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.

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.

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

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..."

Popular pastor has provocative perspective

Pastor Rob Bell has prompted some controversial conversation again. His new book challenges the common Christian belief that hell is real. The book is called Love Wins: Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. Pastor Bell asks, "Will only a few select people make it to heaven? And will billions and billions burn forever in hell?" I have not read the book but it is reported that Bell says this is not the case.

Regardless of how the Right Reverend Rob actually answers his own question, the fact that he raises such a question is controversial enough. A news article has already provided responses suggesting that Bell may be "betraying truth" with "severe consequences." Some have implied that he may be a wolf in sheep's clothing, preaching a false gospel.

And suddenly, we are right in the middle of the really great debate, "What is required of a human to be considered eligible for eternal reward instead of eternal hellfire?"

For those of you who just leaped mentally to your catechism answer to a similar style of catechism question, just hold your horses. I know this seems like a softball being lobbed up to you for a grand-slam easy homerun. It's FAITH!!! Right? Just believe! Right? Some of you may add "repentance" and "faithfulness" or even "sacraments." But I think this issue requires some actual contemplating, not just standard rehearsed answers.

This debate is not about easy answers. The arguments can happen "in-house" and obviously between opponents. And there never is a resolution, so...the answer can't be easy.

Do you have to believe in hell to make it to heaven? Do have to believe in heaven to make it to heaven? Do you have to repent out loud or just in your heart? Is salvation a one-time thing which is permanent, or is it an ongoing conversion experience? Do you have to be faithful all the time or just try as much as you can most of the time? Do you have to believe in a T-shaped cross or can it be the plus-sign cross? What about baptism? What about God as a Trinity? Do you have to attend organized religious church functions, or can your spiritual life be a more personal thing that never involves a church building? Is it okay to believe a whole bunch of wrong things as long as your heart is in the right place? Is it okay to have your heart in the wrong place as long as you believe ALL of the right things?

What about homosexuality? What about abortion advocates? There are a variety of issues that people might say, "You cannot possibly be a Christian, and still do this, or still think that..."

Who gets to provide an authoritative answer to these questions? This is the "heart" of the issue.

People tend to think that their own perspective is the correct and authoritative way of handling these questions. Right? Pastor A says you don't have to believe in hell. Pastor B says denying the existence of hell is a false gospel and you absolutely do have to believe in hell. Pastor A says Pastor B is adding a stumbling block to the gospel and leading people astray. Pastor B says Pastor A is a wolf. Pastor A says Pastor B is a heretic. And on and on and on and on and on.

"The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will." - Westminster Catechism

If you are the sort that likes easy answers, all that needs to happen to settle the debate is for everyone to come to a clear agreement about what has been "revealed" as "God's will."

Armed Truth

This week, a friend of mine posted this quote on Facebook from Martin Luther King Jr.'s Nobel Prize acceptance speech:

"I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality...I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word..." (10 December 1964)

On first glance, I found the quote interesting and encouraging. But something just doesn't feel quite right about it. Of course, the general idea is easy enough, that "good" should be trusted to ultimately win over "bad." But the expression "unarmed truth" is what troubles me.

Can there be such a thing as unarmed truth? Maybe in theoretical terms, but in real life, truth requires interpretation and understanding. Truth is not really it's own thing. It requires delivery by some party, and acceptance by another party. The problem is that utterances described as "truth" are actually delivered by multiple conflicting parties, and then accepted or at least heard by multiple other conflicting parties. So even though no injury is intended, in real life, truth is armed. As someone clever once said, the truth hurts. As some other dude said, the truth is like a double-edged sword.

I don't see the opponent to Martin Luther King Jr's hope being a starless midnight darkness and despair, rather I see the opponent being the natural human difficulty of attaining a uniformed acceptance of "truth."

Boundary Drawing

This is a fascinating article which highlights two very different ways to look at one "really important" issue. For those of you who never fail to read and absorb my ruminationisms on this site, you are in no need of my prefatory remarks on grasping the heart of the article without being distracted by the provocative particulars mentioned in it. You may skip to the next paragraph with my profound thanks. For the rest of you, please take some time to browse my other posts before clicking on this link. I need you to put your thinking caps on and be prepared to read an article which includes ideas you may vehemently oppose. Rather than allowing your mind to dwell on the fact that this guy is in a different camp from you, please try to consider the bigger picture.

When you establish boundaries or when you adopt other boundaries as your own, the obvious implication is that you have some reason to determine who is inside with you and who is outside and unlike you. Whether this involves an athletic team, a country's citizenship, or a church tradition, there is a desire to know who is in and who is not. As referenced in the article linked here, sometimes the regulations and definitions of inclusion have very important consequences. And "important" scenarios involve great tension if a group of outsiders are determined to tear down the wall.

So what boundaries interest you? Which walls are you concerned to preserve, ensuring resistance to opposition? If a group of outsiders is making serious progress on upsetting your boundaries, do you consider this "the end of the world?" Or do you ponder the possibility that your boundaries may not have been rightly placed and may not be needed after all for the world to carry on existing?

CLICK HERE:

"For them, the erasure of traditional boundaries does indeed threaten the boundaries upon which their archaic civilization is built."

It's Hammer Time, Put On Your Gloves

Religion. Politics. Parenting. Name your issue that prompts strong opinions. Whatever it is, everyone reading my blog can relate to the concern of being “right” about something and wanting to help someone who is “wrong” to see the light.

Some of you will recall that I referred you back in the Fall of 2009 to the “Can You Hear Me Now?” series of articles by Dale McGowan. The prompting for this post also comes from McGowan, but the meat of it is actually the work of Phil Plait. Both individuals possess and encourage ideas which are offensive to some of you, but the point of the post is to remind us all to be more receptive when our prized opinions are challenged, regardless of the colors on our jersey. So, be challenged and respond appropriately, whether you are actively religious, casually atheist, compassionately conservative, flaming liberal, homeschooling father of 12, public-school mother of 1, whatever.

Here are a few teaser notions from the piece:

“How do you convince someone that they are not thinking clearly when they’re not thinking clearly?”

“If a person’s self-identity is wrapped up in what they believe to be true, it is understandable if they are reluctant to permit challenges to their perception of truth.”

“When hammering a nail into a wall, it’s important to pound the nail without destroying the wall.”

“It is difficult to be rational and introspective when an attack has you on the defensive.”

“When we are trying to persuade other people, we are not at war and therefore do not need to be warrior-like, we need to be diplomats.”

“Entrenched belief can mask itself as rational thought and then you find people unwilling to question themselves. If people are not willing to question their own stances, hubris may creep in while logic is left by the wayside.”

“Communication is key. The best idea ever thought of in the history of humanity is useless unless someone communicates it.”

Dale McGowan recommends Phil Plait...CLICK HERE.

My previous suggestion for the Can You Hear Me Now series: CLICK HERE

November 2009 “Community Division” post at this blog: CLICK HERE

Racial Diversity...oh no he didn't!

Thomas Sowell is concerned with a "mentality that turns statistical differences into grievances." He says, "The time is long overdue to throw this race card out of the deck and start seeing it for the gross fallacy that it is." Sowell is responding to an article which appeared in the New York Times earlier this week. The suggestion was that a statistical disparity in the skin-color of third-base coaches vs. first-base coaches reveals lingering racism in Major League Baseball.

Sowell disagrees that there is any cause for concern as the NYT writers are making a mistake with a misguided notion "that nobody can demonstrate is taken as a norm, and any deviation from that norm is somebody’s fault!"

Anyone reading the NYT article without a critical eye might be tempted to buy what the writers are selling. And as Sowell points out, "as long as we keep buying it, they'll keep selling it."

But with the aid of an opposing article, who can argue with Sowell's observation about the unreliability of these sorts of statistical disparities? "Anyone who has watched football over the years has probably seen at least a hundred black players score touchdowns-and not one black player kick the extra point. Is this because of some twisted racist who doesn’t mind black players scoring touchdowns but hates to see them kicking the extra points?"

The Arkansas Democrat Gazette ran Sowell's column yesterday. The title was "Bean Counters and Baloney" for those of you reaching for your hard copy.

Here is an online copy of "Bean Counters and Baloney" (CLICK HERE)

Here is an online copy of the original New York Times article (CLICK HERE)

Here is Thomas Sowell's homepage (CLICK HERE)

Shedding Some Light On Certainty

Some way or other, I recently encountered the website, "Religion Dispatches", and became a fan on Facebook. (Here is an explanation of what the website is about: CLICK.) Browsing their homepage today, I noticed an excerpt from a new book, Frank Schaeffer's Patience With God: Faith for People Who Don't Like Religion (or Atheism). I am a sucker for a provocative title and had recently seen Mr. Schaeffer's name mentioned elsewhere, so I checked this excerpt out and then proceeded to Mr. Schaeffer's website and read a review of the new book.

To say the least, I'm intrigued. I am more and more interested in recent years in discussions of "certainty" on matters where certainty may be impossible and/or potentially dangerous. Particularly, I like to see light shown into corners that are normally permitted to remain dark. It seems to me that far too little time is spent by opinionated people actually pondering epistemology, which can lead to bewilderment when they express something as a certain fact and are then told that their fact is actually a matter of opinion or faith.

The review I mentioned above concludes with this provocative morsel from the reviewer Jordan Richardson, "...our lack of unity on issues of faith and, indeed, anything else can and should be blamed on nothing more than our frail, malicious craving to be right."

In the follow-up comments to the review, Mr. Richardson adds this reply to a fan of certainty, "The fact of the matter is that you accept your worldview by faith, not because you know for sure. We all do, in fact. This book suggests that we understand that the very concept of faith is something we come by with fear and trembling, with uncertainty, and with tolerance for others. Why? Because we're all in the same boat attempting to understand this world of ours."

Here is a link for the book.

Here is a link for the referenced review.

Fruit of the tree

"We are, I believe, pretty much what we seem to be...most of us are who we will ourselves to be. Some of us are more introspective than others, more given to questioning the authenticity of our feelings and pangs of existential dread. But we are defined by what we do in the world, not by prattling internal monologues. Motives matter less than effects: Give money to do-gooder causes and you are charitable. Comfort a crying child and you are being kind. Apply your attention and care to the needs of afellow creature and you are loving.

While there may be a real and persistent voice inside you announcing your uniqueness and indestructibility, the evidence of the world contradicts those notions. You are special only to the extent that your life is a mathematical improbability, you are as dispensable as any of the funny names in the musty old books. What your hearttells you is not always correct-the world does not recognize your exceptionalistic claims. The world knows you only through your deeds.

Practice living decently and you become decent, no matter what mad bats flap in your heart."

Quote from Philip Martin's "Living Decently Even in Ordinary Ways" from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette 11/15/09, Perspective Section