neurotypical

Having a teenage son on the autism spectrum has given me pause to re-evaluate a lot of interactions that I've had with other people throughout my life. One example is someone I worked with for a month who I blogged about years ago who didn't understand who would be interested in a certain type of movie.

I remember a specific person who frequently visited someone in my dorm in college who I now believe was on the spectrum was generally kind, but also made me uncomfortable because of some of the very black and white statements and positions he took. I prefer nuance, and this individual did not.

As a parent who is neurotypical I feel like I'm equipped to parent a neurodiverse child, but that all of my instincts are wrong for parenting a neurodiverse child, and soon young adult. His logic frequently runs counter to mine, and we're frequently blind to what's important to the other or what the other is trying to communicate.

While things are definitely better now, our problems communicating and managing new hormones had us in a bad spot a year ago. We had almost daily meltdowns--true meltdowns--and it took a lot of time and effort to get to where that doesn't happen so regularly. That experience has really driven home to me how much I don't understand about the neurodiverse brain.

So much of what I learn now about people who were considered eclectic makes more sense now, and what drove things like the popularity of electroshock therapy and lobotomies in the past.

We've been working with therapists for a while, and they have always been optimistic about the future. However, the most frustrating thing is that we don't know what a realistic future for us and for NJ holds, and so it's hard to put together a plan to meet specific goals.

There really isn't a way to wrap this post up because we're in a very open-ended state at the moment. I'm hoping for the best, though.

age

Over the summer I turned forty.  I genuinely don't feel forty.  I think that's going to be a theme every time I turn a new age.  Where'd my twenties go?  I can't be out of my thirties already!  I'm sure that fifty is the new twenty-five!

I've had a lot of observations about getting older, but three have been on my mind lately.

First, I've been weirded out by the number of times I've seen someone my age or younger who my mind has registered as old.  Just in the past day I saw someone wearing a shirt declaring "Established in 1979," who I did not think looked my age, even though he was clearly born in the same year.  This is very much vanity from someone who likes to think he isn't vain.  "I can't possibly look that age, right?!"

Second, while I see more overall growth in my life, it feels slower.  I mean this in the sense that old dogs can learn new tricks, and can possibly learn them better, but it takes longer than when the dog was younger.  When I look at the things I've learned and improved on in the last five years it's a numerically shorter list than from the five year period from when I turned fifteen to when I turned twenty.  I feel like a have a better grasp on that shorter list and that it includes a lot more soft skills, though.

I don't know if this is something anyone else experiences, but I'm not intimidated to learn a lot of things that used to intimidate me.  However, there is a real limit that I see to how quickly I can progress on a given skill-set or cache of knowledge.

Third, I have also noticed that in some respects age is a minor super power in the same way that working the same job for years on end is.  Some people are naturally wise and see how certain bad choices will go badly.  Some people are just old enough to have seen this rodeo before and know from experience that certain bad choices will go badly.  It's odd to see someone do or say something that I might have thought was a good idea years ago, but to immediately know what a mistake it was.  Some of that is just that it's easy to see things as a super power when you used to be thoroughly clueless.  I'd like to think that age does bring a level of maturity as well, though.

Here's to another decade which will undoubtedly conclude with my flabbergasted exclamation of, "Where did my forties go!"

signing bibles

I'm noticing that, while I frequently contemplate the implications of news stories and comment on them, the news cycle is so fast nowadays that by the time I have real fleshed-out comments to make on them they're long out of the news.

One such story is the somewhat recent kerfuffle about President Trump signing Bibles in Alabama.  If you asked me immediately after the news story broke I would have responded that him doing this was deeply offensive.  Now I still think it's offensive, but I also think it's one of the bigger non-stories of the past month.

My initial reaction was that President Trump should have known better, and that doing this exemplifies the criticism that he has a god complex and/or narcissistic tendencies.  Christians should revere Scripture to the level that turning a Bible into autographed memorabilia should at least give serious pause.  In my view, putting a signature on the cover of the Bible makes it look like the person signing has the same or greater significance than the Bible itself.  I still believe this after giving the situation time and thought.  The general shrug that a lot of believers gave the story is still bothersome from the perspective that the Bible should be given due respect, and in this case it clearly wasn't.

However, my originally harsh view of the event has moderated significantly.  The biggest reason for this is that it's very easy to imagine someone getting random things shoved in front of them to sign and not stopping to think about whether it's a good idea to sign every single thing.  One can argue about how prone President Trump is to stop and think in general, but I expect that a lot of people in that situation who aren't President Trump would have signed a Bible in that situation without thinking about it.

Second, there is some debate as to what specifically about signing a Bible is offensive.  Other presidents have signed Bibles.  Few people consider signing the inside of the Bible wrong, especially when the Bible is a gift to another. People used to use the family Bible to detail their family tree.  I have had more than one Bible with my name inscribed on the cover.  If I can't draw clear lines on the whys for when it's offensive to put a name in or on a Bible and when it isn't, I do need to give some grace.

Finally, what's offensive about this is more what it represents than the act itself.  The real issue is that there are believers who are quick to judge the morals of politicians they disagree with, but will give President Trump or other similar politicians a pass (or twenty) because he nominates the judges they want.  In essence, this issue was always a proxy for that other issue.  Rather than litigating concerns about hypocrisy as a proxy, those should probably be addressed more directly.

So, this is sort of a defense of Trump in this one instance without really being one.  It's indicative of the times we live in.

resolutions

It's a new year, and so a lot of people are making resolutions.  I have mentioned at least twice already (time 1, time 2) that I don't like New Year's resolutions.  I've been a little embarrassed this year by how irritated I am by people making resolutions in the new year specifically.  It shouldn't matter to me whether others make or brake resolutions.  It's none of my business.  However, when I hear someone making a resolution it just bugs me.  I've finally figured out why.

I actually have a great deal of respect for people who make resolutions and stick to them.  I know that making fundamental changes to one's lifestyle for the long term is something that requires planning, determination, and sacrifice.  Therefore, rather than me disliking resolutions because I don't like people resolving to do things, the real reason I dislike New Year's resolutions is that deep down I think that there are some people who make resolutions without counting the cost ahead of time, and doing so besmirches something which is sacred.

Everyone has things that they need to improve about themselves.  They could improve their health, or they could improve their relationships with others, or they could improve their educational or career prospects, et al.  I know that I have a plethora of flaws I could focus attention to.  Furthermore, we all embark on self-improvement projects that we later learn are more involved than we originally realized, even when we planned and actually did put in the effort.  Everyone who consistently tries at least occasionally sees failure.  I'm not judging these sorts of failures.

What bothers me is that there is a human tendency to get excited about starting things, often without a true intention of seeing them through.  If someone loudly announces that they're doing x, y, or z in the new year and by the middle of February it's but a distant memory, it makes me think that this person likes taking credit for things without working for them.  It makes me not trust them.

I am realizing as I get older that the two qualities I most admire in others is trustworthiness and an objective view of the world, because if those qualities exist in another person I know I can trust to get a fair shake from that person even if we butt heads.

In this situation, I don't trust people who give their word that they're going to change something, then give up early in the process.  If they gave up early on something that they claimed mattered to them, then what else have they given their word on that they're going to go back on when the going is tough?  I will view all commitments made by that person as matters of convenience rather than true commitments to follow through.

Also, seeing someone make a resolution without counting the true cost makes me wonder if I can trust that person's judgment on other things.  If a person says, "I'm not going to each sugar in the new year," without thinking through all of the times they're going to have to turn down a cookie, a slice of cake, or a piece of chocolate, it makes me think that I can't trust their understanding of reality.  It makes me think that they live in their own world with its own subjective rules.

If I'm being fair, I should judge myself on this last standard.  I made an unrealistic resolution years back about being less neurotic.  I have gradually done so, but not due to a resolution, or even a concrete plan that I put together.  So, I did not objectively assess that resolution before announcing it on this blog.

Finally, I do want to clarify that I am not demanding that people bend to my will on this.  This is about soul-searching that I have done about my revulsion of most New Year's resolutions.  Ultimately, my opinion doesn't matter for how anyone else decides to improve themselves.  I'm just working through why I react in the way that I do to these things.

Update (Jan 4, 2019):

I contemplated this further last night and have tweaked my view a bit.  I think the issue is less with individual people making resolutions than with the societal pressure some people feel to make a resolution in a way that leads to failure.  So, rather than taking such a judgmental tone, I should be taking a more sympathetic tone.

I apologize regarding the tone.  Again, I'm working through why I think like I do here.

There are better ways to achieve goals than to announce a resolution to friends with minimal planning.  The following has worked for me.  I'm sure there are other ways as well, but I can only speak to what works for me.

1. Set two goals: One modest and easily achievable, and one aggressive.  Target the modest one, but keep the aggressive one in your back pocket in case the modest one turns out to be too modest.
2. Research how other people have been successful achieving similar goals. Use this to develop a strategy for how to achieve your modest goal.
3. Break down the steps necessary to achieve the modest goal in the long term.  Baby steps are best.
4. Determine what you're willing and capable of committing to the effort.
5. Enact your plan, taking all of this into account.
6. Be flexible and adjust the plan based on the lessons learned through the process.

defensiveness and boundaries

One of my biggest weaknesses that I'm aware of is that I get defensive quickly and easily.  I think that most people have a threshold at which they get defensive, but mine is more sensitive than most others.  I've been working to correct this for years, but it has been slow going.

I think a big reason I get defensive is that I envision being held accountable for things beyond the bounds of what I should be held accountable for, and probably beyond the bounds of what I will be held accountable for.  Someone expresses displeasure in some way, and my gut reaction is to make that a problem I'm responsible for.  Sometimes it's not actually a problem that needs to be solved.  Sometimes it's a problem, but it's not my problem.  Sometimes the issue is less severe than my gut wants to make it.  In most cases, defensiveness is not called for, and I'm getting better at it--but slowly!

Part of what is hard about correcting defensiveness is knowing what the proper bounds of accountability are.  If the lines are blurry for what I'm responsible for, I'll assume that I'm responsible for everything in that grey area.  A lot of the time when I go above and beyond the call of duty or when I over-prepare for things it's because I'm not sure where that line is, and it's far safer, though more exhausting, to take more responsibility than not enough.

This is something that I don't think gets addressed enough.  People will frequently talk about the importance of setting boundaries, but many times those same people talk about how important it is to chip in and do your part.  Implicit in those statements is that the audience will understand where the boundaries are for what is my responsibility and what is not.  It's not a question of being unwilling to set boundaries, but rather a question of understanding where those boundaries should really be.

I hear a lot of people talk about the 80/20 rule (I've done it myself).  Maybe a better way of looking at the 80/20 rule is that the people in those two groups have different standards for where their boundaries should be, and perhaps both groups aren't entirely right.

impostor 2

Years back, I posted here about feeling like an impostor, and I capped it off by misspelling the word "impostor" multiple times. I was heartened at the time that this is apparently a common feeling among men. I've had over a decade of experience since then, and I've come to the conclusion that this is a feeling that changes in nature, but it does not go away.

Something I that I don't know if I made clear or not is that this impostor syndrome has everything to to do with a man's belief that he can support a family. Deep down, I believe one day everyone will find out that it's something I'm not capable of doing.  That sounds like a deep confession, and something to be embarrassed about, but the more I talk with other men the more I agree that this is an almost universal feeling.  What's odd with this issue is that it is almost impossible to convince someone dealing with it (me, for example) that they're wrong, because all that means is that you are fooled by their charade rather than that there is no charade in the first place.

One observation I've had is that I have heard several retired men talk about dealing with this when they were responsible for a family, but looking back and feeling like this specific stress was silly in retrospect.  I would love to have that experience myself where I truly understand in retrospect that most of this is my own overactive neuroses.

My real greatest anxiety at this stage in my life is wondering how I spare my autistic son this stress when he is an adult, yet still teach him to be responsible. That is a real trusting God issue for me, because I don't have answers to how that's going to work. Without God, it probably won't.

hero in my own story

I don't have many heroes.  It's possible I don't have any heroes.  It may be me avoiding being vulnerable, but I've found that placing people on a pedestal just guarantees that they're going to disappoint in some way later on because no one is perfect.

Even though I don't have heroes, and I don't explicitly think of myself as a hero, I think there's a strong tendency for men at least to think of themselves as the hero of their own life narrative.  I know I want to.  I suspect women are similar.  I know that I want to think that every difficulty I confront is a heroic challenge, and everyone who causes me trouble is a remorseless villain.  This just allows me to feel righteous when I take confrontational steps to do something for my own benefit.

Since I decided a few years ago that most people are living as the heroes of their own personal narratives, this has greatly reduced the animosity I feel for people who are rude, obnoxious, selfish, or otherwise unbearable.  I don't enjoy them, but they are easier to tolerate.  In their narrative they have convinced themselves that they are heroically confronting those who act in some unjust way toward them.

This is important in understanding how to deal with difficult people.  If I want to affect their behavior I have to remove their justifications by reacting in a way that is not unjust in their narrative.  If they're a sociopath or a psychopath I might not be able to do that.  If they're a more typical human, just being genuinely empathetic usually ruins the hero narrative in their mind, because it's hard to think of someone as a villain if they're being empathetic.

One of the things that I have long disliked in stories that I couldn't articulate for the longest time were villains whose primary purpose was being evil for the sake of it.  I am sure that even Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot convinced themselves that their actions were right and just.  Even psychopaths seek to justify their actions, if only by defining the fulfillment of their desires as the primary justification for everything.  To have a character characterized as being evil with no internal justification feels off.

This is also one thing that bugs me about many (not all) conspiracy theories.  The theories are frequently more focused on casting a person or a group of people as a villain than they are at presenting a rational justification for what would really motivate the behavior in question.

social needs

My pastor has gotten much of his education in Psychology and Counseling, so has taught a few times that there are six dimensions under which people's needs can be defined.  Those are spiritual, emotional, social, sexual, family, and financial.  I don't know if this is based on any real research, but it is indeed a convenient way of categorizing needs.


There are times that I feel like most of my needs are atypical.  I don't know what really counts as typical or atypical, though.  A great example, and most of what has been on my mind, are social needs.  I just seem to have different social drives than many other people I speak with.

While it has happened, I have very rarely in my life experienced a need to be out among people.  Usually when it has that is because I have been home alone for more than a day.  When I was fourteen living with my family at my grandparents' house I remember wanting to get out to social events, but that was more an issue of circumstance than a reflection of a strong social need.

I do have a strong social need, but that is for people I can have in-depth and analytical conversations.  To do something like this, though, requires a connection.

Something I have noticed is that I can get standoffish to people I detect have strong social needs.  When people start talking about wanting to get together on the spur of the moment, and I don't already have a strong connection with them, my gut reaction is to view them as stealing my precious time resource without paying me something I can use.  I feel overwhelmed very quickly around those sorts of people.

This is a problem because I am starting to understand that to maintain friendships you have a good connection with you need to care about others' needs as well.  I can understand those characters who get older and shut in and don't want to interact with others because that is one of my tendencies.  It's easy to think in the short term that I should only do things that directly align with my needs, but then eighty-year-old me will have few close friendships.

tabula rasa

Several years ago I learned about the concept of tabula rasa, which asserts that a baby is born with a mind that is largely a blank slate.  Personality, behavioral tendencies, intellectual capacity, etc are all things that spring out of the environment a child is raised in rather than from genetics.

I have heard from various sources that research done in the last two or three decades has largely discredited the idea of tabula rasa to the point where it is not a seriously held position in academic circles now, though not long ago this was not the case.  Having had two kids I have to strongly question how anyone who raised more than one child ever believed in tabula rasa.

While our kids are still young--just seven and nine--it is striking and unavoidable to see where specific aspects of our kids' drives and personalities are not only unique, but have been that way from birth.  In fact, I have a very difficult time believing that someone could have kids and not notice this, as I see this uniqueness in a lot of the other kids I am occasionally around as well.  Kids with strong personalities always had strong personalities, and they often have siblings with completely different personalities, though they grew up in the same household.  Things like birth order play a part, but only as an outgrowth of what they were from the start.

If it is obvious to a parent that the foundations of our kids' personality is due to nature rather than nurture--and I have definitely heard other parents observe this as well--why was this not obvious to the academic world for a large percentage of the twentieth century?  Do (or did, since this idea is no longer widely held) academics in psychology/psychiatry simply not spend time with and observe their own families?  It's baffling!

no problem

A while back—probably a year or two ago—Golden asked me why I always respond to people thanking me with, "No problem." She noted that, "You're welcome," would be better. Old habits die hard, so I have not really changed things, though I think about it more. I do think that this has exposed a difference in how I think versus how she and I am sure many others think, and I would never had even considered it had that conversation not occurred.

I do not know this for a fact, but I suspect that most people answer one way or the other, and do not alternate between the two too much. The reason I think this is that there is a very specific reason that, "No problem," seems natural to me. If someone does not have that same personality quirk, I would suspect that they would tend to use, "You're welcome," more than, "No problem," as well.

For one reason or another (or a hundred) I am very highly motivated not to put someone out. I view it as a personal failing to have unnecessarily inconvenienced someone. I called it a quirk earlier, but I think that most people don't like inconveniencing others. At the extreme I reach it is a flaw or worse. It has caused me more problems than good, for sure. So, to me the act of thanking someone is a form of apology for requiring them to go out of their way. I like to receive the response, "No problem," because this signals that the person in question is not bothered by being put out.

I suspect, though I do not know first hand, that those who prefer to hear, "You're welcome," prefer that because they are more likely to see someone doing something for someone else as a gift. The "You're welcome," would then signify that the gift was sincerely given and can be genuinely appreciated.

Do you have a preferred way to respond to thanks, or a preferred way for others to respond to your thanks? Do you have your own theories regarding why someone would prefer one response over the other? I'd love to hear about it in the comments.

gift selections

I am approaching my ten-year anniversary in my current place of employment.  Where did the time go?  Because of this anniversary I received an email from HR indicating that I can choose an award from a list, which is managed by a vendor, to commemorate the occasion.

Traditionally, companies have given employees watches, and there are some on the list, as well as some jewelry.  Hardly anyone wears watches any more, including me, so I am happy I have a choice of something other than a watch.  I do have some questions about whoever chooses the available options for these prizes, though.  They seem to be targeting a specific type of person.

Apart from jewelry and watches I can choose from golf equipment, a wine cellar, a few electronics options, etc.  My sense is that the items on the list either reflect the tastes of one or two people tasked with selecting items, or that they are meant to be targeted to some upper-middle-class stereotype of a golfer who likes mechanical watches and enjoys the occasional wine.

I am certainly not complaining or attempting to look a gift horse in the mouth.  I'll appreciate the telescope that I selected when I get it.  I especially appreciate what this signifies—that I have had consistent employment for such a long period of time.  I am just intrigued by what the process must have been in selecting items to commemorate that time.

parenting a princess

Our daughter Cd likes princesses.  A lot.  It's hard to blame her.  At least half of the entertainment targeted toward girls her age features the protagonist in a princess role (or a girl seeking to be a princess through marriage in Cinderella's case).  Of course she is going to latch onto the fact that the female protagonists that she likes all tend to have one specific role.  I am not sure how I am supposed to feel about things like this that the kids like.

In this case, part of my complication comes from the fact that I don't truly know what the appeal of princesses is to a girl.  I understand the draw that a boy has to superheroes or sports figures because I understand pretty much all of the fundamental needs and desires those roles fulfill in boys.  While I may have some good guesses, I don't truly understand the fundamental needs and desires that are being addressed through the princess character.  Is it being pretty and wearing pretty clothes?  Is it being special, because the princess is so important?  Is it being sophisticated (which I predictably misspelled until my spell-checker caught it)?  Is it the idea of being able to have all of your desires and whims be catered to?  Is it about having the power to be able to care for those who you care about?

With the superhero character I understand the positives and negatives.  Superheroes tend to be characters of action in a black and white world, and that action is violent with little repercussion due to hidden identity, so aggression glorified is the biggest danger.  A secondary danger is that the superhero fantasy validates the view that athletic ability (through genes or through military experiment gone awry) is the basis of a man's value.  The basic superhero fantasy is that by being able to do the things the superhero does you earn respect from others and self-respect you might not otherwise have.  Also, younger boys may not get this, but the fantasy extends to being a shortcut to proving your worth to a girl (be it your own equivalent of Mary Jane, Lois Lane, or Rachel Dawes).  I feel I can parent around these and other elements of the superhero character fairly easily, since I generally understand them.

However, the princess character is sort of giving me fits.  Is a princess a noble character, and is it noble to want to be a princess?  Is CD going to learn the right lessons from a typical Disney (or similar) princess character, or is she going to pick up bad traits?  Will she learn from the very stupid decisions the characters often make, or will she learn that those stupid paths are correct?  Will she learn that a lot of the guys these girls fall for in the movies are generally the types to be avoided?  Will she fantasize too much about being in a situation where others live to cater to her desires, or learn that she needs to take responsibility for a lot of the things in her life?  Will the fact that these characters are impossibly proportioned lead to body issues?  I know that I am probably over-thinking this, and I do not want CD to miss out on experiences that other girls her age have.  I just know less than I don't know about what girls get out of the princess fantasy, and that makes me uncomfortable.

the basis of faith

What is the basis of your faith?  If you believe in God, why?  If you trust in God, why?  Is the reasoning you tell yourself or others the real reason?  Do you know?

I have thought long and hard about this a lot over the last few years.  I hear people talk about trusting in God because He has cared for them in difficult times.  What if God appeared to disappear and times got harder?  I have heard people point to specific scientific or philosophical rationales for God's existence or care.  What if those rationales were disproved?  I have heard people refer to past miraculous experiences as the basis for their faith, but what if those experiences were proved to be hoaxes or the product of people in suggestible conditions?

I will say that if there is a physical rationale that I personally give for my belief and trust in God it is that Scripture's description of our sinful natures explains humanity to me better than anything else, and every study that I hear on human nature reaffirms my view that we are deeply-flawed, selfish beings who have to resort to vanity and pride in order to behave well.  We are in dire need of a savior if there really are such things as holiness and judgment.  This is probably not the proper basis of my faith, though.

My earlier questions are important for a few reasons.  First, perspectives change as we age.  We see the foolishness in past opinions and approaches.  What is a basis of faith now may be a reason for abandoning the faith later in life.  Second, and much more important, is faith that is dependent on some earthly thing really the sort of faith that Scripture talks about?  I don't think it is.

Any person who has been to more than a handful of church services in his or her life will at some point have heard a sermon on the Hebrews 11 hall of faith.  Apart from Gideon, who it may be argued based his faith on water and wool, everyone else listed in the chapter believed in God and trusted Him just because.

For a long while I did not think there was such a thing as blind faith.  If God was God, I reasoned, we would not be able to look far before He was obvious.  I have somewhat flipped my thinking on that now, though.  I now believe that faith is a gift from God in that He is obvious on some level to those He gifts with faith.  He is not obvious to those who either are not looking for the real Him, or to those to whom He has not revealed Himself. I don't think that this obviousness is available in any other way than as something He bestows on us.  I think this faith from God is sturdy enough to withstand the doubts that other forms of "faith" ultimately lead to.

This all is not a philosophy that I am entirely comfortable with.  I like to be in control, and this cedes control to God.  This also opens me to the possibility of looking stupid because I am following something other than my ability to reason.  I can't generate the faith I need by rationalizing why God is real, trustworthy, or good, because my human rationalizations will eventually lead to making it appear that God is not any of those things.  But how does one go about asking for faith from another, or rather The Other?  Do I really want to go through the things that create and strengthen true faith?  How do I know the faith I have is not a delusion?

the dad who works too much

I recently saw a Lifetime movie the title of which I don't recall that belongs in a very specific niche genre of movies.  It is a movie where the central focus is that a relationship is restored to a functional state once the man in the relationship discovers that he has focused too much time on his job at the expense of his family.  I can't begrudge this about the movie too much , since this is the type of movie that would be well-targeted to Lifetime's typical audience, and I did enjoy it more than I would have expected.  These type of movies do get to me on some level, though.

I have mentioned this before at a time in my life when this was much more of a sore spot for me than now, but I'm still a bit sensitive to movies where the fault is placed squarely on the husband who places work above family.  I know there are a lot of men who focus more on their work than their family, but it oversimplifies a complex issue.  It also usually couches the issue in terms that make the husband irrevocably the selfish bad guy who is the only person who needs to change for the relationship to be made functional again.

Most breadwinners in situations similar to the characters in these movies are not working long hours to afford a nice summer home, but rather to provide standard of living that they see as important.  The movies do not usually appropriately portray the inherent split priorities trying to be a good dad and a provider can be in the best of situations.  What we learn from this sort of movie is that if a man has to spend a lot of time working or if he pursues his career dreams at some family sacrifice that he doesn't really love his family or is not committed to them.  So, the women in the audience who feel like their men care about work more than them are supplied with a erroneous perspective that will only add harmful conflict and tension to the relationship.

I should acknowledge that of course the fact that this is a sore spot for me says a lot of negative things about me.  Of course it says that I view financial and other types of responsibility differently than I should, and it will be a long time before that is not true.  Of course it means that I still need God to set some of my priorities right.  All of this is something that I have been trying to allow God to fix in me, but old tendencies die hard.

As is obvious, this is a sort of soapbox for me but I have said enough of my peace.  Is there a specific sub-genre of movie or type of character or common plot twist that sets you off like this, even when you find the movie overall enjoyable?  Do you have a movie soapbox?  The obvious caveat to answering that question is that it reveals something about you as well.

manic pixie dream girl

Cracked has several times in the last few months referenced a specific story character type that has been grating at me for the last few years, but didn't know had a name.  The character type is called the "Manic pixie dream girl." I will refer to this character as MPDG from here on.

I would encourage you to follow the link and click on the example movies to get an idea of what I am talking about. However, Nathan Rubin, who is the coiner of the term, describes the MPDG thusly:

"The Manic Pixie Dream Girl exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures. The Manic Pixie Dream Girl is an all-or-nothing-proposition. Audiences either want to marry her instantly (despite The Manic Pixie Dream Girl being, you know, a fictional character) or they want to commit grievous bodily harm against them and their immediate family."

The MPDG is absolute proof that Hollywood is less concerned with realistic relationships than with idealistic fantasies that ultimately result in a painful break-up or divorce. What usually happens is a straight-laced and highly-structured male character is introduced and we find out that he is not happy with life because being structured means he obviously is broken. He meets the MPDG and decides to change his approach to life, though it varies how related and in what order these events are. Hilarity ensues. There is relationship conflict, and the conflict is resolved by the highly-structured male accepting the MPDG's approach to life and progressing in a serious relationship with her. Movies where I have noticed this are Elizabethtown, Stranger than Fiction, and (most egregiously) Yes Man.

Apart from the fact that the MPDG as portrayed in the movies would not likely exist in real life, movies do real harm in romanticizing a personality type to people with clashing personality types. I can see where in real life an MPDG would be intriguing just long enough to get into a serious relationship with that person and realize the horrible mistake that has been made. True free spirits should not typically be merged with structured people. The movies kind of get around this by implying that this is a journey for the structured male character, and he will change for his beloved MPDG, but the whole idea is ridiculous. The tendency toward being structured or free-spirited, on the whole, is not a choice. A structured or free-spirited person might force themselves to live their opposite for a time, but after a while that would be a miserable existence.

Early in our relationship Golden heard someone describe similarities between partners in a relationship as money in the bank and differences as loans that will have to be paid back with interest. I can appreciate that far more now that we have been married more than a decade. We are very similar in a lot of areas, and those similarities have limited the issues we have had from our differences. In the course of our relationship most of the differences between us have resulted in or will result in some sort of compromise. Those compromises are sometimes easy and sometimes hard, but they always require care and effort and some pain.

My theory as to why the MPDG is so frequently worked into movie plots is that the character is something of a fantasy to freelance workers like writers or directors.  This free-spirited non-existent girlfriend never pressures them to get a real job or asks whether they paid the water bill.  She doesn't get upset when he gets distracted in his work or hobbies for days or weeks at a time, and doesn't care if he spends his money frivolously because she only exists for the moment.  In truth, all the MPDG character does is romanticize irresponsibility.

There are certainly other grating character types that show up in movies a lot, but I think the MPDG has to rank among the most annoying for me.  I say that as a structured man who doesn't believe he needs fixing.

directions and empathy

Two things that should have occurred to me sooner about the differences between men and women occurred to me in the past week or two.  Both relate to earlier posts I have made, so I am linking to those previous posts below.

First, regarding the cliche about men not wanting to stop and ask for directions, I have long figured it was about admitting weakness.  That's certainly part of it, but I contemplated the whole process of asking directions and there's more to it than that.  I think the real issue is that men in general are not all that great with step-by-step directions.

A few of the worst arguments Golden and I have had have been due to our differences in navigating our way around.  She works very well with step-by-step instructions, but if I use them there is a good chance I'm going to miss a step or forget a key detail (Was it right or left at the green street sign?  Wait, all of the street signs are green!).  With widespread GPS adoption this is becoming a moot point, but I would bet that more men would stop for directions when the situation called for it if those directions were transmitted in map form.

Second, women liking movies and situations where they get to feel empathy and emotion, I have long figured that this was about women better understanding the nuances of their emotions than men.  While I still think this is largely true, I now think there is a larger factor that is more obvious.  Women like feeling empathy and emotion and men don't.  I did kind of say that at the end of the earlier post, but I just kind of threw it in almost as an afterthought.  Unlike my previous emphasis implied, I now think that every other factor pales in comparison to the enjoyment factor.

I am a more empathetic man than most.  This is something I say that with far more embarrassment than pride as it's not a very masculine trait.  I believe I can definitively state that I do not enjoy feeling empathy.  I often like the perspective it gives me, and I still usually want to understand situations from other peoples' shoes, but the actual feeling of empathy is simply unpleasant.  Maybe there is something deeper that causes me personally to dislike how empathy feels, but I suspect that this is something I have in common with most men.

My experience is that women often get something out of feeling and sharing each other's emotions, even when they are what I would consider unpleasant emotions.  I suspect that this is similar to the excitement a man gets during the daring parts of an action movie or video game.  Being shot at or in a fight would not be pleasant, but there is something about putting yourself in the shoes of a fictional person in that situation that is paradoxically exhilarating.  Likewise, sharing an unpleasant emotion must provide pleasure on some level.

So I guess the long and short of it is, news flash: men and women are different.

craigslist killers

A recent story that has been in the news, and has some extra significance for me because one of the perpetrators is from the town where my sister currently lives, is regarding the "Craigslist killers."  I do not know all of the details, but I do know that they lured men to their deaths with a job offer for only $300 a week, plus board.  That is what stuck out to me.  The people who responded to the ad were largely men who were beyond down on their luck.

One person in particular who was killed was Timothy Kern, who was described in the earlier linked article as taking the job to try to support his three kids.  I don't know that I have much to add to this, but that thought had a significant visceral impact on me.  The guy took a job, and one that ended up being too good to be true, paying basically minimum wage to support his three kids, and that is what ended up getting him killed.  Not to sound trite, but Mr. Kern just could not get a break.

These sorts of stories make me feel very fortunate for the opportunities I have been given.  Not everyone has the opportunity to attain higher education.  Not everyone is able to find work to pay for that education and life after the education—especially not in recent years.  Not everyone has seen provision throughout the situations of their lives like I have.  A lot of people are looking at a future where their skill set is unfortunately obsolete or will be out of demand for a long while through no fault of their own.

Why would I focus on provision rather than family when being thankful?  It is not because I am unthankful for my family, but because the ability to provide for a family is the basis for most men's self-worth.  In thinking about the men in this situation the thing at the forefront of my mind is how worthless a lot of them have to feel, especially those with kids they are unable to support.  Those of us whose hope is in Christ should not place our worth in temporary and arbitrary things like that, but God's work is certainly not complete in me.

All of this being said, who really knows what the future holds.  Maybe I'll be challenged with joblessness at some point in the future.  I hope not, but I wouldn't be the only one to have gone through it if I did.  Maybe things will get bad enough that I have to look into sketchy opportunities.  Again, I hope not.  I can be thankful in the good things that God has given me now, though.  What I would hate would be to run into hard times then realize too late how little I appreciated the good times when I was living them.

As an aside, if you're looking for someone to pray for Mr. Kern's children have to be at the top of the list.  I just cannot imagine...

cute

I mentioned not long ago that a lot of words have different meanings to men and women. I don't have a good way of judging how well this applies to all men and women, but one word that has stuck out to me, especially when I was growing up, is "cute." It is completely possible that I am alone on this, but that word has devalued a lot of compliments in my life. The following example uses my grandmother as an example, and I have chosen to use this since she has passed and so will not read this some day in the future with embarrassment.

I like to share things that I think are funny with others. So, if I come across something I think is genuinely funny I like to share it. More than once when I was at my grandparents' house I read some joke I liked out of a Reader's Digest to my grandmother, to which her response was to say it was cute. It wasn't a huge deal because I knew it was supposed to be a compliment, but that was never the response I wanted.

I think "cute" is a go-to generic compliment for a lot of women because the word implies the sort of thing a lot of women want to be or that they want to own. In my life I've heard a lot of women say things in the vein of, "You look cute in those earrings," or "Those shoes are so cute," or "You have a cute baby," or "You two look cute together." In most contexts; though, the word is feminine. I haven't heard many men use the same sort of compliments, and it sticks out like a sore thumb when a man actually does say something like that.

The real problem is that a compliment is only effective if it makes the recipient feel how he or she wants to feel about himself or herself. Giving a man who would prefer to be masculine feminine compliments or a woman who would prefer to be feminine masculine compliments drains the value from those compliments.

In thinking through this I realized that I do not know which compliments men give that aren't really compliments to women. Is there a reverse version of "cute" that I am not aware of? I should probably learn before I start giving Golden or CD compliments that mean less than I think they do.

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.

800

This is my 800th post. My tradition when hitting a round number is to write something that indirectly relates to the number. Since was the first area code used for toll-free numbers in the United States (and Canada), today's post is on the concept of free.

My trust issues flare up when I see something that is free. Economically speaking, I am a strong believer that there is no such thing as a free lunch, so I always expect an angle when I see something for free. I think most people are like me to an extent on this, but maybe not to the same degree.

One example was a minor-league baseball game that Golden and I attended with a large group of people. We had "seats" on a grassy berm and a local bank was handing out free seat pads to anyone who would apply for a credit card. Most of the people sitting on the berm took the offer. I could not on principle and because I did not know what that would do to my credit score. I would have purchased the pads even at an inflated price had I had the option, but I would not have taken the "free" pads.

I have another problem with taking free things that I am certain qualifies as a psychological issue, and I am also fairly certain that it is an almost exclusively male issue. I have a very hard time accepting something for free because I do not feel that I have earned it, so I feel mildly indebted. For example, I hate taking free samples of food at the grocery store. I would rather pay the nickle or dime that the sample cost. I know that it does not make much sense, but the ability to pay even on something so small would ease my mind.

In short, I probably don't believe in such a thing as a free lunch because I don't want to.