The Insightfulness of a One-Line Marketing Slogan

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 Facades We Use

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 Post Worth Highlighting

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

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

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

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.

Wayward Beings

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.

Biblical Wisdom: Debt-Free Living

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.

American Poverty Isn't About Lack of Resources

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

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.

Women Are Sponges

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

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

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.

The Double-Edged Sword of Social Influence

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.

A Time For Everything

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.

In Defense of Stereotypes

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.

Dull or Interesting - A Lifestyle Choice

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.

Relationship Killers: Unbalanced Priorities

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.

Contract Quoting - The "Fickle" Fee

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.