temptation

Recent news regarding research performed at the USC Marshall School of Business indicates that positive reinforcement is more effective at getting people to avoid temptation than guilt. It doesn't sound like the research was extremely thorough, but the conclusions make a lot of sense to me.

An example of this that was mentioned in the story dealt with people's ability to resist eating cake. Three different groups of people were left in a room individually with a piece of cake and told they that they could eat it if they wanted to. One group was informed that they should contemplate their pride at resisting this temptation, one group was informed that they should contemplate their shame at eating the cake, and one group was the control group who did not receive positive or negative reinforcement. The group of people who were told to contemplate their pride at resisting temptation did better than the other groups, especially the one told to focus on shame.

The article gives three reasons why guilt is ineffective.

1. Guilt focuses thoughts on the temptation rather than on self-control. If you're thinking a lot about the object of your temptation you are more likely to cave to the temptation.
2. Guilt makes you feel bad in general, and this damages your resolve to fight the temptation.
3. Guilt makes the tempting thing seem more pleasurable, and therefore makes it more difficult to resist.

This aligns well with how I have learned that you are supposed to guide small children to right and wrong. For example, rather than yelling at your kids not to run inside, it is better to tell them that they should walk. This concept is very difficult for me to implement as a parent because I don't always know what behavior I want in my kids as quickly as what behavior I don't want. This concept goes further than parenting; though, and seems like it is very relevant to addictions.

I have never been to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, but if the movies are to be believed, people who share with the group tend to open with a positive: "Hi, my name is Dust and I am an alcoholic. I have been alcohol-free for seven months." While it may sound like a downer, the focus is on acceptance within the group despite your weaknesses, and pride in the success of resisting temptation for a period of time. Obviously, there is more to Alcoholics Anonymous than this, but if the meetings consisted merely of visiting speakers berating them for their weaknesses instead of allowing people to think about their successes I'd bet it would be far less successful at what it does.

I think this points to an area where much of the church is ineffective. The churches that I am used to are good about doling out the guilt for things that are wrong. I have started asking myself the last few years whether this truly does any good, though. Certainly sin should be called sin, but if spiritual nagging makes people more apt to fall to temptation, then there has to be a more effective way of helping people get out of their addictions. Of course it is through God's strength that we have freedom from sin, but we are to help bear each others burdens (Gal 6:1-2). If that is the case, then we have a responsibility to assist in the most effective way we know how.

So, if you are helping someone avoid temptation how would you go about doing it? Here are the steps I would follow.

• Pray.
• Praise successes.
• Maintain humility throughout the process (Gal 6:3).
• Praise successes.
• Encourage the person to visualize success and imagine how good it will feel to overcome than the temptation.
• Praise successes.
• Analyze failures to see what went wrong, but don't dwell on them.
• Praise successes.
• Encourage the person to listen for the Spirit's guidance (Gal 5:16).
• Praise successes.

holocaust stories

We are going through The Hiding Place in our Sunday morning class at church right now. It is a very powerful and well-thought-out book, and so it is a good choice. I don't think I am the intended audience, though. This got me to thinking about who is the audience for a story about the Holocaust.

Several people close to me have gone through periods where they were strongly interested in the Holocaust. I have no intent of invalidating that interest, but I do not personally understand it. My reaction to these sorts of stories is due to the fact that it is sadness and loss piled onto more sadness and loss. Even when the story has a happy ending I feel exhausted by that point. I do have to admit that there are some sad stories I am drawn to. Holocaust stories are simply not among them.

I don't want to imply that my perspective on this is the one that is the most valid, though. If you have an interest in Holocaust stories or think you may have some insight into their draw leave a comment. I'd love to get a fresh perspective.

metaphor in toy story 3

There are spoilers in this post from Toy Story 3. My assumption is that at this point you will have seen the movie or you won't care if part of the movie is spoiled. This is a heads up nonetheless.

Over the last nine months or so I have watched Toy Story 3 countless times with the kids. After seeing it so many times, I have come to the conclusion that it is meant on some level to be a metaphor for Old Testament Israel or Judah, which does make some sense if there is near the Jewish influence in modern media that a lot of people believe there is.

By my interpretation Woody is a prophet, akin to Isaiah or Jeremiah. Also, Andy is God, Buzz represents the nation's ruler, the rest of Andy's toys represent the nation, and the kids at daycare represent other nations' false gods. One representation that I think is intentional, but that I am less sure of, is Lotso Hugging Bear as Satan.

As the story is introduced the toys (the people of the nation) are trying to find ways to get Andy's (God's) attention. This is because they (the nation) have needs that aren't getting met and they feel like Andy (God) is ignoring them. Events occur to exacerbate that feeling, and so all of the toys (the nation) except Woody (the prophet) want to turn their back on Andy (God) and stay at Sunnyside Daycare with all of the younger kids (false gods) until they understand the implications of their decision. Buzz (the king) ultimately makes the decision that the toys (the nation) are not Andy's (God's) any more in the face of Woody's (the prophet's) argument that they will always be Andy's (God's).

Lotso (Satan) makes the children in the Caterpillar room (false gods) sound like an appealing option, then traps them in their decision to stay with the children (false gods). The children (false gods) mistreat the toys (the nation), but the toys (the nation) are stuck because they have forsaken Andy (God). In the process, Lotso (Satan) corrupts Buzz (the king) who in turn holds the toys (the nation) hostage.

Woody (the prophet) appears with information from the outside and hope for freedom. He also has information on Lotso (Satan) that he is a fallen toy (demon) because of what happened between him and his kid (God). The toys (the nation) agree that Woody is right (repent) and decide to attempt to escape the daycare (false gods) and return to Andy (God). During this time Buzz goes through his own transformation (repentance) process.

Toward the end, the toys (the nation) are almost condemned to destruction at the dump (Hell) as Lotso (Satan) taunts them with the question, "Where's your kid (God) now?" While the concept of Hell is more New Testament and Christian than Old Testament and Jewish, it could also represent destruction at the hands of the Assyrians or Babylonians. Regardless, the toys are ultimately saved.

The metaphor is not perfect, and so there are a lot of holes you could poke in my theory if you wanted. For example, once you introduce Bonnie you are introducing polytheism, which is stridently inconsistent with Old Testament theology. While the kids in the Caterpillar room are representative of false gods, what about the kids in the Butterfly room? If you follow the metaphor too strictly, it sounds like Ken and Barbie stayed with the false gods, and this wasn't portrayed as a bad thing. Perhaps most importantly, Andy (God) plays only a very minor role in ultimately assisting the toys.

I understand that you can make almost any story fit into any structure you want to illustrate whatever point, but I have to believe that at least one of the writers was attempting to implement either a Christian or Jewish perspective into the framework of the story by including a series of related Old Testament themes. That's what it looks like to me at least.