Hiatus

This blog is on hiatus. If you find me posting anything somewhat "regularly," it will be at http://mikedterrell.blogspot.com. Thanks for your interest.

Happy Father's Day

I am a loved father. My family regularly makes me feel special, but today, I am receiving special attention of course. The smell of a really great lunch is in the air, with the promise of key lime pie to follow. I have received a new pair of shoes for tennis, much needed and appreciated. Boyd (age 3 1/2) has received his first tennis racquet (sounds like a gift for him, but at this point, it's more of a gift to me to know that everyone in my family is excited about playing a sport I love). I have a new set of chess pieces on the way which is good for family fun, and we'll soon be playing with my new Jenga game. I'm also looking forward to a trip out to the neighborhood pool today. As often as we visit the pool, you would think it would feel very ordinary, but I still am not used to it. I love it. And I love how much the children love it; we are still several hours away from heading out the door, and several of my children are already in their suits!! Thank you to my family for loving me. I love you.

Andrew Sullivan: Christianity in Crisis

"...many suburban evangelicals embrace a gospel of prosperity, which teaches that living a Christian life will make you successful and rich. Others defend a rigid biblical literalism, adamantly wishing away a century and a half of scholarship that has clearly shown that the canonized Gospels were written decades after Jesus’ ministry, and are copies of copies of stories told by those with fallible memory. Still others insist that the earth is merely 6,000 years old—something we now know by the light of reason and science is simply untrue. And what group of Americans have pollsters found to be most supportive of torturing terror suspects? Evangelical Christians. Something has gone very wrong." 


Thank you to Frank Schaeffer for pointing me to this interesting article from Andrew Sullivan. READ THE REST HERE.

Loving Little Rock

There are loads of reasons to love Arkansas and particularly, Little Rock. One of them I have mentioned before and will no doubt mention in the future: the Arkansas Symphony Orchestra. I am not able to attend every performance they offer, but when I do go, it is always an excellent experience. Next weekend, the Masterworks series event will be "Russian Winter." I'm looking forward to hearing the featured pianist, Dmitri Alexeev.

His bio on the ASO's website is impressive, and after next weekend, the first group on this list will of course be the Arkansas Symphony Orchestra: "He has performed with such orchestras as the Berlin Philharmonic, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Philadelphia Orchestra, Royal Concertgebouw of Amsterdam, the five London orchestras, Orchestre de Paris, Israel Philharmonic and the Munich Bavarian Radio Orchestra."


Link to the show.
Link to Alexeev's bio.

Hate? Love? Respect?

There was a time not too many years ago that I would have absolutely relished the opportunity created by the recent "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus" video online. I would have stayed up until a crazy hour of the morning writing blog posts and commenting on other blogs. I would have taken a smug posture toward the "poet" and anyone "liking" his work.

The fact that I have shown restraint on this occasion is not an indication that I agree with the sentiments expressed, or that I don't care about the debate. But these days, I honestly have greater respect for adherents on both sides of the discussion. I see points of ignorance and/or misunderstanding, but instead of pouncing on them to demonstrate some sense of superiority on my part, I recognize that (a) I've been there myself, and (b) there is ignorance and misunderstanding on both sides of most debates, even among the people who are supposed to be demonstrating higher levels of learning and maturity.

Who can authoritatively say that the young poet in the video below is a heretic who is doing damage to the real message of Christian faith? Who can say that the young priest in the other video below is a heretic doing damage to the real gospel? It could be argued that these two are opponents on an "essential" point, but who wants to say whether one may be in danger of eternal hellfire? If neither of these opposing views has eternal consequences, what may that mean?

Is Banking Bad?

I don't always agree with Nicholas Kristof, Op-Ed Columnist for the New York Times, but I always respect his opinion. Kristof has a way of expressing himself that endears him to me even when I'm not nodding in affirmation of his point. In the case of the following link, I actually do endorse his message. Take some time to read this. It grabbed my attention because of my experience with banking, but I think anyone can relate even if you've not been in the field. Let me know what you think of this.

"Is Banking Bad?" CLICK HERE FOR THE ARTICLE

Mind the Recommendations

Recommending a few links. It has been a while since you've seen any activity here on the blog.

Wilson's Home Improvement does windows and siding in Arkansas. We had a great experience with them for our new windows.

London's Natural History Museum recently had a visit from my family and we had a lot of fun.

The Queen's Theatre (home of Les Miserables) was the destination for a memorable date night with my wife a couple of weeks ago.

BBC One's series "Sherlock" is excellent. The first series can be seen in the US. The current series (Series 2) is not coming to the US until May, BUT I was able to see the first episode during our recent trip!!

The Arkansas Razorbacks football team finished in the Top 5 nationally after winning this year's Cotton Bowl. The basketball team appears to be returning to exciting style.

The Count of Monte Cristo was even better for the second time reading it. It is likely I will try to read it every year.

Imitation, not always flattering

Imagine you are sitting across from someone who is venting about another person's behavior. Whatever the particular issue is, the motivation for the "bad" behavior is being construed as somehow offensive or unethical, and certainly wrong, maybe even disgusting. The motivation is...quite clearly...selfishness. The offending party has done something based on their own self-interest, and the offended party is...offended. 


I am fascinated when someone is upset by a behavior or motivation that is quite common and natural. We can set an expectation for others that we are not willing to apply to ourselves. I can act based on my self-interest, but you must not imitate me; you must act based on your interest in my well-being, not your own.


Earlier this week, Pat Forde of ESPN wrote an article regarding the Texas A&M / Baylor situation as the Big 12 football conference appears to be falling apart. On the one hand, you have Texas A&M doing what they want to do, and on the other hand, you have Baylor doing what they want to do...and then lots of affected and non-affected spectators crying foul about the blatant selfishness of whichever party they disagree with. Forde writes, "Everyone is chasing its own best interests...and everyone is outraged at everyone else for being so selfish and ignoring the common good."

If you are going to complain about someone else acting in their own self-interest, I will not say to you "first stop acting in your own self-interest," because I do not think it is possible. But I do suggest that you keep your voice down at least. Because someone who advocates selflessness might call you a hypocrite and start telling you about a plank in your own eye.

Non-Unique Clause

If you regularly follow my writings here, on Facebook, and now on Twitter, you may be tempted to heartily embrace my way of thinking and quite naturally give me far too much credit. This possibility leads me to disclose that pretty much all of my thoughts have been thought by others. I arrive at some ideas somewhat independently (without simply reading another person's words), but even that doesn't allow me to claim much intellectual innovation since I can usually find where someone else also got there somewhat independently...before me.

Self-Interest: Group Edition

You have no doubt come to expect that my posts here are often going to relate in some way to self-interest as a primary motive for human behavior. I'm fascinated by the topic. There are a variety of angles from which to ponder it.

Today, I read an article dealing with "coalitional interest" or more simply stated, motivation for group behavior. The general idea is that a human is always going to act with self-interest as a very high priority, but in a coalition setting, a person is persuaded that the objectives of the group can promote and even enhance the individual's ability to achieve his goals. This can even involve a sense of personal compromise on some points as a higher value is placed on the shared interests among the group. But, coalitional interest does not involve abandonment of self-interest, it is actually just a tool in the realm of self-interest.

The more fascinating aspect to me is the issue of conflict or negotiation between two opposing groups. Whatever the shared interest is within a group, it could be described in a similar way to an individual's "core" self. The coalitional interest is not on the table for compromise, rather it is the primary purpose of the self-interested individuals in that group to achieve that goal, or advance that idea, or approve that activity, etc.

Opponents in a coalitional disagreement are going to serve their own interests by defining the terms of the debate in the way that most benefits their point. The "facts" are going to be collected and presented in the most favorable way for achieving the joint purpose. Both sides will deny that self-interest affects their presentation of "plain facts," and then both sides will cry foul, accusing the other of grossly distorting the truth in service to the obviously misguided agenda.

This brief tidbit is an example given in the article mentioned above and linked below:

Economic inequality creates coalitional conflict within nations, because it advantages some citizens (the upper class) and disadvantages others (the lower class). The upper class tends to argue that inequality is morally good (e.g., "it's the result of rewarding people who work harder than others"), whereas the lower class tends to say it's bad (e.g., "it's the result of unequal opportunities").

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE by Dr. Michael Price at his Psychology Today blog.

Things you never knew you never knew

Our family took a trip to Gulf Shores, AL last week. It was a great vacation, and it afforded us the opportunity to listen to LOTS of Disney movie soundtracks. I'm a big fan of cinematic orchestra, which has always aided my enjoyment of Disney movies. One song stood out to me on this particular trip, because it is one that I have known for a long time and a lyric jumped out that resonated with some of the ideas I've expressed on this blog.

You think the only people who are people
Are the people who look and think like you
But if you walk the footsteps of a stranger
You'll learn things you never knew you never knew

Thank you Pocahontas (Disney that is, since I have no idea if she said these sorts of things in real life). Special thanks of course to the composer Alan Menken and lyricist Stephen Schwartz.

Where does your argument originate?

You feel like you handle yourself in a rational manner with regard to discussion of some issues and situations, but then there are some topics where you seem prone to an irrational adrenaline-generating almost-angry response. Why?

You explain a view on an important topic very calmly and respectfully to a friend or family member, but they seem blatantly closed-minded in their refusal to really engage in conversation about it. Why?

You have a particular perspective on a variety of issues. When you are challenged in a view that you hold very dear, it feels almost like a personal "attack" because that view is so valuable that you associate it with your very identity or "core" self. You might claim to be "open" to correction "if" you are wrong, but you deeply believe that you are right.

I recently encountered an excellent and brief commentary on why our responses to being challenged can vary from civil and intellectual to irrational and strongly emotional. I have modified this quote only slightly to remove potentially distracting context. It was written in a comment stream following a blog post, and it was addressed to a previous commenter. Please share your thoughts.

The way you wrote really gives your neurologically informed reader a clear picture of where the blood and oxygen was flowing in your brain while you wrote and where it was not. When you lash out with personal attacks such as “How…terrible of you,” “You are disingenuous,” and “Shame on you,” followed by sweeping generalizations, you really paint a graphic picture of what the electroencephalogram of your thoughts looked like as you transcribed those thoughts. There is a reason why serious intellectual discourse (as opposed to political sensationalism, demagoguery, and old fashion priest craft) requires civility, politeness and etiquette. When you make a debate personal and emotional the way you have, you redirect the flow of blood and oxygen in your brain away from the higher neomammalian cerebral cortex and down to the lower paleomammalian and reptilian parts of the central nervous system that are responsible for activating the fight or flight responses in a person (see triune brain theory). These centers however are not responsible for higher level abstract thinking, categorization, and compartmentalization. The “knife” of the lower more primitive parts of the brain that your are using in your writing are really a very blunt and dull instrument with which to dissect ideas and decipher their value. In fact, with those lower parts of the brain, the tendency is to set up knee jerk prejudices and a black and white sense of who is a like minded part of your “in-group,” i.e. looks like you and reminds you of yourself, making you feel safe, and who is the terrifying “other” or “out-group” that you don’t identify with you and whom you wish blindly to either destroy or assimilate into a clone of your own image by force.

And that precisely, is the definition of pre-humanism. You don’t identify with all humans as part of your group. You have hard and fast rules and dogmas about who is part of your “in-group” and who is in the “out-group,” and the thought of merging those two groups makes you froth at the mouth, rage, and hurl personal insults. That sounds like a classic example of primitive homogeneous in-group-ism. If you want to join something better and bigger than yourself and become part of a conversation rather than a war, you might want to start with some breathing exercises–yoga perhaps–before you try to join in a discourse so that you can redirect the flow of blood in your brain back up to the higher levels of neomammalian evolution, so we can see if you actually have the capacity to share any intelligent perspectives. - WRITTEN BY Thoth Coon

Helping hand or fighting fist?

I recently encountered a very brief and simple exchange on Facebook where I was reminded of the basic underlying arguments between "conservatives" and "liberals" about government-arranged financial aid for people whose problems fall in the "social" category (as opposed to disaster relief, for instance). I like arguments of this nature when there is some sort of reasonableishness being expressed on both sides. One thing I don't have much patience for is arguments where one or both parties are primarily opposing while avoiding proposing. I might make a t-shirt, "Don't just oppose...propose."

Really, all I'm saying is that if you are dissatisfied with the current manner of "solving" a problem, don't just raise your hand to say you don't like it, unless you have an alternative solution in mind.

The Situationist Blog has drawn attention to a New York Times piece which deals with behavioral research. I hope that behavioral research will get more attention in general, especially from people who are against helping others who need help.

CLICK THE LINE BELOW:
"People are complicated. If we're going to address problems, we need to understand..."

New Mobile View of my Blog

If you are visiting via your smart phone, you've noticed that I enabled a new Blogger feature for mobile viewing. I like it. AND I'm posting this message using the Email-to-Blog feature for the second time today!

How clever do you really think you are?

I've had this on my to-do list for days and cannot manage to make time for it. A friend recently posted this link on Facebook and I "liked" it in Facebook-terms as well as liking it in normal terms. Take a few moments to browse the article. If you like it, take a few moments to browse the rest of this guy's site. Interesting stuff.

Suggested Article:
Theme: Once you adopt a belief about something, you guard that belief and refuse to objectively consider contrary advice / suggestion / evidence.
Click here: You Are Not So Smart: The Backfire Effect

Main site where the above blog post is found:
You Are Not So Smart
A Celebration of Self-Delusion
written by David McRaney

New Email-to-Blog Feature

Do you know people whose general ethics include this notion? If I can get away with it, it's okay to do.

Turning Older? Nah, Just Celebrating Another Year of Youth

Today is my birthday. Many people are taking the day off from work tomorrow. Coincidence?

I've had a good day and I haven't even had my cake yet (but I can smell it cooking and I'm tellin' you, it's gonna be good).

I'm looking forward to reading my new book, Remembering Fenway Park (PURCHASE HERE). I've spent enough time browsing it already to know that it is awesome.

We had a nice lunch out with my parents, and then went to the National Park Aquarium in Hot Springs (LINK HERE) which was quite interesting.

Not taking the narrow way

I was recently directed to an apology, composed and delivered by a pastor to his congregation, and made available to the general public. I have no direct interest in the mess being addressed there, but I am intrigued by this scenario where a leader, not found engaging in scandalous crimes, would be persuaded to stand in front of his followers and apologize for providing a hurtful type of leadership. Not just intrigued, refreshingly intrigued.

Forget about the details, the general picture here is that a leader was told that his way of leading was hurtful, and instead of bristling at the confrontation, he not only accepts the correction but then goes out to his congregation and the general public to apologize and promise change.

In this case, the error related to presenting too narrow a path for faithfulness. It seems he was proclaiming "narrow is the way" and then also leading his followers to believe that they should only walk along a particular line at 1/3 the width of the already narrow way. This over-narrowing is not at all unique, but I would suggest that this apology for the error is quite extraordinary.

We should all applaud anytime someone is willing to say something along these lines, "My particular way of thinking and acting is not the only right way of thinking and acting. There are other ways that are also right. It was wrong of me to suggest otherwise."

Cheers to Joshua Harris, probably best known as author of I Kissed Dating Goodbye. Click this link to READ THE APOLOGY.

"...this is a disservice to you...also a problem because it can lead to a legalistic environment where some people are more concerned with what other people practice...has also resulted in people feeling judged by others for not having the same practice...we have often done a poor job..."

Do you find yourself interested in the topic of self-interest?

I have on numerous occasions determined that I would be much more diligent to post with regularity on this blog. This determination has sometimes resulted in regular posts, and other times, it has been as effective as a wet spaghetti noodle in a log chopping contest. So, with some hesitation, I hereby say for the record that I do intend to resume some regular effort at updating this old web log. We'll see.

Meanwhile, one of the topics that has interested me in recent years is self-interest as a motivation for a variety of behaviours, if not all behaviours. So maybe I'll finally get around to sharing a few thoughts here that have bounced around in my big head for so long.

Here is an article from the Psychology Today website that I think you might find interesting. (By this, I mean that I find it interesting and I'm guessing that you, as one of my readers, are clever enough to be interested by things that interest me.) The article is a post in a blog called "Greaseless" by Dr. Loretta Graziano Breuning. It is called, "Self-Interest Drives Animals to Dominate or Submit"...CLICK HERE TO READ

St Patrick's Day Parade

Downtown Little Rock, crossing the river into North Little Rock...from one Irish pub to the other. We plan to check it out:

IRISH CULTURAL SOCIETY OF ARKANSAS

Contranym

I learned a new word today. It seems strange to me that I hadn't known it before. You may have already caught it in use over on my sidebar to the right. Contranym is a word that has two opposite or contradictory meanings. Examples in the following link include fast, buckle, weather, and overlook:

Answers.com for "Contranym"