I have a strange litmus test that I use to determine how tolerant people are of others who are different. I listen for how they talk about or treat Mormons, or members of the LDS church.
If you are a Conservative and are not Mormon, you are probably a Catholic, Mainline Protestant, or Evangelical Christian who believes that their teachings are heretical. For my part, I believe their views on the Trinity are heresy. As a result, there is motivation to speak ill or joke about people who hold that belief.
If you are Liberal, you may or may not be Christian, but you are likely to strongly disagree with the political positions the church has taken over the past few decades. As a result, there is motivation to speak ill or joke about people who belong to that church.
So, when Mormonism is brought up (very rarely), I perk up to pay attention for how people speak of the people who hold that belief. Will they talk disparagingly about the people? Will they withhold judgment on the people, regardless how they feel about the church and it's positions and/or doctrines? It's edge-of-your-seat suspense!
In related news, I probably need to get out more.
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Monday, March 21, 2016
karma and schadenfreude
Every once in a while I will hear someone say that they believe in karma or that they get enjoyment out of karma. In some instances I will hear of someone getting their just desserts as karma exacting revenge on that person. This usage of "karma" is not technically accurate.
First, I should note that since I am Christian I do not believe in literal karma, no matter how it is defined. It is important to understand what I am disagreeing with when someone declares karma, however.
The real definition of karma comes from the Hindu religion. The idea is that good deeds, thoughts, actions, etc. eventually result in good outcomes for people, and that bad deeds, thoughts, actions, etc. eventually result in bad outcomes for people. The key is that this is supposed to be experienced in a person's next life. Someone's karmic state is intrinsically linked to his or her reincarnation, and so payback would probably be in the quality of someone's next life, which would be lived without an understanding of the evils committed in the previous life. Based on my understanding of the concept, which is admittedly imperfect, karma would have to be experienced a long time later, and probably in a future life rather than in this one.
I believe that a better word for what people mean when they say, "karma," is, "schadenfreude." It's also a much more fun word to pronounce! I believe that most of my audience knows what it means, but for the uninformed the dictionary.com definition is, "satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune." I have mostly heard it used in conjunction with enjoying someone else's misery because one believes that misery is deserved. So, when I hear that someone believes in karma, or enjoys seeing examples of karma, I understand that they simply like seeing the suffering of those they believe to be immoral. This is more accurately the practical definition for schadenfreude.
Christian believers are not permitted to believe in Hindu karma or partake in schadenfreude. Real karma is in direct contradiction to Heb 9:27, which states that people are destined to die once, and then to face judgment. Schadenfreude is founded in a desire for vengeance that violates the spirit of Rom 12:17-21, fun as it is to say.
I'll certainly grant that both concepts are interesting, and have some allure. At the very least, they can make you sound intelligent to adeptly use them in conversation. However, a Christian believer shouldn't revel in either.
First, I should note that since I am Christian I do not believe in literal karma, no matter how it is defined. It is important to understand what I am disagreeing with when someone declares karma, however.
The real definition of karma comes from the Hindu religion. The idea is that good deeds, thoughts, actions, etc. eventually result in good outcomes for people, and that bad deeds, thoughts, actions, etc. eventually result in bad outcomes for people. The key is that this is supposed to be experienced in a person's next life. Someone's karmic state is intrinsically linked to his or her reincarnation, and so payback would probably be in the quality of someone's next life, which would be lived without an understanding of the evils committed in the previous life. Based on my understanding of the concept, which is admittedly imperfect, karma would have to be experienced a long time later, and probably in a future life rather than in this one.
I believe that a better word for what people mean when they say, "karma," is, "schadenfreude." It's also a much more fun word to pronounce! I believe that most of my audience knows what it means, but for the uninformed the dictionary.com definition is, "satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune." I have mostly heard it used in conjunction with enjoying someone else's misery because one believes that misery is deserved. So, when I hear that someone believes in karma, or enjoys seeing examples of karma, I understand that they simply like seeing the suffering of those they believe to be immoral. This is more accurately the practical definition for schadenfreude.
Christian believers are not permitted to believe in Hindu karma or partake in schadenfreude. Real karma is in direct contradiction to Heb 9:27, which states that people are destined to die once, and then to face judgment. Schadenfreude is founded in a desire for vengeance that violates the spirit of Rom 12:17-21, fun as it is to say.
I'll certainly grant that both concepts are interesting, and have some allure. At the very least, they can make you sound intelligent to adeptly use them in conversation. However, a Christian believer shouldn't revel in either.
Friday, March 18, 2016
why i'm a tightwad
I used to watch Suze Orman quite a bit. It could have really been any personal finance advisor on TV, but she was the one who was on CNBC on Saturday nights years ago when I had an hour every week.
The thing I always noted about the show was that the people featured on it tended to fall into one of two categories. The first category were the people who made every right financial decision in the book, had great jobs that allowed them to do what they were supposed to do, and called or wrote into the show more to brag than to ask for genuine advice. The second were people who made a lot of bad decisions, or who were in unfortunate situations such that their finances were in shambles or close to it. I never felt I fit in either category. That, plus no longer having the spare hour every week, caused me to lose interest in the show after a couple of years.
Like most people in our demographic, we are in between these two extremes. We are nowhere near destitute. We aren't in the impossible ideal where many financial advisors say you should be either.
One of the things I have wished existed was some way to indicate whether you're making the right financial decisions. I am not concerned with decisions about investments, or things of that nature. As ridiculous as it sounds, I just wish there were guarantees that if I made such and such decision or put a certain amount of effort into work that this would cover all of the unforeseen things that we'll need to handle in the years to come.
I know that the worry that drives this is sinful. I'm trying to repent of this, but I'm still human and I still have human drives. It is something God is still working on in me.
The real problem I have been butting up against is that on a basic level I don't know what my responsibility is and what God's responsibility is. Both the Bible and American society frown upon men who do not financially support their family. What that actually means and what responsibilities it entails seems fluid, though. What one person considers being financially responsible another considers not trusting God enough, or putting career in front of family.
Because of all of this I sort of default to being a tightwad since it's the safest option. If I don't allow many frivolous expenses it's not my fault if some day if we're unable to cover some important expense.
I know this seems silly coming from someone in my situation. I've got a decent job, a couple of degrees, and no student loans. I still think about it, though.
The thing I always noted about the show was that the people featured on it tended to fall into one of two categories. The first category were the people who made every right financial decision in the book, had great jobs that allowed them to do what they were supposed to do, and called or wrote into the show more to brag than to ask for genuine advice. The second were people who made a lot of bad decisions, or who were in unfortunate situations such that their finances were in shambles or close to it. I never felt I fit in either category. That, plus no longer having the spare hour every week, caused me to lose interest in the show after a couple of years.
Like most people in our demographic, we are in between these two extremes. We are nowhere near destitute. We aren't in the impossible ideal where many financial advisors say you should be either.
One of the things I have wished existed was some way to indicate whether you're making the right financial decisions. I am not concerned with decisions about investments, or things of that nature. As ridiculous as it sounds, I just wish there were guarantees that if I made such and such decision or put a certain amount of effort into work that this would cover all of the unforeseen things that we'll need to handle in the years to come.
I know that the worry that drives this is sinful. I'm trying to repent of this, but I'm still human and I still have human drives. It is something God is still working on in me.
The real problem I have been butting up against is that on a basic level I don't know what my responsibility is and what God's responsibility is. Both the Bible and American society frown upon men who do not financially support their family. What that actually means and what responsibilities it entails seems fluid, though. What one person considers being financially responsible another considers not trusting God enough, or putting career in front of family.
Because of all of this I sort of default to being a tightwad since it's the safest option. If I don't allow many frivolous expenses it's not my fault if some day if we're unable to cover some important expense.
I know this seems silly coming from someone in my situation. I've got a decent job, a couple of degrees, and no student loans. I still think about it, though.
Thursday, March 10, 2016
multi-factor issues
People are naturally wired to be lazy in many ways, and one of those ways has piqued my interest recently. People like to find a singular cause for issues. As a result, most people aren't wired to address complex issues, and have to fight their wiring to do so.
As an example, when the crime rate rises or falls in a region there is rarely one factor in play. Policing, the justice system, the socioeconomic situation, etc all play a role, and people are prone to pick their favorite factor as the be-all, end-all reason for the good or the bad things they see on the streets and the news. All may be factors, but it is unlikely that one is the primary factor that dwarfs all others.
I say this because I see the same tendency in myself. When I see something broken I want to identify the issue and move toward a fix as closely as possible. If I can identify an issue I want it to be the issue so that I can pin all of the problems I see on that one blamable and ultimately fixable thing. I don't want to research more once one factor has been identified, because it's not in my nature to look for a second factor. That approach leads to incomplete fixes, though.
I don't have much more to add on this. This is just something I've been observing.
As an example, when the crime rate rises or falls in a region there is rarely one factor in play. Policing, the justice system, the socioeconomic situation, etc all play a role, and people are prone to pick their favorite factor as the be-all, end-all reason for the good or the bad things they see on the streets and the news. All may be factors, but it is unlikely that one is the primary factor that dwarfs all others.
I say this because I see the same tendency in myself. When I see something broken I want to identify the issue and move toward a fix as closely as possible. If I can identify an issue I want it to be the issue so that I can pin all of the problems I see on that one blamable and ultimately fixable thing. I don't want to research more once one factor has been identified, because it's not in my nature to look for a second factor. That approach leads to incomplete fixes, though.
I don't have much more to add on this. This is just something I've been observing.
Wednesday, March 02, 2016
self-absorbed
I like to type introspective things because it helps me work through my thoughts. When I do that, though, I find at the end that it sounds super self-absorbed. As stuck-on-myself as I sound on this blog, most of what I write that sounds that way has been edited down and the worst of it peeled away.
Has anyone else run into this problem?
Has anyone else run into this problem?
Monday, February 22, 2016
marker words
The professor who taught my undergraduate Business Communications course offered a free service to review students' resumes and provide recommendations for modifications. She definitely helped me craft what was the first draft for the resume that I would continue to use for years to come, so for that I am immeasurably grateful. There was one minor thing that always stuck out to me that I have thought of throughout the ensuing years. She recommended that I note that I was looking for an environment that offered employee empowerment.
Employee empowerment was a specific concept that she taught in one of the classes I took from her, though I don't remember which one. I took three classes from this particular prof. The idea was simply that a business that espoused this belief allowed employees the leeway to make decisions (and potentially mistakes) because the net result for a good employee would be positive. It's not a bad concept, but the phrase has always been odd to me.
What seems weird about the phrase is that I don't believe I have ever in my life heard a man use the word "empowerment" or "empowered," even though I have heard several women use it. It seems like one of those words that I suspect both sexes have that serve as markers for, "A woman said this," or, "A man wrote that."
A few other words that stick out to me as marker words that a woman said it are "blessed", "tacky", "sweet", and "vile." I may have heard the odd man or two use them, but they show up far more in women's vernacular.
I tried to think of marker words for men, but I must have a natural blind spot to it. Everything I have been able to think of has too many exceptions to be usable. As an example, in the past most crass language probably served as marker words for men, but things are different today.
Are there any marker words that you have noticed in your interactions? Is there a word or phrase that, if you see it in an article or book, you immediately have a guess at what the author's gender is? Do you disagree with any words I mentioned above?
Employee empowerment was a specific concept that she taught in one of the classes I took from her, though I don't remember which one. I took three classes from this particular prof. The idea was simply that a business that espoused this belief allowed employees the leeway to make decisions (and potentially mistakes) because the net result for a good employee would be positive. It's not a bad concept, but the phrase has always been odd to me.
What seems weird about the phrase is that I don't believe I have ever in my life heard a man use the word "empowerment" or "empowered," even though I have heard several women use it. It seems like one of those words that I suspect both sexes have that serve as markers for, "A woman said this," or, "A man wrote that."
A few other words that stick out to me as marker words that a woman said it are "blessed", "tacky", "sweet", and "vile." I may have heard the odd man or two use them, but they show up far more in women's vernacular.
I tried to think of marker words for men, but I must have a natural blind spot to it. Everything I have been able to think of has too many exceptions to be usable. As an example, in the past most crass language probably served as marker words for men, but things are different today.
Are there any marker words that you have noticed in your interactions? Is there a word or phrase that, if you see it in an article or book, you immediately have a guess at what the author's gender is? Do you disagree with any words I mentioned above?
Friday, February 12, 2016
kids and politics
With the upcoming presidential election we have had more discussions with the kids about politics in the past few months than ever before. I'm not entirely comfortable with that.
While, as anyone who reads this page regularly knows, I am very interested in political issues, I also don't think that there is any ideal way to discuss most political issues with elementary-aged kids. Kids are naturally inclined to think in very black and white terms and think of people as good or bad (This is different than the Christian view of good and bad where everyone is in the "bad" category.). I believe that is a dangerous view to bring into politics, and so I am nervous about us introducing our kids to more than a surface level of politics. Even going to far as to imply that one party is better or worse than another is concerning because that introduces an "Us versus Them" mentality that can lead to bad places.
My belief is that politics, more than anything else, is proof positive that no matter what you believe, there are scoundrels who will try to win your vote by agreeing with you. My experience is that there is little to no correlation between political viewpoint and integrity. The liars and the selfishly ambitious reside in all levels of the political perspective, as do those who are principled and true to their beliefs. I do not currently believe that people are good or bad (or dishonest or principled) based on whether they agree with me politically because I have years of life experience to tell me otherwise. It's hard not to think that way as a kid, though. I know because I remember thinking that way. It's just a natural, human inclination.
Even explaining the political issues that drive our positions is precarious. We recently had a difficult discussion with CD regarding abortion. It would be easy for someone who against abortion (or for it) to simply paint those who disagree as being evil and leave things at that. Alas, many do. Few positions are more genuinely held than ones regarding abortion, though, so it is wrong not to acknowledge the reasoning of those who disagree.
I don't want CD or NJ to grow up without empathy for those who have to make difficult choices in life, even if we ultimately disagree to the point of being appalled with the results of those decisions. This is especially because everyone has made appalling decisions at some point in their lives. I also don't want to give them something to rebel against once they grow to understand that those who disagree with Mom and Dad often have reasons that seem reasonable and valid. Change one or two assumptions about underlying truth, and right and wrong can change dramatically.
All of this just leads back to my original point. I can't wait until this election is over and we can move on from discussing politics in this house.
While, as anyone who reads this page regularly knows, I am very interested in political issues, I also don't think that there is any ideal way to discuss most political issues with elementary-aged kids. Kids are naturally inclined to think in very black and white terms and think of people as good or bad (This is different than the Christian view of good and bad where everyone is in the "bad" category.). I believe that is a dangerous view to bring into politics, and so I am nervous about us introducing our kids to more than a surface level of politics. Even going to far as to imply that one party is better or worse than another is concerning because that introduces an "Us versus Them" mentality that can lead to bad places.
My belief is that politics, more than anything else, is proof positive that no matter what you believe, there are scoundrels who will try to win your vote by agreeing with you. My experience is that there is little to no correlation between political viewpoint and integrity. The liars and the selfishly ambitious reside in all levels of the political perspective, as do those who are principled and true to their beliefs. I do not currently believe that people are good or bad (or dishonest or principled) based on whether they agree with me politically because I have years of life experience to tell me otherwise. It's hard not to think that way as a kid, though. I know because I remember thinking that way. It's just a natural, human inclination.
Even explaining the political issues that drive our positions is precarious. We recently had a difficult discussion with CD regarding abortion. It would be easy for someone who against abortion (or for it) to simply paint those who disagree as being evil and leave things at that. Alas, many do. Few positions are more genuinely held than ones regarding abortion, though, so it is wrong not to acknowledge the reasoning of those who disagree.
I don't want CD or NJ to grow up without empathy for those who have to make difficult choices in life, even if we ultimately disagree to the point of being appalled with the results of those decisions. This is especially because everyone has made appalling decisions at some point in their lives. I also don't want to give them something to rebel against once they grow to understand that those who disagree with Mom and Dad often have reasons that seem reasonable and valid. Change one or two assumptions about underlying truth, and right and wrong can change dramatically.
All of this just leads back to my original point. I can't wait until this election is over and we can move on from discussing politics in this house.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
