On 9/26/2015 4:06 PM, Muggles wrote:

OTOH, most religions aren't "casual undertakings". All require/expect
some degree of commitment. How do you *expose* a child (formative
years) without risking him/her being "conditioned" by the experience?

You can't. All you can do is the best you can do and allow them to make
up their own minds.

You've avoided the question! :

LOL It's the truth! If you expose a child to anything you risk them
being conditioned. OTOH, if you don't expose them to something, it could
have a similar result - conditioning to avoid X or Y.

Exactly. Unlike folks who claim to "know god's will", I acknowledge
that there are *many* (most?) things that I don't know! So, my
"answers" only apply to me -- I wouldn't dream of imposing them
on another. I will gladly *share* them with "capable adults"
who can come to rational decisions as to whether or if they
want to adopt them.

But, kids don't have that background or critical skill set.

Chances are, any house of worship will be
a "drive" from home. When they are young (e.g., 5, 6, 10, etc.) do I
expect them to hoof it to the church? Do I expect them to take the
initiative to explore the possible offerings? Do *I* take them to each
service? How do I explain my presence *in* that service given my own
personal beliefs? Do I *hide* my beliefs from them? etc.

Just be honest if/when those questions are asked of you. You don't have
to know all the answers, and it's OK to tell them you haven't got all
the answers.

Most kids (even teenagers! : ) look to parents as their primary source
of "authoritative information". These are the primary adults with which
they interact. And, the adults with whom they've developed the most
detailed relationships and "assessments".

So, whatever a parent says carries far too much weight -- for something
of which the parent isn't *sure* (even if the parent *thinks* they are
"sure enough" for their OWN needs). Who's pitching/defending the
"opposing view"? Surely *they* (kids) can't be counted on to formulate
logical counterarguments!

I.e., I have to assume some sort of ACTIVE role if they are to be
exposed to religion/spirituality at all. Do I start offering
a "blessing" before each meal? (How do I explain that given my
personal beliefs?) Do i try to get them to hitch a ride with a
neighbor -- or *different* neighbors/family/etc. depending on the
religion du jour?

You just do what you feel is right for you to do concerning those
things. Kids will understand if you aren't sure about something.

I'm not sure. At the very least, that would vary with the kid *and* the
parent(s).

I was raised RC and invested more time in studying the "faith" than
most kids would. All along, finding things that were "discomforting"
to a rational mind: "if *this*, then something-that-seems-wrong".
It was only when I was old enough to assert myself, my opinions and
my own beliefs that I actually said, "this is utter nonsense".
Despite the fact that the rest of my (extended) family still
subscribed to what I considered to *be* nonsense!

Did they actually *buy* this? Or, simply put up with it -- and
impose it on the *next* generation (out of laziness?)? If they
don't *genuinely* believe, then aren't they doing an even bigger
disservice (to their kids) than believing in something that may
NOT be The Truth?

On 9/26/2015 10:43 PM, Don Y wrote:
As I said, it's a *moral* obligation. There are many folks who see
the world as revolving around themselves and don't feel "obligated"
to play by social rules.

I tend to be very clinical in dealing with "boundaries".

Many years ago, I was invited to my boss's home for dinner. It
was early November -- T-day on the near horizon. They had a
young daughter (8?). I showed up with a Godiva chocolate *turkey*
for her. She was clinging to her mom's leg as I walked in.

I handed the turkey to the *mother*. She looked at me, puzzled:
"But, isn't this for daughter?" I said, "Yes. But, I don't think
she should be accepting a gift/candy from a stranger (despite the fact
that Mom & Dad obviously *both* know me!)"

I.e., daughter knows where the turkey came from. Daughter knows who to
thank. *Mom* will decide when -- and if -- she can eat it. I have
no role in this beyond my giving.


Perhaps one day Uncle Monster will relate how he'd
handle the situation. Probably pick up the little
girl, throw her to the ceiling a couple times,
chew on her arm till she gets hiccoughs from
giggling too long, and then throw the girl over
her shoulder, carry her in to her seat at the
table. Followed by a raise, promotion, and an offer
to be babysitter for the girl.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 6:38:18 AM UTC-5, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 9/26/2015 10:43 PM, Don Y wrote:
As I said, it's a *moral* obligation. There are many folks who see
the world as revolving around themselves and don't feel "obligated"
to play by social rules.

I tend to be very clinical in dealing with "boundaries".

Many years ago, I was invited to my boss's home for dinner. It
was early November -- T-day on the near horizon. They had a
young daughter (8?). I showed up with a Godiva chocolate *turkey*
for her. She was clinging to her mom's leg as I walked in.

I handed the turkey to the *mother*. She looked at me, puzzled:
"But, isn't this for daughter?" I said, "Yes. But, I don't think
she should be accepting a gift/candy from a stranger (despite the fact
that Mom & Dad obviously *both* know me!)"

I.e., daughter knows where the turkey came from. Daughter knows who to
thank. *Mom* will decide when -- and if -- she can eat it. I have
no role in this beyond my giving.


Perhaps one day Uncle Monster will relate how he'd
handle the situation. Probably pick up the little
girl, throw her to the ceiling a couple times,
chew on her arm till she gets hiccoughs from
giggling too long, and then throw the girl over
her shoulder, carry her in to her seat at the
table. Followed by a raise, promotion, and an offer
to be babysitter for the girl.
-
.

Oh come on! I don't torture my food or play with it..........too much. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Hungry Monster

On 9/27/2015 12:18 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 9/26/2015 8:47 PM, Muggles wrote:

Then again, isn't a car supposed to show a little bit of use?

*Use*, not "signs that someone got in and then OUT of it"!

Isn't that "use"?

Opening and closing a door would probably not fit with *most*
folks' idea of use!

"Wow! Why are you selling that vehicle for such a low price? What sort
of mileage does it have?"
"Milagee? *none*! *BUT*, I've opened and closed the doors 372,928 times!"

Hey, you're an engineer, right? Any use is equivalent to use. Isn't
that why they test the doors and test the materials they use on the
interior? If the interior materials show wear (or don't handle wear
very well), that's also one factor I look at when I'm looking for a used
car.

--
Maggie

On 9/27/2015 4:38 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 9/26/2015 4:06 PM, Muggles wrote:

OTOH, most religions aren't "casual undertakings". All require/expect
some degree of commitment. How do you *expose* a child (formative
years) without risking him/her being "conditioned" by the experience?

You can't. All you can do is the best you can do and allow them to
make
up their own minds.

You've avoided the question! :

LOL It's the truth! If you expose a child to anything you risk them
being conditioned. OTOH, if you don't expose them to something, it could
have a similar result - conditioning to avoid X or Y.

Exactly. Unlike folks who claim to "know god's will", I acknowledge
that there are *many* (most?) things that I don't know! So, my
"answers" only apply to me -- I wouldn't dream of imposing them
on another. I will gladly *share* them with "capable adults"
who can come to rational decisions as to whether or if they
want to adopt them.

But, when you're raising kids you're the adult in the relationship and
you have to make many choices on behalf of that child prior to their
being mature enough to make those choices for themselves. If you have a
belief system, that's what you teach them by your own actions. Those
actions can be where you participate actively in showing them what you
believe by "doing" something with them, or it can be by instructing
them, or just by your example of everything unspoken that you do that
they witness. If you believe in "God's will" (one way or another),
you're going to relay that belief to those kids regardless of your
actions or inaction. IMO, I think it's better to be open and just tell
them what you believe and then allow them to ponder the subject and come
to their own conclusions. That doesn't mean that you don't take them to
church, or resist DOING anything with them because you don't want to
influence their belief systems. Once you have kids and begin raising
them it's too late and you're going to influence them whether you want
to or not.

But, kids don't have that background or critical skill set.

That's why it's better for adults (most of the time) to be raising kids
instead of kids raising kids. At the same time just because a kid isn't
an adult it doesn't mean that they can't learn and participate in
critical thinking or decision making. You teach that, and you can teach
it on an age related basis and kids can and do learn that skill set.

Chances are, any house of worship will be
a "drive" from home. When they are young (e.g., 5, 6, 10, etc.) do I
expect them to hoof it to the church? Do I expect them to take the
initiative to explore the possible offerings? Do *I* take them to each
service? How do I explain my presence *in* that service given my own
personal beliefs? Do I *hide* my beliefs from them? etc.

Just be honest if/when those questions are asked of you. You don't have
to know all the answers, and it's OK to tell them you haven't got all
the answers.


Most kids (even teenagers! : ) look to parents as their primary source
of "authoritative information". These are the primary adults with which
they interact. And, the adults with whom they've developed the most
detailed relationships and "assessments".

In a perfect world, but when kids get to be teens the bigger influence
on them are their peers and if the parent hasn't established or taught
their kids a good moral/ethical baseline of behavior before their teens,
then the parent can and often times are screwed as far as being an
effective influence over their own teens.

So, whatever a parent says carries far too much weight -- for something
of which the parent isn't *sure* (even if the parent *thinks* they are
"sure enough" for their OWN needs). Who's pitching/defending the
"opposing view"? Surely *they* (kids) can't be counted on to formulate
logical counterarguments!

Yes, they can if you teach that skill from the time they're young enough
to understand cause and effect.

I.e., I have to assume some sort of ACTIVE role if they are to be
exposed to religion/spirituality at all. Do I start offering
a "blessing" before each meal? (How do I explain that given my
personal beliefs?) Do i try to get them to hitch a ride with a
neighbor -- or *different* neighbors/family/etc. depending on the
religion du jour?

You just do what you feel is right for you to do concerning those
things. Kids will understand if you aren't sure about something.


I'm not sure. At the very least, that would vary with the kid *and* the
parent(s).

Every kid is different, so you figure it out.

I was raised RC and invested more time in studying the "faith" than
most kids would.

I wasn't raised with any belief in God, and didn't go to church. My
parents believed in God, but they didn't take us to church.

All along, finding things that were "discomforting"
to a rational mind: "if *this*, then something-that-seems-wrong".

Me too. The think about being so dependent on "rational thinking" is
that many things we feel and experience have nothing to do with
"rational" anything. So trying to rationalize everything is like trying
to put a round peg in a square hole. You can whittle it down 'til it
fits, but it still doesn't REALLY fit.

It was only when I was old enough to assert myself, my opinions and
my own beliefs that I actually said, "this is utter nonsense".
Despite the fact that the rest of my (extended) family still
subscribed to what I considered to *be* nonsense!

IMO, "utter nonsense" is so based on personal experiences and how people
learn, or are taught by various input, and how they've learned to
process that input. If you make a decision that when X happens, then Y
is most always going to be how you respond to X, then you've conditioned
yourself to respond a certain way the rest of your life to the point
that X will always be "utter nonsense" regardless of whether it truly is
"utter nonsense". If we get to the point we're not open for other
responses to X, then we've become closed minded to X. If you think
about it, X will never be exactly the same X as when you made your
decision originally on how you'd respond to X. How do you know that X
will always be identical to the X you judged to be nonsense? Are you
really open to new ideas/conclusions or are you stagnant based on old
information?

Did they actually *buy* this? Or, simply put up with it -- and
impose it on the *next* generation (out of laziness?)? If they
don't *genuinely* believe, then aren't they doing an even bigger
disservice (to their kids) than believing in something that may
NOT be The Truth?

What "THEY" do really doesn't have to affect how you made decisions. Right?

--
Maggie

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message ...

On 9/25/2015 8:30 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
"Okay, what will it
take to put you in this car?"


If you try to put me in a car, you'd best have a
badge, gun, and probable cause.

OTOH, you might make me a reasonable offer, and
I'll choose to buy the car.

Don't treat me like a piece of meat.

"Oh" pending what kind meat is it and what you can do with it????
-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 9/27/2015 8:35 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 9/27/2015 4:38 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 9/26/2015 4:06 PM, Muggles wrote:

OTOH, most religions aren't "casual undertakings". All require/expect
some degree of commitment. How do you *expose* a child (formative
years) without risking him/her being "conditioned" by the experience?

You can't. All you can do is the best you can do and allow them to
make
up their own minds.

You've avoided the question! :

LOL It's the truth! If you expose a child to anything you risk them
being conditioned. OTOH, if you don't expose them to something, it could
have a similar result - conditioning to avoid X or Y.

Exactly. Unlike folks who claim to "know god's will", I acknowledge
that there are *many* (most?) things that I don't know! So, my
"answers" only apply to me -- I wouldn't dream of imposing them
on another. I will gladly *share* them with "capable adults"
who can come to rational decisions as to whether or if they
want to adopt them.

But, when you're raising kids you're the adult in the relationship and
you have to make many choices on behalf of that child prior to their
being mature enough to make those choices for themselves.

Of course! Many of those choices are easy:
- brush your teeth (otherwise you'll lose them)
- eat your vegetables
- get regular exercise
- don't play with matches
- do your homework ("learn")
etc. All of these are effectively universally recognized as "correct";
"based in fact". The degree to which you *obsess* over them is
negotiable. But, I'm pretty sure everyone knows these are the "right"
things to do and, thus, the right things to teach.

Beyond those sorts of things, you run into areas where you are dealing
with your personal opinions and biases:
- grow up to be a doctor/lawyer/priest/beautician/etc. (really? WHY?!!)
- be fearful/avoid/judgemental of folks with different skin color (WHY?)
- be fearful/avoid/judgemental of folks who believe in a different "god" (WHY?)
- be trusting/distrustful of others (WHY?)
- worship/abuse your spouse (WHY?)
etc. A rational being can't *know* that any of these are the "right" answer
(to whichever questions they attempt to address) -- despite how firmly they
may *believe*/practice/preach them!

And, most folks (my opinion) can't identify their own "baseless prejudices"...
or, don't *want* to (even admit they have them!) -- let alone understand
the reasons behind those prejudices/beliefs!

Yet, you're willing to IMPOSE them on an impressionable youth?

If you have a
belief system, that's what you teach them by your own actions. Those
actions can be where you participate actively in showing them what you
believe by "doing" something with them, or it can be by instructing
them, or just by your example of everything unspoken that you do that
they witness.

Exactly. IMO, you have a moral obligation to be aware of EXACTLY what
you are teaching -- by your words *and* actions. You can't rely on
your own ignorance of "yourself".

[I place a lot of emphasis on "responsibility". If I plant a tree,
it's *my* job to ensure it is well cared for as *I* planted it. It
didn't *choose* to exist in the location that I've imposed on it.]

If you believe in "God's will" (one way or another),
you're going to relay that belief to those kids regardless of your
actions or inaction. IMO, I think it's better to be open and just tell
them what you believe and then allow them to ponder the subject and come
to their own conclusions. That doesn't mean that you don't take them to
church, or resist DOING anything with them because you don't want to
influence their belief systems. Once you have kids and begin raising
them it's too late and you're going to influence them whether you want
to or not.

But, kids don't have that background or critical skill set.

That's why it's better for adults (most of the time) to be raising kids
instead of kids raising kids. At the same time just because a kid isn't
an adult it doesn't mean that they can't learn and participate in
critical thinking or decision making. You teach that, and you can teach
it on an age related basis and kids can and do learn that skill set.

I don't think most parents are that conscious of the effects they
have on their kids. I don't think they think through the consequences
of their teachings, actions, etc. Then, "later", wonder where this
"unacceptable behavior" came from ("Gee, do you think its their
GENES? Or, their UPBRINGING? No, wait -- in each case, it's YOU
who was the controlling factor!")

Most kids (even teenagers! : ) look to parents as their primary source
of "authoritative information". These are the primary adults with which
they interact. And, the adults with whom they've developed the most
detailed relationships and "assessments".

In a perfect world, but when kids get to be teens the bigger influence
on them are their peers and if the parent hasn't established or taught
their kids a good moral/ethical baseline of behavior before their teens,
then the parent can and often times are screwed as far as being an
effective influence over their own teens.

Yes. Too many influences/factors that can have a dramatic effect on
the "outcome". And, that "outcome" is a living organism -- that will
*ultimately* bear the cost for OTHERS' mistakes in its "formation"!

I won't let clients "dick with" a project after I've agreed to
take it on. I based my eventual decision to accept a project
based on my assessment as to whether it would be a worthwhile
undertaking (for *me*!). Giving someone/something influence over
the direction it takes after I've made that commitment greatly
increases the chance that it ends up becoming a "mess" and/or
something I'd regret "wasting" my time on!

So, whatever a parent says carries far too much weight -- for something
of which the parent isn't *sure* (even if the parent *thinks* they are
"sure enough" for their OWN needs). Who's pitching/defending the
"opposing view"? Surely *they* (kids) can't be counted on to formulate
logical counterarguments!

Yes, they can if you teach that skill from the time they're young enough
to understand cause and effect.

I don't think so. I think most *adults* aren't capable of the
necessary level of this skillset. Look at how many folks think/believe
what they WANT to believe? How many seek out folks with *similar*
opinions, news sources that reinforce their own beliefs as to the
What and Why, etc. How many REGULARLY expose themselves to opinions
and beliefs that are contrary to those with which they are comfortable?
How many subtly find themselves surrounded by the things that "confirm"
their beliefs/practices -- and aren't even aware that they are
doing this? How many CHALLENGE themselves? Are they all *that* sure
they have a lock on The Truth -- about ANYTHING??

All along, finding things that were "discomforting"
to a rational mind: "if *this*, then something-that-seems-wrong".

Me too. The think about being so dependent on "rational thinking" is
that many things we feel and experience have nothing to do with
"rational" anything. So trying to rationalize everything is like trying
to put a round peg in a square hole. You can whittle it down 'til it
fits, but it still doesn't REALLY fit.

I disagree. Failing to think rationally is the equivalent of taking
a whopping big hammer (Gallagher) and SMASHING that peg into
whatever hole is there -- then claiming it's a nice, tight fit!
By ignoring all the wood splinters around the hole and the stresses
now bound into the material.

It was only when I was old enough to assert myself, my opinions and
my own beliefs that I actually said, "this is utter nonsense".
Despite the fact that the rest of my (extended) family still
subscribed to what I considered to *be* nonsense!

IMO, "utter nonsense" is so based on personal experiences and how people
learn, or are taught by various input, and how they've learned to
process that input. If you make a decision that when X happens, then Y
is most always going to be how you respond to X, then you've conditioned
yourself to respond a certain way the rest of your life to the point
that X will always be "utter nonsense" regardless of whether it truly is
"utter nonsense". If we get to the point we're not open for other
responses to X, then we've become closed minded to X. If you think
about it, X will never be exactly the same X as when you made your
decision originally on how you'd respond to X. How do you know that X
will always be identical to the X you judged to be nonsense? Are you
really open to new ideas/conclusions or are you stagnant based on old
information?

You ALWAYS question. You always challenge your beliefs and practices.
Not doing so is the lazy, "safe" way out -- just like letting
someone else MAKE those decisions for you ("Whew! I don't have to
think for myself! This stuff is HARD! I'm sure glad someone took
the time to write it all in a book (that is COMPLETELY STATIC!)
so its easier for me to just *accept*! And, for the things that aren't
yet written down, I can simply tune in the radio and adopt whatever
one-sided drivel is being spewed at me -- as gospel!")

Did they actually *buy* this? Or, simply put up with it -- and
impose it on the *next* generation (out of laziness?)? If they
don't *genuinely* believe, then aren't they doing an even bigger
disservice (to their kids) than believing in something that may
NOT be The Truth?

What "THEY" do really doesn't have to affect how you made decisions. Right?

But what they have "shown* you DOES influence your decision making process.

My sister and I were raised in the same house, same parents, virtually
the same age. That upbringing was pretty frugal. I continue to be so.
She has been a "spender" since before she understood what money *was*!
She treats things as disposable -- I strive to make things last.
She won't hesitate to throw hundreds of dollars at something frivolous
(I can recall her buying some jeans for $75 when we were kids -- aside
from my fitted suits, I don't think I own a piece of clothing that
cost $75... some 30-40 years later!) while I question whether each
purchase is "need" or just "want" (and, I've got much deeper pockets
than she!).

Her tendency in this direction was never "checked" -- not *curbed*, just
*checked*: it was never pointed out to her that she is effectively making
significant choices with each of these "small decisions" -- choices that
would have a big impact on her lifestyle (having costly things that you
can't *afford* leads to other problems that are far more serious; and,
if you don't see this as the source of those problems, you'll never
be able to "fix" them!)

Obviously, the upbringing that we shared was subtly different. Compounded
by our individual personalities, this resulted in her going one way (wrt
how she makes purchase decisions) while I went another. Has *she* been
cheated? Have *I*??

On 9/27/2015 1:09 PM, tony944 wrote:


"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message ...
On 9/25/2015 8:30 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
"Okay, what will it
take to put you in this car?"


If you try to put me in a car, you'd best have a
badge, gun, and probable cause.

OTOH, you might make me a reasonable offer, and
I'll choose to buy the car.

Don't treat me like a piece of meat.
"Oh" pending what kind meat is it and what you can do with it????
-
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
. www.lds.org
.
.

No new text?

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 9/27/2015 12:40 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 9/27/2015 8:35 AM, Muggles wrote:

Exactly. Unlike folks who claim to "know god's will", I acknowledge
that there are *many* (most?) things that I don't know! So, my
"answers" only apply to me -- I wouldn't dream of imposing them
on another. I will gladly *share* them with "capable adults"
who can come to rational decisions as to whether or if they
want to adopt them.

But, when you're raising kids you're the adult in the relationship and
you have to make many choices on behalf of that child prior to their
being mature enough to make those choices for themselves.

Of course! Many of those choices are easy:
- brush your teeth (otherwise you'll lose them)
- eat your vegetables
- get regular exercise
- don't play with matches
- do your homework ("learn")
etc. All of these are effectively universally recognized as "correct";
"based in fact". The degree to which you *obsess* over them is
negotiable. But, I'm pretty sure everyone knows these are the "right"
things to do and, thus, the right things to teach.

Well, it's a matter of perspective.

Beyond those sorts of things, you run into areas where you are dealing
with your personal opinions and biases:
- grow up to be a doctor/lawyer/priest/beautician/etc. (really? WHY?!!)
- be fearful/avoid/judgemental of folks with different skin color (WHY?)
- be fearful/avoid/judgemental of folks who believe in a different "god"
(WHY?)
- be trusting/distrustful of others (WHY?)
- worship/abuse your spouse (WHY?)
etc. A rational being can't *know* that any of these are the "right"
answer
(to whichever questions they attempt to address) -- despite how firmly they
may *believe*/practice/preach them!

And, most folks (my opinion) can't identify their own "baseless
prejudices"...
or, don't *want* to (even admit they have them!) -- let alone understand
the reasons behind those prejudices/beliefs!

Can you identify any of your own baseless prejudices? Most people know
why they are prejudiced, but they may not want to actually say it out loud.

Yet, you're willing to IMPOSE them on an impressionable youth?

The opinions you express on any subject can be construed as imposing
them on someone else who's impressionable. But, something can't actually
be imposed on another person unless free will is removed as an option.

If you have a
belief system, that's what you teach them by your own actions. Those
actions can be where you participate actively in showing them what you
believe by "doing" something with them, or it can be by instructing
them, or just by your example of everything unspoken that you do that
they witness.

Exactly. IMO, you have a moral obligation to be aware of EXACTLY what
you are teaching -- by your words *and* actions. You can't rely on
your own ignorance of "yourself".

[I place a lot of emphasis on "responsibility". If I plant a tree,
it's *my* job to ensure it is well cared for as *I* planted it. It
didn't *choose* to exist in the location that I've imposed on it.]

Trees live, tree die. Sometimes, you can do everything right and they
still die. Sometimes, you can do everything wrong and they fight to
live and success. Will you consider yourself a failure if you do
everything right in teaching all you know about being responsible, yet
your student just doesn't get it?


If you believe in "God's will" (one way or another),
you're going to relay that belief to those kids regardless of your
actions or inaction. IMO, I think it's better to be open and just tell
them what you believe and then allow them to ponder the subject and come
to their own conclusions. That doesn't mean that you don't take them to
church, or resist DOING anything with them because you don't want to
influence their belief systems. Once you have kids and begin raising
them it's too late and you're going to influence them whether you want
to or not.

But, kids don't have that background or critical skill set.

That's why it's better for adults (most of the time) to be raising kids
instead of kids raising kids. At the same time just because a kid isn't
an adult it doesn't mean that they can't learn and participate in
critical thinking or decision making. You teach that, and you can teach
it on an age related basis and kids can and do learn that skill set.

I don't think most parents are that conscious of the effects they
have on their kids.

We aren't talking about most parents, right? I thought we were talking
about you IF you were a parent?

I don't think they think through the consequences
of their teachings, actions, etc. Then, "later", wonder where this
"unacceptable behavior" came from ("Gee, do you think its their
GENES? Or, their UPBRINGING? No, wait -- in each case, it's YOU
who was the controlling factor!")

Wrong! They make their own decisions. You can give them all the right
information, and they'll still get it wrong sometimes, and right sometimes.

Most kids (even teenagers! : ) look to parents as their primary source
of "authoritative information". These are the primary adults with which
they interact. And, the adults with whom they've developed the most
detailed relationships and "assessments".

In a perfect world, but when kids get to be teens the bigger influence
on them are their peers and if the parent hasn't established or taught
their kids a good moral/ethical baseline of behavior before their teens,
then the parent can and often times are screwed as far as being an
effective influence over their own teens.


Yes. Too many influences/factors that can have a dramatic effect on
the "outcome". And, that "outcome" is a living organism -- that will
*ultimately* bear the cost for OTHERS' mistakes in its "formation"!

That's life!

I won't let clients "dick with" a project after I've agreed to
take it on. I based my eventual decision to accept a project
based on my assessment as to whether it would be a worthwhile
undertaking (for *me*!). Giving someone/something influence over
the direction it takes after I've made that commitment greatly
increases the chance that it ends up becoming a "mess" and/or
something I'd regret "wasting" my time on!

I understand what you're saying.

So, whatever a parent says carries far too much weight -- for something
of which the parent isn't *sure* (even if the parent *thinks* they are
"sure enough" for their OWN needs). Who's pitching/defending the
"opposing view"? Surely *they* (kids) can't be counted on to formulate
logical counterarguments!

Yes, they can if you teach that skill from the time they're young enough
to understand cause and effect.


I don't think so. I think most *adults* aren't capable of the
necessary level of this skillset. Look at how many folks think/believe
what they WANT to believe? How many seek out folks with *similar*
opinions, news sources that reinforce their own beliefs as to the
What and Why, etc. How many REGULARLY expose themselves to opinions
and beliefs that are contrary to those with which they are comfortable?

It isn't about how many people - it's about whether or not it's
possible, and it is possible.

How many subtly find themselves surrounded by the things that "confirm"
their beliefs/practices -- and aren't even aware that they are
doing this? How many CHALLENGE themselves? Are they all *that* sure
they have a lock on The Truth -- about ANYTHING??

If you base your own viewpoints on what you perceive the failures of
others to be, then you'll be spending a lot of time continuously moving
the goal posts. People are fickle, and irrational, and human. Sure,
learn from what other people do, but don't dwell on it when it comes to
figuring out how you want to respond to the world.

All along, finding things that were "discomforting"
to a rational mind: "if *this*, then something-that-seems-wrong".

Me too. The think about being so dependent on "rational thinking" is
that many things we feel and experience have nothing to do with
"rational" anything. So trying to rationalize everything is like trying
to put a round peg in a square hole. You can whittle it down 'til it
fits, but it still doesn't REALLY fit.

I disagree. Failing to think rationally is the equivalent of taking
a whopping big hammer (Gallagher) and SMASHING that peg into
whatever hole is there -- then claiming it's a nice, tight fit!
By ignoring all the wood splinters around the hole and the stresses
now bound into the material.

Is it rational to expect people to think rationally or would that be an
unrealistic expectation? Are unrealistic expectations a result of
irrational reasoning and flawed conclusions?


It was only when I was old enough to assert myself, my opinions and
my own beliefs that I actually said, "this is utter nonsense".
Despite the fact that the rest of my (extended) family still
subscribed to what I considered to *be* nonsense!

IMO, "utter nonsense" is so based on personal experiences and how people
learn, or are taught by various input, and how they've learned to
process that input. If you make a decision that when X happens, then Y
is most always going to be how you respond to X, then you've conditioned
yourself to respond a certain way the rest of your life to the point
that X will always be "utter nonsense" regardless of whether it truly is
"utter nonsense". If we get to the point we're not open for other
responses to X, then we've become closed minded to X. If you think
about it, X will never be exactly the same X as when you made your
decision originally on how you'd respond to X. How do you know that X
will always be identical to the X you judged to be nonsense? Are you
really open to new ideas/conclusions or are you stagnant based on old
information?

You ALWAYS question. You always challenge your beliefs and practices.
Not doing so is the lazy, "safe" way out -

Why? Why always challenge and not accept? Why is it lazy?

- just like letting
someone else MAKE those decisions for you ("Whew! I don't have to
think for myself! This stuff is HARD! I'm sure glad someone took
the time to write it all in a book (that is COMPLETELY STATIC!)

I can see a place and a time when it's not wrong to let someone else
make a decision, or be glad that someone else took the time to write it
all in a book. That would mean that I'm not "always challenging", but
at the same time it may not be necessary to "always challenge".

so its easier for me to just *accept*! And, for the things that aren't

Sometimes, it IS easier to just accept something, but just because it's
easier, it doesn't mean it's wrong.

yet written down, I can simply tune in the radio and adopt whatever
one-sided drivel is being spewed at me -- as gospel!")

Have you ever listened to the radio and agreed with what you heard? How
is that any different than if someone listened to the gospel and agreed
with it?

Did they actually *buy* this? Or, simply put up with it -- and
impose it on the *next* generation (out of laziness?)? If they
don't *genuinely* believe, then aren't they doing an even bigger
disservice (to their kids) than believing in something that may
NOT be The Truth?

What "THEY" do really doesn't have to affect how you made decisions.
Right?

But what they have "shown* you DOES influence your decision making process.

So?

My sister and I were raised in the same house, same parents, virtually
the same age. That upbringing was pretty frugal. I continue to be so.
She has been a "spender" since before she understood what money *was*!
She treats things as disposable -- I strive to make things last.
She won't hesitate to throw hundreds of dollars at something frivolous
(I can recall her buying some jeans for $75 when we were kids -- aside
from my fitted suits, I don't think I own a piece of clothing that
cost $75... some 30-40 years later!) while I question whether each
purchase is "need" or just "want" (and, I've got much deeper pockets
than she!).

Her tendency in this direction was never "checked" -- not *curbed*, just
*checked*: it was never pointed out to her that she is effectively making
significant choices with each of these "small decisions" -- choices that
would have a big impact on her lifestyle (having costly things that you
can't *afford* leads to other problems that are far more serious; and,
if you don't see this as the source of those problems, you'll never
be able to "fix" them!)

Obviously, the upbringing that we shared was subtly different. Compounded
by our individual personalities, this resulted in her going one way (wrt
how she makes purchase decisions) while I went another. Has *she* been
cheated? Have *I*??

You're different people responding to similar situations based on how
you've decided that you would respond to each situation. Who is right/wrong?

IMO, if you both individually are happy with who you are then what's the
problem? Is the problem accepting that your sister isn't like you, or is
the problem wondering why you aren't more like your sister, or is the
problem just simply accepting that you're different?

--
Maggie

On 9/27/2015 9:59 PM, Muggles wrote:
And, most folks (my opinion) can't identify their own "baseless
prejudices"...
or, don't *want* to (even admit they have them!) -- let alone understand
the reasons behind those prejudices/beliefs!

Can you identify any of your own baseless prejudices? Most people know
why they are prejudiced, but they may not want to actually say it out loud.

I grew up in a lily white, WASP-ish community. All european descent,
small townish, etc.

When I went off to school, I had the canned, WASP (despite being RC!)
attitudes homosexuality. I recall making some gay-bashing comment
to a roommate -- who'd been raised in a more "contemporary" environment.
He *calmly* objected to my stereotyped comment and pointed out that
many of my "friends" (folks I had met while at school) were gay. When
I looked at him in disbelief, he rattled off their names. And, as
I quickly discovered, none of these folks "hid" from that "accusation"
revelation. And, all essentially laughed at my naivite.

Now, do I reassess my opinions of them AS PEOPLE? *THEY* haven't
changed! Or, do I reassess the canned/conditioned opinions that I'd
inherited from my upbringing? Despite never actually having anyone
explicitly "gay bashing" *in* that upbringing?

Yet, you're willing to IMPOSE them on an impressionable youth?

The opinions you express on any subject can be construed as imposing
them on someone else who's impressionable. But, something can't actually
be imposed on another person unless free will is removed as an option.

What free will do children have, in practical terms? Their entire
reference frame is defined by their upbringing (parents).

Exactly. IMO, you have a moral obligation to be aware of EXACTLY what
you are teaching -- by your words *and* actions. You can't rely on
your own ignorance of "yourself".

[I place a lot of emphasis on "responsibility". If I plant a tree,
it's *my* job to ensure it is well cared for as *I* planted it. It
didn't *choose* to exist in the location that I've imposed on it.]

Trees live, tree die. Sometimes, you can do everything right and they
still die. Sometimes, you can do everything wrong and they fight to
live and success. Will you consider yourself a failure if you do
everything right in teaching all you know about being responsible, yet
your student just doesn't get it?

How do I *know* that I've "done everything right"? It's far too easy to
dismiss a failure as someone *else's* problem -- not a reflection of
your own inadequacy in conveying the requisite information, etc.

If a friend/neighbor/client/etc. asks me a question regarding something
technical (e.g.), do I just make my best attempt at explaining it and,
if the person can't grasp what I'm saying, should I write it off as
*his* problem/inadequacy?

I listen to many peers explaining technical issues and listen to all
the jargon they use. And, I shake my head: they're already using
a specialized vocabulary that EXCLUDES folks who aren't familiar with
the technology... how can they expect the other person to GENUINELY
understand what they are saying? Is the other party likely to
admit that they aren't following the explanation?

When *I* try to explain something, I try to leverage my knowledge of the
individual to whom I'm speaking and draw analogies to which he/she might
be more able to relate. Why undertake the effort if you aren't *planning*
on being successful?

That's why it's better for adults (most of the time) to be raising kids
instead of kids raising kids. At the same time just because a kid isn't
an adult it doesn't mean that they can't learn and participate in
critical thinking or decision making. You teach that, and you can teach
it on an age related basis and kids can and do learn that skill set.

I don't think most parents are that conscious of the effects they
have on their kids.

We aren't talking about most parents, right? I thought we were talking
about you IF you were a parent?

But I'm *not* a parent! So, all I can do is observe OTHER parents and
try to GUESS how I would respond to these various challenges.

I don't think they think through the consequences
of their teachings, actions, etc. Then, "later", wonder where this
"unacceptable behavior" came from ("Gee, do you think its their
GENES? Or, their UPBRINGING? No, wait -- in each case, it's YOU
who was the controlling factor!")

Wrong! They make their own decisions. You can give them all the right
information, and they'll still get it wrong sometimes, and right sometimes.

They make their decisions based on the information you've told them and exposed
them to during their upbringing. You can *say* one thing but if your actions
are inconsistent with those "preachings", how do you know which will have
the bigger, lasting impact?

I base much of my actions and attitudes on observations of things that
I *disliked* or *disapproved*. I see people tossing trash on the ground
and consider that a behavior that I don't like. So, I *pickup* trash
that I encounter on the ground (but, don't go out of my way to search
it out). I see people laden with goods having to struggle to open
a door -- because the person ahead of them carelessly ignored their
presence behind them, on entry, and let the door close in their
face (lest he have to invest a few SECONDS to hold the door for that
person) so I spend MANY seconds holding a door open for someone who
may not be *immediately* behind me. I watch pedestrians saunter
across the road content that traffic WILL stop and not run them over
so I *hustle* when I see a car waiting for me to cross. Etc.

None of these things "cost me" much. None will result in my dying
sooner or suffering some preventable malady. Nor would they "cost"
any of the folks who engage in these "undesireable" behaviors had
they elected to approach things differently (e.g., "my way")

I don't think so. I think most *adults* aren't capable of the
necessary level of this skillset. Look at how many folks think/believe
what they WANT to believe? How many seek out folks with *similar*
opinions, news sources that reinforce their own beliefs as to the
What and Why, etc. How many REGULARLY expose themselves to opinions
and beliefs that are contrary to those with which they are comfortable?

It isn't about how many people - it's about whether or not it's
possible, and it is possible.

So, just wash your hands of it and expect THEM to sort it out?
"It's not MY problem?"

How many subtly find themselves surrounded by the things that "confirm"
their beliefs/practices -- and aren't even aware that they are
doing this? How many CHALLENGE themselves? Are they all *that* sure
they have a lock on The Truth -- about ANYTHING??

If you base your own viewpoints on what you perceive the failures of
others to be, then you'll be spending a lot of time continuously moving
the goal posts. People are fickle, and irrational, and human. Sure,
learn from what other people do, but don't dwell on it when it comes to
figuring out how you want to respond to the world.

My goal is to refine *myself*. I can do nothing to alter *your* behavior.
But, I can control how *I* approach the world and my role in it. As
a (potential) parent, that extends to my "charges"

I disagree. Failing to think rationally is the equivalent of taking
a whopping big hammer (Gallagher) and SMASHING that peg into
whatever hole is there -- then claiming it's a nice, tight fit!
By ignoring all the wood splinters around the hole and the stresses
now bound into the material.

Is it rational to expect people to think rationally or would that be an
unrealistic expectation? Are unrealistic expectations a result of
irrational reasoning and flawed conclusions?

I think people are lazy, insecure and greedy. I think they look for
the easiest solution to most problems. And, grumble when the consequences
come back to bite them, later.

Being realistic means you invest in the decision making process and
acknowledge the potential problems -- instead of whining later
that things didn't go the way you'd naively *hoped*.

You ALWAYS question. You always challenge your beliefs and practices.
Not doing so is the lazy, "safe" way out -

Why? Why always challenge and not accept? Why is it lazy?

Look at the opposite extreme: why not make up your mind *once* in
life and then ignore all new data? Is that NOT lazy?

so its easier for me to just *accept*! And, for the things that aren't

Sometimes, it IS easier to just accept something, but just because it's
easier, it doesn't mean it's wrong.

Accepting what you are told is easier because you don't have to
THINK about it *or* take responsibility for HAVING thought about it!

yet written down, I can simply tune in the radio and adopt whatever
one-sided drivel is being spewed at me -- as gospel!")

Have you ever listened to the radio and agreed with what you heard? How
is that any different than if someone listened to the gospel and agreed
with it?

I question everything I hear -- from friends, clients, neighbors,
media, etc. "Why are they saying this? Do they have a bias?
Do they have an agenda? Are they trying (consciously or not) to
manipulate my thoughts or actions? Are their reasoning processes
faulty?"

You *rarely* encounter "The Whole Truth" -- especially from people
who *claim* to be spouting "The Truth". What is that salesperson NOT
telling me? Why is that politician carefully phrasing his/her claim
(what technicality is he/she hoping I *don't* notice?)

We have a $1B bond package to vote on in November. It's always amusing
to read the opinions for/against each issue and see how they are
hand-waving around certain uncomfortable details -- regardless of
which stance (pro/con) they are taking. Unless you can understand
what is NOT being said, you can't expose the "entire issue" to
a degree that you can come to an independent assessment of its validity
or desireability.

My FinL used to always rhetorically ask: "Do you know how people
make decisions? They ask themselves 'How will this affect *me*?'"
I.e., they aren't concerned over the *right* decision, just the
personal impact of *a* decision.

Did they actually *buy* this? Or, simply put up with it -- and
impose it on the *next* generation (out of laziness?)? If they
don't *genuinely* believe, then aren't they doing an even bigger
disservice (to their kids) than believing in something that may
NOT be The Truth?

What "THEY" do really doesn't have to affect how you made decisions.
Right?

But what they have "shown* you DOES influence your decision making process.

So?

What if their actions, beliefs, etc. are "wrong"? They aren't based
in FACT but, rather, *opinion* -- subject to their own personal
failings. Don't you want (strive) to want to make GOOD decisions
(instead of expedient or selfish ones)?

Obviously, the upbringing that we shared was subtly different. Compounded
by our individual personalities, this resulted in her going one way (wrt
how she makes purchase decisions) while I went another. Has *she* been
cheated? Have *I*??

You're different people responding to similar situations based on how
you've decided that you would respond to each situation. Who is right/wrong?

Neither or both. There *is* no right/wrong -- it's something that
can't be codified in a textbook as an "invariant". Looking at the
two of us, which behavior would I want to "wish on" my offspring?
Which *would* I end up effectively "teaching" them (by my words/actions)?

IMO, if you both individually are happy with who you are then what's the
problem? Is the problem accepting that your sister isn't like you, or is
the problem wondering why you aren't more like your sister, or is the
problem just simply accepting that you're different?

The issue I am drawing attention to is that neither is KNOWN to
be "right". Yet *each* has consequences that affect our respective
lives.

We grow our own citrus. Some of it we squeeze for OJ (we finished
the last quart of OJ from last December this week). *If* my sister
were inclined to plant/grow/maintain/harvest/juice these fruit,
she would purchase containers in which to store the gallons of juice
to be frozen. And, as each container was emptied, she would discard
the container -- opting to purchase a replacement come next harvest.

I, OTOH, save containers that we purchase for other items throughout
the year (applesauce, peanuts, etc.) and set them aside for juice
season. Once the juice is consumed, I discard them (as they are
too difficult from which to clean out the pulp) knowing that I
will encounter another set of containers in the coming year.

Which approach is "right"? Her approach is wasteful of resources
and costs her money -- plus a trip to the store each year to purchase
new containers. My approach costs me *time* ("time is money"!).
Which approach do I teach my offspring? Given that neither is
"The Right One"?

On 9/28/2015 1:56 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 9/27/2015 9:59 PM, Muggles wrote:
And, most folks (my opinion) can't identify their own "baseless
prejudices"...
or, don't *want* to (even admit they have them!) -- let alone understand
the reasons behind those prejudices/beliefs!

Can you identify any of your own baseless prejudices? Most people know
why they are prejudiced, but they may not want to actually say it out
loud.

I grew up in a lily white, WASP-ish community. All european descent,
small townish, etc.

When I went off to school, I had the canned, WASP (despite being RC!)
attitudes homosexuality. I recall making some gay-bashing comment
to a roommate -- who'd been raised in a more "contemporary" environment.
He *calmly* objected to my stereotyped comment and pointed out that
many of my "friends" (folks I had met while at school) were gay. When
I looked at him in disbelief, he rattled off their names. And, as
I quickly discovered, none of these folks "hid" from that "accusation"
revelation. And, all essentially laughed at my naivite.

Now, do I reassess my opinions of them AS PEOPLE? *THEY* haven't
changed! Or, do I reassess the canned/conditioned opinions that I'd
inherited from my upbringing? Despite never actually having anyone
explicitly "gay bashing" *in* that upbringing?

Your opinion you expressed were ideas and decisions you'd made along the
way as you grew up. It's not like anyone forced you to have them, so
when exposed to new information and situations you're faced with a new
decision as to whether or not you'll continue with your original
opinions or adapt them. Your "upbringing" was simply your circumstances
you grew up in, but how you responded to your upbringing was your own
decision, and you can't attribute how you responded to your upbringing
to someone elses examples, ideas, or influence UNLESS someone removed
your free will from the scenario. You came to your own conclusions
because your made those decisions, not because of your "upbringing".

People wonder why 2 siblings with the same upbringing can turn out so
different. The upbringing is just circumstances people face on a daily
basis, but how people respond to the same circumstances/influences are
personal and individual choices.

Yet, you're willing to IMPOSE them on an impressionable youth?

The opinions you express on any subject can be construed as imposing
them on someone else who's impressionable. But, something can't actually
be imposed on another person unless free will is removed as an option.

What free will do children have, in practical terms? Their entire
reference frame is defined by their upbringing (parents).

Children exercise free will from the time they are born, and they do so
by choosing how they will respond to every single scenario and
situations or influence on a daily basis. A baby will cry to get
attention - they are hungry or need a diaper changed, so they learn
quickly how to get what they want or need. The more they mature and grow
the more they become masters at responding to their circumstances and
they make micro decisions constantly and consistently every day.
Personality begins to develop from day 1, and free will also develops
and matures. Just because a child is a minor doesn't remove their free
will from every day life. Being taught by a parent doesn't remove the
child's free will. Will they bend their will to discipline and training
from a parent or teacher, or will they rebel? That's decisions children
make every day. "Why" they make their decisions is another subject,
though. Maturity vs. immaturity influences those decisions they make,
too, but they STILL have a choice to respond in a positive or negative
manner. Children understand the consequences of their actions from the
time they are born, but their understanding is very immature and related
to bare bones basics - hunger cry, diaper wet cry, discomfort cry.
All those responses they've learned because of how we respond them
crying. The crying then becomes a learned response that they choose by
their own free will.


Exactly. IMO, you have a moral obligation to be aware of EXACTLY what
you are teaching -- by your words *and* actions. You can't rely on
your own ignorance of "yourself".

[I place a lot of emphasis on "responsibility". If I plant a tree,
it's *my* job to ensure it is well cared for as *I* planted it. It
didn't *choose* to exist in the location that I've imposed on it.]

Trees live, tree die. Sometimes, you can do everything right and they
still die. Sometimes, you can do everything wrong and they fight to
live and success. Will you consider yourself a failure if you do
everything right in teaching all you know about being responsible, yet
your student just doesn't get it?


How do I *know* that I've "done everything right"? It's far too easy to
dismiss a failure as someone *else's* problem -- not a reflection of
your own inadequacy in conveying the requisite information, etc.

The point about "doing everything right" is that sometimes it doesn't
matter how much effort we put into teaching a child- that child will
still make their own choices and decisions that make it appear we've
failed in teaching and training them.

If a friend/neighbor/client/etc. asks me a question regarding something
technical (e.g.), do I just make my best attempt at explaining it and,
if the person can't grasp what I'm saying, should I write it off as
*his* problem/inadequacy?

That's a choice you make based on many different variables. Sometimes,
the right response would be to make additional attempts to explain the
concept, other times the right response is to let it go.

I listen to many peers explaining technical issues and listen to all
the jargon they use. And, I shake my head: they're already using
a specialized vocabulary that EXCLUDES folks who aren't familiar with
the technology... how can they expect the other person to GENUINELY
understand what they are saying? Is the other party likely to
admit that they aren't following the explanation?

If the person listening really wants to understand, why wouldn't they
inquire further for an explanation of the terminology? I would ask.

When *I* try to explain something, I try to leverage my knowledge of the
individual to whom I'm speaking and draw analogies to which he/she might
be more able to relate. Why undertake the effort if you aren't *planning*
on being successful?

That's another choice YOU make based on reasoning over a period of time
that makes sense to you (for whatever reasons).

That's why it's better for adults (most of the time) to be raising kids
instead of kids raising kids. At the same time just because a kid isn't
an adult it doesn't mean that they can't learn and participate in
critical thinking or decision making. You teach that, and you can
teach
it on an age related basis and kids can and do learn that skill set.

I don't think most parents are that conscious of the effects they
have on their kids.

We aren't talking about most parents, right? I thought we were talking
about you IF you were a parent?


But I'm *not* a parent! So, all I can do is observe OTHER parents and
try to GUESS how I would respond to these various challenges.

When it's your own kid, it's different! You know things about those kids
other people can't know by observation.

I don't think they think through the consequences
of their teachings, actions, etc. Then, "later", wonder where this
"unacceptable behavior" came from ("Gee, do you think its their
GENES? Or, their UPBRINGING? No, wait -- in each case, it's YOU
who was the controlling factor!")

Wrong! They make their own decisions. You can give them all the right
information, and they'll still get it wrong sometimes, and right
sometimes.


They make their decisions based on the information you've told them and
exposed them to during their upbringing. You can *say* one thing but
if your actions are inconsistent with those "preachings", how do you
know which will have the bigger, lasting impact?

We all make decisions based on the information at hand, but we all still
have a choice to make snap decisions, or seek more information. No one
is perfect or totally consistent in anything, so blaming the information
source for a decision choice is a bit misplaced. Influence of anything
still doesn't remove free will because we still have choices how we'll
respond. "Why" we make the decisions and choices are another subject,
altogether.

I base much of my actions and attitudes on observations of things that
I *disliked* or *disapproved*.

You could have just as easily adapted your responses to be more
influenced by things you "liked" IF you made that decision to do so.

I see people tossing trash on the ground
and consider that a behavior that I don't like. So, I *pickup* trash
that I encounter on the ground (but, don't go out of my way to search
it out).

Turn it around and it could be said that you respond that way because
you see cleanliness and order to be a good thing and have decided to
make it so whenever you can do so.

I see people laden with goods having to struggle to open
a door -- because the person ahead of them carelessly ignored their
presence behind them, on entry, and let the door close in their
face (lest he have to invest a few SECONDS to hold the door for that
person)

That is a judgement that may or may not be true about the person ahead
of the struggling person. Why did you jump to that conclusion vs. making
a different assumption?

so I spend MANY seconds holding a door open for someone who
may not be *immediately* behind me. I watch pedestrians saunter
across the road content that traffic WILL stop and not run them over
so I *hustle* when I see a car waiting for me to cross. Etc.

Again, "why" you come to your own decisions is a different topic.

None of these things "cost me" much. None will result in my dying
sooner or suffering some preventable malady. Nor would they "cost"
any of the folks who engage in these "undesireable" behaviors had
they elected to approach things differently (e.g., "my way")

Have you analyzed why you do the things you do? IOW, trace your decision
to respond to particular situations to the first time you decided that's
how you'd respond? "Why" you respond is usually based on an emotional
reaction.

I don't think so. I think most *adults* aren't capable of the
necessary level of this skillset. Look at how many folks think/believe
what they WANT to believe? How many seek out folks with *similar*
opinions, news sources that reinforce their own beliefs as to the
What and Why, etc. How many REGULARLY expose themselves to opinions
and beliefs that are contrary to those with which they are comfortable?

It isn't about how many people - it's about whether or not it's
possible, and it is possible.

So, just wash your hands of it and expect THEM to sort it out?
"It's not MY problem?"

Not necessarily, but there are times that may be the right decision.
Other times it may be the right decision to take a stand. Sometimes,
someone else might be more suited to be a positive influence in a
scenario, so it IS better to take a step back.

How many subtly find themselves surrounded by the things that "confirm"
their beliefs/practices -- and aren't even aware that they are
doing this? How many CHALLENGE themselves? Are they all *that* sure
they have a lock on The Truth -- about ANYTHING??

If you base your own viewpoints on what you perceive the failures of
others to be, then you'll be spending a lot of time continuously moving
the goal posts. People are fickle, and irrational, and human. Sure,
learn from what other people do, but don't dwell on it when it comes to
figuring out how you want to respond to the world.

My goal is to refine *myself*. I can do nothing to alter *your* behavior.
But, I can control how *I* approach the world and my role in it. As
a (potential) parent, that extends to my "charges"

Well, I think it's a good thing to keep growing. Kids will make you
wonder if you're sane or not! HA!

I disagree. Failing to think rationally is the equivalent of taking
a whopping big hammer (Gallagher) and SMASHING that peg into
whatever hole is there -- then claiming it's a nice, tight fit!
By ignoring all the wood splinters around the hole and the stresses
now bound into the material.

Is it rational to expect people to think rationally or would that be an
unrealistic expectation? Are unrealistic expectations a result of
irrational reasoning and flawed conclusions?

I think people are lazy, insecure and greedy.

Why are people lazy, insecure, and greedy? How much of that is due to
human nature, and how much is because they don't know any better? How
many people don't even realize they can choose different responses?
People are taught to blame their behavior on someone else vs. taking
ownership of their responses.

I think they look for the easiest solution to most problems. And,
grumble when the consequences come back to bite them, later.

Is that human nature?

Being realistic means you invest in the decision making process and
acknowledge the potential problems -- instead of whining later
that things didn't go the way you'd naively *hoped*.

"Being realistic" is a personal perception based on previous experiences
which influence people and affect their decisions.

You ALWAYS question. You always challenge your beliefs and practices.
Not doing so is the lazy, "safe" way out -

Why? Why always challenge and not accept? Why is it lazy?

Look at the opposite extreme: why not make up your mind *once* in
life and then ignore all new data? Is that NOT lazy?

It "might" be lazy, but then again, it could be attributed to ignorance,
how an individual learns, personality type, etc.

so its easier for me to just *accept*! And, for the things that aren't

Sometimes, it IS easier to just accept something, but just because it's
easier, it doesn't mean it's wrong.

Accepting what you are told is easier because you don't have to
THINK about it *or* take responsibility for HAVING thought about it!

That's one conclusion that may be right, or it could also be wrong.
There could be other reasons a person accepts what they are told vs.
challenging it.

yet written down, I can simply tune in the radio and adopt whatever
one-sided drivel is being spewed at me -- as gospel!")

Have you ever listened to the radio and agreed with what you heard? How
is that any different than if someone listened to the gospel and agreed
with it?

I question everything I hear -- from friends, clients, neighbors,
media, etc. "Why are they saying this? Do they have a bias?
Do they have an agenda? Are they trying (consciously or not) to
manipulate my thoughts or actions? Are their reasoning processes
faulty?"

Turn it around and ask yourself "Why am I saying this? Do I have a bias?
What's my agenda?... etc.". It's only fair if you're going to analyze
other peoples responses to also analyze how you've come to choose your
own responses. Right?

You *rarely* encounter "The Whole Truth" -- especially from people
who *claim* to be spouting "The Truth". What is that salesperson NOT
telling me? Why is that politician carefully phrasing his/her claim
(what technicality is he/she hoping I *don't* notice?)

Sure ... I agree.

We have a $1B bond package to vote on in November. It's always amusing
to read the opinions for/against each issue and see how they are
hand-waving around certain uncomfortable details -- regardless of
which stance (pro/con) they are taking. Unless you can understand
what is NOT being said, you can't expose the "entire issue" to
a degree that you can come to an independent assessment of its validity
or desireability.

That's the truth!

My FinL used to always rhetorically ask: "Do you know how people
make decisions? They ask themselves 'How will this affect *me*?'"
I.e., they aren't concerned over the *right* decision, just the
personal impact of *a* decision.

It's human nature to ask "how will this affect me". Everyone does it.

Did they actually *buy* this? Or, simply put up with it -- and
impose it on the *next* generation (out of laziness?)? If they
don't *genuinely* believe, then aren't they doing an even bigger
disservice (to their kids) than believing in something that may
NOT be The Truth?

What "THEY" do really doesn't have to affect how you made decisions.
Right?

But what they have "shown* you DOES influence your decision making
process.

So?

What if their actions, beliefs, etc. are "wrong"? They aren't based

You respond appropriately if something turns out to be wrong. You change.

in FACT but, rather, *opinion* -- subject to their own personal
failings. Don't you want (strive) to want to make GOOD decisions
(instead of expedient or selfish ones)?

"Good" is a personal preference.

Obviously, the upbringing that we shared was subtly different.
Compounded
by our individual personalities, this resulted in her going one way (wrt
how she makes purchase decisions) while I went another. Has *she* been
cheated? Have *I*??

You're different people responding to similar situations based on how
you've decided that you would respond to each situation. Who is
right/wrong?

Neither or both. There *is* no right/wrong -- it's something that
can't be codified in a textbook as an "invariant". Looking at the
two of us, which behavior would I want to "wish on" my offspring?
Which *would* I end up effectively "teaching" them (by my words/actions)?

I hate to tell you this, but you'll end up teaching your own kids based
on the truth of who you really are, and what you do and say may or may
not be the truth of who you really are. They'll learn who you really
are, but they still have a choice in how they will respond to that and
how that will affect all of their decisions.

IMO, if you both individually are happy with who you are then what's the
problem? Is the problem accepting that your sister isn't like you, or is
the problem wondering why you aren't more like your sister, or is the
problem just simply accepting that you're different?

The issue I am drawing attention to is that neither is KNOWN to
be "right". Yet *each* has consequences that affect our respective
lives.

Of course! Everything has consequences.

We grow our own citrus. Some of it we squeeze for OJ (we finished
the last quart of OJ from last December this week). *If* my sister
were inclined to plant/grow/maintain/harvest/juice these fruit,
she would purchase containers in which to store the gallons of juice
to be frozen. And, as each container was emptied, she would discard
the container -- opting to purchase a replacement come next harvest.

I, OTOH, save containers that we purchase for other items throughout
the year (applesauce, peanuts, etc.) and set them aside for juice
season. Once the juice is consumed, I discard them (as they are
too difficult from which to clean out the pulp) knowing that I
will encounter another set of containers in the coming year.

Which approach is "right"? Her approach is wasteful of resources
and costs her money -- plus a trip to the store each year to purchase
new containers. My approach costs me *time* ("time is money"!).
Which approach do I teach my offspring? Given that neither is
"The Right One"?


That's life!

--
Maggie