in particular, seem to be a ridiculously unwise and burdensome choice, given that one is exchanging a significant part of one's future for an increasingly valueless piece of paper.

However, in thinking about it further, I realize that it is truly a blessing that I have such a strong aversion to debt. Quite obviously, not everyone has been blessed with a similar outlook. My father is to credit for my views on the subject. When I was growing up, in our daily Bible Time, we often would read through the book of Proverbs. As we would read through the chapter of the day, my father would often highlight certain verses and offer his own commentary or stories relating to them. One of the topics that he discussed frequently during our times in Proverbs was the topic of debt. There are plenty of verses on finances in the Bible, and a good number of them are in Proverbs.

Proverbs 22:7 - The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.

Proverbs 22:26-27 - Do not be one of those who shakes hands in a pledge, one of those who is surety for debts; if you have nothing with which to pay, why should he take away your bed from under you?

Proverbs 28:22 - A man with an evil eye hastens after riches, and does not consider that poverty will come upon him.

Proverbs 23:5 - Will you set your eyes on that which is not? For riches certainly make themselves wings; they fly away like an eagle toward heaven.

My father had many stories to tell regarding how people handled their finances and how things did or did not work out for them. His stance on debt was not merely a theoretical one, or one that was merely adopted because of a few verses. Instead, he had extensive practical experience, and had conscientiously avoided debt throughtout his life. His teaching on financial matters, which he based on Biblical principles, has been very influential in my life by helping me to ponder how to manage my own finances as an adult.

Today, many people have large quantities of fairy gold. The wealth they think they have is merely illusory. For those who don't have a healthy opposition to debt, what they have had to exchange for that fairy gold is often more costly than they realize. Talleyrand describes the process and its end result:

Now here’s where to people have made a bargain they really haven’t realized they have made.

When they signed up for student loans, they were giving up their children. That was what they were really selling.

And, on a national scale, regarding people living beyond their means:

What was sold for all that debt? America will no longer be a superpower, the standard of living for people in this country is going to drop 30-50%.

Now that the time to pay the piper has come, many people will find that their fairy gold isn't as golden as it seemed. All this could be avoided by exercising a little Biblical wisdom, avoiding debt, working hard, and not pursuing the various get-rich schemes of today. Yet, we are a nation that has forsaken God, forsaken the clear teachings of the Bible, and forsaken wisdom. The only ones we harm by rejecting truth and wisdom are ourselves. God is not mocked. Though it initially puzzles me why people behave the way they do, it ultimately makes sense. My father wisely follows and teaches the Biblical principles pertaining to finances. In a nation of folly, a little wisdom goes a long way. I am greatly blessed to have received wise Biblical instruction in this area of life.

What Women Think They Want

2010-06-25T13:42:00.000-07:00

Recently, I went out to dinner with some friends of mine. There were four of us. The first fellow, a stable middle-aged guy (SMG) is quite soundly in the beta provider category. He has a great place to live, is very responsible with his money, throws good parties and is pretty easy to get along with. The second fellow is a player extraordinaire (PE). He has loads of natural game, a well established reputation as a bad boy and a fun, completely comfortable persona. The last person, player extraordinaire's girlfriend, is a nice but fairly typical American woman (TAW).

SMG was extremely excited because he had a blind date set up for the next weekend. He was on his phone texting this girl and setting up a time and location for the date when we first arrived at the restaurant. This was a pretty big thing for him, since he's not very assertive towards women and hasn't been on a date in quite a long time. So, for the first while, he was telling us about this girl and how his friend set him up on a date with her. He was telling us that they're planning on going to a nice restaurant for lunch. Next, he asks this question.

SMG: "Do you think I should get her some flowers?"

TAW: "You should definitely get her some flowers."

Me: "Why in the world would you get a girl flowers on a first date?"

TAW looks at me quite taken aback. She says: "You don't have a girlfriend, do you?"

Me: "Nope. I broke up with her a few weeks ago. She wasn't quite cutting it."
Pointing to PE, I ask her, "Did he get you any flowers on your first date?"

PE, chiming in: "We didn't exactly have a first date."

Next he goes on to casually mention that even though they've been dating for about 7 or 8 months, he's never gotten her flowers, never taken her out for dinner, and typically gets her to pay for him for most things they do. TAW really doesn't say much about any of this, but goes back to the initial question and addresses SMG again.

TAW: "Girls love flowers. You should get her some."

PE: "Or you could get her one flower. A flower that is just beginning to blossom, whose petals are just starting to open up."

PE launches into a story about one girl that he brought flowers for, who ended up being deathly allergic to most types of flowers. She was also allergic to chocolate, so he was quite happy he didn't bring a box of those.

The whole evening was quite interesting, and we had a lot of other interesting interchanges. I am endlessly amused by the vast divergence between what women think that they want and what they actually desire. TAW clearly seemed to think that she liked flowers, romance and nice gestures. Yet, the clear evidence of her relationship shows that none of those things actually matter to her. Instead, she was utterly enchanted with a fellow who is the furthest from "nice" or "romantic" possible. Women swoon for desirable men who have an overabundance of psychosocial dominance. They always think they want romantic gestures, but they actually find a lack of romantic expression, from a fun and engaging man with options, to be far more irresistible.

American Poverty Isn't About Lack of Resources

2010-06-22T16:03:00.000-07:00

The myth that poverty is a result of underprivilege is a common one. However, it is also a myth which is far removed from truth and reality. Homelessness in America, especially, is something that is very rarely caused by systemic dislocation or oppression. Instead, in most instances in America, both poverty and homelessness are the result of consistently poor lifestyle choices. I have worked in various ministries with my church that reach out to the poor, and I also go out of my way to help those who are in need whenever I can. Because of this, I have a lot of firsthand experience dealing with those who are in need.

Generally, my policy is that if a poor person asks me for something, I will do my best to offer them something, within reason. Typically, I shy away from giving cash, since monetary gifts often are used to support drug and alcohol addictions. However, I am more than happy to take a poor person and buy them a meal, if they are genuinely hungry. My stance on this stems directly from the words of Jesus Christ. "Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away." (Matt. 5:42)

Last night, I stopped at a gas station near my home, to fill up my car. Leaning on one of the garbage cans was a middle-aged fellow who looked fairly unkempt and wore bedraggled clothes. As I stepped out of my car, he looked at me with a pained expression and mumbled in broken English, "I haven't had a thing to eat all day. Could you give me a little money?" I wasn't feeling in a particularly hospitable mood, so I just simply looked at him and shook my head. However, while I was pumping gas, I didn't feel quite right giving him nothing at all. I quickly glanced around my car to see if I had anything to offer him. There was a half-empty box of goldfish crackers and a full cup of warm tea that I'd just gotten from Starbucks.

After pumping gas, I walked over to the fellow and asked if he was hungry. He replied, "I haven't had anything to eat today. If you could just give me a little money... maybe a dollar or two." I told him, "Would you like some crackers? I have a box of crackers, if you're hungry." He looked a little bit perplexed or confused and said again, "Could you just give me a little money? I'll take anything." I repeated myself, "I have a box of goldfish crackers, if you want. There are plenty of crackers in the box." He looked at me rather unenthusiastically. Thinking that maybe he was confused or didn't know what crackers are, I took the box out of my car and brought them over to him. He took the crackers rather wistfully and set them down next to him. I asked him if he was thirsty, and offered him my tea. But, he didn't seem too excited by that proposition.

He mumbled some other things that I couldn't understand. After fruitlessly trying to converse with him for a minute or two, I patted him on the shoulder and told him, "God bless you. Enjoy your crackers." As I walked back towards my car, he began to mumble something else, and then he told me, "You're an asshole." I hopped in my car and left. I fail to see how offering him some food and a nice warm drink could possibly be considered asshole behavior. It only made sense if he didn't actually want food, but instead was only seeking money. It simply supports my hypothesis that most homeless and poor people aren't primarily in their condition because of mere circumstances. Time after time, this sort of thing is precisely what I experience in dealing with such people. More than 60% of the time, they are lying ingrates. I certainly care about their plight, but in such cases the issue isn't lack of resources. The issue is poor lifestyle choices and a pathetic attitude. American poverty isn't really about a lack of resources much at all.

Tower of Babel Phenomenon - Part 3

2010-06-18T12:45:00.000-07:00

Continued from Part 1 and Part 2.

As previous discussed, the human inclination to gather together and live in high-density areas creates societal disconnection from nature and isolates people from one another. Another effect of the Tower of Babel phenomenon is the acceleration of cultural penetration. I have previously written on the profound impact of social influence on individuals. While social influence is an inescapable part of human existence, high-density living dramatically speeds up the pace at which ideas circulate and social trends change communities. This acceleration rarely results in positive changes.

Throughout the course of history, it can be seen that novels ideas and advancements rarely come from sparsely-populated areas. A majority of the major discoveries, novel ideologies and significant advancements in human history have originated from people living in metropolitan areas. There are a good many reasons for why this is the general pattern of things. In heavily-populated areas, the benefits of specialized labor and comparative advantage profoundly affect the local community. With the leverage and flexibility offered by these economic gains, less effort is expended in acquiring life's necessities. With the remainder of time and energy that men gain through living in a civilized society, they often devote some of their discretionary time to creative pursuits, innovation and various mental activities.

While in a civilized society there is some discretionary time for a certain percentage of the population, in an advanced civilization the economic gains are even more pronounced, resulting in even larger amounts of discretionary time for a higher percentage of the population. This time is generally spent either in idleness, innovation or ideation. Incidentally, with the possible exception of innovation, these activities all have a strong tendency to result in higher levels of cultural familiarity. Idleness, which results in boredom, leads people to seek newness, either in the form of new experiences or new ideas. This quest for newness, often haphazard in nature, results in greater exposure to different sorts of people, values, activities and ideas. However, the people, values, activities and ideas that are discovered are generally socially homogenous or localized ones.

For example, if you have a fair amount of time to kill and nothing particular in mind, you might find yourself surfing the internet in an aimless manner, looking through the TV Guide for something good to watch, or asking a friend for an activity recommendation. To you, whatever you stumble across may be new, but it is not new or original in any real sense. Whatever you find on the internet, television or recommended by your friend is simply a part of your culture that you were previously unacquainted with. Therefore, a person's response to the boredom caused by idleness has a reasonable likelihood of resulting in the person becoming more aware of and exposed to aspects of their own culture.

Innovation and ideation, especially of the sort engaged in using discretionary time, both involve the conscious pursuit of new ideas, either purely mental ones or ideas that will lead to tangible innovation and change. In order to create something new or come up with a new idea, a person first must possess a reasonable familiarity with those ideas and innovations which already exist. The process of innovation entails a contemporary familiarity with what already is and with what sorts of things would offer some utility to contemporary people. Therefore, when one seeks to innovate, extensive familiarity with modern products, methodologies and social conventions is an absolute necessity. Time that is dedicated to innovation almost inescapably leads a person to become more aware of and exposed to aspects of their own culture.

Ideation, though of a different sort than innovation, is largely identical. In the pursuit of observing people, being aware of various philosophies and worldviews, constructing academic treatises and attempting to conceptualize or express things in a new manner, there is no way to avoid become more informed and acquainted with the ideas, paradigms and misconceptions of one's own culture. Whom does one discuss ideas with? Those in one's own community. Thus, time that is dedicated to intellectual and academic pursuits also results in a greater familiarity with one's own culture.

Hence, it is seen that all of the primary discretionary-time activities of a civilization hasten and facilitate the spread of ideas and general cultural familiarity. Higher levels of cultural awareness and familiarity are not intrinsically harmful. However, given the human propensity for evil and the law of entropy, what is seen throughout history is that societies and civilizations trend downwards from more virtuous and orderly states to more chaotic and evil ones. Because that which is evil corrupts that which is good, higher rates of cultural penetration inevitably results in faster social decay. For this reason, the Tower of Babel phenomenon consistently serves to speed social degradation and sow destruction within a society. The tendency of people to gather in high-density areas not only results in disconnection from nature and social isolation, but it also accelerates cultural penetration, which typically results in the demise of a civilization.

On Educational Methods and Christian Schools

2010-06-14T17:53:00.000-07:00

Fellow blogger Michael Duenes wrote a great post regarding the importance of training Christian men and properly preparing them for righteous and godly dominion. In his post, he raises an important query:

When it comes to educating boys, whom Douglas Wilson aptly calls, “Future Men,”, we have to follow the same procedure we would for any venture to succeed. We must start with the end in mind. We have to practice “learning by design” here, too. What we are, in fact, doing is training these boys to be “lords of the earth.” That’s what having dominion means. And boys and men have a particular role to play as such lords, but do we know what it is? Do we take our cues from Genesis, chapters one and two? Are we teaching and training them toward that end?

It seems to me that our educational model wants to squeeze young men into the female role, and they rightly resist. If we are interested in training young men to be such lords of the earth, under Christ, then six hours a day in mixed-sex classrooms behind desks and more Bible studies is probably not going to do the trick. Surely being a lord of the earth, for a young man, means a good deal more than passing U.S. History exams and mastering Geometry. Can fathers shoulder this training alone? I’m inclined to think not.

How do Christian schools further their progress? How do we buck the dominant educational paradigm, which clearly isn’t sufficing, and start fulfilling our mandate to help train these boys up, intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually, into such biblical manhood?

While I have many thoughts on this issue, one specific point that isn't much discussed seemed pertinent to point out. In many ways, regarding education, the structure is the message. When Christian private schools pattern themselves after secular schools, they tacitly agree with many of the methods and aims of secular education. Unless we are aware of the messages that are conveyed by a given means of education and by certain methods of education, we stand thoroughly unable to craft an intentional and well-reasoned response to such messages. Most of the Christian private schools that I am familiar with are almost indistinguishable from their secular counterparts with the exceptions of the sociological composition of those involved and the addition of a Bible class. This suggests that there is a tacit acceptance of many modern paradigms of education, including a vast array of ideologies and methods which should be skeptically regarded.

When the primary learning a child receives occurs in the artificial environment of a classroom, many subliminal messages are communicated. The process of learning in the classroom is of a very specific kind, bearing a very specific structure. The teacher, as the certified instructor is, for the children, the source of truth. Children are rewarded for behavioral conformity to the classroom rules and they are rewarded for intellectual conformity to the teacher's and/or the state's ideas. This pattern establishes a dangerous epistemological reliance on institutions and credentialed people. Most classroom teaching also encourages a passive reception and regurgitation of information, rather than stimulating an active and passionate pursuit of truth.

Additionally, what is taught in the classroom is generally decontexualized information, stripped from its real-life context. When a student's education consists primarily of decontextualized information, it is very difficult for the student to take his learning seriously or see the practical value of what he does learn. Since classroom learning is requirement-driven and mandated rather than student-driven and optional, the forced learning of decontextualized information often does more to innoculate a student against true learning (which he hasn't experienced), than it does to prepare a student to face real-life challenges and scenarios. The prevailing paradigms utilized in today's Western education are very stifling and restrictive, in terms of required hours of classroom attendance, targeted-testing, narrow academic standards and limited class selections.

So long as Christian private schools remain largely identical in structure and methodology to their secular counterparts, they should expect to see largely similar results in the outcomes of their students. If Christian schools do wish to further their progress and increase their capacity to effectively prepare young men and women for adult life, then those involved in the leadership of such schools must be willing to step back and challenge modern educational paradigms. If Christian schools wish to offer a truly different scholastic experience, they cannot do it by adding one little class, hiring Christian teachers and marketing to Christian families. Instead, there must be a radically different structure and atmosphere that is specifically designed to raise up young men and women to follow God's precepts, boldly seek truth and courageously confront lies.

On Breakups and White Lies

2010-06-11T11:51:00.000-07:00

The threads of alleged niceness that are taught and encouraged today are, in actuality, anything but. This point has been brought up ad naseum by numerous authors and bloggers, so I will not spend any time supporting such a transparent fact. In this post, I want to take a brief look at the idea that using white lies is the best and kindest recourse, when instigating a breakup. Readers of my blog already know where I stand on the use of vacuous phrases utilized in the midst of a breakup. Yet, there are some who take the stance that it is better to cushion the blow and use white lies, rather than risk upsetting or hurting the self-esteem of a soon-to-be ex.

While it might seem that using trite, unaccompanied, meaningless phrases such as, "I just don't feel we're meant to be together," "It's not you, it's me," "This is just not quite working out," would be the kindest way to end a relationship, it really is anything but. My first objection to such a method is that it is primarily concerned with keeping the peace and avoiding confrontation. From a Biblical standpoint, one's primary motivation in any action or method should be love and a genuine desire for the best of the other person. When one's motives are skewed, it is certain that one's methods will be far from ideal. A fear-based mentality that seeks to avoid conflict is a selfish one rather than an others-centric love-based mentality.

If one does have a genuine care for the well-being of another, then love dictates that one's actions should be more concerned with helping a person and pointing them in a direction of personal growth, than of attempting to help them avoid unpleasant feelings which might be stirred up in the process. That some truths are unpleasant and uncomfortable does not mean that they should not be faced or dealt with. Similarly, if one does have a true love for another, such a person will limit their statements to that which can lead to real change and growth. Alternately, it is a sign of malicious intent if one expresses things simply to cause pain or inflict emotional distress. Wisdom then reveals that the most loving method of breaking up involves a clear and candid statement of those real reasons for the breakup which offer the opportunity for personal growth, stemming from a motive of love.

Secondly, a problem with the use of ambiguous or misleading language in the midst of breakup is that such verbalizations often cross the line into dishonesty and deception. A person of integrity may not fully reveal their entire stance, but they will never willfully deceive or mislead another. When the reason for the breakup is stated solely as, "It's not you, it's me," this is generally a flat-out lie. The intentional deception of another person is something that is not kind, loving or righteous in any regard. It is an evil of the highest sorts.

In considering the effect to the self-esteem of the soon-to-be ex, we must first consider the proper place of self-esteem. Proper self-esteem is a right estimation of oneself and one's standing in life. Viewing oneself as more perfect or less flawed than one is, results in an attitude of pride. Viewing oneself as more flawed or less capable than one is, needlessly inhibits one's ability to function in the world. Self-esteem, then, is only a good thing if is it founded on facts and built on a proper assessment of oneself. If a person's self-image is skewed, their self-esteem will be based on an illusion rather than truth. Therefore, the very best thing for a person's self-esteem is that it be based on a right estimation of self. It is necessary to be cognizant of one's strengths and weaknesses in order to rightly estimate oneself. In the process of a breakup, then, the best thing is for a person to be made aware of those strengths that they do not realize and also of those shortcomings, of which they are unaware. Anything else ensures that a flawed self-image is retained.

Regarding the clear exposition of reasons for a breakup, there is no mandate that such a thing occur. However, it is in the best interests of the other person that such an exposition be made. When vague and ambiguous reasons are offered, the person on the receiving end of the breakup lacks the peace of mind to know what caused the breakup. In the long-run it is far more troubling and emotionally painful to be left in the dark than it is to come to accept clearly-stated reasons given. Additionally, when no reasons are given, there is nothing that a person can do to attempt to avoid a similar future outcome. When clear and specific reasons for a breakup are given, a person is able to recognize their own flaws and deficiencies and grow in those areas. The correction of character and personality flaws in oneself increases the likeliness of better future relational outcomes. For those two reasons, it seems that it is far better to offer clear and specific reasons for a breakup, as opposed to explaining nothing.

Therefore, despite the initial attractiveness of the use of white lies or statements of ambiguity to preserve the feelings of another in a breakup, rational minds will conclude that such an approach conflicts with love and a genuine desire for the well-being of another. Lies, motivated by fear and selfishness, are incompatible with a love of truth, a pursuit of integrity or a lifestyle of love. Avoidance of real issues rather than a candid addressing of such issues robs someone of real opportunities for personal growth. As such, a clear and specific exposition of the issues leading to a breakup, offered from a heart of love, out of a genuine desire for the best of the other, is the most wholesome and caring method of ending relationships.

Women Are Sponges

2010-06-09T09:24:00.000-07:00

This past weekend, I went with two of my brothers to a card game tournament in Las Vegas. Being the observer of humanity and gender dynamics that I am, I ended up having a few different discussions with one of my brothers about the various girls who attended the convention and played in the tournament. Initially, both my brother and I were surprised that there were as many girls as there were, given that most players of the game are men. For this reason, there were more women who were volunteering at the event as judges and program support than who attended it as players.

There were several other observations that we made in short order. All of the girls who attended the event as players had accompanied their boyfriends to the event. Hence, there were no single girls who attended the event as players. Most of the girls who played in the tournament placed in the bottom percentiles. Most of the girls played more for the enjoyment of the game than out of a strong desire for competition or victory. The overall average attractiveness of the girls at the event, both those who played and those working as event support staff was below general population average. Of course, most of those observations were fairly straight-forward and intuitive.

However, there was one interesting observation that my brother made not long after we left. Of the girls who played in the various tournaments, their competitive skill was highly correlated with their respective boyfriends' competitive skill levels. Given the other observations that we made, I would have expected all of the girls to remain very poorly competitive. However, the correlation between the skill level of the boyfriends and the skill level of their respective girlfriends was too high to be ignored.

- The one girl who was most competent and competitive at all the various game types was dating a fellow who also was a fairly skilled and experienced player.
- The girl who was the most fun and personable, but only moderately skilled was dating one of the most positive and fun fellows at the event. He was extremely friendly and relaxed, but lacked sufficient experience or competitiveness to rise above the average level of competition.
- One girl who consistently placed close to last was dating a guy who was a decent guy but a bit below average at the game.

There were also a few other girls playing in the event who also seemed to match our observation, though neither my brothers nor I interacted with them much. In any event, these observations seem to match the experiences of Alte/ButterflySquash in her post on women being empty vessels. She observed that women generally adopt opinions, interests, and mannerisms from the people around them. Our observations this past weekend not only support that observation, but extend it even further. Not only do women generally absorb opinions, interests and mannerisms from their boyfriends/husbands, but their knowledgeability and competence regarding such hobbies, interests and stances are directly correlated with the knowledgeability and competence of their men. This lends even more support to the idea that men are naturally hard-wired to be dominant leaders and that women are hard-wired to follow, learn from, and support their men.

Tower of Babel Phenomenon - Part 2

2010-06-08T14:57:00.000-07:00

Continued from here.

In addition to the disconnection from nature that a mass aggregation of humans living in an area necessarily involves, there is also the unexpected effect of the isolation and alienation of people from one another. It is a counter-intuitive effect because it would seem to be that where there are more people, individuals will feel more connected and more social. Yet, observation of actual human behavior and interaction reveals a very different effect. This alienation is caused by several powerful factors, working in conjunction with each other.

One vastly noticable difference between highly-populated areas and and less-populated areas is the general demeanor of people. In larger cities and more urban environments, people are generally more aloof, distant, hurried, busy, and even uncaring. In smaller places, people are much more likely to be friendly, relaxed, genuine and interested. This isn't simply an American phenomenon. Even in countries such as Romania, Nicaragua or Columbia, the difference in general demeanor correlated with population density can be witnessed. Economic theory explains that things are valued relative to their scarcity. That which is relatively plentiful is not valued as highly as that which is more scarce. As such, it follows that when there are vast quantities of people, each one seems less valuable, less interesting and less important, on average. Similarly, where there are fewer people, fewer potential friends, fewer potential lovers and fewer potential business partners, each individual is perceived as more valuable and more important.

Another part of living in a Tower of Babel area is the relative anonymity that accompanies such a life. In a lower-density area, there is a higher level of connectivity. In smaller towns or communities, everyone knows everyone else and everyone else's family. In highly populated areas, you can easily go out without seeing anyone you know. Unless you frequent a local venue, there are numerous places you can go where everyone is a stranger. Additionally, people are generally regarded as individuals rather than as part of a family. You can have friends you've known for quite a while and never have met their families. You may have little knowledge or connection with the family of a significant other. These factors combine to offer higher incidences of feeling disconnected and isolated for those who live in urban places. There are often times when people feel (and not completely without validity) that no-one truly knows them or cares about them.

Similarly, because of the increased focus on individuality instead of collectivity, most of the groups and communities that urbanites participate in are synthetic groups rather than natural groups. Synthetic groups are ones that are formed by individuals on the basis of similar interests, hobbies, pursuits, values or outlooks. While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with synthetic groups, there is a danger of being involved in too many synthetic groups and too few natural groups. Natural groups are ones that are more transcendent, binding individuals together based primarily on blood relationships and geographical location. Natural groups typically consist of people with a broad variety of characteristics, with a higher degree of natural divergence than synthetic groups, which tend to be more homogenized.

The higher incidence of participance in synthetic groups and the rarity of high levels of participation in natural groups results in a socially smaller world, even for those people who are very socially connected in a high-density environment. G.K. Chesteron expresses such a sentiment in his book, Heretics. He writes:

It is not fashionable to say much nowadays of the advantages of the small community. We are told that we must go in for large empires and large ideas. There is one advantage, however, in the small state, the city, or the village, which only the wilfully blind can overlook. The man who lives in a small community lives in a much larger world. He knows much more of the fierce varieties and uncompromising divergences of men. The reason is obvious. In a large community we can choose our companions. In a small community our companions are chosen for us. Thus in all extensive and highly civilized societies groups come into existence founded upon what is called sympathy, and shut out the real world more sharply than the gates of a monastery. There is nothing really narrow about the clan; the thing which is really narrow is the clique. The men of the clan live together because they all wear the same tartan or are all descended from the same sacred cow; but in their souls, by the divine luck of things, there will always be more colours than in any tartan. But the men of the clique live together because they have the same kind of soul, and their narrowness is a narrowness of spiritual coherence and contentment, like that which exists in hell. A big society exists in order to form cliques. A big society is a society for the promotion of narrowness. It is a machinery for the purpose of guarding the solitary and sensitive individual from all experience of the bitter and bracing human compromises. It is, in the most literal sense of the words, a society for the prevention of Christian knowledge.

For these many reasons, it is thoroughly evident that not only is the Tower of Babel phenomenon an evil one because it invariably involves a disconnection from nature, it also is an evil one because it causes very real social and personal harm to those who live in close proximity to too many other people. It promotes a mindset that devalues people and views them as unimportant, uninteresting and thoroughly replaceable. It disconnects people from naturally-emergent community and leaves them on their own devices to connect socially. It reduces personal accountability through the relative anonymity of the urban environment. It fosters a general attitude of distrust, avoidance and apathy towards strangers rather than allowing the natural attitudes of curiosity, friendliness and genuineness to grow and flourish. And it encourages people to live in a relatively small world consisting primarily of homogenized synthetic groups, rather than offering the wisdom and breadth of natural groups and communities based on blood relation and geographic location. In short, urbanization isolates and disconnects people from one another.

Tower of Babel Phenomenon - Part 1

2010-05-30T17:26:00.000-07:00

In a tendency nearly as old as history, people have worked towards living in highly populated areas. In present times, we call such a thing urbanization. Yet, such a tendency is not a healthy thing. Scripture clearly takes a stance against such inclinations, and against the Tower of Babel phenomenon.

Now the whole earth had one language and one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there. Then they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They had brick for stone, and they had asphalt for mortar. And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.”

But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. And the LORD said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city. Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.

Genesis 11:1-9

Typically, in the Old Testament, God only intervenes in the case of fairly major events. He intervened when Adam & Eve sought to be their own moral authority rather than obey God's commands. He intervened when all the people on earth were thoroughly wicked. Here in this passage, He intervened when people decided to congregate in one small region, rather than spread themselves out appropriately. Clearly, there is something about people creating and abiding in densely populated areas that God opposes. This passage doesn't give us a crisp bullet-point summary of the reasons God opposed the Tower of Babel, but that doesn't leave us completely in the dark.

What major social problems does urbanization create? There are several effects that are fairly substantial. It disconnects people from nature. It isolates people from one another. It accelerates the pace at which culture affects individuals and groups. Also, it lends itself towards an undue societal hubris. Each one of these effects are quite troublesome in their own right. In aggregate, they are more than sufficient to persuade a rational person that urbanization is a great evil to be ardently avoided.

Urbanization disconnects people from nature in several ways. The first and most obvious way it does so is simply by the fact that the social planning of high-density urban environments requires that vast amounts of natural resources be stripped away. Whatever plants and trees exist within an urban area are sparse and synthetically added. Fields, forests, lakes and streams become attractions and locations to visit, rather than being everday parts of one's life. Also, the specialization of labor that urbanization lends itself to contributes to a general lack of awareness of our ecosystem. Rather than farming being an indispensible part of one's life and an integral part of a community, it is a distant afterthought. Husbandry is a field of arcane and esoteric knowledge. Our involvement with food rarely stretches beyond the supermarket, restaurants and the kitchen (if that far).

Exercise is another thing that ceases to exist within its natural context. In a state of nature, exercise is an unavoidable part of life. Work requires physical exertion. Travel is a more visceral and physically-involved experience. Regular exertion to provide for oneself and one's family and to maintain one's land are simply facts of life. Contrarily, in an urban world, it is quite simple to pass several days or even weeks without moving substantially. Work means sitting at a desk, standing behind a counter, or sitting in meetings all day long. Traveling is as simple as sitting in your car and operating a couple of pedals. The plethora of entertainment options available to us makes being a couch potato an alluring possibility. And so, to offer people a way to move their bodies, we have created a new synthetic environment: the gym. Working out becomes an artificially-contrived activity, rather than a natural and inseparable part of existence.

Not only does the urban lifestyle disconnect one from natural motion, but when combined with modernity, it also disconnects us from the natural cycle. Day and night cease to hold much meaning when light bulbs allow us to stay up until 4 AM and sleep in until noon. When you spend enough time indoors, even the difference between day and night is quite indistinct. Seasons cease to matter, when local supermarkets stock seasonal fruits year-round. So it is, in many ways, that the tendency of people to congregate in a small area of dense population contributes substanstantially to a major disconnection from nature. Both in our knowledge and experientially, nature becomes something that does not intersect with life as often as it should.

Guess My Name Game

2010-05-26T16:14:00.000-07:00

There are many various ways to approach women and cultivate their interest in you. Almost on accident, I have stumbled across an interesting way to generate more interest, establish solid frame and measure a girl's attraction for you. I call this technique the Guess My Name Game. Fundamentally, you approach a pickup just like you would any other, with one small exception. You do not introduce yourself. Initially, this has little to no effect. But, as the interaction goes on, a girl's curiosity starts to get the best of her. When she finally asks for your name, you can either take the easy route and simply tell her, or you can begin the Guess My Name routine.

The Guess My Name routine has several different variants. Either you can use it as a springboard for some good-natured teasing and verbal sparring, or you can use it as the condition of a bet, with a date as the object. The first version isn't very structured. When she asks your name, just tell her to guess. After a few guesses, you throw out a hint along with a neg like, "I thought women were supposed to be intuitive." Depending on the vibe, you can either keep it going for a while, adding more hints occasionally, or just tell her that's she's run out of guesses. The second version of the routine is a bit more structured. When she asks for your name you say, "I've got a better idea. You seem like a fun-loving girl. Do you like to make bets?" After her response, you say, "Okay, so here's a fun idea. I will give you two major hints about my name. You have 10 guesses. If you correctly guess my name, then I'll have to buy you a smoothie this Saturday. If you don't guess my name, then you have to buy me a smoothie. Sound good?" Of course, you can substitute a location and date purchase of your own: coffee, drinks, dinner, a movie, or whatever.

Not only is this routine a lot of fun, but it has several advantages from a technical standpoint. When you know a girl's name, and she doesn't yet know your name, it subconsciously reinforces the frame that you are a high-value and desirable guy. You are the one being chased, and not vice-versa. She must put in effort to find out your name. Secondly, the very fact that she wants to know your name is a solid IOI. Early on in the interaction, she doesn't really care if she knows your name, since you are just some guy she randomly met. As she become more invested in the interaction, she begins to actively desire to know your name, because she already feels a bit of attraction. The pickup is definitely going well when there's been enough positive interaction that she is emotionally invested enough to care about knowing your name. Lastly, by having fun and making her guess, you are demonstrating higher value by showing that you can even turn simple things into playful experiences and by showing her that you're not just the same as every other guy.

The Double-Edged Sword of Social Influence

2010-05-25T16:35:00.000-07:00

For all the talk about individuality, individual freedom, and individual capacity, the inescapable conclusion that the observant mind reaches is that individuals are not nearly so independent as they like to believe they are. Humans are, unarguably, social creatures who are profoundly impacted by the people they associate with. While some people are more malleable than others, and one gender is more prone to be adaptable than the other, the simple truth remains, that all of us are both profoundly and directly impacted by the people that we associate with, whose ideas we, to some extent, internalize.

On the micro level, this is why there is much wisdom in choosing who one associates with. Often you will find yourself adopting similar mannerisms, verbal expressions, and interests as those you spend much time with. The morality and behaviors of those in your social groups affect your own personal values. You become more like those that you spend time with. This is true not only of those that you spend time with in person, but also of those people that you indirectly associate with by reading their writings and contemplating their opinions. In the Scripture it is written that, "He who walks with wise men will be wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm." (Prov. 13:20) Similarly it is written, "Do not be deceived: "Bad company corrupts good morals." (1 Cor. 15:33) For this reason, it is important to be vigilant and highly-aware of how the people in your life are impacting you. Apart from having positive peer pressure and people who are good role models to follow, it is extremely challenging to cultivate and maintain Godly morals and a healthy view on life. With a positive social circle, it becomes easy and natural to improve and whole-heartedly pursue personal growth. With a negative social circle, it becomes quite easy to fall into similar ways of acting and poor ways of perceiving life.

On the macro level, when considering a society as a whole, individuals do not have as much impact over their destinies as they wish. Societal values and paradigms, to a certain extent, directly impact one's own way of thinking. The views and values of a society, as conveyed through media, and perpetuated by those who buy into the prevailing paradigms, affect everyone in a society. Not only is the moral and cultural baseline established as the societal mean, but even the outliers are affected by aggregate social values. Churches are not isolated from the cultural forces at work within a society. Academic institutions are not free from the philosophical presuppositions of its faculty and students. Political institutions are not untainted by the private morality of politicians. Large corporate entities are not unaffected by the vices of those who work for them and direct their corporate actions. And so, due to the fundamentally interconnected nature of a society, the direction a nation is headed is, for the most part, a completely self-reinforcing one. Positive values and paradigms result in the continual betterment of both a society as a whole, and the many parts of a society, including individuals. Harmful values and paradigms that are broadly held set in motion a downward spiral that cannot be held back by a few lone outliers. A society stands or falls together. Individuals stand or fall based on the society that they are part of.

The power of social influence, both on the microcosmic and macrocosmic levels, is something that should never be underestimated or neglected. The interconnectedness and self-reinforcing nature of social relationships yields a powerful force that can be used for much good or can cause great evil. It is for this reason that God primarily deals with groups of people corporately, rather than with people as individuals. His covenant with the nation of Israel is one that was with the entire nation of Israel, and not simply with the individuals who comprise the nation of Israel. They stood or fell together. God either blessed the whole nation, or cursed and brought destruction upon the whole nation. In the same way, as America has rejected God, Christian morality, and righteous living, so our nation is in a self-reinforcing downward spiral. Unless there is a societal repentence and return to the foundational principles upon which America was founded, there is no hope for our nation. Where once the power of social influence was used for good, and established a nation that was obedient to God, now the power of social influence hastens our ruin.

If, as individuals, we wish to have any impact on those in our social circles and our society as a whole, we must recognize the power of social influence. We must be shrewd and circumspect in recognizing how social influence impacts us. We must establish small groups and communities that value the right things and live righteously. There must be firm consequences for those who hold wrong views or engage in wrong behaviors. Men, especially, must seek to be godly and reponsible leaders within their families and social circles. Tolerance and easy forgiveness must be eschewed, and virtue firmly pursued, else there is no hope. As philosopher Edmund Burke insightfully stated, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." The beautiful counterpoint to that statement is, when good men boldly take action to pursue righteousness and exhort others to do the same, social change becomes possible. Yet, it is a task requiring much strength and perseverence. To reverse the tide requires no less than a miracle. The momentum presently carries our society at a breakneck pace towards the brink of destruction.

Political Games and Media Twisting

2010-05-20T15:42:00.000-07:00

As someone who firmly values liberty and justice, I am quite excited to see how well Rand Paul fared in the Kentucky primaries earlier this week. Given that our senate is quite out of control, and is currently filled with corrupt individuals who cater to corporate whims and seek to expand government intervention, I strongly believe that if there is to be any hope for America, we must elect officials who take firm stances against more unjust government intervention into people's lives. As such, I wholeheartedly support and endorse Rand Paul's senate campaign.

Of course, the corrupt liberal media is opposed to anything related to freedom or integrity. As such, they are more than happy to twist his words and write headlines that are blatantly and knowingly false. Here in the news, Rand Paul is reported as drawing fire for stating his views on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. While he does oppose discrimination in the public realm and in politics, he also believes that privately-owned businesses should have every right to choose whom they wish to hire. Discrimination laws, in his opinion, should not extend to private businesses. Now, the media posted a new article with the headline, "Paul changes course, now supports Civil Rights Act in full." Of course, this most certainly isn't what Rand Paul himself said in any interview or public statement.

As usual, the media has no qualms with directly twisting peoples' words and stances to fit the media's own institutional agendas, no matter how much deception and blatant dishonestly is used in the process. Rand Paul's stance is concerned with the laws that impact the liberties of business owners, while the politically-correct media seeks to frame the issue in terms of racism. At first, when I read that second headline, I felt disappointed that Rand Paul would backpedal on his stance on the issue. Then, in researching it more, I discovered that he hadn't backpedaled at all. The lies that are daily fed to us require a skeptical mind and willingness to search for the truth in order to overcome. Especially when they are the covering issues of any importance, the media is more likely to lie and twist the facts than not. Be wary!

The Five Goals of Education

2010-05-14T23:47:00.000-07:00

In developing my own paradigm on the ideal methods of education, my attention has turned to the purpose and goals of education. What about education is valuable? Why do we desire to educate children at all? The purpose of education is simply this: education is the means by which a person is taught the things they need to know to live life well. Any form of learning that better equips a person for practical life is of worth. Those methods of learning that best prepare a person for practical life are the most worthwhile. In order to achieve that end, it seems that there are five different goals that a complete educational program must seek to achieve. These goals are presented in order of priority. Though there is unavoidably some overlap between each of the goals, the ones presented first are the most important and the ones presented last are the least vital (though still quite indispensible).

1. Moral and Spiritual Indoctrination
In order to live life well, it is unavoidable that one must define what is meant by living life well. Without a philosophical framework that serves as the foundation of a person's worldview, whatever knowledge is gleaned exists in a decontextualized form. Decontextualized knowledge is useless for providing meaningful direction in life. Therefore, before any knowledge is useful, a person must be instilled with a sound moral, metaphysical and epistemological foundation, upon which all further learning will be supported. Apart from sound morals and a unified life purpose, a nation cannot thrive or, in many cases, even survive for a prolonged period. Apart from individuals being properly educated in the ways of Godly morality and a Godly vision for life, no society can hold common sound morals and a unified life purpose. The first goal of education, then, must be to properly indoctrinate young minds so that they understand their duties in society within the context of Biblical teaching.

2. Complex Communication
In order to properly interact with people, to understand ideas and be able to effectively communicate, it is necessary that education equip a person with the skills needed to engage in complex communication. The ability to comprehend that which is conveyed through speech, imagery and written word is an indispensible part of this. Well-developed verbal skills are essential for being able to learn, being able to communicate with others, being able to relate to others, being able to function and excel in the modern economy and being able to clearly and concisely articulate one's opinions on a given matter. The ability to communicate at a high level necessitates not only sound verbal skills, but also the ability to process and interpret non-verbal information, especially since in-person communication primarily consists of non-verbal information such as unspoken context, body language, facial expression and tonality.

3. Expert Thinking
Another crucial skill that enables people to live life well is the skill of expert thinking. The ability to cognitively process a variety of problems and challenges and figure out practical solutions is a necessary skill for handling the dynamic array of challenges of which life consists. While some problems may be routine and can easily be solved by applying simple heurisitics, people are often faced with challenges and tasks unlike anything previously dealt with. A person's problem-solving skills are dependent both on their possession of applicable knowledge and on their ability to utilize expert thinking to determine the best way to apply such knowledge. For this reason, it is vital that education teach a person how to mentally approach challenges and figure them out. It is not enough to simply know a few answers, instead it is vital that a person be able to think outside the box and figure things out for themself. Expert thinking is extremely helpful both in the job market and in day-to-day living.

4. General Body of Knowledge
Typically, this is regarded as one of the main goals of education. While it isn't the most crucial goal, there is no doubt that having a broad knowledge of various topics is quite practically useful. Generalized knowledge is extremely useful whenever one encounters a new piece of information. With a sound mental framework for contextualizing new information, it can easily be processed and added to one's long-term memory bank. The broader one's knowledge of any given subject, the more easily new information can be considered, processed and mentally filed. For this reason, once one has well-developed communication skills and cognitive thinking skills, it is quite useful to develop a large breadth of knowledge, with at least a little bit of familiarly with each subject that is encountered in daily life.

5. Specialized Body of Knowledge
While possessing a sound foundation of general knowledge is quite useful, it is also essential for a person to possess at least one specialized body of knowledge, with a greater depth of understanding and familiarity of that subject. Having a large quantity of specialized information in a field highly demanded by the modern economy will ensure that good jobs are relatively easy to acquire and simple to retain. Specialized knowledge is also something that is naturally developed related to a person's hobbies or personal interests. The more effort that is put into learning about any specific topic or pursuit, the broader one's knowledge of the topic and the greater one's mastery of that topic will be. One of the goals of education is to prepare a person for life by helping them develop sufficient mastery over fields that are applicable to their life.

Before considering the best and more useful methods and means of providing education, it is necessary to consider these five goals of education, and how each aligns with the overall purpose of education.

Political Correctness - A Preclude to Thoughtcrime

2010-05-11T21:35:00.000-07:00

Political correctness is something that is both strongly encouraged and strongly opposed, depending on which parties you are looking at. Some people feel that using politically correct language is a necessary way to treat others with respect and dignifiy them as human beings. Others feel that the entire political correctness movement unjustly strips people of liberties that they should have. My stance falls squarely in that of the latter group of people. Yesterday, I had a fascinating discussion with a politically conservative friend, and our conversation veered towards the new immigration laws in Arizona and the ridiculous racial meme that many try to conflate with this new legislation.

Political correctness can be defined as: "a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, disability, and age-related contexts." Taken to an extreme, political correctness would result in the following three things. Individuals would not treat anyone differently, regardless of nearly any meaningful difference. Individuals would not use language that denote others as different. Individuals would not even hold ideas or think thoughts that perceive others as different. Everyone who is working towards achieving a politically-correct utopia is working towards the enforcement of those three things. Already, we have a plethora of anti-discrimination laws that affect employment and housing. Already, we have hate speech laws, severely restricting free speech.

The next logical progression of the political correctness movement is to take an even more authoritarian stance by cracking down further on both behavior and speech. Following that, the only remaining goal left to achieve is that of creating legislation banning thoughtcrime. Thoughtcrime, of course, is any idea or opinion that is deemed unacceptable by the ruling elite. The prohibition of thoughtcrime would mark the complete end to all liberty. If those in power say that 2+2=5, then it must be true. If those in power say that men and women are no different, then it's a crime to think otherwise. If the ruling elite say that that there is no distinction between the elderly and the young, then such must be the established facts. Any thinking contrary to this is criminal behavior, worthy of whatever punishments are deemed appropriate.

Politically correct thinking, even though it has not reached its natural end, already involves massive amounts of doublethink. Ideologically, political correctness denies that there is any functional correlation between social diversity and individual ability. It denies that the very real diversity that exists has any practical effect on life. A woman can do a job as well as a man. A hispanic immigrant will be as well-suited for a computer programming job as a college-educated white man. An elderly man is as capable of working hard and being profitable as a young fellow. The simple fact is, even though there may be rare exceptions, generally those differences are substantial. It is irrational and insane to suggest otherwise. Those who turn everything into a debate about racism or sexism invariably deny that race or sex has any effect on one's ability to perform certain tasks, be good tenants, or even be decent people. They insist that all individuals engage in doublethink by simultaneously recognizing the very real diversity that exists, while simultaneously denying both the existence of diversity and the inescapable implications of that diversity.

For the same reason that I oppose all unjust restrictions on peoples' liberty, I also oppose political correctness in both its aims and its practical application. Whatever actions are just ought to be allowed, regardless of whether they are "fair" or not, as defined by the modern liberal. Whatever words are accurate (and even a good many that are not) ought to be permitted, regardless of whether they are offensive. Whatever thoughts and opinions a person has, they should be allowed to hold them. Only those actions which are unjust should be restricted by law. Political correctness tramples all over justice and freedom by restricting not merely unreasonable thoughts, words and actions, but also a great many reasonable ones. Political correctness, in its present incarnation, is a formal prelude to the concept of thoughtcrime.

LTR Game - A Little Bit of Mystery

2010-05-10T18:08:00.000-07:00

The human mind is always intrigued by the unknown. Whenever there is something that seems both interesting and knowable, while remaining unknown, it tantalizes the mind. Not only is use of the unknown a critical component of good stories and good movies, but in some measure, it is indispensable in a good relationship. Sometimes, in a relationship, openness and vulnerability is the best stance, while at other times, a little bit of mystery is precisely what is needed. Being able to effectively add a hint of mystery to your persona or your actions is a valuable skill to utilitize in running LTR game.

Depth of personality is primarily gauged based on perception. As such, there is little fundamental difference between actual mystery and perceived mystery. The simple fact that something which could be shared is being withheld provides plenty of fuel for the mind to ponder. It is fairly easy to cultivate a hint of mystery, and there are numerous ways to do it. Using wording that is intentionally ambiguous or indefinitive always allows for various possible interpretations. Reframing or avoiding an innocent direct question suggests the possibility of something hidden. Altering one's behavior slightly or being spontaneous implies a more nuanced personality.

Sometimes, when my LTR asks me what I'm up to, I let her know what exciting things I have planned. Last Friday afternoon, after a couple of texts back and forth, she texted me: "What are you up?" I replied: "Bet you wish you knew." Hoping I would answer her original question, she prompted: "I do wish I knew... hee hee hee!!!" Of course, whenever you're hinting at mystery, you can never reveal whatever is alluded to as mysterious. Hence, I never sent her a reply. An hour later she sent, "Well i hope your having fun... whatever you up are doing!!!" Naturally, I did just that. The next day, she was still somewhat curious about what I'd been up to. When I picked her up, she asked me, "Did you have fun last night?" One simply reply was all I needed, "Of course!"

As with anything in life, mystery must be cultivated in proper proportions. Too much mystery and you will seem unknowable and inhuman, which might work for STR game and seduction, but will prevent LTRs from developing very far. Too little mystery and you will seem boring, predictable and at least somewhat uninteresting. But, cultivating a certain amount of characteristic mystery serves to greatly enhance your interestingness and attractiveness. Learn to replace statements with insinuations occasionally. Every once in a while, reframe an innocent and harmless question. Learn to be spontaneous and keep things fresh. That way, even when your LTR isn't with you, she'll be curious about what you're up to, what you might do next, and what exciting things might be in store for the next time she sees you. With a little bit of mystery in your persona, she'll never know for certain--which will intrigue and fascinate her!

Benefits of a Large Family - The Never-Ending Party

2010-05-07T17:50:00.000-07:00

I am very blessed to be part of a large family. Though my opinions of my family do vary somewhat, never have I felt that it is a burden to have so many siblings. It is a great blessing, and it is a lot of fun! During different periods of life, the relational dynamics have changed and varied. Right now, a good many of my 10 siblings are of sufficient age to have fairly flexible schedules. Four of my brothers effectively have no bedtimes and can stay up as late as they like on most nights. Such a particular set of circumstances has given rise to a fairly new phenomenon: the never-ending party.

While my week is typically fairly busy, I always leave at least a couple of nights open to hang out with different friends and social groups. On Friday nights, one of my groups of friends meets at Starbucks to play assorted board games and card games. Occasionally, I invite my brothers to join us and come drink coffee while playing fun games. One of my brothers drives, but two of the others who frequently accompany me are not yet of age to have a driver's license. One night, I picked up one of my brothers and we went to games night. Afterwards, having ingested copious quantities of coffee, we decided to head back to my apartment and hang out for a little bit. Needless to say, one game soon led to another and next thing we knew it was 4 am. Finally, I drove him back home as the night began to wind down. But, we both were amazed at how much fun could be had on a Friday night.

A couple weeks later, the same brother happened to have another Friday night free, so I came and picked up two of my brothers. We went to games night and then had another afterparty until the wee hours of the morn. The games night plus afterparty combination was an unqualified winner, which absolutely guaranteed an entire night of nonstop fun. Around 3 am one night, I jokingly remarked, "Friday nights are awesome! Party all night; sleep all day." My brother responded, "No. Party all night and party all day!" This began to become a tradition, and another brother began to join us regularly. Sometimes we would go to other event besides games night, as well. But, no matter what we do on Friday, whenever we hang out, we always have an afterparty until at least 3 or 4 in the morning.

While friends are good, in many ways, brothers are even better. While you only ever know your friends to a certain degree, you typically are extremely knowledgable about your siblings. You know what they enjoy, what they love to do, and when they're typically free. You share countless inside jokes, similar interests and common memories. All of this serves as an effective foundation for having unbelievable fun times at a moment's notice. Last week, after partying all night Friday, the next morning I woke up to a call from one of my brothers. He had a couple awesome new ideas for a business project that we are working on together. After discussing the details of that, I asked him, "What are you guys up to later?" Two of my brothers were free, and so a couple hours later we were happily immersed in more fun activities. As my other brother rightly declared, "It's a never-ending party!"

What Token Resistance Reveals

2010-05-04T12:34:00.000-07:00

Token resistance is a bit of a strange thing, since initially it seems counterintuitive. Why would a woman resist that which she actually desires? In my pre-game days, such a thing would be likely to confuse and perplex me. Now, I think that token resistance is both a fascinating and fun thing that speaks volumes about the intriguing differences between men and women.

Most of the important truths about women aren't completely obvious. They are subtle things that you have to discover, either through your own experiences or vicariously, through the experience of others. Token resistance is something that reveals three fundamental truths about women.

1. Women Love Intuitiveness
I can't say why women so strongly like intuitiveness, but there is something that strongly attracts a woman to a man that she perceives as intuitive. Strong game always necessitates that a man be skilled at interpretting non-verbal communication such as tone, body language, facial expressions and unexplained actions. While this is never something a woman will vocalize, every woman secretly has a desire for her man to know what she's thinking without having to express it verbally. Token resistance, in this regard, is a test of a man's intuitiveness. If he listens only to her words, then she views him as unintuitive. If she knows that he knows that what she says isn't actually what she means, then she becomes more strongly attracted to him, because she feels that he understands her on some deeper level.

2. Women Enjoy Being Chased
Any sort of romantic male-female relationship, and especially the enjoyable sort, necessarily includes elements of chase. Generally, women like to be chased and men like to chase. Women like to be chased, because they enjoy being desired. They enjoy being attractive enough to be worth pursuing. Men naturally enjoy chasing and pursuing that which they desire. Masculine men are always driven and ambitious. They set their sights on what they desire, and they allow nothing to deter them from their quest. Not only does this element of challenge testify to the fundamental natures of both men and women, but the chase itself is an enjoyable thing. Even when the eventual outcome is known by both parties, the chase is still a thoroughly delightful part of the experience, for both people.

3. Women Love Dominant Men
Of course, this is probably the strongest reason of all. Given that women are hard-wired to desire to submit to a dominant man, a woman likes to know that her man is a leader who does things according to what he thinks is best. If a few words or a little resistance from her is able to deter him from pursuing what he wants, he certainly isn't very dominant. When a man remains undeterred from attaining what he desires, even in the presence of resistance or opposition, his dominance is clearly displayed. Without fail, a clear demonstration of masculine dominance is something that strongly increases the present attraction that a woman feels for her man. For this reason, token resistance is offered both as a test of a man's dominance and as an opportunity for a man to display his dominance.

On Masculine and Feminine Virtues

2010-05-03T15:40:00.000-07:00

Not long ago, Ulysses wrote an interesting post that was inspired by some writings of Edmund Burke and Mary Wollencraft. In responding to that post and thinking more about it, I stumbled across the idea that virtues and the expression thereof, are rarely androgynous. There are many virtues that definitely are more masculine and many virtues which are unquestionably more feminine in nature. Some virtues are not especially polarized, but vary substantially in their expressions, from one gender to the other.

It's easy to determine whether a virtue is more masculine or feminine. The masculine virtues always involve elements of clarity, firmness, hardiness, rationality, missionality or a black and white view of the world. The feminine virtues always are more graceful, smooth, nurturing, peacable, social and flexible. Examples of masculine virtues include: ambition, diligence, persistence, endurance, accountability, bravery, confidence, commitment, assertiveness, defiance, punctuality, discipline, focus, determination, fortitude, loyalty, honesty, dependability, justice, honor, majesty, orderliness, restraint, steadfastness, chastity and wisdom. Examples of feminine virtues include: cleanliness, compassion, mercy, thoughfulness, kindness, cooperation, discretion, flexibility, gracefulness, peacefulness, sensitivity, unity, tranquility, tolerance, innocence, hopefulness, consideration, helpfulness, care and prudence.

While all of these virtues are valuable and desirable, it is also desirable that they are held in certain proportions within a person. While a man should be well developed in all of the virtues, it is especially needful that he possess a sufficient amount of masculine virtues. If he is lacking in some areas of the feminine virtues it is not nearly so dangerous and unattractive as if he is deficient in one of the masculine virtues. For example, if a man is more peaceful than he is bold and courageous, such that he lacks assertiveness concerning things that are important and vital, he would rightly be perceived as a wimp and a coward. While it is desirable for a man to both be bold and be peaceful, it is more desirable that he be bold than that he be peaceful. It is more of a vice if he lacks assertiveness than if he isn't as agreeable as he should be. Similarly, while it would be preferable for a man to be both dependable and flexible, if he is to lack either virtue, it is preferable that he be lacking in flexibility, rather than being a man who is unreliable. For a man, he must primarily emphasize the masculine virtues in his own personal and spiritual development. Development of the feminine virtues, while wholesome and worthwhile, must always rest firmly on the foundation of the masculine virtues.

A man's efficacy in the world, his command of respect from other men, and his attractiveness to women are all intimately tied with the proportion of his character traits. This balance is vital and necessary. A man lacking ambition and diligence is a man who is lazy and accomplishes nothing. Men do not respect him in that area, and women will find his lack of those traits quite distasteful. Recently, I was conversing with my pastor and we were discussing the necessity of a man providing for his family. He recounted to me a couple that he knows who have been married for 10 years. Their family is still lacking in stability because the husband is inconsistent and undisciplined in keeping a job. That family is struggling because of the financial instability and poor leadership caused by the husband's deficiency in the masculine virtues of ambition and diligence.

Similarly, for a man to be a protector of his loved ones, he must be strong, tough and unrelenting. So long as a man is willing and able to fight when needed, it is perfectly good if he is merciful and compassionate. However, if a man lacks those vital masculine virtues, his possession of the feminine ones are of little comfort or help. For a man to be rightous, he must have a well-developed sense of justice and mete out punishments that are proportionate to the crime. A man who is forgiving and forbearing at the expense of being just is permissive to a fault. Whereas, a man who metes out reasonable punishments swiftly and efficaciously is even more respected when he offers forgiveness and mercy on appropriate occasions. When the feminine virtues exist aside well-developed masculine virtues in a man, they are quite respectable and admirable. However, a lack of any essential masculine virtues in a man cannot be counterbalanced by any quantity of corresponding feminine virtues.

Just as the masculine virtues are primarily desirable and necessary for a man, a woman must possess a proper proportion of virtues within herself. The exercise of feminine virtues serve to enhance a woman's beauty and ability to have a nourishing, lifegiving effect upon her family and the world around. Just as it is crucial for a man to have well-developed masculine virtues, a wise woman will primarily pursue the development of feminine virtues within herself. Upon the foundation of feminine virtues, developing masculine virtues can be a good thing, but if they are emphasized at the exclusive of the feminine virtues, a woman will end up quite unbalanced, unfeminine and consequently, unattractive. A woman who is just but lacks compassion and tenderness, will be quite an unaffectionate and unsympathetic person. Is it perfectly reasonable for a woman to exercise a proper measure of justice, when needed, so long as compassion, love and empathy are always predominant.

A woman who is graceful and peaceful is a refreshing woman to be around. However, a woman who is abrasive and confrontational is a troublesome and repulsive woman to be with. It is fine for a woman to be able to confront where confrontation is needed, as long as she is generally a gracious and peaceful person. But, in the absense of those virtues, assertiveness and defiance mark her as a shrew. Similarly, as long as a woman is primarily a nurturing and caring person, it is no vice to have a measure of ambition and drive. However, a woman who places her goals and life pursuits above being a nurturing and caregiving wife and mother is not an attractive woman. When a woman demonstrates her possession of feminine virtues, she actually appears more beautiful. A woman who shows kindness is beautiful. A woman who chooses her words carefully in order to preserve unity and tranquility reveals a lovely spirit. When a woman with strongly developed feminine virtues develops a few of the masculine virtues, this serves to make her more balanced and well-rounded. However, if a woman possess a greater degree of masculine virtues than feminine ones, it greatly inhibits her beauty, her polarity and her ability to bless the world the way she is meant to.

Thus, for both men and women, it is right and proper to pursue the development of various virtues in accordance with one's own gender polarity. A man who wishes to be strongly masculine (as men should), must primarily focus his efforts on developing masculine virtues. To the degree that he masters those virtues, he will be attractive, respected and powerful. A man who is strongly masculine may develop some feminine virtues to smooth out some of his rough edges, but this will always be a secondary pursuit. Deficiency in any critical masculine trait is a major weakness. Likewise, a woman who wishes to be delightfully feminine (as women should), must primarily focus her efforts on developing feminine virtues. The woman who successfully embraces those qualities will be beautiful, kind, peaceable and a blessing to her friends and family. A proper understanding of the desirable proportion of virtues for men and for women is necessary to work towards a properly polarized soul. Even in their possession of virtues, men should strive to be men and women should delight in being women.

Constructed Desires

2010-04-27T16:22:00.000-07:00

Recently, a certain question has surfaced in a number of different ways. It's a perplexing question and not an easy one to answer. In many ways it is a very human question, which relies heavily upon epistemology. In setting up this question, it's important to note a few things. First of all, like it or not, we are all, to a greater or lesser extent, a product of our culture. We do not exist in a vacuum, but receive constant feedback and suggestions from others. Second, we are highly susceptible to suggestion, especially of the pervasive and consistent sort. Given these two things, how can any individual determine which desires of his are natural, and which are artificially constructed?

In the modern world, there exist entire career fields that are devoted to convincing people that they desire certain things. Your life is incomplete without a sleek, new car. Your beauty is seriously lacking unless you have the latest makeup products. You aren't sufficiently cultured unless you've read this book or seen that movie. If only you did this, bought that or lived there you would be happy and content. Of course, it's all a cleverly-contructed lie. But, it works. Because of the constant stream of things we're told, we begin to internalize some of these constructed desires. It's not especially hard to know what you desire. You might think, "I wish I had a different job." Or perhaps its, "I would be happier with a more attractive girlfriend/boyfriend." Maybe it's more innocuous like, "I really want a Pepsi." In most cases, you probably do actually desire whatever you think you desire. But, would you desire whatever it is, if you were simply left to your own devices? Another way to ask it is, it your desire a genuine and natural one, or an artificial and constructed one?

The easiest answer is simply to say that all desires are natural. I want a Pepsi because I actually enjoy it immensely. I want a high-paying job at a good company because that would actually satisfy me. I want to wear nice clothes because I enjoy dressing well. But, this answer can't be quite right. After all, both individual tastes and collective tastes are subjective. What is considered a good job varies from person to person, and even varies in its social status perception from one group to the next. To some, being a Hollywood actor is a very prestigious and desirable job. To others, Hollywood actors, while an understandable part of society, are a bit of a joke; they are viewed as people to be pitied rather than envied. Often our individual preferences conform fairly consistently to the preferences of our various social groups. You avoid certain activities, brands or items because of what your peers would think. You tend towards certain activities, brands or items because they are positively perceived by your peers. Obviously, there are a good many desires that are socially-constructed or socially-modified, rather than being natural.

Contrarily, it is similarly clear that not all desires are socially-constructed. Even when doublethink occurs, there is always some underlying natural desire. Though feminism may teach that women can be quite happy and satisfied in pursuing a career-centric life and eschewing relationships, the innate hard-wired desire of women to raise a family and find meaning through a romantic relationship is something that will inescapably emerge, either when there is still hope or too late. Though relentless advertising may have subconsciously linked thirst with a desire for soft drinks, the underlying thirst is still a natural desire. Though the latest technological fads may seem to promise to be the final gadget you'll need to be happy, a promise which it will not fulfill, the desires for satisfaction and happiness are natural ones. Though many natural desires are diverted or distorted, they still exist on some level and, in their purest form, are completely valid.

It is quite evident that, for the modern person, their desires are a convoluted mixture of natural and artificial desires. The artificial desires almost always promise more than they can deliver. This perpetuates an endless chain of striving, while the dangling lure of satisfaction always remains just barely out of reach. They are deceitful desires. Yet, because of social indoctrination and exposure to the ceaseless barrage of lies, we either falsely hope that the next thing will deliver the satisfaction we seek, or we despair in believing that there is no satisfaction to be found. Blind pursuit or hopeless resignation are not the answer. If there is to be freedom and contentment it must come from cutting through the lies and clinging to the truth. That is no easy task, but it is a necessary discipline if we wish to have contentment and happiness.

In order to be free from the culturally-contructed discontent that permeates our minds, we must be able to separate our natural desires from our artificial ones. We must deny the false belief that having newer or better things, people or circumstances in our lives will bring contentment. Contentment is found only in a consistently practiced attitude of gratitude and in the spiritual discipline of resisting the impulse towards self-gratification. Only once we intentionally climb down off the hedonic treadmill and stopping concerning ourselves with social acclaim and approval will it be possible to be content. It's not an easy task, but it is the only way to be freed from the overwhelming drive towards the next thing that promises meaning and satisfaction. A prettier girl, a new hobby, a bigger house or more vacation hours won't really bring the happiness they promise. Contentment will. But it's a discipline, and quite a challenging one at that. It's one that I struggle with daily.

A Time For Everything

2010-04-23T13:05:00.000-07:00

The Scripture is full of profound perspective-changing wisdom. This morning, as I was reading through Ecclesiastes, I was struck by how strongly our culture wants to live and view the world in an unrealistically positive light. The realist recognizes and accepts life exactly as it is. He does not rail against the inevitable. He does not deny the need, during different times and in different circumstances, to respond to life in very different ways. As you read this, see if you can grasp what perspective is being offered by Solomon, and what perspective our smiley-face modern culture adopts:

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

To everything there is a season,
A time for every purpose under heaven:

A time to be born,
And a time to die;

A time to plant,
And a time to pluck what is planted;

A time to kill,
And a time to heal;

A time to break down,
And a time to build up;

A time to weep,
And a time to laugh;

A time to mourn,
And a time to dance;

A time to cast away stones,
And a time to gather stones;

A time to embrace,
And a time to refrain from embracing;

A time to gain,
And a time to lose;

A time to keep,
And a time to throw away;

A time to tear,
And a time to sew;

A time to keep silence,
And a time to speak;

A time to love,
And a time to hate;

A time of war,
And a time of peace.

While the author of these words is seeking to remind his readers that a holistic perspective of life recognizes the necessity and value of each half of the pairings, our culture would prefer to exalt and emphasize only one half of each couplet. We love to dance, but don't take time to mourn. We love to love, but forget that there are appropriate times and places for hate. We love to heal, but harbor an unhealthy aversion to killing. We like to speak, but we aren't very familiar with the discipline of silence. We're big on peace, but are unwilling to fight for what should not be ceded. We like to gain, but not to lose. We love to get paid, but we're not quite as excited about working hard. We build up that which should not be built up and tear down that which should not be torn down. We're quick to hoard and slow to give. In this cruel time, we not only despise death, we also despise birth, hence the modern prevalence of abortion. How unbalanced we have become, in our thinking and views!

Yet, if we wish to live life God's way, in accordance with life as it actually is, we must have our eyes opened to see the value of those things of which our culture bears an irrational aversion towards. Death is not something to be feared, but instead should serve as a reminder that our lives are evanescent and fleeting. We must embrace birth as a joyous occasion to celebrate new life, and we must be grateful that God, in his mercy, allows physical death to serve as a reminder that we are both flawed and eternal beings, and that our existence is not merely physical. We must be brave enough to hate what should be hated, and insightful enough to love what is lovely. We must be courageous enough to kill, when it is called for, as well as to heal, at the right times. War is something that, though terrible, is sometimes necessary, hence we must know when, how and why to fight.

Wisdom recognizes that silence is sometimes the best thing to say, and the best state of the heart. Speaking should come in turn, but we must not always be hasty to speak our minds. We must be industrious in our labors and diligent in our work, so that we may be fully pleased with receiving compensation for our duties. We must learn not just to be consumers, but also to be charitable givers, seeking the good of others. We must recognize that both in our own lives and in the lives of others, there are times for encouragement and times for reproof. We must not be afraid to call others to repentance and offer much-needed correction when appropriate. We must not solely concern ourselves with the pursuit of pleasure, but must also take time to weep and mourn. Those times are necessary and good for the soul.

Where there exists within us a tendency to polarize towards either end of the spectrum, we must seek balance and be in a place where we recognize the value and import of those things that are labeled by our culture as "desirable" as well as those that our culture views as evils to be avoided. Both within ourselves and as members of our society, we must pursue balanced thinking and balanced living. For some, their individual calling may lean towards one side of the spectrum. Yet, such individuals must be cautious they they do not despise or oppose those with an opposite calling. Some people are more skilled at tearing down and some at building up. So long as they both do it in the right way, we must not despise either. Maybe you have a tendency to be strongly vocal about your views. That is a good thing, as long as you properly value the silence of others and take time to be silent, yourself. The pages of Scripture, and the wisdom of the ages teach that there must exist balance. Let us not adopt the unbalanced stances of our present culture.

New Album Release - Acceleration

2010-04-22T15:52:00.000-07:00

We interrupt our regularly scheduled programming to bring you the following news...

Today marks the release of my second studio album, Acceleration. It is a musical journey of epic proportions, with a variety of instrumental progressive rock tracks. Sonically, it offers powerful sections ranging from soaring orchestral melodies to driving metal riffs, with numerous other elements to be discovered and enjoyed. From beginning to end, it is an energetic and rocking album!

Three years of work has gone into the arrangement, recording and production of this album, and I am quite happy to present it to you. All of the artwork for this album was created by the talented Nate Horsfall. Additionally, guest artists Edwin Rhodes and Carl Stanley contributed their musical talents in a collaboration on a progressive jazz fusion track. Three of the tracks featured on this album took first place in music competitions.

If you enjoy progressive rock or wish to support my artistic endeavors, order a copy today! For more information, or to order a copy of my new album, please visit my artist website: TheoConfidor.com

Game - Applicability Within the Financial Domain

2010-04-19T15:34:00.000-07:00

As I have written previously, psychosocial dominance, or Game, is something that is useful in a broad array of settings and situations. Today, I was again reminded of the practical value of utilizing Game. Yesterday, when I went online briefly to print out a concert ticket, I had an e-mail in my inbox informing me that I had been charged a fee on my Chase Checking account. At first I was quite puzzled as to what could possibly lead my account to be charged a fee. Then, I logged in online and read the fine print. It certainly wasn't worded the way the banker explained it to me when I opened the two accounts in January. Of course, like all stories, this one begins at the beginning.

Sometime in January, I received a promotional offer in the mail. Financial institutions are always proselytizing and marketing their products. If you're like me and have an excellent credit rating, you typically receive about 3 offers for pre-approved, high-limit credit cards every month. This offer was a bit different. In this offer, Chase was offering $250 if I would simply open a checking account with their bank. The free money was definitely tempting, but there was yet another incentive that sweetened the deal even more. Last year, Chase offered a credit card that had a rewards program far superior to the one attached to my Citibank card, and so I decided to change my primary credit card. Interestingly enough, the credit card rewards could be boosted significantly by also having an active Chase checking account. Neither of those offers would have been quite enough to convince me to open an account, but the combination of the two made the deal worthwhile enough that I decided to open an account. $250 free cash as well as effectively doubling my credit card rewards was simply too much to pass up.

Since I never like to do things without proper consideration, I looked into the details of opening an account and talked to a Chase banker, to ensure that I understood the account terms and conditions. The banker recommended that I open a Money Market account in addition to the Checking account. He said that as long as I maintained a minimum daily average of $1500 between the two accounts, there would be no fees. I figured that it wouldn't hurt to have another account setup, similar to my existing one at Citibank. Because I thought the accounts were linked, it didn't seem to matter how I split my money between the two new accounts. So, I happily set up the two new accounts and transferred a reasonable amount of money into each of them. Three months passed by with no incident.

Consequently, I was quite surprised to find that they charged me a $12 service fee last Friday, seemingly out of nowhere. Of course, when I looked at the fine print on the statement, it told a different story than the banker had told me when I opened the account. It said that the daily minimum balance for each account was $1500, and that for multiple accounts the fee would only be waived if the combined daily average exceeded $5000. This was a bit of a shock, but given my inner game state, I knew that it would be very simple to resolve the whole misunderstanding/deception. Today, before making the call, I decided how I would respond to any given outcome. If they were willing to transfer the funds from my money market account to my checking account and refund the service fee then I would continue to do business with them. If they were not willing to waive my fee or quickly and painlessly handle my request, then I would close both accounts and do no more banking with them.

In this sense, subconsciously I held the following views:
- I am a high value customer
- Many banks desire the privilege of handling my money
- I have numerous banking options
- If any bank does not treat me right, they lose my business
- All banking that occurs happens on my terms

As you can see, this mindset embodies the inner game traits of assertiveness, calmness, confidence, independence and indifference. Assertiveness is embodied in the fact that I would be completely clear and up front about exactly what had occurred and precisely what I want. Calmness is embodied in the fact that no matter what they do or say, it will not shake my resolve or negatively affect my emotional state. Confidence is embodied by my realization that I am an excellent banking customer with a proven track record and my business is welcome anywhere. Independence is shown in the fact that I take responsiblity for my own money and am not dependent on any organization or institution. Indifference is shown in the fact that I have prepared for all eventualilties, and therefore am not further harmed or particularly inconvenienced no matter how they respond.

Having prepared myself and thought through all my options, I called my bank and spent the necessary 20 minutes of time needed to resolve the issue to my satisfaction. As expected, reasonable results are nearly always granted to those who are assertive, respectful and dominant in their dealings. Precisely as I desired, they refunded the service fee, clarified the fee policy as it actually stands (rather than being incorrectly communicated as it was initially), and merged my money account into my checking account. The proper application of psychosocial dominance nearly always results in a satisfactory outcome in any area of life. In this case, Game ensured a successful reversal of the unreasonable service fee.

Just like in any relationship, the issue at hand is never the real issue. $12 is never about $12. The real issue is always behavior and relational dominance. Any issue that is properly handled can be nipped in the bud, so that it never becomes a serious problem. In this instance with the bank, I don't ever want any institution to get the idea that they can do whatever they wish with my money. They are my stewards and they serve my interests. So long as they take good care of what is mine, they are welcome to earn a profit from circulating my money and earning interest on it. But, if they ever cross my will and are irresponsible with my funds or unreasonable in their behavior towards me, the business relationship ends immediately.

In Defense of Stereotypes

2010-04-16T18:05:00.000-07:00

In these days, outside of the context of jokes, there seems to be much public aversion to stereotypes of all sorts. There also is a great deal of misunderstanding about generalizations. The common aversion to stereotypes and the reflexive inclination to apply needless disclaimers to generalizations seem to be related issues that stem from a fundamental misconception about how the world works and about how the human brain functions.

A stereotype is, "a commonly held public belief about specific social groups, or types of individuals." Definitionally, a stereotype is more generally accepted than a mere generalization. Apart from that, all of the standard limitations that apply to generalizations also apply to stereotypes. Namely, that there are always exceptions, and that the strength of a stereotype is determined by how consistently it correlates with reality.

Generalizing is a necessary and useful component of human thought. It is what enables us to contemplate the world, and it is what differentiates human thought from computer processing. Computers process information on the basis of established and invariable rules. Because of this, computers are very effective at processing information that requires linear processing or computation. Computers excel at adding number, performing queries, retrieving data and manipulating information sets. However, computers are generally quite weak at pattern recognition. Pattern recognition is something that humans excel at, precisely because we generalize.

If you show a person three different bowls, they are able to easily internalize the concept of what constitutes a "bowl." From that point on, if you present that person with any sort of bowl, regardless of color or shape, they will consistently be able to recognize the object presented as a bowl, even if they have never been told that the object specifically presented is a bowl. Likewise, suppose a person is presented with a lemon, a lime and a orange and taught that all of these fruits are citrus fruits. When you present the person with an apple, they will correctly deduce that it is not a citrus fruit. When you present the person with a grapefruit, they will note the vast array of similarities to the other citrus fruits and correctly categorize it as a citrus fruit. This cognitive pattern recognition is intimately tied to the human capacity to generalize.

In fact, all human critical thinking skills rely upon the cognitive ability to generalize. Generalization is used in problem-solving, in object-identification, in answering questions, in envisioning new approaches, in creating new things and in developing heuristics. In interacting with the world, we interact with objects, people and challenges by using generalizations. Proper cognitive processing is a necessary prerequisite to performing proper actions.

If we threw away mental generalizations, then we would be unable to function in our world. For example, let us suppose that I learned to program on my computer at home. When I go to work and am given a workstation and told to program an application, I would be unable to do it if I assumed that this strange box in front of me was entirely dissimiliar from my computer at home. I would be unable to program if I assumed that different computers require utterly different types of programming. If I threw out all generalizations, then I would have to re-teach myself everything from the ground up, since I would assume that all my previous knowledge only applies to the highly limited set of conditions under which it was learned. It is quite impossible to function in the real world without generalizing.

Similarly, a stereotype about a specific social group is simply a commonly held generalization about how individuals in such a group appear, act or think. There are many possible examples of stereotypes. Women are short. Blacks have dark skin. Corporate executives are highly-paid. Young men drive fast. As with any generalization, a stereotype may be strong or weak. A stereotype that is nearly always true is a strong stereotype, and therefore is more useful than a weaker stereotype. A stereotype itself is simply a statement that describes how things appear. Also, it is important to note that there is nothing intrinsically judgmental about using a stereotype. If I say that women are short, my statement may be valid or invalid, but it casts no judgment on the fact. I haven't said whether it is good or bad for women to be short. The only legitimate question is whether my stereotype accurate reflects reality.

Now, usage of a stereotype may depict an unpleasant truth. If I say that lawyers are greedy, the proper question is not whether I am judging lawyers but whether or not my statement is generally true. If I say that women are romantically irrational, it is of no use to jump all over me for stating such a thing. The proper question to ask is simply what precisely I mean, and whether or not my observation is generally true. If the stereotype matches reality, then my statement is true, regardless of the implications of such a truth.

Unfortunately, some people have a relexive aversion to all stereotypes. They are more than happy to dismiss any unpleasant truths simply because they are stated as a generalization or because they express a stereotype. This is an cognitive error. Last week, in response to a statement I made about men and women, someone responded:

Saying that all men are goal-oriented and all women are relationship-oriented is a gross generalization that can't be taken seriously. Haven't we been over this before?

That something is a generalization or even a "gross generalization" has no bearing on its veracity. The question is not whether stating that men are goal-oriented is a generalization or not--of course it is! The question is whether or not it matches reality. If it matches reality, then it is an accurate generalization. If it is commonly held and correct, then it is an accurate stereotype. This vital distinction is lost on those who emotionally react to all generalizations and stereotypes.

Just as generalizations are necessary for accomplishing tasks and interacting with the world, stereotypes are necessary for guiding personal interactions. By categorizing people and create mental depictions of those categories, we are able to develop useful heuristics for how to deal with various sorts of people. One should interact with women differently than one interacts with men. One should interact with friends differently than one interacts with teachers. One should interact differently with strangers than with family members. One should treat lawyers differently than firemen. This is common sense. Common sense declares that stereotypes are a very useful way to establish a metnal framework for relating to any new person.

To throw out stereotypes when dealing with people is as dangerous as throwing out generalizations when approaching tasks. If I meet a new girl and I assume that she is entirely different from any other person I have ever met before, then I will be absolutely clueless as to how to treat her. If I throw out all assumptions then I cannot even assume she speaks the same language as I do, nor that she gets hungry and eats food, nor that she is even a human being. Instead, in order to relate to her at all, I must assume that she is mostly similar to other American girls her age. Though there certainly will be some differences, the differences will be fairly minor and the applicability of stereotypes will be nearly comprehensive. 11 Minutes has written an insightful series on this very topic. He persuasively argues that no-one is as unique as they think they are.

Therefore, it is evident that stereotypes are useful and necessary for informing social interaction and social analysis both on the personal and cultural levels. To reject stereotypes simply because they are stereotypes is to commit an error in logic that will consistently lead to poor ways of interacting or, in rare cases, an ignorance-based passivity. There is no intrinsic danger in the use of generalizations and stereotypes. There is great danger in whimsically or categorically rejecting them.

If there is one danger related to stereotypes, it is the error of inaccurate stereotypes. If a stereotype does not generally correlate with reality, then it is a commonly held misconception. Misconceptions are dangerous since they constitute a distorted view of reality. The danger of inaccurate stereotypes, then, is not that they are stereotypes; the danger of inaccurate stereotypes is that they are inaccurate. The danger of inaccuracy is a large one, and one which serves as the basis for nearly all fundamental worldview differences. Inaccurate views of the facts is what causes the divide between Catholics and Protestants, feminists and traditionalists, conservatives and progressives, capitalists and socialists and nearly any other ideological schism you can recall. People fundamentally disagree over what is observed. When such disagreements occur, at least one of the views must be incorrect. The danger of inaccuracy is an epistemological issue and is by no means limited to the confines of stereotypes.

We are left with the conclusion that stereotypes and generalizations are both useful and necessary for thinking about our world. They are useful and necessary for interacting with people, solving problems, dealing with new situations, advocating social change, and encouraging people to be true to their natures. The sole danger in stereotyping or generalizing is simply that they may be inaccurate. Since this is a danger that inescapably applies to all of life and perception, it is not a danger unique to generalizing, and therefore is by no means a reason to oppose the usage of stereotypes. On this basis, the only rational and reasonable recourse is for stereotypes and generalizations to be readily stated and utilized for the purposes of understanding, discussing and relating to social groups. The common modern aversion to stereotypes and the reflexive desire to add excessive disclaimers is irrational, unreasonable and actively harmful, since it inhibits frank discussions and the quest for truth.

Gender Roles and RPGs - A Discussion

2010-04-13T23:28:00.000-07:00

A few days ago, I had a very interesting discussion concerning whether a Biblically-modeled patriarchal family structure necessarily implied that women are worse than men. The discussion also touched on whether or not a Biblical view of gender roles is sexist.

TheoConfidor: I believe that the patriarchal structure is what results in the most fulfillment and happiness for both men and women. A man should be a man, lead his household, be respected by his family and make a difference in the world. A woman should help a man in his goals, submit to his leadership willingly, love him passionately and respect him.

Corax: Are you then implying that women are innately inferior to men in regards to familial leadership? It sure seems like it, that a woman's leadership, "wearing the pants," seems to result in "discord, sadness and strife" in a family, to your eyes.

TheoConfidor: I am not implying that women are innately inferior in regards to familial leadership. In some cases, a wife may be more capable of leading her family than her husband. That isn't the issue. The issue is role-designation and not innate ability.

Since we are all gamers, please allow me to use a simple RPG example. Sometimes my brothers and I play D&D. Each of us has a specific class-role. The cleric should do the healing. The fighter should provoke the enemy and absorb attacks. The barbarian should smash dangerous enemies. The wizard should help by wiping out minions and doing some mobility control. Now, it might be that the fighter is built in such a way that he could do more damage than the barbarian. However, if he chooses to focus on killing enemies rather than taking the enemy aggro, more damage might be done, but it might also leave the more fragile party members open to attack. Stepping out of his role occasionally might be a good thing, but if he continually focuses on dealing damage rather than on tanking, the party will suffer and everyone will be less effective than if he stuck to his designated role.

It's the same way in the family. A man has his role, and a woman has her role. To the degree that each one fulfills their natural role, they will derive fulfillment and also contribute great to the group's success. To the degree that each one steps outside of their role, the family will be less effective and less fulfilled in the long run. Unlike with an RPG where each player can choose their own class, men and women are hardwired to perform their divinely-designated roles.

Corax: Problem with that would be that it still assumes and implies that women are inferior to men in leadership roles, particularly family ones. And that's called sexism.

TheoConfidor: The Bible never teaches that women are inferior to men. Different, yes. Inferior, no. There is no sexism in taking a Biblical stance on gender and gender roles.

Corax: I should also point out that I and no one else is proclaiming that women and men are exactly the same, and no rational feminists would state that either; that's not the point of feminism. Feminism is the pursuit of the end of discrimination against women. Which is based on the notion that men and women are equals (which seems to contradict your views Theo, given your descriptions of domination and such. "Loving" or not, it's still inequality).

TheoConfidor: If women are different than men, then it makes sense that one should treat them differently. Equality (of worth and value) does not imply equality of condition, equality of capacity in all areas, nor equal roles.

Again, in the example of an RPG, would it be reasonable to say that the cleric is more valuable or better than the fighter? Is the wizard better than the rogue? The simple fact is, they all are necessary and needed. They each have their strengths and weaknesses. One is good at healing and protecting, one is good at absorbing attacks and restricting enemy motion, one is good at controlling and special effects, and one is good at delivering the stabby-death. If the party is missing any one of it's members, it will not function as well. Each one is different, but each one is equally needed and equally valuable to the party.

The Christian worldview doesn't have such a limited view of "better-worse" hierarchies as the modern secular person does. In Christianity, all the members of the body of Christ, though possessing different gifts, are all equally valuable and necessary. The janitor who sweeps the floors is is necessary as the pastor who preaches. Those who have the gift of mercy and compassion are as crucial as those with the gift of prophecy. The weak are as valuable and treasured in God's eyes as the strong. The poor are as necessary as the rich. None is better or worse than any other. Each one has been given different gifts and different callings. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28) "Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. (Rom. 12:4-6a)

In the same way, within the family, both the husband and his wife are necessary and valuable parts of the whole. The husband is not complete without his wife. The wife is not complete without her husband. The parents are not complete without their children. The children are not complete without their parents. Together, they are a unit. Each member of the family is necessary and indispensable. However, the husband and wife have different roles and therefore, on the basis of their roles, MUST be treated differently. Discrimination (that is, treating one person differently than another) is a necessary thing as long as one believes in different roles. Would the rogue ask the fighter to heal him? Would the wizard ask the cleric to charge headfirst into battle? Preposterous! Different roles necessitate different treatment.

Corax: You've already stated that men should "lovingly dominate" their wives and wives should "submit to their husband's leadership." It also doesn't help that the Bible says that "Women were created for men." But even then, let's say somehow that purely what the Bible says isn't sexist. That men and women are just different. But wait... the wife is below the man, is supposed to support him and submit to him. Isn't that the definition of inferiority? Doesn't that make her less than the husband? Much as a human being is less than God, he/she is inferior.

TheoConfidor: Hierarchically inferior, yes. Of less value, merit, capability or importance? No.

Returning to my D&D analogy, in Neverwinter Nights, our party was always required to have a designated party leader. Sometimes the fighter would be the designated party leader. Other times the cleric was the designated party leader. Hierarchical leadership was required, but the hierarchy did not imply that one character was better than any other.

Similarly, though I have a boss at work, outside of the realm of work, we are peers. Though, when I am on the clock I submit to him and obey his orders, this does not imply that he is smarter, more capable or better than I am. In fact, in my area of expertise, I am far more capable than he is. The hierarchy exists to best accomplish the task of earning money and creating good products. Within that hierarchy, we each have our roles and responsibilities. My supervisor is the designated leader. Outside of that hierarchy, we are equals and peers. He is skilled in his areas, and I am skilled in mine.

The family structure is the same. Within the hierarchy of the family (which, like a company, has a specific purpose: to raise up godly offspring), the husband is the designated leader. He gives the orders, his wife willingly submits. Outside of that hierarchy, there is personal equality. The wife has her own specific talents, skills and areas of expertise. The husband has his own specific talents, skills and areas of expertise.

A lot of people have an culturally-indoctrinately objection to the concept of submission and the concept of dominance, especially in romantic relationships and the familial structure. These objections are almost always due to a fundamental misunderstanding of submission and dominance. The simple fact is that divergent roles do not imply personal inequality. People function best when they play a role that suits them and groups function best when each person plays their own respective role.

Men are hardwired by God to be leaders. They are inescapably leaders of their own families, and often leaders in other aspects of life, as well. Those men who lead best are the happiest, most successful, most fruitful and most fulfilled. Women are hardwired by God to respond to men who lead well. Those women who have a good husband and who submit to their husband's leadership are the happiest, the most fruitful, the loveliest and the most fulfilled.

I will not deny the possibility that there may be outliers. There are always exceptions to any general principle, and as such, there may be occasional instances where a woman must lead and will find fulfillment in leading. But, the existence of exceptions does nothing to invalidate the general principle. Both Scripture and practical life experience teach that in romantic relationships, men must be dominant and women must submit. Those who deny this crucial fact of life are destined for pain, relational dysfunction and heartache. Those who recognize that this is simply the way life is are able to develop relational habits that capitalize on the differences between men and women, which will result in the most holiness and happiness.

Douglas Wilson on Marital Dominance

2010-04-08T15:26:00.000-07:00

While I have been aware of Douglas Wilson for quite some time, until recently I had only read 2 of his books. Last week, I borrowed Reforming Marriage from a friend of mine and I have been quite impressed with the depth of insight that Wilson clearly demonstrates. He clearly has a firm grasp of the proper model of marriage as well as the cultural lies that have utterly eroded our society's ability to successfully handle marriage and relationships. He also has a very interesting perspective on marital dominance, which I have never before seen voiced in precisely this manner. Wilson writes:

The Bible says the "husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church" (Eph. 5:23). Paul most emphatically does not say that husbands ought to be the heads of their wives. He says that they are. In this verse, the apostle is not telling us how marriages ought to function (that comes in the verses following). Rather he is telling us what the marriage relationship between husband and wife is. Marriage is defined in part as the headship of a husband over a wife. In other words, without this headship, there is no marriage.

Meditating on this is a very valuable thing for husbands to do. Because the husband is the head of the wife, he finds himself in a position of inescapable leadership. He cannot successfully refuse to lead. If he attempts to abdicate in some way, he may, through his rebellion, lead poorly. But no matter what he does, or where he goes, he does so as the head of his wife. This is how God designed marriage. He has created us as male and female in such a way as to ensure that men will always be dominant in marriage. If the husband is godly, then that dominance will not be harsh; it will be characterized by the same self-sacrificial love demonstrated by our Lord--Dominus--at the cross. If a husband tries to run away from his headship, that abdication will dominate the home. If he catches a plane to the other side of the country, and stays there, he will dominate in and by his absence. How many children have grown up in a home dominated by the empty chair at the table? If the marriage is one in which the wife "wears the pants," the wimpiness of the husband is the most obvious thing about the marriage, creating a miserable marriage and home. His abdication dominates.
These are difficult words. And even with the qualifications, it is probable that a number of readers have reacted negatively to the earlier use of the word dominance. The fact that this is so is simply another testimony to how much the Christian church is influenced by the propaganda of feminism--whether the man-hating secular variety or the sanitized, "evangelical" kind. Nevertheless, the dominance of the husband is a fact; the only choice we have in this regards concerns whether that dominance will be a loving and constructive dominion or hateful and destructive tyranny. Arguing with the fact of the husband's headship in the home is like jumping off a cliff in order to quarrel with the law of gravity. Marshall the arguments on the way down however one likes, he will eventually find himself refuted in a messy way.

Douglas Wilson demonstrates a clear grasp of many important concepts:
1. A man must be the leader in his household
2. Women are hardwired to respond to dominance
3. Patriarchal structure is necessary for familial health and happiness
4. Feminism is a rejection of the natural and necessary relational structure
5. There are various faces of feminism, both the women-worshipping sort often espoused by conservatives and the man-hating secular sort

Either to be in accordance with God's design, or even simply to make a marriage or LTR work, the natural order of male-female relationships must be understood and respected. Men are inescapably called to lead. Women naturally respond to leadership and displays of dominance. A man who leads well will be attractive to women and will be respected. Dominance can either be expressed in a gentle, firm and loving way, or in a harsh and destructive manner. Both ways of expressing dominance will likely be effective, but one will be constructive and nourishing while the other will be harmful. Either for societal stability, familial success or personal happiness, a man must resist the pernicious lies and the vast array of modern cultural propaganda that deny and oppose these fundamental truths.

Douglas Wilson also introduces the intriguing concept that even in seeking to abdicate leading, a man still is inescapably the leader of his family. Though his dominance may be weak and feeble, yet his leadership still sets the tone of his familial relationships and directly impacts his wife and his children. The same principle can be clearly applied to LTRs. The health of a LTR is determined by how well a man leads his woman. A man's dominance, or lack thereof, is what determines the quality, tone and longevity of his romantic relationships.

Approach Technique: Limit Your Vocabulary

2010-04-07T16:19:00.000-07:00

The other evening I spent a nice relaxing night out by myself, acquiring some new music and doing a little pleasure reading. Whenever I go out, I always take the opportunity to meet some new people and work on my approach technique. For the most part, I was just doing my own thing, but I managed to work in three approaches quite effortlessly.

The first two were fun, simple, short and playful. I always imagine ridiculous scenarios in my head, and I'm quite unafraid to verbalize them. In the first instance, there was a cute, young cashier who looked either a bit bored or tired. When I was at the front of the line, I looked her in the eyes and asked: "A bit bored, are you?" The moment I addressed her directly, she brightened up a bit and looked substantially more energetic. She replied, adamantantly: "No, never!" Me: "Never bored, eh? How do you manage that? Do you entertain yourself by throwing things at unruly customers?" Cashier: "Of course not! That's against company policy." Me: "Let me guess. Next you're going to tell me that you always follow company policy." With that she chuckled a bit, and unconsciously adjusted her hair.

Later, I was at a coffee shop in a fairly SWPL area. There were a couple of trashy-looking college girls, wearing excessive make-up and lipstick, who sat near me and were discussing various recent dalliances. Typically, I consider it a waste of time to even bother opening such girls, and at the time I was quite happily engrossed in reading The New Division of Labor. A bit later, they moved to one of the couches across the room that had just been vacated. Half an hour later, when I was about to leave, I was gathering up my things and I noticed that there was an iPhone on the seat next to me, where one of the two girls had been sitting. Given that I would have to approach them to return the girl's phone to her, I figured I might as well try to strike up a conversation.

A few sentences later, I used the word "ensconced," which was met with a quizzical look on both girls' faces. Apparently, neither of their vocabularies was broad enough to include such a word. While I could have cut my opener and gone on to a new topic, a sizable amount of momentum had been lost by the fact that I used a word they were thoroughly unfamiliar with. Obviously, I overestimated the articulacy and intelligence of the average SWPL college girl. Just because a certain demographic views themselves as educated and intelligent doesn't make it so. As a result, I have decided that a useful approach heuristic would be to limit my vocabulary unless a girl has demonstrated a reasonable grasp of the subtleties of the English language.

Game Takes Consistent Effort

2010-04-02T17:14:00.000-07:00

Recently, I came across an interesting conjecture about the relative difference in required effort for maintaining an LTR compared to the necessary effort to maintain an active sex life through an endless string of casual relationships and STRs. Talleyrand writes:

Entropy always enters into a long-term relationship. The fact that it is often repeated that long-term relationships take “work” to be successful is evidence of this. It takes more energy over the long-term to keep an active sex life going if you are married, while it is easier and more frequent while the excitement and passion of a new romance is sizzling.

One of the simple facts of life is that entropy affects every aspect of existence, not just long-term relationships. Entropy is an inescapable force which requires regular effort to overcome. Now, while it is true that not as much effort is directly invested in any given relationship for those who engage in casual sex or STRs, it is not true that any less energy is needed. I have had experience with both LTRs and with casual dating. While one's energies are directed at different things, in both LTR game and STR game, effort must be consistently put in either to maintain the status quo or to improve one's results.

In a LTR, energy is directed towards getting to better know each other, towards building attraction, towards establishing and maintaining good relational habits, and towards better fulfilling one's relational role. It takes consistent effort to keep physically fit, to ensure continual physical attration. It takes consistent effort to keep one's mind active and to be interesting. It takes consistent effort to be growing spiritually. It takes consistent effort for a man to offer wise and consistent leadership to his woman. It takes consistent effort to cultivate a relational unity in the pursuit of oneness of mind and spirit. It takes consistent effort to ward off threats to the relationship that come in many forms (spiritual attack, cultural lies, social pressure...). Most certainly, establishing and maintaining a happy and healthy LTR or marriage is a challenging endeavor.

However, is it really any easier for the man who devotes his energy to continually meeting and bedding new women? Not at all. He must always be at the top of his game. The player must dedicate time and energy to ensure that he always has excellent physical presence, be keeping his body in shape, dressing well and utilizing proper body language. He must always be ready with routines, interesting conversational topics, and stories that demonstrate high value for whenever he meets a new girl. He must have a mental list of great meeting venues and comfort-building locations. He must regularly practice his game by going out and approaching attractive women. The chase and the challenge never lessen, therefore such a man must always consistently game well and sharpen his skills to ensure successful seduction.

With both types of Game, which utilize similar but somewhat different skillsets, there is a significant learning curve. However, to the degree that one properly learns the principles of Game and applies them habitually, the amount of mental energy needed to develop new relationships, attract girls or maintain one's LTR drops to a minimum. Yet, practically, time and energy are always required in relationships with women. You never get something for nothing. In a LTR, you must seduce your woman again and again. In the pursuit of STRs, you must meet and seduce new women again and again. In a LTR, you have to dedicate effort to being consistently attractive to your woman. In the pursuit of STRs, you must dedicate effort to be consistently attractive to many women. In both STRs and LTRs, the quality of the relationships and the regularity and quality of sex is extremely dependent on how good your Game is, and how much consistent effort is applied.

The idea that single men need utilize less energy and effort in pursuit of sex than married men is a fallacious idea that neglects the effect of entropy on any man's attractiveness. The simple fact is, having an active and fulfilling sex life takes consistent energy and effort for both the single man and the married man.

A False Fallacy - Argument from Bias

2010-03-30T15:54:00.000-07:00

For quite some time I have been surprised about the remarkable popularity of a certain misconception. There are a good number of people who seem to hold the strange idea that a person who is biased is less trustworthy than a non-biased person and that a biased opinion is less credible than a non-biased opinion. Such people have essentially created a new category of logical fallacy, by which they can dismiss arguments and statements made by biased individuals. For example:

Person A: Public schools are institutions that primarily exist as a means of governmental indoctrination.

Person B: You're just saying that because you don't like governmental institutions, therefore your assertion is false.

Despite that fact that some people regard statements made by biased persons as less credible than statements made by non-biased people, the fact remains that bias itself has no bearing on the validity of an assertion or argument. In fact, I would suggest that biased individuals are more likely to present truthful, detailed and accurate cases for things than either non-biased individuals or mildly-biased individuals.

A biased person is simply one with a mental tendency or inclination towards something. For example, if one prefers chocolate ice cream to vanilla, that is a form of bias. Similarly, if one holds the opinion that, on average, men are more intelligent than women, that is another form of bias. Bias is simply an opinion that leans in one direction and not in another. However, the fact that a person is biased has absolutely no bearing on validity of their opinion. It might be true that, on average, men are more intelligent than women, yet the mere fact that a person holds such an opinion does not affect the validity of such an opinion. Completely independent of any opinions held by anyone, the statement itself is either true or false. An examination of the relevent evidence is the most rational way to determine the validity and accuracy of any assertion.

The rejection of a idea because of its source, rather than its merit, is itself a common fallacy, known as the genetic fallacy. As such, those who reject the opinions of another simply because of alleged bias are the ones who are committing the logical fallacy. Bias has no bearing on logical cohesiveness of an argument nor of the validity of the postulated supporting evidence. To dismiss an argument prima facie without considering its merits simply because the argument or its presenter appears biased is to make a common logical fallacy.

Moreover, in further consideration, it would seem that a strong bias is more likely to result in more credible and meaningful arguments in support of a given thing. One who is only slightly biased is much more likely to rely on fanciful and invalid reasoning to support their opinion than someone who is more strongly biased. For example, suppose a man recently purchased a new Ford automobile, and yet isn't fully convinced that he made the best decision. He is only slightly biased in favor of his new car. As such, if you ask him why he thinks the Ford was the best choice, he will offer whatever feeble reasons he can, such as "It's a great value for the price,” “The color is really vivid,” It gets better mileage than competing cars," yet he remains not completely internally sold on the idea that his new Ford is really superior. His rationalization hamster is working hard to justify his choice to himself and others.

However, one who is strongly biased need not construct fanciful reasons in support of his choice. The musician who has purchased a brand new 5-string bass guitar and is fully knowledgable about its merits and imperfections is able to present a solid case for why it is a better choice than other similar models. He need not embellish the facts, since the raw facts alone support his choice. He will say, “My bass was absolutely the best I could purchase for less than $1000. It has received favorable reviews from over 200 satisfied customers. It has a build-in active equalizer. There is plenty of room in between the strings, making it easy for slap bass techniques. It normally retails for $1500, yet I bought it on sale for only $700. The body of the guitar made from natural cut Alder wood helps give the tone more sparkle than other models.” He is biased in favor of his new guitar because he is utterly convinced, by the simple facts alone, that his bass guitar best meets his musical needs.

As such, whenever I seek to find out the truth about something, I always look for someone who is strongly biased in favor of it. If I were seeking to find a religion that is practical and matches reality, I wouldn’t ask a Muslim what he thought about Buddhism, since he clearly remains unconvinced of the Buddhist worldview and therefore probably won’t offer good reasons for why I should accept Buddhism. But, a dedicated Buddhist monk, the most biased person possible, would be able to best present a sound argument for why I should accept his way of seeing things, since he truly believes that Buddhism is the most truthful and meaningful religion. Likewise, if I am looking to a buy a CD by an artist I haven’t listened to before, I would go to a dedicated fan of the band and ask his opinion about which album is best, and why. He will happily explain the many merits of his favorite album, and I will be able to judge whether I would enjoy it for similar reasons or whether he likes certain aspects of the music that I don’t enjoy as much. The critic, having disliked the album after listening to it only once, simply won’t be as familiar with the material and won’t be able to offer equally well-constructed reasons, either favorable or unfavorable, for why I should or shouldn’t buy a certain album.

Similarly, it is easiest for a salesman to sell a product that truly is of superior quality. While it certainly isn’t impossible to sell a product by lying to a customer and convincing them that a product is better than it is, it is far easier to sell a product by telling the truth about it, so long as the product itself possesses sufficient merit. The second way also never results in disillusionment, product returns or angry customers, whereas utilizing deception is a sure way to harm one’s business in the long run.

Or, in another example, there are many skeptics who doubt the authenticity of the Gospels because all of the authors of the Gospels are, quite clearly, strongly biased in favor of Jesus. These people seem to think that this bias would lead the apostles to construct clever falsehoods and embellish the truth in order to convince people of Jesus’ divinity. However, it would seem to a more reasonable assumption that because the apostles were so strongly convinced of what they had seen and heard, that they would accurately report the facts, knowing that the facts alone are compelling enough to convince a person that Jesus is divine. Their willingness to die rather than recant their faith in Jesus would further support such a hypothesis. Why would a person willingly die for a lie?

In any case, regardless of whether a strongly biased person is more likely to be honest and accurate or not, it still remains quite clear that to claim that "Arguments from Bias" are intrinsically fallacious is a logical error of its own. Neither the opinion of a single person nor of a collection of people has any bearing on the truth of their claims. A prima facie rejection of an argument or claim simply because of its author’s bias is a violation of the rules of logic and a perfect example of committing the genetic fallacy. The odd idea that bias leads to untruthfulness is neither a logical nor a rational hypothesis.

Positive Thinking Need Not Be Blind

2010-03-29T15:45:00.000-07:00

Last week, I wrote a post postulating that a person's outlook on life is the primary determinant of their experience of life. Recently, Talleyrand wrote a post voicing his opposing opinion. Rather than nitpicking over a few unsupported assertations elsewhere in his post, I'm simply going to focus on his primary contentions with such a mindset. Fundamentally, he objects to the idea that a person's outlook on life determines the quality of their life. His first objection to such a view is that magical thinking, as he calls it, necessarily entails an ignorance or denial of reality. He refers to this way of perceiving events and situations as blind optimism.

While I am a firm believer in positive thinking, I do believe that there is a major danger in ignoring reality or denying unpleasant truths. Blind optimism and blind pessmism are equally deadly. In one case, one blindly believes that nothing can or will go wrong--this unswervingly leads to taking foolish risks and crashing up against unexpected and unanticipated negative consequences. In the other case, one blindly believes that nothing can or will go right--this leads directly to hopelessness, despair and unfounded cynicism. If magical thinking truly is inescapably tied to a blindly optimistic paradigm, then Talleyrand's objection would be the silver bullet that soundly vanquishes such false hope.

However, there is no necessity that one live in denial or ignorance to adopt a positive attitude towards life. It is difficult, though certainly not impossible, to embrace painful events and ruinous situations with both eyes wide open, recognizing the reality of the pain and yet not succumbing to resignation, cynicism or despair. It is blindness to foolishly believe that nothing bad will happen. Yet, it takes bold faith and courage to face suffering with a smile. It takes a transcendent perspective to realize that often trials and suffering are helpful occasions to reveals weaknesses of character and bring greater strength. It takes a lion-hearted individual to be undeterred and undaunted even in the face of torture or death. This precise attitude is one that is repeatedly encouraged by the pages of Scripture and exemplified by the apostles and countless Christian martyrs.

My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing. (James 1:2-4)

I have a recent example from my own life about how positive thinking need not be blind. Last September, my apartment was robbed, and the theives stole over $2500 worth of stuff that I owned. While I could have been bitter about the whole affair, I honestly wasn't especially set back by the occurrence. Objectively, the robbery cost me a lot of money and time, as well as being a major inconvenience. However, in adopting the view advocated by Scripture, I chose to be grateful for what I still had, and to use the incident as a springboard for character-growth. Since my happiness is not rooted in my possessions, I could honestly say, "All things considered, I think the whole robbery might have been a win-win scenario." I penned those words just six days after the robbery. Positive thinking means that one must take in suffering and loss with a broad-angle perspective. When you simply realize that the very worst things that can happen to you aren't that bad, then your soul is free to embrace even the painful parts of life with joy and gratitude. Of course, my example is but a frail and pitiful one compared to someone who has truly suffered.

Richard Wurmbrand, a Romanian pastor who was brutally tortured for his faith, was a shining example of holiness, positive thinking, courage and faith in God. Regarding his time in chains, he writes: "It was strictly forbidden to preach to other prisoners, as it is in captive nations today. It was understood that whoever was caught doing this received a severe beating. A number of us decided to pay the price for the privilege of preaching, so we accepted their terms. It was a deal: we preached and they beat us. We were happy preaching; they were happy beating us—so everyone was happy." What a bold and fearless statement that is! If you but read a fraction of the stories of his imprisonment and torture under the Romanian Communist regime, you will see how much he suffered, and how he consciously and willingly suffered it all. Richard Wurmbrand undeniably demonstrated positive thinking and an incredible faith in God, yet never was he in denial of the very real persecution that he endured.

To believe that everything will turn out well, one must have a clear criteria for what it means for things to turn out well. If, for everything to be good, one must continually be blessed with material wealth, bodily health and a lifestyle of comfort, then denial of reality or discontentment is certain to result. However, if one adopts a posture of humility and gratefulness, then even with nothing but dry herbs and tattered rags there can be near infinite joy. If one's affections are fixed upon the pleasures the world offers, then happiness will ever be elusive. However, if one follows Jesus' advice to "lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal," (Matthew 6:19) then it does not matter how little or much one has, how wealthy or poor one is, how blessed or how tortured one is. When Christ is your surpassing treasure, the promise of God given to us by Paul will never fail, "And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose." (Romans 8:28)

The real question that must be asked is, "What is your foundation for happiness?" If your joy rests on that which is transitory and temporal, then your emotional state will be as chaotic as the situations and circumstances of your life. Trying to put on a smiley face with such a foundation necessitates a blind ignorance or a willful denial of that which is unpleasant. However, with a transcendent perspective that welcomes trials and suffering as opportunities for character growth, no such blindness is needed. When one values spiritual freedom, integrity, patience and perseverence more than happiness, then even disastrous incidents and cataclysmic events cannot effectively dampen one's joy. Emotional security and freedom come through valuing that which is most valuable and most intransitory. Cynical resignation, emotional numbness and denial of reality are all equally unhealthy ways to try to maintain emotional equilibrium. Only those who accept and embrace life as it is, with all its pleasures and pains, with all its ecstasy and agony, are able to maintain a consistently positive perspective while remaining fully conscious of all that is.

Therefore, while I agree with Talleyrand that blind optimism is a deadly perspective, to be avoided at all costs, I also would like to point out that blind pessism is equally deadly, since it paints the entire world as darker and more soul-crushing than it truly is. I have to wonder whether his lack of recognition that a positive perspective need not be mere blind optimism is simply a mental oversight, or whether it illustrates a blind pessism and a lack of emotional security. To deny the darkness of life or to deny the goodness in life are both forms of willful blindness. A balanced individual will always recognize and accept the good and bad in everything. A spiritually mature person is able to fully feel and experience both pain and pleasure without becoming numb to either and without becoming either overly cynical or adopting a false facade of happiness.

On Being Dogmatic

2010-03-24T17:40:00.000-07:00

For something to be of use, it must have a specific function and specific parameters. This is true of everything in life, whether a pineapple, a music CD, a word, a widget, or a human being. A word is the prime example of the necessity of definition. Imagine, for a moment, a word which has no definition. It can be used as a verb, as a noun, as an adjective, as an adverb, as a conjuntion, as a pronoun or even as a preposition. At first glance, it would appear that such a word would be universally useful. After all, a word that can be used to mean anything can be included in any or even every sentence. However, at second glance the weakness of such a word is revealed--in trying to convey everything, it is suitable to communicate nothing at all. Since this imaginary word has no standard definition, though it can used everywhere, no one can discern what it means. This example reveals that a word is only useful if it conveys a specific thing. The narrower the definition of word, the more clear it communicates the author's intent. The broader the definition of a word, the more room there is for ambiguity and confusion. The definition of a word is what limits its scope and gives it usefulness.

Much in a the same way, human beings have specific parameters. We exist in the physical world with certain bodily dimensions and functions. Likewise, our minds have the capacity to process large quantities of information, both consciously and subconsciously. Using our minds and emotions, we formulate values, beliefs, and personal preferences for and against numerous things. As humans, that which separates us from lower beings is our cognitive capacity. The fact that we can think, ponder, reflect and abstractualize is what makes us human. Those who are most developed as humans, are those who have thought about things and reached definitely conclusions about a broad array of things. While a young and inexperienced person may not especially know what his favorite sort of liquor is, what sort of qualities are desirable in a mate, or what the most reasonable metaphysical stance is, one who is well-developed knows his answer to such questions. In this manner, those who are the most developed in their humanity are those who are the most dogmatic. Those who are not very dogmatic may be human, but they certainly aren't very developed in their humanity.

Any firmly held belief is a dogma. According to the dictionary, a dogma is: something held as an established opinion; especially: a definite authoritative tenet. In this sense, all values, all beliefs about facts, and all established personal preferences are forms of dogma. If I believe that the sun truly exists, that is a piece of dogma. I will unapologetically defend my belief in the existence of the sun to anyone who disagrees. Similarly, if I hold the view that murder is wrong, that is a piece of dogma. If I especially enjoy playing bass and I adamantally dislike asparagus, those are both pieces of dogma that define me as a person.

There are two ways that a person can avoid becoming dogmatic over the course of time. The first way is to adopt a whimsical flippancy to one's stances and to alter them frequently. Such a person loves the color red one week and hates it the next. Such a person flits about, perhaps going from job to job without ever settling on one, perhaps going from lover to lover and never committing to one, or perhaps trying various hobbies but never whole-heartedly choosing one of them. Their preferences and tastes change constantly, and so their soul never becomes more defined. The main thing that defines the flippant person is the constanty of the chaos and disorder in their life.

The second way to avoid becoming dogmatic is to refuse to define oneself, out of timidity. Such a person is afraid to choose a religion, because such a choice necessarily entails a rejection of all other religions. Such a person is afraid to marry one person, because such a choice leaves him no longer free to marry another. Such a person doesn't choose a favorite color, since that would imply the existence of many other, wonderful, non-favorite colors. Since every choice involves a necessary and inseparable rejection of all other available options, the timid person avoids formulating fixed values and beliefs. This person values openmindedness and tolerance above personal development.

While openmindedness and tolerance are almost never practiced by those who pride themselves on such traits, it remains that neither openmindedness, nor tolerance are traits worth pursuing. A person who is truly openminded has quite nearly stripped himself of his humanity. A person who is insufficiently dogmatic demonstrates an utter apathy towards all that exists and towards all that is done. A truly openminded person will say, "I care not whether he commits murder." A truly openminded person will say, "I don't care whether you give me chocolate or vanilla." A truly openminded person will say, "I do not care whether she commits adultery." Thankfully, there are very few people who are truly openminded. Those who typically describe themselves as openminded and tolerant, are neither especially openminded nor are they especially tolerant. They are often quite dogmatic, themselves.

To be dogmatic is simply to believe fully in what one believes, whatever that may be. There is certainly right dogma and wrong dogma, but their is nothing intrinsically harmful about being dogmatic. On the contrary, there is something quite worthy and respectable about being dogmatic. To be dogmatic is simply to be assertive in one's beliefs. If one is opposed to murder, such a stance is of no value unless one is quite dogmatic about it. The only humane stance to adopt is, "I believe that murder is always wrong, and nothing will change my mind on the matter." Similarly, the sufficiently developed man will also be unafraid to say, "That man is a murderer, and therefore is worthy of death, because he has wrongfully killed someone. None shall convince me otherwise." Not only that, but a person's dogma will always lead him to being a judgmental sort of person. His dogma itself approves of certain actions and condenms others. Even those who preach against "closemindedness" and "judgmentalism" are quite closeminded and judgmental. The man who says, "There is nothing wrong with homosexuality," and, "It is wrong and unjust to call homosexuality a sin," is quite as closeminded and judgmental as the man who condemns homosexuality, because he is precisely as dogmatic. One man is dogmatically for homosexuality and the other man is dogmatically against it. One man is intolerant of those who judge homosexuals and the other is intolerant of those who practice homosexuality. Now, it may be that one of the men is right in his dogma and the other isn't, but it certainly can't be said that either is less dogmatic. Anyone who is even remotely human is quite dogmatic about a good number of things.

In order to be more fully human, and more defined as a human, every person must pursue dogmatism. That is, every single person should continually seek to more clearly define precisely what he believes, and seek to hold his beliefs with more and more certainty. Let each man be thoroughly convinced in his own mind, that his position is the right one. Ideally, let his position actually be the right one. Each man should be not easily swayed in his beliefs, since they should rest soundly on a great deal of evidence and experience. Each man should be prepared to give a defense for anything that he firmly stands for, and should live in accordance with his own doctrines. Our beliefs, values and preferences are what defines us, as human beings.

All people are religious beings, including the sort that are religious in an irreligious sort of way. Let our spirituality be something that is clearly defined and our practice of it be practical and definite. All people are philosophizing beings, including the sort that are philosophical in an unphilosophical sort of way. Let out philosophies be well thought-out, mentally rehearsed and firmly believed. All people are moral beings, including the sort that are moral in the most immoral sorts of ways. Let our code of ethics have a sharpness and consistency that is worthy of being respected and followed. All people are aesthetic beings, including the sort that appreciates aesthetics in a very unaesthetic manner. Let our artistic tastes and preference be refined and specific. The dogmatic individual is the most developed one, for he knows who he is, what he believes, what he loves, and what he hates.

To say that one likes all wines is simply to reveal a lack of a developed palette, but to say that one possess a keen fondness for merlot and a sharp distaste for chardonnay displays a preference that is more complete. To say that one loves all types of women is merely to say that one hasn't figured out which sort he likes best. To say that all religions are good and have their place is to reveal a lack of knowledge of religion or an unwillingness to define oneself, whereas the fanatically religious individual knows exactly what he believes. To say that one likes doing everything simply means that one hasn't discovered which things he especially enjoys or dislikes, whereas to state with certainty that one loves playing basketball and driving fast cars is to reveal a more complete personality. As humans, we are defined both by that which we like and that which we dislike, by that which we firmly believe and by that which we highly doubt, by that which we passionately love and that which we fervently hate.

If there is one thing that all people should aim value for, it is a deeper dogmatism. Let us be dogmatic in everything. Let us be right in everything. Let us ensure that whatever beliefs we hold align with reality and yield good fruit. Once that is done, let us hold those beliefs with unshakable certitude. Those who are firmly dogmatic and well-developed in their selection of dogma are capable of enjoying life the most and making the most impact on the world. Just like a word, no human can be very great or effective unless he is sufficiently defined.

Proper Priorities of a Man

2010-03-23T16:44:00.000-07:00

In response to my post on unbalanced priorities being relationship killers, a commenter asked:

In a marriage, though, ought not your relationship be your highest priority? And once you have children, shouldn't the children be the highest priority?

While a seemingly simple question, I actually think that her question is quite profound. What should a person's priorities be? Is there a difference between the ideal priorities for a man and for a woman? These questions have been percolating in my head for the past week, and I've even found it helpful to think through what I've read about priorities from other authors. In particular, I think that John Eldredge, David Deida, and Steve Pavlina have a fairly good grasp on how a man should organize his priorities. While short-term priorities are quite malleable and perhaps change every hour, a person's long-term priorities should be stable and fixed. Every person who lives life with intentionality and direction must be clear on their priorities and must operate on the basis of them.

For a man, his list of priorities, where applicable, should be:

1. Love God
Given that we were created by God to bring Him glory, our chief duty in life, as human beings, is to love God whole-heartedly, to enjoy Him completely and to bring glory to Him with our words and actions. Jesus Christ succinctly expressed such a priority when he was asked what the greatest commandment is. "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." A man who has his priorities straight will live his life in accordance with God's will and align himself with the divine. He willingly submits to God's authority in every area of his life and sets all his priorities based on God's.

2. Take Care of Yourself
In order for a man to be successful in any endeavor he untertakes, he must have adequate resources. Proper self-care is a non-negotiable prerequisite for productivity, personal and spiritual growth, relational success, and financial freedom. Even in order to love others, a man must have time, energy and resources that he can utilize. A man must take adequately care of himself physically, mentally, spiritually and emotionally. When he allows any of these areas to stagnate, his energy is diminished and his potential impact is greatly limited.

3. Pursue Your Mission
While no two men have quite the same mission, and while a man's mission may change at various points in his life, all men are naturally missional. Every man has a mission that compels him to act and to make a unique contribution to the world. To the degree that a man knows his mission, he is able to pursue it. To the degree that a man is willing to passionately invest himself in fulfilling his mission, he is able to make a lasting impact on the world and on other peoples' lives. A man must know his mission and wholeheartedly pursue it.

4. Love Your Woman
Fewer people can have as profound an effect on a man's life as his wife does. When a man chooses a good woman to marry, continually guides and nurtures her, and offers her his unbridled love, she will gladly manage his household, encourage his pursuits and support him both practically and emotionally. When a man neglects his wife, she will turn into a nagging shrew who undermines his authority and hinders his mission. A man must love his woman and take good care of her, much in the same way that he must dedicate energy to proper self-care. When he offers her his love and strength, she will flourish and offer him every blessing she can.

5. Love Your Family
Unlike most other relationships a man has, familial bonds are much deeper and more enduring than other human relationships. A man's best friend may not always be his best friend, but his brother will always be his brother and his daughter will always be his daughter. It is always wise for a man to develop and maintain rich and rewarding relationships with everyone in his family, especially with his family of origin and his own family.

6. Love Your Friends
The life of a man is incomplete without quality friendships that have been consciously created. A man's friends are the people he enjoys spending time with, and who challenge him to live up to his potential. Walking alongside a few quality men is a rewarding experience and an indispensible aid in pursuing personal growth. A wise man always knows that he needs other men who inspire him and call him out when he loses his edge or begins heading down a dangerous path. Similarly, such a man will also seek to enrich the lives of his friends by offering his presence, by helping them in times of need, and by exhorting them to live to their fullest potential.

This list is a universal list of priorities that a man should adopt. For each of those priorities that is applicable to a man's life, they should always be prioritized in the order listed. If there is a priority that is not applicable to a man's life (for example, if he does not have a woman), then in the short-term it is quite reasonable to simply remove it from the list. In the long-term, however, it is vital for most men to live life in such a way that all of these elements are applicable. A man who does not know God and who is not adequately developed in his spirituality has not yet attained the ideal balance in his life. A well-developed and balanced man is always a spiritual man with an appreciation for sublime beauty and a mystical perception of God and his ways. A man who is lacking in friends and a solid social network may be living according to his priorities, but he is not living a balanced and complete life. A man who has not learned how to love and appreciate a woman, and who has not learned how to develop a rich relationship with her, is not living a full and balanced life.

Additionally, while I have presented these priorities as a list, in order of precendence, I want to be clear in saying that it is not a sort of checklist. It is not a chronological list, wherein you move down the list, checking off each thing, one by one. Instead, all of the priorities must co-exist together in a particular proportion. It is a recipe for a balanced life. If any necessary element is excluded, either intentionally or by neglect, a man's life is incomplete and imbalanced. Of the applicable elements, then, it is crucial that each priority have its place. If a man spends time with God, pursues his mission, loves his wife and his family, and yet neglects to rest his body sufficiently through sleep and his mind through relaxing, then his day is unbalanced. If a week goes by and a man has not dedicated energy to pursuing his mission, then even if he spent time on all of the other elements, his week is unbalanced. All of the applicable priorities must be a regular part of a man's life. Neglecting even one of them, for a period of time, may cause problems.

Let's return to the question that was originally asked. Should a married man's romantic relationship be the highest priority in his life? Not at all! For his sake and for the sake of his wife and family, he must place higher priority on his spiritual standing before God, on developing his own character and living with integrity, and in passionately pursuing his purpose. If he does put his romantic relationship ahead of any of those things, his unbalanced living will cause every area of his life to deteriorate, including his marriage. A woman needs to know that her man is someone to be respected, who will not compromise his values or his mission in life. Similarly, a man's children should never be the highest priority in his life either. Children need to know that their father is dedicated to following God, to pursuing his mission and to loving his wife. They need to know that his world does not revolve around them. A man is best able to love the people in his life by maintaining healthy priorities in every aspect of life.

Dull or Interesting - A Lifestyle Choice

2010-03-19T15:57:00.000-07:00

Recently I was reading a post by Butterfly Squash concerning the search for a future wife. In the post she lists the top ten things to avoid. The seventh thing on the list was one that especially got me thinking.

7. Dull. She doesn’t bother to cultivate her intellect, has no interesting hobbies, and is incurious. She is a poor partner in conversation. She seems nice enough, but you find her boring. If you think she’s boring now, wait until you’ve shared a home with her for 15 years.

This got me thinking about different people I know and what makes each of them dull or interesting. While it might seem that being interesting is primarily related to one's intelligence, I don't think that intelligence is the primary factor which determines whether a person is dull or interesting. I have friends of all sorts. Some of them are smart, but not very interesting. Some of them are of average intelligence, but really entertaining. Some of them are pretty dumb, and are mind-numbingly banal. Some of them aren't the smartest, but always have fascinating things to say. Some of them are quite intelligent and ever-scintillating in the way they converse. It's quite a broad spectrum. It would seem, then, that intelligence is not strongly correlated with being interesting.

What, then, distinguishes those who are interesting from those who are not? I have noticed that those who are interesting often have fascinating thoughts about life, random little tidbits that they picked up recently, or insights about various aspects of life. Also, those who are interesting are often good communicators. They know how to speak, how to tell stories, and how to engage people with their words. In other words, there are primarily two factors that determine how interesting a person is. To be interesting, one must be a skilled communicator, and must have something of interest to communicate. Both of these are vital. Without the ability to convey information in a interesting manner, even entertaining stories, thoughts or facts, will come across as boring. Alternately, without interesting material to convey, there exists no substance to what one communicates.

Are either of these factors innate traits? No. Having interesting material to share is primarily a matter of having a mind full of fresh thoughts and experiences. The mind is like a river. It is most vibrant and alive when it has both a source and an outlet. When the mind is constantly innundated with new things and has an outlet to share new insights and thoughts, there is an endless supply of interesting things to discuss. Without a source, the mind has only its own resources to depend upon, which eventually become exhausted. Without an outlet, there is little incentive to retain interesting material. The mind that is missing either of these things will surely become stagnant. However, when one has both an outlet and a source, the mind cannot help but be full of fresh thoughts and ideas. It is therefore vital, for any person who wishes to be engaging and interesting, to continually seek sources of inspiration and outlets for creative expression, especially verbally. Having interesting things to share is simply a matter of choosing to have an active mind.

Similarly, being a skilled communicator is not simply something that is innate and hardwired into a person. While some people may have more of a propensity to communicate than others, the skillset is always something that is learned and developed. Learning to phrase things in captivating and memorable ways is something that is learned with practice. Holding people's attention, either in a group or individually, is a matter of knowing what entertains or intrigues people, and learning to deliver entertaining material in a scintillating manner. Excellent communicators are those who study the methods and techniques of other skilled communicators and who are very intentional about how they choose to express themselves. Every sentence is worded and delivered in a carefully-crafted way. Every word is specifically selected. Every pause is there by design. Communicating well is a skill that is developed by those who exercise their minds and teach themselves to be effective and engaging communicators.

As such, interesting people are simply those who choose to pursue being interesting. Dullness is a sign of mental laziness or poor mental priorities (school often dulls ones mental faculties through its rigorous and tedious system of regurgitation). Interestingness is a sign of mental diligence and a passion about knowing interesting things, thinking new thoughts and sharing them with others. In this way, being interesting is a lifestyle choice, rather than something that is innate and unchangable. Just like the pursuit of physical fitness is possible for all people, the sharpening of one's mind and wits is achievable through regular effort. Just as one becomes less physically fit by neglecting exercise, one become dull by neglecting mental exercise. An active mind is a necessary prerequisite of being an interesting person. Having sources that stimulate your thoughts and various outlets to communicate your experiences and ideas are absolutely indispensable.

A Reflection of Your Soul

2010-03-17T10:22:00.000-07:00

For quite a while, I have been fascinated by the concept of self-fulfilling prophecies. A self-fulfilling prophecy is something that comes to pass by virtue of a person believing in the validity of the prophecy. Because of belief in whatever has been prophesied, a person acts in such a way that the prophecy is fully realized. Another interesting psychological phenomenon is the confirmation bias, whereby a person tends to notice information that supports a given theory or hypothesis that they have. When you combine these two concepts, you find there there is a very real and exceedingly powerful psychological and sociological impact to one's beliefs. Whatever a person believes begins to come true because they believe it, and they find their view reinforced by the information that they observe after having begun to adopt a certain perspective.

For quite some time now, I have pondered the implications of such a realization. Is it really true that a person's beliefs about any given area of life profoundly impacts the way they act in response to such beliefs? Is it really true that a person often finds strong evidence in support of their current theory of life? Is it really true that one's actions actually instigate and perpetuate that which is believed to be true? In looking at reality and the way people view their world, I have come to this realization:

A person's experience of life is primarily determined by the way they view life.

I have seen this at play numerous times in my own life and countless times in the lives of others. Very frequently I find that my expectations for the day, when I arise in the morning, become true. When I wake up and think, "Today is going to be very refreshing and enjoyable," by the end of the day, I find myself quite refreshed and content. When I wake up and think, "Today is going to be a very productive day," I find that I am able to accomplish even more than I usually would. Yesterday, I woke up with a headache and thought, "I'm probably going to feel awful all day," and sure enough, my headache persisted throughout the day and even sapped my energy before evening. I felt awful enough that I almost canceled my evening activities.

Similarly, I've seen how much my beliefs have impacted my success in dating, job hunting, and playing music. For a while, after reading too many cynical opinions about modern American girls, I began to believe that there weren't any quality girls worth dating. Because of that mindset, I went on far fewer dates, and even those dates that I did go on didn't turn out as well as I would have liked. However, when a friend pointed out the truth to me that, "There are plenty of great girls to date," I began pursuing girls more assertively and quickly found out that he was right. Work projects are exactly the same. Sometimes, when given a task, I think to myself, "This project is going to take a TON of work." When I hold that mindset, I feel little motivation to put serious effort into accomplishing the task, and my belief that the task is difficult ensures that it takes longer than it otherwise would. But, when I tell myself, "This project should be easy, it will just take a couple hours of effort," I can even complete challenging projects in short amounts of time. Many times, it's even the same project that first seems insurmountable and then is accomplished with minimal effort when I change my mindset.

In this manner, nearly every mindset that one has, so long as there is any degree of truth in it (and even in some cases when there isn't), is self-perpetuating and self-reinforcing. Wisely is it written in the pages of Scripture, "To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled." One's experience of the world is largely determined by one's beliefs about the world. To the cynic, there is an endless supply of things to be cynical about. To the adventurous soul, everything is an adventure. To the bored, everything seem boring. To the comedic, anything can be made into a joke. To the wise, wisdom can be gleaned anywhere. To the foolish, wisdom is of no use. To those who admire beauty, there is beauty all around. To those who believe in determinism, freewill is more elusive than leprechauns. To the religious, God is omnipresent. To the atheist, god is nonexistent. To the philosopher, everything is worth pondering. To the common man, life isn't worth overthinking. And on and on it goes...

But, as mentioned above, one's views on life don't end in one's brain. They actually affect one's life and the world around. As such, there is another principle we can derive from this concept:

Nearly every aspect of a person's life is a reflection of their soul.

Since one's view about life inform their decision making process, and since most beliefs about life tend to be self-fulfilling, we see that almost every single part of a person's life is a direct result of choices they've made, which is directly influenced by how they view the world. The outward trappings of a person's life reflect the condition of that person's soul. Everything says something about you. What do the clothes she wears convey about her body image? What do his 70-hour workweeks say about what he most values? Why is she with a different guy, everytime I see her? Why is he so adamantly opposed to religion? What do her manipulative ways of treating people say about her perception of people? Why does he drive a beat-up old car? Of course, the externals never tell the whole story, but they often reveal more than people realize. Those who are good at reading people know how much a person's body language and eye contact testify to their perception of themself and of their perceived social relation to others. Similarly, you can learn a lot about a person by knowing where they live, who their friends are, what books they read and why they work where they do. There is always an internal reason for every external part of a person's life.

Moving to the more personal level, I find that this it often helps me to ask myself why certain people or things are the way the are in my life. Why do I choose not to have health insurance? Because I'd rather take tough blows when they occur rather than constantly be paying money to big corporations. Why do I spend time with my siblings so often? Because I highly value my familial relationships and genuinely enjoy spending time with my family. Why do I skip breakfast and typically only eat two meals a day? Because I prefer to sleep in and I'd rather save money on food, especially since I'm not very economical about my eating habits. Why don't I change my eating habits to be more economical? Because I prefer to spend my time on artistic endeavors and social activities, and therefore I'm willing to spend more for convenience. Why do I write blogs? Because I love to think about various issues, formulate specific stances on them and share my opinions with others.

Occasionally, I like to ask myself a series of such semi-random questions to see why certain aspects of my life are they way they are. When I realize that everything I eat, everywhere I go, everything I own, everyone I spend time with and even everything I think are all a reflection of my soul, then I can use my external life as a starting point for analyzing my internal beliefs and views. Whenever I find an area of life that isn't quite the way I want it to be, I take action. If I have a belief that is hindering me or limiting my effectiveness in any given area (such as in my dating life, or with my work projects, as mentioned above), I stop to analyze my thinking in order to see how my present beliefs are holding me back. Similarly, when I see issues in other people's external lives, I always know that there are beliefs they hold beneath the surface that are manifesting those issues. Alternately, when there is something in my life that is going really well, it's quite helpful to ask myself, "What belief is causing this aspect of my life to flourish?" Likewise, when I see some trait I admire in another person, I instantly realize that I can develop a similar trait by adopting a similar view.

The double-edged nature of external manifestation means that we always must be very careful to guard our thoughts and to guard our hearts. Certain beliefs and mindsets are extremely destructive to the soul. Certain beliefs and mindsets are life-giving and inspiring. Just as with judging people, it is wise to determine the worth of an idea or belief by its fruits. Wholesome views and beliefs always yield positive results in one's life. Detrimental views harms ourselves and others. We must continually be on our guard against toxic ideologies, and we must continually seek to graft nourishing viewpoints into our hearts. Proverbs 4:23 says, "Keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it spring the issues of life." That the issues of life spring from the heart is not merely a poetic use of metaphor, it is the simple, practical truth. Whatever is in your heart becomes part of your world. Your experience of life is primarily dependent on the condition of your heart. The various aspects of your life are a reflection of your soul.

Game Is Universally Useful

2010-03-15T17:31:00.000-07:00

While the primary purpose of learning Game is to increase one's skills at attracting desirable romantic partners, the benefits of Game certainly don't stop there. Game is an extremely broad body of knowledge that entails nearly every single aspect of social dynamics and practical psychology. In my own experience, I have found that the increased social skills acquired from learning Game have improved nearly all of my personal interactions. Several other bloggers have noted similar things.

The increased social awareness that comes from learning about social and relational dynamics enhances one's ability to read individuals and figure out how a group is socially structured. While in prior years, I never would have even considered the idea of social hierarchies, now I can easily determine who are the leaders and who are the followers in any group. I can quickly determine how each person perceives themselves in relation to the group, and how much influence they have over the others in the group. Being able to quickly and easily read groups is extremely helpful in determining how to interact with the group as a whole and with individual people. Understanding the various relationships within a group enables one to more easily make friends and gain group acceptance. Even beyond that, understanding group dynamics enables one to become highly respected as a leader in the group. Although, the benefits of understanding group dynamics hardly stop there. Chuck Ross has written an interesting blog on how his understanding of group dynamics directly impacts his job as a server.

Personal relationships are also enhanced by one's increased ability to read body language, tonal cues, unspoken messages, verbal subtexts and other non-verbal components of communication. This makes it much easier to entertain, fascinate, engage, attract or comfort people you relate to. The increased ability to read individuals is one of the benefits of learning Game that I have most enjoyed. Learning how much people enjoy teasing and verbal banter has made me a much more playful person. Last week I took my little sister to dinner for her 15th birthday. While we did have serious conversations about a broad array of topics, she definitely had a lot of fun trying to keep up with my constant teasing. I teased her so much, and reframed so many of her self-aggrandizing comments that eventually she said, "You're mean!" I quickly replied, "You wouldn't be enjoying yourself so completely if I weren't." With a smile on her face she said, "I know." Even a year ago, I would have interpretted the, "You're mean!" comment as one that meant that I had overstepped the line and begun to offend. Now, given my ability to better read people and know how they're feeling, I knew that she found my constant teasing extremely fun and engaging. This is just one example of many I could give on how being able to read people better enhances all of my personal relationships with my friends, with my family, and at work.

Assertiveness is another valuable trait that is much developed by learning Game. As a person learns to take their own desires seriously and act in a way that commands respect from others, conflict and arguments are more quickly dealt with or defused and overall life satisfaction rises. Rather than fearing the emotional state of others, an assertive person does what is reasonable, expects other people to be reasonable and refuses to shy away from a direct and unapologetic dealing with situations that arise. This has benefitted me a lot as I have learned to be unafraid to state my opinions, desires, and make bold requests whenever I want to. My assertiveness even helps lead others to be more assertive in their interactions. When I had dinner with my little sister last week, she ordered a Philly Cheesesteak sandwich. Upon eating the first couple of bites she remarked, "This sandwich is pretty crappy. I expected it to be better." I told her, "This is a nice restaurant. If the sandwich doesn't meet your standards then send it back and have them get you something else." A couple minutes later the waiter came by and she did exactly that, ordering a salad instead. She then told me, "I've never sent anything back at a restaurant before." Acting assertively and expecting other people to be reasonable inspires others to be more assertive. Last week, I read an excellent blog by Krauser on five ways he practices being more assertive in his interactions.

Another side effect of the pursuit of developing the masculine virtues advocated by Game is the way I view my relationship to the world and to others. In the past, I've always seen myself as being superior to or lesser than other people. Rather than being a consciously developed view, it was always subconsciously lurking beneath the surface. In learning what true confidence looks like, I have found that real confidence is always accompanied by an attitude of humility. In practicing confidence by "faking it until you make it," I learned that confidence is an attitude that is partially born out of realistic self-assessment, and partially born out of a realistic assessment of the world and its various challenges. I discovered that confidence rests in knowing oneself, continually developing one's character, and a deep contentment with who one is. As an unexpected side effect, I have gained a greater appreciation for various sorts of people and the different strengths they manifest. One who is truly confident recognizes the things that make him similar to others and also the things that set him apart. He eventually comes to see himself as quite ordinary and yet quite unique and special. Every man is my peer, whether he has numerous educational credientals, whether he is the President of a Fortune 500 company, or whether he is simply a janitor. Since I am an adult, even my parents are my peers.

These are but a few examples of how Game is useful even outside of the realm of romantic relationships. Cultivating the virtues that are central to Game will benefit every single relationship and social interaction that you engage in. As your inner mindset changes, so your outward world begins to reflect those inner changes. As you become more adept at interacting with groups, reading individuals, acting assertively and living with confidence, you quickly discover that social interactions are easier to navigate and more enjoyable than ever before. Game is universally useful!

Relationship Killers: Unbalanced Priorities

2010-03-09T19:13:00.000-08:00

It's an occurence that most of us can relate to. A close friend, after being single for a while, gets into a romantic relationship. Suddenly, the friend becomes a bit more scarce. You see him much less frequently than you used to. He becomes more flaky with his commitments. Then, eventually, the relationship bites the dust, and your friend is mostly back to his normal self. I've seen this precise pattern happen quite a number of times. Recently, this is what happened to a close friend of mine. While excitement about a new relationship is a good thing, overinvestment and poor priorities are very harmful.

There are several major problems with spending too much time with a new romantic partner. First of all, it demonstrates that your priorities aren't properly aligned. The most valuable resource that human beings have is time. Your priorities in life are most vividly shown by how you choose to spend your time. When you spend excessive amounts of time with a romantic partner it communicates the message that your new lover is the most important and valued part of your life. This is communicated to your lover, to your family, to your friends and to yourself. This goes against a cardinal rule of relationships. Overinvestness, like neediness, is unattractive. It signals to others that you aren't satisfied enough with your own life, and that your normal activities aren't exciting and engaging enough.

Silas' Relationship Maxim #1: A romantic relationship is just a part of your life, it should never be your life.

Second, when your priorities are not properly aligned, your other relationships and pursuits tend to suffer. When you overinvest yourself in a relationship, you have insufficient remaining time for your friends, for your family, for your spiritual journey, and for your creative pursuits or hobbies. Friendships will suffer because your actions demonstrate that you don't value your friends as much as they thought you did. Your spirituality begins to decline because you simply don't have enough remaining time to make God a priority. Creative output is diminished substantially, since all creative pursuits take regular time commitment. Given that time is as limited as it is, every hour that you spend doing one thing is an hour that you can't spend doing anything else. Some things can be reasonably cut, but there are many things in life that must remain priorities.

Third, while it might not happen initially, eventually your emotions will trouble you. When you are neglecting relationships that you should be nurturing or neglecting things that you know you should be doing, it catches up to you. Soon, you feel less like yourself. Your life isn't the same, and it begins to bother you. Your self-image begins to nose-dive. Good habits begin to erode and disappear. It isn't a good place to be.

Any one of these three issues has the potential to be a relationship-killer. Overinvesting yourself in a relationship may cause your lover to lose attraction for you. Pressure from friends and family (who love and miss you) will begin to affect the relationship. Negative emotions will profoundly impact your own enthusiasm about the relationship. Yet, the combination of these three factors is positively lethal. For that reason, it is always crucially important to keep a close eye on your priorities, whether you're in a relationship or not. Healthy relationships can only be formed by two people who have proper priorities. Healthy relationships can only grow stronger and more satisfying if proper priorities are consistently maintained.

For that reason, I think that the priorities of a person in a relationship can serve as a useful metric in determining the health and direction of that relationship. Proper priorities strengthen and reinforce a relationship, while unbalanced priorities hasten its demise.

The Little Pineapple

2010-03-05T17:31:00.000-08:00

Once there lived a little pineapple. He lived in an exotic land on a small plantation which was surrounded by towering trees and bushes of all sorts. The little pineapple was always well cared for and was about as happy as he could be. Every day he had plenty of time to lounge in the sun. Refreshing well water was brought to him every morning by a man wearing a large straw hat. He lived with many other pineapples, and every afternoon all the pineapples would talk amongst themselves about what life would be like once they were all fully grown. They would blissfully talk for hours about their future aspirations.

"I want to be juicy and yellow," remarked one pineapple. "I want to be the best-looking pineapple," remarked a nearly-grown pineapple. "I want to be tangy and delicious," declared another one. The little pineapple always happily joined in imagining the future with the other pineapples and gleefully cried, "I want to be tall and tasty!" All the pineapples would talk like this for hours until the sun finally began to set, at which point they would slowly begin to fall asleep, one by one. Every day of the week, they would do the same thing, and every morning when they awoke, each pineapple would find that he or she had grown a little bit larger and juicier.

One day, when the little pineapple and his friends were fully grown, a tall man with a shaggy grey beard came out and walked among the rows of pineapple plants. At each plant, he stooped down and examined the fruit. Some of the pineapples he plucked from the plant and gently placed in the large wicker basket that he was carrying. Others, he passed by and left them to grow a little longer. As the little pineapple watched the man slowly work up and down the rows, he couldn't help but think to himself, "I hope he picks me!" The man was finally in the same row as the little pineapple and moving slowly down the row. The little pineapple was filled with anticipation and excitement, increasingly so with each step the man took. Finally, the man knelt down by the little pineapple's plant and looked him over. Sure enough, the man plucked the little pineapple from his plant and placed him in the large wicker basket.

The little pineapple was overjoyed! He had never been chosen for anything before, but now a new exciting adventure was about to unfold! The pineapples in the basket began to talk amongst themselves in energetic, high-pitched voices. "I can't believe I was chosen!" "Who is that man?" "Where do you suppose we are going?" "What will happen to the others?" They talked so animatedly that the next few hours flew by and they were quite oblivious to whatever was happening outside the basket. When they pineapples had finally finished discussing their journey into the unknown, a couple of them looked around in time to see the man with the grey beard carrying them off of a strange moving platform and into a small building. They were put in a small windowless room and left alone. All of the pineapples felt quite worn out by this time, so they quickly drifted off to sleep.

In the morning, the pineapples were woken up earlier than usual by a burly bald fellow. He picked up the basket and took them out of the building. Carefully, the burly fellow reached into the basket and took out a pineapple. Then he grabbed another. The little pineapple was next. He was gingerly taken and placed in a crate that was leaning at an angle, along with his other pineapple friends. Beneath the crate was a little red sign with some letters and numbers on it. All around the crate were numerous other crates and boxes with all sorts of other unusual fruits. Once the burly fellow had finished placing all the pineapples in their new crate, he took the empty wicker basket and left. The little pineapple looked around him at all the neighboring fruits and said, "I'm a pineapple, what are you?" Each fruit responded differently. A long, yellow one said, "I'm a banana." A bright green one said, "I'm an apple." A tiny, purple one said, "I'm a grape." A round, orange one said, "I'm an orange." Each of the other fruits also responded in kind. The little pineapple was surprised and delighted! He never knew that there were so many different sorts of fruit.

"What is this place?" the little pineapple asked, to no one in particular. A huge, striped, green watermelon who looked like he had been there some time replied, "This is a fruit stand. People come here and look us over. They buy whichever fruits they like best." All of the pineapples were quite excited by such a possibility. "I'm sure I'll be chosen quickly, since I'm so yellow and juicy," said one of the pineapples. "They're going to choose me first, since I'm the best-looking pineapple" said another of the pineapples. Still another happily cried, "I may not be the first chosen, but I will delight whoever chooses me, since I'm so tangy and delicious." Finally, the little pineapple (who wasn't quite so little anymore) cried, "They will be sure to choose me, since I am so tall and tasty."

And so it was, not long after the sun arose, that people began to visit the fruit stand. Some people bought a bunch of bananas. Others bought some apples. Some people moved from crate to crate and selected a few different fruits. One woman came over to the pineapples and began to look through them. All of the pineapples were excited! After examining a couple of them she took the particularly good-looking one and left. "I could be next," thought the little pineapple. As the day went on, many people came and went and numerous fruits were purchased. Two more pineapples were selected from the crate, but the little pineapple wasn't one of them. By this point, the little pineapple wasn't feeling quite as excited about this whole affair. He began to say to himself things like, "Maybe being tall and tasty isn't what I should be aiming for," and "Maybe I don't really want to be a pineapple." In the late afternoon, a few more people came by the fruit stand and bought other fruits, but then no-one else came to the fruit stand. Finally, as the sun began to set, the burly fellow came out with a large blue thing and placed it across all the crates of fruit.

The little pineapple wasn't ready to go to sleep yet and so he talked with one of the apples for a bit. The apple, who had come from a far away place by boat, regaled the little pineapple with all sorts of stories about fascinating lands and odd creatures. One sort of creature that the apple mentioned especially interested the little pineapple. The apple told him about a strange creature called a "kangaroo" that was tall, yellow and liked to hop a lot. Filled with curiosity, the little pineapple wanted to know more about this kangaroo. "I haven't actually seen one before, but I've heard that they have pointy ears, and some of them have pouches in front, to carry little kangaroos," continued the apple. After talking together for a while longer, both the apple and the little pineapple fell asleep.

When morning came, the little pineapple woke up before any of the other fruits, and thought to himself, "Maybe I want to be more like a kangaroo. I'm already tall and yellow, so I just need to learn to hop." However, the little pineapple wasn't completely convinced that it was a good idea to try to be kangaroo. The little pineapple wanted to know what the other pineapples would say about his newfound aspiration. When the burly fellow came and removed the big blue thing that was covering the crates of fruit, several of the other pineapples woke up. Unsure of himself, the little pineapple hesitantly said to the others, "I have decided that I want to be a kangaroo." While a day ago, all of the pineapples were quite happy to be pineapples, now some of them weren't quite so enthused about being pineapples. One of the pineapples, who now felt wiser and more intelligent than he had ever felt before replied, "Well, you can be whatever you want to be." Another pineapple chimed in, "If that's what makes you happy, then go for it." Still another said, "You're free to do as you please."

Now the little pineapple felt that he was on the right track. "Today," he thought, "I am going to try my best to be like a kangaroo." Soon, people started to come by the fruit stand. A bunch of them bought some of the newly-arrived grapes. Several people picked out peaches and bananas. As a young man passed by the crate of pineapples, the little pineapple thought to himself, "Now is my chance to get noticed." With that thought in his mind, he steeled himself and tried to hop. To his dismay, he wasn't able to move much at all. The young man passed by the pineapples without even giving them a second glance. A little bit later a mother with two little children came over to the pineapples. The little pineapple mustered his energy and tried to hop again. Success! He managed to hop a couple of inches into the air, just far enough to fall off the crate. For less than a second (though it seemed much longer), the little pineapple felt the strangest sensation and then, with a dull thump, he hit the ground. Although he didn't feel nearly as well as he wanted, the little pineapple thought to himself, "There! Now that I've managed to hop, I'm certain I'll be picked." But the mother, thinking that one of her children had knocked the pineapple onto the ground, hurriedly put the little pineapple back in the crate, said some words to her child which I won't repeat, and hastily grabbed another pineapple before scurrying away from the crate.

Though the little pineapple had managed to accomplish his goal of being more like a kangaroo, his tumble had an unexpected side effect. Now, there was a big brown bruise on his side. Throughout the remainer of the day, people came and went, and a few more of them bought pineapples. A couple of the people even picked up the little pineapple and examined him. But, upon seeing the bruise on his side, they quickly put him back in the crate and chose another pineapple instead. By the end of the day, over half of the pineapples were gone, and the little pineapple still hadn't been chosen yet. When the fruit stand closed in the evening, the little pineapple was feeling quite discouraged and disappointed. He asked the other pineapples, "Why has nobody chosen me?" But the other pineapples were too timid to have opinions of their own, so they just said things like, "That's just how it goes," "Maybe you'll be chosen tomorrow," and "Someone will be sure to want you." None of these answers were especially helpful, so the unhappy little pineapple asked the apple, "I acted just like a kangaroo today, I even hopped, and yet nobody chose me. Why?" But, the apple was reminded of another story from his past, and began to launch into tale after tale which were completely unrelated to the little pineapple's question. Frustrated and feeling quite alone, the little pineapple spend quite a while trying to figure it out by himself, before falling asleep from exhaustion.

Through the next few days, the little pineapple gave up the idea of trying to hop, and just sat there hoping that someone would recognize that he was still a perfectly good and delicious pineapple. Eventually, all of the other pineapples had been chosen by various people, and yet the little pineapple remained in the crate. Because of the brown bruise on his side, no-one seemed willing to take him home. A couple of days later, when the burly fellow brought another basket full of pineapples and put them in the crate, he also took the little pineapple and put a bright orange thing on him. The bright orange thing had some strange black markings on it, which the little pineapple could not figure out. Because he had the orange thing on him, more people examined the little pineapple, but still there was nobody who chose the little pineapple. With each passing day, the little pineapple became more depressed and discouraged, and with each passing day he looked a bit less lively and yellow. After several more days, the burly fellow took the little pineapple and placed him in a huge rectangular metal thing, which was dark and smelly. There the little pineapple thought of all his other pineapple friends, and he missed them. He imagined them all being happily enjoyed by the people who had chosen them. His last thoughts were, "Oh, how I wish I had been content to be a pineapple, rather than trying to be a kangaroo!" So, the black lid was placed over the top of the huge rectangular thing, and the little pineapple was never seen or heard from again.

Contract Quoting - The "Fickle" Fee

2010-03-03T17:17:00.000-08:00

One of the advantages of intentionally working part-time is the added flexibility gained by having several extra hours every week. Occasionally, I will use that spare time to do a little bit of contract work for various companies. I enjoy independent contract work because it pays very well and it gives me a bit of work variety. Since my job skills are more than sufficient to meet any task I undertake, there are really only two challenges that I continually confront in taking on contract jobs. The first challenge is establishing excellent rapport with my clients and establishing a solid reputation in the eyes of potential clients. The second challenge is accurately quoting the tasks I undertake, so that I can maximize both value provided to the client and monetary profit.

The first challenge usually isn't too difficult. The second one, however, requires a delicate balance. Ideally, my rates should properly correspond to the task at hand. When I properly evaluate a task, I earn nearly exactly my target rate, while still leaving a little margin for additional customization, if desired by my client. If I underestimate a task, then the client receives no additional value, but my profitability begins to sink. Since my tasks vary a fair bit, it can be challenging to accurately estimate the amount of work it will take to perform the given assignment. Just today, I was struck by a realization that will greatly simplify my quoting process.

Generally, when I perform a task for a male client, the desired result is clearly understood by the client and easily communicated to me with a minimal amount of clarification and dialogue. Most men know exactly what they are looking for and can quickly describe exactly how they want it. However, as I was working on a task for a female client, I discovered that even with work-related tasks and projects, women can be quite capricious in their desires. The project that initially consisted of a request for one custom database query soon expanded into a request for two separate queries. Once both had been finished, she added several new criteria and field format requirements which had never been part of the initial request, nor part of the revised request. If I were billing on a hourly rate, this would be of no concern, but given the fixed price of the project contract, every new addition cut into my profitability.

Based on this experience, and my knowledge of human nature, I have decided to factor something else into my quoting process. From now on, I will now add a "fickle" fee to my contracts. I will take my base estimate and add a 30-50% markup, as a fickle fee, based on the following criteria. If the client is female, the fickle fee automatically applies unless she has consistently demonstrated a pronouced level of decisiveness and clarity of communication. If the client is male, the fickle fee is automatically waived unless he has demonstrated an inability to be decisive or to clearly communicate his requirements. By assuming that female clients will generally be capricious, and by generally assuming that male clients will be clear and direct, my quoting process should much more accurately match the amount of work I actually have to perform. It's by no coincidence that my work experience matches the truths Game teaches about the female nature.

By charging a fickle fee, I won't be as quickly frustrated by those whose desires and needs change quickly and without warning. That will result in a great synergy with my other contracting challenge: establishing and maintaining excellent rapport with my clients. It's hard to always respond well to people who make your work more challenging and complicated. By expecting women to be fickle, even at managerial and directorial levels, I will reduce my stress, increase my profitability and increase the accuracy of my quoting.

Simplifying Sexual Dynamics

2010-02-24T12:59:00.000-08:00

Recently, I was having a conversation with a friend of mine (LB) who was having some girl troubles. A certain girl had been perplexing him and he was having trouble figuring out how she really perceived things. This, of course, was unsurprising to me, since I know that women are rarely ever direct or perfectly forthcoming about their emotions, especially concerning romantic possibilities. LB was trying to make sense of what had transpired and was very confused about the whole ordeal. Like most women, both her actions and her words conveyed a broad array of mixed signals. He recounted for me specific things that she had done and said and then tried to offer his interpretations of what she meant. Soon, he describing his attempts to figure out whether she was just sexually attracted to him, or whether she just liked him as a friend, or whether she wanted a relationship with him, or whether she was confused and flip-flopping constantly--it sounded like a complicated jumble!

I used to having troubles reading women and figuring out how to determine their perspectives and intentions. But, once you understand one simple fact, it all becomes quite simple. I told LB, "You're overthinking things. It's much simpler than all that." Fundamentally, there is only one thing you have to determine to know where you stand with a girl. Most women quickly and subconsciously assess the sexual value and relationship value of a guy upon meeting him. Generally, within the first 30 seconds to five minutes, she puts a guy in one of two categories:

Category 1 - Alpha - He is an attractive guy

Category 2 - Beta - He is not an attractive guy

When you're an alpha, a woman will do just about anything for you. You are in control of the relationship and can take things in whatever direction you want. You want to date her? You got it. You want to marry her? Piece of cake. You want to sleep with her and leave her? No problem. You aren't interested in her and just want to be friends? She's up for it. Want to bring her along for social proof or to buy you drinks? No sweat. While the pacing might be somewhat different, depending on the sort of girl, as long as you are an alpha, the ball is completely in your court and she's happy to follow your lead.

When you're a beta, the girl is in control of the interactions. She is in control of the relationship and will allow exactly what she wants to happen, but nothing more. Generally this results in either no contact or the dreaded "friend-zone." With some girls, particularly ones who are more promiscuous, they may even have no qualms about kissing you or sleeping with you, but that still doesn't change the sexual dynamic. In other cases, they may string you along and get you to buy them drinks, dinner and gifts, while knowing that nothing with ever materialize from it.

Now, while it is possible to change categories, the main directional flow is downward. There are things that an alpha can do to diminish his attractiveness in a woman's eyes. Enough of this sort of behavior and he will eventually become a beta, in her eyes. It is also theoretically possible for a beta to be viewed as an alpha, but such a thing is rare enough that it is very nearly a miracle. Fundamentally, whatever category you are first placed in is the one you remain in for the duration of the relationship. Understanding and interpreting sexual dynamics is as simple as figuring out which category you are in. You can understand the entire drift of a relationship by simply figuring out whether a girl perceives a guy as an alpha or as a beta. There doesn't need to be a lot of analysis and thinking about the whole thing. Either attraction is there or it isn't. It's as simple as that.

In the case of LB, he was confused because the girl said that she wasn't interested in a relationship with him, and yet she offered to sleep with him. Such mixed signals are extremely confusing for anyone who doesn't understand the simple principle of female attraction--but it all becomes quite clear when you understand sexual dynamics. I told him that even though she had no qualms about making out with him or sleeping with him, she viewed him merely as a category 2 guy, and therefore no lasting relationship would be possible. A day later, after LB had talked with the girl, he called me up and told me that I had been right. The only reason she had offered to sleep with him was out of pity. It would have been a pity fuck. Sexual dynamics are always simpler than they seem. Social awareness and an understanding of what attracts men and women is a vital and indispensible ally in successfully navigating the dating world. It's a simple thing, but there's a bit of a learning curve.

The Rational Case For Christianity - Morality

2010-02-22T17:30:00.000-08:00

Previously, in my introduction to The Rational Case for Christianity, I established the criteria that we will use to determine if Christianity is a true and practically viable worldview. For it to be valid, it must be able to account for any aspect of reality or life and leave no contradictions. In the realm of morality, we are confronted with philosophical questions regarding the existence and nature of good and evil. These questions have been pondered for centuries, and are inescapably critical in considering human existence and human interactions. While morality is a fairly broad subject, it is certainly a narrower field than epistemology or metaphysics. As such, it is not especially hard to look at the basic questions and the various possible answers to each. We will examine the basic questions of morality and ascertain which answers are the most rational, logical and consistent with our experience of reality.

The first question we must ask concerning morality is whether good and evil actually exist. At this point, we will not concern ourselves with what is meant by "good" and "evil," only with whether they, by any definition, exist. There are two possible answers to this question:

1 - Good and evil do not truly exist
2 - Good and evil do truly exist

In considering the first answer, we find that such an answer, while theoretically possible, is not consistent with the human experience of the reality. Every human being, from time immemorium, has always firmly believed that certain things are reasonable courses of action and that there are also evils to be opposed, decryed or resisted. Whether expressed through conventional expressions of morality such as laws and social contracts against murder and thievery, whether expressed as mourning over natural evils, such as disasters which exact their toll on human life, or whether expressed in terms of values, all people in all times have firmly believed that certain things are good and certain things or actions are evil. Even philosophers who border on denying the existence of evil, such as Nietzsche, firmly advocate certain things as desirable and oppose certain things (in Nietzsche's case, conventional morality) as evil and restrictive. So long as it is agreed that certain actions and states of being are desirable and other actions or states of being are undesirable, there is universal human consensus that good and evil, in some form, are not non-existent.

A possible objection to this might arise from those who claim, on the basis of metaphysics, that both good and evil are illusory--they are false constructs. There are several major worldviews which might proffer such as answer. Materialism, denying the existence of all thing non-physical, would suggest that there is only an "is" and no "ought." Since the natural world is silent on matters such as murder, lying, adultery and death, it might be reasoned that good and evil don't truly exist, except as empty terms to express human approval. Pantheistic religions offer the answer that all diversity is ultimately illusory. Their conception of good and evil is well depicted by the symbol of the yin-yang, which represents the truth that ultimately good and evil are just different aspect of the the same thing, and that there is no real difference between the two. For that reason, enlightened ones in such religions seek to equally avoid both good and evil, in order to achieve zero karma. While these might seem to be pertinent objections, it yet remains that from time immemorium, even those who claim that good and evil don't exist live their lives as if they do. They still proclaim certain actions and states as desirable and others as undesirable. Clearly, those who deny the existence of good and evil are in denial of their own thoughts and feelings on the matter. As such, any worldview that denies the existence of good and evil is practically incompatible with human experience. Since these sorts of answers deny a clear and obvious aspect of reality, they are irrational.

The second answer to our question, that good and evil, in some form, do exist, is the only rational, logical answer that is consistent with the human experience of reality. As such, the next moral question we must address is, what form do good and evil take? There are two possible categories of answers to such a question:

1 - Good and evil are subjectively defined
2 - Good and evil are objectively defined

Answer number 1 is the general consensus of our day. Modern humanistic morality espouses the idea that morals are a function of social groups. According to the humanistic myths, morals emerged as groups of people began to form, and agreements were reached concerning what behaviors were socially acceptable and which were not. The social construct theory of morality essentially postulates that whatever actions are viewed as socially unacceptable by a societal majority are labeled as "wrong" or "evil," and whatever actions are socially approved and endorsed are labeled as "right" or "good." While this approach does clearly delineate and define morals, it also serves to trivialize them. If morals are subjectively defined, then they only represent the opinions of those who define them. The social construct theory takes a democratic approach to defining morality. Nietzsche would advocate a meritocratic approach to defining morality, wherein the enlightened philosophers are established as the societal lawgivers who create their own values and then impose such restrictions upon the dependent masses. There are numerous other arrangements for defining morality, but they all share the same intrinsic weakness.

With any form of subjectively morality, right and wrong become trivialized and bear no more significance than culinary preferences. I will explain. When good and evil are defined by any person or group of people, it is their moral motions that become the overriding force. Yet, what exactly is a moral motion? It is nothing more than a personal preference for certain actions, things and states of affairs and against other acctions, things and states of affairs. As such, when it is said that murder is "wrong," nothing more is meant than the person or group defining morality has a distaste for murder. If the declaration that murder is "wrong" means that murder is merely distasteful to a person or group, then it is akin to a person's or group's taste for broccoli or asparagus. If moral motions are merely personal preferences, then the declaration that stealing is evil carries equal weight to the declaration that one strongly dislikes garlic. As human experience quite easily shows, people have widely divergent tastes in food. Some people enjoy foods which others loathe. Some people have no strong feelings about any sort of dish or herb. Some people love garlic, others tolerate it and still others won't come within a mile of it. Now, if some people enjoy garlic, is it at all reasonable for a person or group to deny them such a priviliege? Similarly, if there are a number of people who especially enjoy adultery or stealing, is it at all reasonable for a person or group to deny them such a pleasure? This is the weakness of any form of subjective morality: unless a certain moral motion is universally held, the very definitions of good and evil are unreasonably restrictive and oppressive. Even a cursory glance at humanity will instantly reveal that no moral motion or culinary preference is universally held.

The other major problem with subjective morality is that it is inconsistent with the human existence. Any person who truly subscribes to subjective morality must willfully conform to the prevailing code of morality as established by the defining person or group. As such, it is unreasonable to cast any sort of moral judgment that opposes the socially-established morality or to cast a moral judgment on a group that conforms to a different code of morality. If morality is subjectively defined, then it stands that no action is objectively right or wrong. The rightness or wrongness of any given action is solely subject to the localized code of ethics that governs it. This means that so long as the moral authority of a social group or nation endorses certain actions, they must be considered moral by all people at all times as morally good. If Hitler's Germany declares the Jews to be evil and endorses killing Jews, then so long as morals are subjectively defined, we in modern America have no place to declare that the Holocaust was wrong or evil. If an action is subjectively good within its own moral context, then given that fact that there is no objective moral standards, there is no room for anyone to cast a judgment of their own. To do so is akin to declaring to the garlic-lover, "Because I dislike garlic, your love for garlic is evil and reprehensible!" Such a statement is ridiculous and presumptious!

It is this very sentiment that renders subjective morality inconsistent with human existence. Each person firmly believes that certain actions and states of being are undesirable, not only for himself, but for all others. We truly feel that genocide is something which is evil and unconscionable, regardless of who endorses mass killings. We truly believe that stealing is objectively wrong, even if we claim that morals are subjectively defined. The moral motions of each person are so strong that no person will accept subjective morality, unless they themselves are in the defining group and are free to inflict their will upon others. Subjective morality declares that each person's taste in actions is equally valid (although the moral authority's opinion on the matter is a little more equal than everyone else's), and this contradicts every moral fiber of a person's being. Subjective morality declares that people's actions are of no more import than steamed brussel sprouts, while human beings strongly believe that actions are not trivial and do matter very much. It is quite clear, then, that no person truly believes in subjective morality. This answer is one that, while logical, is utterly unlivable and inconsistent with the day to day living of any human being, living or dead.

Answer number 2, by necessity, is the only answer that establishes any real basis for human morality, and it is the only one that can be consistent with human living. For good and evil to exist and have any real meaning or practical applicability, morality must be objectively defined. Morality must be something that is transcendent and universal, else it lacks any strength or usefulness of any sort. If we say that murder is evil, we must mean that it is objectively wrong for all people, at all times, in all places, else we are saying nothing at all. If we say that adultery is evil, we must mean that it is a objectively reprehensible action, regardless of one's ability to avoid getting caught, one's social status or one's present life circumstances. Morality must be objective to be a meaningful concept. If it is anything less then objective, then morality is just a semantic game, lacking any real authority or practical application. The only logical, rational conclusion that can be reached is that humans have real moral motions and feelings because good and evil exist and are objectively defined.

Given that good and evil exist, by some definition, and that good and evil must be objectively defined to be concepts of any merit or usefulness, this leads us to our third question. By what standard or standards are good and evil objectively defined?

1. Good and evil are defined by the universe itself
2. Good and evil are self-defined
3. Good and evil are defined by a transcendent, infinite, personal being

Answer number 1, while an interesting conjecture, leaves us with a poor and utterly incomplete definition of both good and evil. Some may suggest that morals can be derived from the physical universe and its attributes alone. Many people who subscribe to empirical philosophies believe that through a thorough and proper study of our physical universe and material existence humans can arrive at a solid set of moral precepts which set appropriate limits on human behavior. Contention with this point of view clearly arises in modern philosophy. Immanuel Kant clearly illustrated the problem with deriving morals from nature itself by revealing the simple truth that one can never derive an "ought" from an "is". More simply put, while observations of nature can reveal a good number of things about a given state of affairs, one can find no judgments made by nature concerning such a state. When a mouse is eaten by a quick and cunning cat, nature says no more than that the cat has eaten the mouse and that the mouse is now dead. It says nothing about whether it is good that the mouse has been eaten or whether it is good that the cat has had a satisfying supper. The universe is perfectly silent over whether lying, murder, deception, torture, stealing, fornication, or rape are desirable or undesirable actions. As such, nature is an insufficient basis for objective morality. Nature is completely silent concerning all moral issues.

Answer number 2, if true, would lead to moral standards that are incommunicable. Since communication of any sort necessitates a comminucator, good and evil as mere concepts, cannot be both self-defined and communicable. As such, while there is the hypothetical possibility that trascendent concepts of good and evil exist independently of all else (including any divine beings), such self-defined concepts would also be functionally useless, given that no beings would know the definitions of good and evil. Additionally, there is the epistemic problem of any non-infinite independent concept. For any concept or piece of knowledge to be reliable or intelligible, it is necessary for it to be explained by a infinite reference point. If good and evil exist as independent and self-defined concepts, then they do not exist within the framework of an infinite reference point, and since the concepts of morality are implicitly non-infinite themselves, there is no possible way to understand such concepts, since they are floating conceptions without any means of being explained. In my next essay on epistemology, I will explain this concept in fuller detail. As a small example of this concept, how does one know what is meant when I say "The sky is blue," unless there is a reference point which explains what is meant by the words, "the," "sky," "is," and "blue." Without the higher concept of the English language and common linguistic definitions, there is no way to determine what is meant by a certain array of colored dots on a screen or printed ink blots on a page. In a similar way, without a infinite concept to explain what is meant by good and evil, even if they are self-existent concepts, they bear no more significance or meaning that a cacophony of sounds, a jumble of letters or a smattering of random colors. This answer, while theoretically possible, would means that morality is unintelligible and incommunicable. Since such concepts are incompatible with practical living and human existence, it is clear that such an answer is a wholly unsatisfactory one, even neglecting the fact that there is an utter absence of evidence in support of it.

Answer number 3, then is the only possible answer which leaves us with a foundation upon which morals exist objectively, are intelligible, and bear real moral meaning. It is necessary not merely that good and evil truly exist, but that they have objective meaning in the light of an infinite point of reference and that they are communicable. There are a few religions that postulate the existence of a transcendent, infinite, personal being who sets the moral standards for human behavior--namely those of the Abrahamic religions. There is little need to going into much detail on the various moral differences between Judaism, Islam and Christianity, since our findings in the realms of metaphysics preclude Islam from being a sufficient explanation, even if it provides a satisying moral foundation (which it doesn't), and because Judaic and Christian morality are essentially identical.

Christianity, unlike any other worldview, provides a full and clear disclosure on morality. It testifies that the real God who exists has ordained certain limits on human behavior, which are not merely suggestions, but are real moral laws. It speaks to the nature of humans, who are real, free-willed moral agents, capable of both great good and horrific evils. The Bible very specifically spells out moral laws for humans, including an organizational hierarchy of which moral laws are most important and which are less important. God transparently delineates the consequences for failing to abide by His moral precepts. In the doctrine of Original Sin, a clear picture of the present moral state of mankind is painted for us: though humans were created sinless in the image of God, as a species we have chosen to violate God's real moral laws and therefore bear real moral guilt before the God who exists and who judges all human actions. Because of the fall of man, every human being is born into the world with a sinful nature, which is, a propensity to choose evil and to rejects God's ways and God's truth. Christianity also sets forth a solution to the moral dilemma of man in the propitiary sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. From start to finish, Christianity explains why all people have strong moral sentiments, and testifies that morals are not merely social constructions, personal preferences or sociological averages, but are a reflection of God's divine precepts, written on the hearts of every living person and communication through the Holy Bible.

On such a basis alone is it possible to declare that certain actions are righteous and other actions are evil. Apart from the existence of the objective morality preached by Christianity, it is impossible to decry the murder of innocents, the exploitation of the weak, the evils of corruption, the injustices of tyranny or the wickedness of pride. If man's moral motions are merely random remnants of genetic mutations, then they are meaningless illusions meant to muddle our minds. If morals are relative and differ from individual to individual, then there is no adequate basis for judging human action or legislating codes of ethics. The universal human belief in desirable and undesirable states of being is not simply the product of accidental neural collisions in the synapses of our brains--instead, it is the reflection of the transcendent truth of the existence of real moral standards as created and communicated by God. Only if good and evil truly exist and are objectively defined, universal, knowable concepts does the commandment, "Thou shalt not murder," have any power or authority. If it is merely the preference of a few odd conglomerations of atoms, then it is a relative truth which doesn't actually apply to any atoms at all. But, if "Thou shalt not murder" is the moral precept of an infinite God, then it is powerful and profound.

Summary
As stated in my introductory essay, any worldview that declares to be the truth must perfectly match all the evidence of reality. The existence of the moral motions universally felt by humans is a part of reality that must be explained. The Eastern religions ultimately deny the reality of morality, because the deny the reality of human life. Denial of plain truths is irrational. Similarly, attempts to deny the existence of morals contradict everything that is known about human experience. Alternately, attempts to explain morals as relative concepts fall on their face, since they are impractical, exceptionally weak and unable to be consistently held. Consequently, the only logical, rational explanation for the moral motions universally held by human beings is that there truly exist both good and evil, as defined by an objective standard. The Judeo-Christian tradition is the only worldview that offers an objective and communicable basis for morality, as it is the only worldview that attests to an infinite-personal being that exists, is intrinsically relational, speaks truly, and has established a specific set of moral precepts which are binding and authoritative. All other worldviews either deny the validity of the human conceptions of good and evil or contradict the obvious experience of every living person. As such, the only logical, rational conclusion to reach, concerning morality, is that Christianity has the best explanation for the moral motions of humans, since it fully explains the reason for the existence of morals, the objective moral standards that exist, and man's moral dilemma, while simultaneously contradicting none of the evidence of reality.

Revolutions Start Small

2010-02-18T15:39:00.000-08:00

Today, Joseph Stack's actions have been plastered all over the news. His anger and indignation at the corruption of the present American political system, the freedom that has been lost, and the injustices perpetuated by our government led him to crash his little airplane into an IRS building in Texas. Fifteen years ago, when Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah Federal Building to decry the wrongful tyranny of the Federal Government and the injustice tax system, most people viewed him simply as a radical. He was merely a political outlier with some crazy ideas. Today, however, there is a much different attitude towards the American system of government. The sentiments expressed by Joseph Stack in his final letter are not merely the rantings of a radical. People are awakening to the truth. Many of the sentiments he expressed today are ones that increasing numbers of people are coming to agree with wholeheartedly.

Here are some excerpts from his letter:

We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was “no taxation without representation”. I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a “crackpot”, traitor and worse.

While very few working people would say they haven’t had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.

This is a pivotal truth. While our government is supposed to truly provide liberty and justice for all, it certainly doesn't provide that. It provides a "more equal" justice for some people than for others. Joseph insightfully raises the point that representation isn't the same as merely being able to cast a vote every year or two. Properly understood, representation means that someone in a place of political power is actually acting on behalf of its constituents. One isn't being represented unless their best interests are being acted upon and protected by the governing body. When legislative politicians pass laws that actively harm a large percentage of the people they supposedly represent, this is not "representation," it is tyrannical oppression.

And justice? You’ve got to be kidding!

How can any rational individual explain that white elephant conundrum in the middle of our tax system and, indeed, our entire legal system? Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly “holds accountable” its victims, claiming that they’re responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law “requires” a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that’s not “duress” than what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is.

Not only is the current tax code utterly indecipherable by even the brightest of the master scholars, but every taxpayer is required to contractually bind themselves to validity of their tax returns. Even minor tax issues can cause major complications, which are extremely difficult to rectify, even when the mistake is made by the IRS and not by the taxpayer. Last year my dad had some major difficulties with the IRS because of the mangled ways they handle personal and business income. Every time they called him, some new person, unfamiliar with his case, would follow up to try to amend his tax return properly. My dad spent countless needless hours justifying his return and re-explaining the situation, simply because of the ridiculously complex tax laws, the ineffectivity of the IRS, and the clerical errors made on their end.

During 1987, I spent close to $5000 of my ‘pocket change’, and at least 1000 hours of my time writing, printing, and mailing to any senator, congressman, governor, or slug that might listen; none did, and they universally treated me as if I was wasting their time. I spent countless hours on the L.A. freeways driving to meetings and any and all of the disorganized professional groups who were attempting to mount a campaign against this atrocity. This, only to discover that our efforts were being easily derailed by a few moles from the brokers who were just beginning to enjoy the windfall from the new declaration of their “freedom”. Oh, and don’t forget, for all of the time I was spending on this, I was loosing income that I couldn’t bill clients.

After months of struggling it had clearly gotten to be a futile exercise. The best we could get for all of our trouble is a pronouncement from an IRS mouthpiece that they weren’t going to enforce that provision (read harass engineers and scientists). This immediately proved to be a lie, and the mere existence of the regulation began to have its impact on my bottom line; this, of course, was the intended effect.

Often, when a person voices a complaint about the way the government is handling things, well-meaning people reply, "If you really care about the issue, then you should get involved." As Joseph Stack quickly discovered, even getting involved and being vocal about an important issue rarely yields any real results. While I certainly haven't invested as much of my time and money as he did, I certainly have written quite a number of letters to my Senators and Representatives. Every single time I have done so, I have always received a short, generic response, before my politicians quickly go and vote in opposition to my will. I have send letters protesting the economic bailout programs, protesting hate crimes legislation, protesting the Healthcare Reform bill, as well as other various pieces of tyrannical legislation. The government is primarily concerned with gaining more power and stealing more money from its citizens. The Federal Government continues to take more from its citizens while giving less and less in return. This directly affects us.

I remember reading about the stock market crash before the “great” depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn’t it ironic how far we’ve come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn’t have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it’s “business-as-usual”. Now when the wealthy fuck up, the poor get to die for the mistakes… isn’t that a clever, tidy solution.

Presently, the system serves to redistribute wealth in an injust and unequal manner. Unlike Robin Hood, who at least had the decency to steal for a somewhat reasonable cause, the Federal Government steals from the middle class to give to the rich (and to throw a few rotting remnants to the poor to keep them dependent) and to fund their own problematic plethora of programs. When ordinary people are financially irresponsible, they must reap what they sow, but when large corporations and banks are fiscally irresponsible, the government is quick to step in and give them free money... our money. Irresponsibility and greed are encouraged and incentivized. Stealing is actively encouraged, so long as you are a government official, a government agency or a large corporation. Justice? I think not!

I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn’t limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at “big brother” while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won’t continue; I have just had enough.

I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer.

Here's a man who is willing to take a stand for what he believes in. Here is someone who values liberty and justice, and was willing to sacrifice his life for his ideal. Regardless of your position on his actions, it is clear that his courage and resolve are admirable. Perhaps he was misguided, and perhaps his actions were foolish, but he truly took a stand for what he believed in. No one can rightfully call him ignorant, and no one can rightfully call him cowardly. When systemic solutions and political involvement ceases to make a difference, people's anger provokes them to violence.

Today's events are but a harbinger of what lies ahead. Having forsaken that end and those principles which were original set forth as the aims of the American experiment, there is a spirit of unrest in the air that is palpable. Revolution is not yet upon us, but perhaps it is not nearly as distant as some might think. Already I know of many who discuss their desire for anarchy rather than the present form of government. Some friends of mine are beginning to purchase weapons and train themselves in the use thereof. Another friend of mine, a philosopher, often asks how different people in our social circle would respond to revolution. As Thomas Jefferson prophetically declared: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." On this day we see that one man has spilt his blood for the sake of liberty. The yearning for freedom is something that is reawakening in the hearts of many, and there is little doubt that unless the government lessens its tyrannical grip on its citizens, there will be blood. We have nearly completed a full circuit in returning to many of the opinions and ideals espoused by the Founding Fathers at the birth of our nation. Either America must be politically cleansed and reborn, or it shall fall and be replaced. There is no other alternative.

The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy.
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)

If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute.
Thomas Paine (1737 - 1809)

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson (1743 – 1826)

A revolution of government is the strongest proof that can be given by a people of their virtue and good sense.
John Adams (1735 – 1826)

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. - Patrick Henry (1736 - 1799)

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. - James Madison (1751 - 1836)

Thoughts About Valentine's Day

2010-02-12T18:53:00.000-08:00

Ever since I was a child, I have always had a certain fondness for Valentine's Day. My sentiments don't seem much shared by modern people. In fact, as a nation, we underappreciate nearly all of our holidays. Some are too trivial. Some carry no personal significance. Some are too religious. Some are too sappy and whimsical. I think that modern attitudes about our holidays are a more accurate reflection of us as a people than a proper critique of the holidays themselves. Presently, we are a people who lack appreciation for what ought to be appreciated. We do not see the magic of our world, and therefore we do not see what is worth celebrating. There is a similar sentiment oft expressed concerning Valentine's day. Some disdainfully refer to it as "singles awareness day," while others complain that it is the prime example of a "hallmark holiday." While holidays are set aside as days of celebration for the rejoicing in that which is most human, some refuse to see anything but the negative side of things. If they take joy and pleasure in the drudgery of celebration, then I will do nothing to interfere with their upside-down days of gloomy rejoicing, but I also shall take part in such a pitiable perspective.

Personally, I think that if anything is to be done, it ought to be done out of joy with a childlike jubilee. Especially holidays! Valentine's Day, while not presently my favorite holiday, is definitely one that I greatly appreciate and thoroughly enjoy. I have enjoyed it when I've been single, and I have enjoyed it when I haven't been. It's a holiday that is about much more than just oneself. It is a celebration of love, closeness, connection, relationships and the glorious and surprising differences between men and women. It is a celebration of that which most matters in life, and of that which is capable of bringing some of the highest human pleasures. While it certainly is about no less than romantic relationships and love affairs, it is definitely not limited to the sphere of romance.

Ironically, Valentine's gifts I've received from girls or activities I've done with girls don't come close in comparison with what has made me feel the most loved on Valentine's day. The most meaningful and satisfying Valentine's days have been ones where my father gave candy to my siblings and me. I've written in the past about my favorite memories of my father. This is another memory that I very much treasure and value. For the most part, my father is not a very expressive man. He rarely talks about his emotions or feelings and he rarely shares his heart with people. During my teenage years, however, every Valentine's day for several consecutive years, my father would always surprise us with a box of delicious chocolate-covered cherry coridals. He never said more than "Happy Valentine's Day," but the very fact the he went out of his way to do anything at all spoke volumes more than his words or even his gifts could convey. They say that it's the thought that counts most, behind a gift. Never have I found a truer and more practical example of that little epigram than in the gifts my father gave us on Valentine's day. Those gifts showed me that he does have a deep fondness for me, despite his general lack of expression concerning such affection. His gifts were sincere, genuine, meaningful and unpretentious.

Indeed, I think that the best way to celebrate Valentine's day, if it is to be celebrated at all, is exactly in that sort of manner. Whatever is done or given should be sincere, genuine, meaningful and unpretentious. Rather than doing something cliché and stereotypical out of duty, if there are to be any expressions of love and appreciation they should be done from the heart. As an artist, I have always thought that buying any sort of store-bought card is quite impersonal. Such a card takes a negligible amount of thought and creativity, and expresses very little of personal significance. When I do give cards for Valentines day, I always prefer to create them myself, either by hand or digitally, depending on my present mood and the complexity of my idea. In such manner, when I do give a card, it is something that is heartfelt and specifically crafted for its recipient. Poems and letters also have a personal touch and significance that far outweigh flowers or chocolates. Simple things are often more meaningful than elaborate gestures, since they always have a purity about them that overblown efforts more frequently lack.

Yet, the most important thing on Valentine's day is never what is done or given, but the specific person or relationship being celebrated. It is easy to lose sight of this in our materialistic age, and it is easy to allow expectations to prevent a person (giver or receiver) from fully enjoying the day. When one sets expectations for what is to be done or given, the emphasis is no longer on what truly matters (love, the person, and the relationship), but instead is on the token of expression. A giver who buys flowers and chocolates out of duty is worse than one who does nothing, because he misses the whole point of the day. Similarly, a receiver who expects to receive certain things also misses the point of the whole day and arbitrarily limits their enjoyment and delight. Chesterton offers a brilliant insight into the blissfulness that accompanies having no expectations:

The man who said, "Blessed is he that expecteth nothing, for he shall not be disappointed," put the eulogy quite inadequately and even falsely. The truth is, "Blessed is he that expecteth nothing, for he shall be gloriously surprised."

Because I enjoy celebrating that which is joyous and wonderful, and because I thoroughly embrace everything that Valentine's day represents and stands for, I am quite excited about the upcoming holiday. I am quite glad that personality exists, that personal relationships are real, that romance is not merely a fantasy, and that love is one of the truest and greatest parts of life! I am completely delighted by the shocking fact that there are two very different sexes, each glorious in its own way! I am extremely thankful for the wonderful people in my life, and especially for those who are the closest to me: my family, my best friend, and my girlfriend! Why should I hesitate to express myself in a way that is slightly more tangible than ordinary expression, when I express myself in so many ways in the ordinary course of things? Valentine's day is gift from God, and I shall rejoice in His love, which is the deepest of all, and in expressing my own love for others.

Of course, that isn't the only reason I celebrate--for some deep and mysterious reason, I have always found these surprisingly delicious and delightful:

Christianity and Moral Authority

2010-02-11T14:29:00.000-08:00

The strength of an appeal to moral authority (as with any other appeal to authority) lies in the validity of the claims of the authority. Since a logical argument is as strong it is presuppositions, an appeal to authority is as strong as the authority is.

The moral authority of a person or organization does depend on their foundational morality. In the case of the Church or Christians, their moral authority is not intrinsic and self-derived, but is derived from God’s moral authority.

The Christian presuppositions then are:
1. The God declared by Christianity exists
2. God has communicated to humanity truly

The conclusion is:
3. All humans are morally bound to follow God’s mandates

Concerning any particular moral claim made by an individual or organization, the only real question is: “Is this person or organization correctly declaring what God has spoken?” If such an entity correctly declares God’s truth, then their appeal to moral authority is valid. If such an entity perverts, denies, confuses or misrepresents God’s position, then their appeal to authority is invalid.

Christianity itself does encourage questioning what is taught and going to the source (the Bible) rather than blindly accepting the teachings of pastors, priests and preachers. Acts 17:11 says, “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” The principle expressed is that while whatever God says is definitely true, it is crucial to ensure that no entity is misrepresenting God’s position on a matter.

Projections of an Immoral Cynic

2010-02-10T16:19:00.000-08:00

Today, Talleyrand posted a rather harsh response to a Catholic article on men and marriage. While I thoroughly support dismantling the pretty lies foisted upon us by various blind and agenda-driven organizations and individuals, when I read Talleyrand's response, I couldn't help but be struck by the shocking amount of logical fallcies and reactiveness in his post. While I am not a strong supporter of the Catholic church (for various reasons), I do highly value the fact that the Catholic Church has a noble vision for what marriage should be, and actively advocates it. In this particular instance, I think that the article in question is quite a reasonable one. Let's break down Talleyrand's response to it and see whether his criticisms are valid, or whether they are merely projections of a cynic.

I bring this up because of the Catholic’s church “new” (read conservative) stance it is starting to take. I headed over to read one of the blogs that supposedly represents this sea change in the catholic church and I found this article on men and marriage. (Hat tip: Butterfly Squash)

I have said it before, and I will say it again, conservatives, liberals, and feminists are no friends of men because they refuse to accept the nature of women.

It may or may not be true that conservatives, liberals, and feminists refuse to accept the nature of women. However, in this particular case, such a complaint is unrelated to the article in question, which specifically states: "It is true that women have a role in all these matters. But this article is directed to men." Given that the article in question says nothing at all about the nature of women, this critism has zero applicability to the present article.

Lets get to dissecting the article.
Among the measures of mature manhood that God Himself sets forth is faithful, stable, committed marriage. After observing, It is not good for the man to be alone (Gen 2:18) God says ….A man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and the two of them shall become one flesh. Thus God indicates an essential description of manhood. This is what a MAN does.
Right from the get go we have shaming language. (Code Green: Peter Pan, Code Lavender: Masculinity). They posit the convenient interpretation of scripture that to be fully a man, you must get married.

Shaming language? Perhaps my reading comprehension is sadly deficient, but nowhere in that excerpt do I see any shaming occuring. Nowhere is Charles Pope saying that marriage is the only criteria for being fully a man--hence his use of the word "among." He is sharing his vision, based on Scripture, that marriage is a good thing, and that a mature, stable, committed marriage does indicate maturity in a man.

However, the advocation of a certain course of action cannot be accurately conflated with disparaging the abdication of such a recourse. That the author advocates marriage does not mean that he is shaming those who don't choose to get married. This is a blatant misreading or misinterpretation of the author's words.

The article’s next point is:
A mature man recognizes that it is not good, not healthy, for him to remain alone and unattached.
Right back to the shaming language. I am almost embarrassed for them. They can’t move on, they can’t even come up with new tactics, just the same old, same old. (Code White: Mental health). The writer does not say how it is unhealthy for the man to do this. He makes no explanation for the health benefits for marriage at all.

The writer isn't presenting any new thoughts or ideas. Instead, he is postulating the age-old Scriptural claim that was quoted in earlier in the article. If God Himself doesn't say how it is unhealthy for a man to be alone, why complain that the writer doesn't? It is sufficient to state the true nature of things. Whether an idea is new or old has no bearing on its veracity.

He fills a very long paragraph with more shaming language: You’re a boy, not a man if you don’t get married. (Code Green . . . again).

Rather than simply take your word for it, let's quote the article itself:

But a man, if he is a man, prepares himself for marriage, or perhaps for the priesthood or religious life. He is serious and steadfast about it. This may mean finishing college and embarking on the beginnings of a career but in the end he will accept the truth that it is not good for him to remain alone and unattached. In the recent past dating was usually understood as a time wherein one searched for a spouse. Today many see it “just for fun.” Marriage is postponed indefinitely. Many young men are not serious in searching for a spouse. Instead they “play the field” and use women sexually. They avoid commitment and drift from relationship to relationship. Some “father” children and still do not accept responsibility. They are not men, they are boys. For boys play. “Boys will be boys,” after all. Sadly many women allow and facilitate this immature and immoral behavior. But God is clear, a man (rather than a boy) accepts that it is not good for him to remain single and unattached and he respectfully seeks a wife.

Here, there is very specific shaming language. It is not, however, directed at those who choose to abstain from marriage, nor is it directed at those who are "serious and steadfast" in their aims towards marriage or towards a life calling that does not include marriage. It is directed at those who, "use women sexually," "avoid commitment," and "drift from relationship to relationship." It does not surprise me that Talleyrand is bothered by such a moral judgement, since his very lifestyle is exactly the one condemned by the author as boyish and irresponsible. While I much appreciate his honesty and openness about who he is and how he lives, the fact of the matter is that he is one who uses women sexually, avoids commitment and drifts from relationship to relationship. Since we do live in a world of objective morality, which is codified by God Himself, such behavior is destructive and deplorable. The author's shaming language isn't nearly strong enough. Not only is it sad that "many women allow and facilitate this immature and immoral behavior," I would say that it is digusting that men allow and facilitate this immature and immoral behavior. Something Talleyrand wrote yesterday resonated deeply with me:

We should be as good fathers to each other. What does a good father do? He teaches his son all the skills that he can, shows him the pitfalls, and he lets his children live their lives, make their own way, make their mistakes and suffer the consequences as well as the triumphs.

If we are to be good fathers to each other, we must not only instruct one another, but also correct one another. Discipline is an inescapable component of proper fatherhood. Scripture says, "For what son is there whom a father does not chasten?" (Hebrews 12:6) If we are to be good fathers to each other, then we must exhort one another to live righteously and pursue virture. We must hold each other accountable for immoral and irresponsible behavior and admonish one another to live justly, to show mercy and to walk humbly before God.

Scripture also insightfully says, "Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you. (Proverbs 9:8) Indeed, a litmus test of a man's character is how he receives correction. A wise man accepts correction and discipline with humility and graciousness. A fool rages against all sound judgment and hates those who offer reproof, since his pride and self-righteousness conflict with wisdom. One who does not receive correction is a fool.

Next point:
Having properly sought a wife he marries her and leaves his parents to establish a home.
Leaving aside the inherent shaming language of this statement, the paragraph encourages marriage but again it does so with shaming language. It does not go into why this is important, only that you must do it. Because God says so, is a nice way to fall back on moral authority, but since the catholic church has allowed itself to become girlie, it needs to do better than that.

Shaming language inherent in this statement? I don't see any. To declare how a mature man of purpose pursues marriage says nothing about those who don't.

Regarding the idea itself, Talleyrand commits the infamous genetic fallacy by rejecting the idea of marriage because "the catholic church has allowed itself to become girlie," rather than discussing the importance of marriage on its own merits. For those who accept God's truth, "Because God said so," is sufficient epistemological grounding. God's words are directly mentioned in the verse quoted in the article, "A man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and the two of them shall become one flesh." The author is quoting Scripture and affirming Scripture directly.

He actually commits his whole life to his wife

Bad Advice. Horrible advice. Advice that will get a man divorced in today’s day and age.

Good advice: A man makes his mission, not his woman, his priority.

To commit to something is not the same as making something the top priority. This is an equivocation fallacy. A man can commit to a woman, or a job, or a lease, or a bet, without it become the center of his world. In fact, in all these instances, it is best for a man to have a higher purpose behind his commitment. Christians are called to be committed to God above all else.

Too many men are passive husbands. Too often it is really the wife who works hardest to preserve the marriage.
O.k., the first part of this is true, but unfortunately not the way this priest believes. The second part is not true, unless you believe constant tests and undermining the man are in fact efforts to preserve the marriage. This guy is so unbelievably dense about human relationships that it makes me weep with frustration. That he is so arrogant to give men advice like this is proof that being a man of orders does not protect you from that deadly of sins: PRIDE.

It is presumption to jump too quickly to finger-pointing in either direction. While there are many women who actively destroy their relationships and marriages through constant tests and undermining, it is also true that too many men are passive husbands. To deny or fail to consider one's own sins or the sins of one's gender is also a clear manifestation of that deadly sin, pride. Not all men are passive, and not all women test and undermine. The author is stressing the importance of manly assertiveness, nothing more. These is nothing dense or arrogant about that.

This is what God says a real man does.
I challenge anyone to find where God uses the term “real man.”

In the Bible, God just uses the term "man." Implied in such a term is the reality of being masculine. The fact that the word "real" has to be appended is a sad reflection of contemporary cultural conditions.

A man doesn’t whine and say, “But what about the wife?!” He just does what he is supposed to do and does not point fingers. He accepts his own responsibility. Yes, there are men who have worked hard to preserve their marriage and the wife still walked away.
Remember this fool was advocating counseling earlier in his missive? Remember that? Think about what counseling is like with someone with the above attitude. You cannot complain, you cannot whine, you cannot point out wrongs, because that is not what a man does. He just sits and takes whatever shit sandwich is fed to him and he likes it.

When someone is making these statements, what he is really saying that as a man you need to take it like a slave.

You have no right to complain, you have no where to air your grievances in the catholic church, because “real” men don’t do this.

The author is advocating responsbility and assertive action. Whining accomplishes nothing, and is pathetic and wimpy. Nowhere is the author saying that a man shouldn't point out wrongs or hold others accountable. Before a man holds others accountable for their actions, he must first take responsibility for his own. Jumping to point fingers or remaining passive while waiting for others to change is a weak way to approach life.

In his reponse to the article, Talleyrand has constantly resorted to using fallacious arguments of numerous sorts. Much of what he protests isn't even being advocated by the author of the article. With a couple of minor exceptions, nearly all of the supposed instances of "shaming language" are nonexistent. In the one instance where the author is actually using shaming language, it is directed at precisely the sort of behavior Talleyrand regularly engages in. His defensiveness and reactionary perspective are thoroughly evident in his response, and are clearly being projected onto the author of the original article, whose intent is entirely different than Talleyrand appears to think it is.

While the author does make a few minor points that I would quibble with, his major points are all quite reasonable:
1. A stable, commited, faithful marriage is the calling of most men
2. A man should pursue his calling (either to marriage or to abstinence) in a serious and steadfast manner
3. Marriage should be pursued according to God's prescribed method, as outlined by Scripture
4. A man takes leadership in his family and manfully addresses any threats to marital unity
5. A man should take responsiblity for his own actions and live righteously, regardless of how others behave

Of course, as someone who lives in a contrary manner to all of these points, it is no surprise that Talleyrand would be driven by his emotions to attack such teaching. Talleyrand views marriage as something that is undesirable, and instead dedicates substantial energy to the hedonic pursuit of promiscuity with numerous women. He neither pursues marriage nor abstinence. He rejects God's authority and Scriptural teaching. He adopts an individualistic approach towards relationships, and is not concerned with marital unity or even with relational unity in romantic affairs at all. He does not live righteously and pursue virtue. Instead, bitterness, unbridled pessism and defensiveness surface in his attempt to dissuade others from valuing marriage, living righteously, and standing against the tide of social decay that unarguably surrounds modern men and women. His critisms of the Catholic article seem more to be a reflection of himself than a proper logical refuttal of any of the major points made. Rather than being a reasoned response, all he offers us is the projections of an immoral cynic.

Vision is Vital

2010-02-09T17:16:00.000-08:00

In talking with a friend last week, in thinking about the difference in various peoples' approaches to the cultural degradation of the day, in reading some comments that various people have made recently, and in writing my previous blog, I have been struck with the necessity of having a vision. Holding up an ideal, both as an individual and as a society, is a necessary prerequisite to effecting positive change. In many ways, a visionary is an artist whose medium is the world. Rather than expressing himself through music, painting, drawing, or writing, the visionary seeks to use the world as his medium and to shape it to match his artistic vision. Such a man has a clear model for how the world should be, and sets himself upon the task of changing the world to match his vision. The flipside of such a truth is that the man or society without a vision is powerless to make substantial positive change of any sort. Instead, without vision, entropy prevails.

This is a theme has been presented in various ways throughout time. One of my favorite illustrations of the necessity of direction is concisely conveyed in the brilliant writings of Lewis Carroll. From Alice in Wonderland:

"Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?"
"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said the Cat.
"I don't much care where--" said Alice.
"Then it doesn't matter which way you go," said the Cat.
"--so long as I get SOMEWHERE," Alice added as an explanation.
"Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

From the pages of Scripture:

Where there is no vision, the people perish. - Proverbs 29:18

From a recent post by Talleyrand:

Want to know the single. easiest way to figure out if a culture is dying?

Answer this question: Does the culture as a whole have a united vision of the future?

If the answer is no, the culture is doomed.

I could cite numerous other examples of this theme from various pages of ancient tomes and literary masterpieces. The point is quite simple. Given that we live an entropic world, where things naturally trend towards worse states of being, and where decay and degradation is the natural direction of things, intervention is necessary either for the betterment of things or even to maintain the status quo. If you wish to keep your lawn looking nice, you must be sure to water it regularly and cut it habitually. If you wish your house to be clean, you must put effort into it by occasionally tidying up, vacuuming, scrubbing, and dusting. To simply leave things alone is the ensure atrophy. Maintenance requires effort.

Improvement requires even more effort. In order to better anything, one must not only be willing to put effort into its betterment, but must also have a clear and fixed vision of what sort of betterment ought to be pursued. If I say that I wish to improve society, my statement is quite vacuous unless I can explain how I wish to improve society. Any vision that is worth its salt must be fixed, attainable, desirable, conceivable and actionable. I must be able to conceptualize the desired end of my aims. I must be able to take practical steps towards the realization of my vision. I must desire the attainment of my vision enough to put my heart into my efforts. If a vision is desirable but not practical it is mere idealism. If a vision is attainable but not desirable, it is too weak. If a vision is desirable but not conceivable or attainable, then it is impractical. If a vision is not fixed, then it will be as elusive as the horizon. All five element are necessary in a vision.

Yet our society has no such vision. We are a divided nation with various goals, none of which hold enough sway to inspire or unite our generation. We have a national leader who, despite his use of mimetic language, is much like Alice; though he knows what programs he wishes to support, he has no true conception of where America should go and no comprehension of how to lead us there. Our lack of societal vision stems from the lack of vision at the familial and personal levels. Individually, we have embraced resignation and apathy. As a majority of people no longer hold a vision for how the world should be, they no longer seek to mold it to fit their image. We lack strong leaders. We lack inspirational visionaries. The individualism and relativism of today leave us all wandering aimlessly in various directions, rather than united in pursuit of a common goal. For many, they have accepted the decline of Western civilization as inevitable and seek to take advantage of the moral and societal collaspe ensuing all around us. For others, they lack the self-efficacy or motivation to strive for change, even though they desire it.

If there is to be societal redemption, it will come through individuals and communities that hold a strong vision and are firmly committed to making their vision a reality. Neither individuals nor societies are beyond redemption. Cynics, skeptics and passive pessimists, for all their ranting, do not lift a finger to solve the problems of the day. Indeed, the social inertia they add compounds the problem. Contrarily, men and women who tirelessly work to remake the world according to their vision are the ones who write history and leave their mark on the canvas of time. In fact, many of those who have made a difference in the world testify to the very necessity of a visionary mindset.

To accomplish great things, we must dream as well as act.
Anatole France (1844 - 1924)

Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.
Theodore Roosevelt (1858 - 1919)

There is nothing like dream to create the future. Utopia to-day, flesh and blood tomorrow.
Victor Hugo (1802 - 1885)

The person who makes a success of living is the one who see his goal steadily and aims for it unswervingly. That is dedication.
Cecil B. DeMille (1881 - 1959)

History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.
Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)

One person with a belief is equal to a force of 99 who have only interests.
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)

You are not here merely to make a living. You are here to enable the world to live more amply, with greater vision, and with a finer spirit of hope and achievement. You are here to enrich the world. You impoverish yourself if you forget this errand.
Woodrow Wilson (1856 - 1924)

The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding, go out to meet it.
Thucydides (471 BC - 400 BC)

The future belongs to those who seize it. They seize it who want it the most and who pursue their vision most passionately. If there is any desire in the citizens of a nation to reach for utopia or to make a nation a more perfect place, they must have vision, both as individuals and collectively. When our nation was birthed, it had precisely such a vision, which is what inspired the preamble of our United States Constitution. Additionally, if there is any desire in the members of a society to attain betterment, they must expend their efforts to make it so. We truly must dream, as well as act, if we wish to make a difference.

The Solipsism of Individualism

2010-02-06T17:59:00.000-08:00

There is an interesting strain of hypocrisy that I have noted in the blogs of some writers whom I follow. There are many who attest to the truths of modern men and women, especially in regard to their mindsets concerning relationships. They rightfully decry the social decay and entropy that has gripped our culture. Yet, I have seen something that, though unsurprising, does strike me as blind and hypocritical. Many of them correctly recognize that typical American women are solipsististic--that is, they are extremely narcissistic, self-seeking and self-absorbed. Very few American women truly value the men in their lives. Very few of them are willing to be sacrificial or offer genuine love or support. Indeed, rampant individualism permeates the worldview of most modern Americans. We are self-seeking creatures, who are consumed with getting the best for ourselves, while remaining unconcerned with the feelings and well-being of others. This is a cultural disease that does not merely affect the women.

Fundamentally, there are two different approaches to relationship. The first is an individualistic perspective. Individualism is defined as: "the pursuit of individual rather than common or collective interests; egoism." Our culture indoctrinates people with this attitude from the time they are young. Through our experiences, through our families and through media and entertainment we are implicitly taught that since no one else has your best interests in mind, you must seek your own good and ensure your well-being at all costs. You must think of yourself before others. Your interests come before anyone else's. As such, in every area of life you must be on guard against those who would use you for their own gain, and ensure that your own well-being comes first. This consumeristic mindset is even taken into relationships. Whether in marriages, in dating relationships, or in one-night stands, this is the predominant attitude of the people in our culture. Each person is seeking their own interests, above that of their partner. The critical questions are, "What am I getting out of this relationship?" "Am I happy?" "Is this relationship working for me?" If the answers ever seem dissatisfactory, then the relationship quickly dissolves, and both partners continue seeking their own best interests in other relationships. Their first priority is personal gain, and the metric of that is primarily happiness. This is a solipsistic and selfish approach to relationships.

The second approach to relationship is a collectivistic approach. In this mindset, a person is not solely concerned with their own interests and well-being, but is simultaneously concerned with the well-being and interests of their partner. This mindset is radically different since it leads each person to care about other people. While it doesn't neglect self-interest, a collectivistic mindset is primarily others-centric. Through deference and mutual submission each person choses to seek the benefit of the other. This is a strongly counter-cultural attitude. It requires self-sacrifice, genuine commitment and trust from both partners in order to work at all. Such an attitude is the one preached by Christianity. In the words of Paul, "Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others." (Phillipians 2:4) Jesus, too, preaches about the centrality of self-sacrificial love towards both God and other people. "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." (John 13:34) That is a high calling! As witnessed in Jesus' own life, His love was what compelled Him to sacrifice His life that the world might be saved. Jesus commands His followers to live with a similar love for others. Paul extends this command to romantic relationships when he writes, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her." (Ephesians 5:25) Here, Paul commands all men to have a self-sacrificial love for their wives. A collectivistic approach to relationships, in which both partners view themselves not solely as individuals, but as part of a unified whole, demands that both husbands and wives love each other, and that wives are to submit to their husbands. When this rare attitude does exist bilaterally in a relationship there is a remarkable and beautiful unity which is evident. As both partners primarily seek joint happiness and mutual benefit, they are able to support each other, encourage each other and grow together. The archaic adage of a chain being as strong as its weakest link accurately describes such a union. To the degree that there is mutual love, respect and sacrifice, the two are stronger together. To the degree that such an attitude is lacking from either partner, the union, and both people individually, are that much weaker. A team-minded approach towards relationships is the attitude that God desires all people to have. It is the cure to the social disease of individualism that plagues our generation.

The lack of a self-sacrificial and submissive love is what is decried by many of my fellow bloggers. My criticism is that there are many such men who behave exactly like the women whom they judge. It might be true that today's women are the more solipsistic sex. Yet, when men embrace the same mindset in their approach to relationships, they do not see the cognitive dissonance between their words and their actions. Many of the men who complain that women are too self-centered, self-seeking and self-absorbed proceed to develop the very same traits in themselves. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the philandering lifestyles of several major practitioners of Game. They sleep with one woman after another, and quickly leave them in pursuit of hotter women, more excitement or for the thrill of the chase. Rather than seeking to find a woman of character who is selfless and committed and rather than standing against the current social tide, such men have hopped into the river and become one with the polluted paradigmatic currents.

To those who recognize the social maladies of individualism and the consumeristic mindset towards relationships and actively oppose such thinking by speaking out against it and living a life that is an example of the self-sacrificial love which cures such an affliction, I strongly support and heartily endorse your efforts. To those who recognize the flawed thinking of our age but stand aside and do nothing, I urge you to question your motives and your resolve. If our world is to be changed, we must believe that change is possible, hold a clear vision for what can be, and boldly take action to remake the world according to such a vision. To those who decry the solipsism and individualism of the opposite gender, whilst living with a self-absorbed and solely self-interested mindset, I am disgusted by your hypocrisy. The solipsism of modern women neither justifies nor excuses such behavior in men. Similarly, the selfishness of modern men does not justify or excuse such behavior in women. Beware lest you become like those you judge!

As for me, I have a vision for the way the world should be. Jesus' words and teachings describe the sort of world I seek to create, and the sort of behavior I seek to model and encourage. Even if all around me are utterly consumed in self-absorption, yet will I uphold the model of collectivism, which cannot be accurately conflated with either altruism or individualism. Rather than being solely self-seeking, or living solely for the good of others, I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ who preached loving one's neighbor while loving oneself. Collectivism seeks mutual benefit in relationship. This requires humility, graciousness, patience and a self-sacrificial, committed love. It also requires self-respect, independence and assertiveness. I will not be a timid pessimist who believes that victory is unattainable and therefore unworth pursuing. Resignation is not befitting a man of courage. Nor will I be a blind optimist, who lives in denial of the pervasive cultural degradation. A clear vision of both and the problem and the solution are necessary for real reform to occur. I take my stand against selfishness, individualism, and the hedonic pursuits of those who set forth their own happiness as the highest aim in life. Edmund Burke wisely noted, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." Come alongside me and fight against the social entropy by embracing my vision and working towards it!