Often, interpersonal conflict is over differences of small and varying degrees.
What positions do you hold on to and refuse to let go of that perpetuate conflict?
I won’t say much regarding the troubles in Ferguson, MO. I will say, however, that I’m sad that things have gone this far. There are many, many factors that led to the rioting, the least of which was a justified police shooting. This tweet from @ItsRobbAllen sums up my toughts
Remember when MLK marched on Selma and burned the busses?
— Robb Allen (@ItsRobbAllen) November 25, 2014
How does language provide opportunities for growth and change through conflict?
Years ago, I took an Intro to Linguistics elective at Salt Lake Community College. One of the things that stuck in my mind was the concept of Nativism, that babies are born with the knowledge that languages are patterned, and with the ability to seek out those patterns. This capacity for language acquisition, known as a Language Acquisition Device (LAD), is genetic and not the result of a conscious decision on the part of the speaker. The LAD helps children understand the universal grammar of a language as well as the parameters of that language. This concept changed my interest from the mechanical aspects of language to the social use of language and the ways in which people communicate.
Recently, I tweeted a link to an article about how human brains have the capacity to remember the linguistic pattern of languages heard in a child’s infancy, even if the child no longer speaks/knows that language. Fascinating. The brain retains that information! This shows us how deeply entrenched language is in the human experience.
During my studies as an undergraduate, one of the first communication theories that I found truth in was George Herbert Mead’s theory of Symbolic Interactionism. In it, Mead discusses the connection between Meaning, Language, and Thinking. Meaning is the construction of social reality, Language is the source of meaning, and Thinking is the process of taking the role of the other. Here is a summary provided by afirstlook.com (the website for my old Comm Theory textbook).
Essentially, language creates and sustains our social reality, gives humans the ability to create complex social structures, and has the power to shape the world in which we live. This makes communication one of the most powerful forces on Earth and each person on the planet is born with the ability to use this power.
The point is that an individual’s understanding of the world is controlled by the meaning that the individual has assigned, through language, to the world. This is where conflict comes from, because people have assigned different meanings to the same things.
Today I came across this article, How Your Brain Decides Without You.
In it, the author states, “We form our beliefs based on what comes to us from the world through the window of perception, but then those beliefs act like a lens, focusing on what they want to see.” Put another way, we form our beliefs based on what comes to us from the world through the window of our assigned meanings, and then those beliefs act like a lens, causing us to focus on what we want to see.
Basically, Symbolic Intetactionism or seeing life through theory, as Deetz put it.
This may be why individuals seemingly struggle with the same problems over and over again, the same conflicts over and over again. S/he has assigned a specific meaning to a situation/person/group/object, based on experience. Until s/he has an experience that provides him/her with an opportunity to change his/her assigned meaning to a given situation/person/group/object, it will not change. That experience is vital, as pointed out in the Brain article, because, “we are stubborn in our decisions…. Studying subjects’ brain activity via EEG, [researchers] found that people’s “memory signals” were much the same toward… incorrect information as they were toward… things they correctly remembered. Their interpretation of the event had hardened into truth.
“This hardening can happen without our awareness.”
Capital T Truth cannot be changed by information alone. It is changed through experience. Experience changes Truth because experience creates an opportunity for new meaning to be created and assigned by the individual.
When you experience conflict, I encourage you to engage it open mindedly. Use it as an opportunity to change your world.
I don’t dream often and when I do dream, my dreams are strange and bizarre. Even more rare than dreaming is to dream on consecutive nights. I honestly cannot remember the last time that I woke up and remembered a dream. That is, until Sunday night. In my dream:
As a quick reminder, this is Fiocchi .357 Magnum 125gr SJHP.
We were shooting it out of my Smith & Wesson 686, with a 4″ barrel, and my dad’s Marlin model 1894c.
My past experience with Fiocchi it’s that it’s loaded hotter than other types of factory ammunition. However, the 686 handled the recoil just fine and the Marlin was a joy to shoot.
The only hang up that we had was with the Marlin. If the action was not cycled quickly, the front of the round would catch on the upper lip of the chamber, deforming the lead. Greater than usual force was then needed to chamber the round. However, when cycled quickly, no hang ups were experienced.
Whatever the use, Fiocchi .357 Magnum 125gr SJHP from AmmoForSale.com is a solid buy.
The simplest things make me happy:
From The Firearm Blog:
An irony of the Scout Rifle is that it’s a late 20th century weapon designed for the 19th; a sort of modernist homage to the romance the post-war generations have had with Brand’s Old West, Kipling’s India, and Conrad’s Africa.
Over the weekend, Ben Affleck had a total melt down on Bill Maher’s show. This post is not to bash Affleck or Maher; it is not to take sides in the debate; it is not to discuss the pros or cons of Islam. I want to break down the discussion, the interaction between the parties, so that when you have a discussion where you are in Affleck’s position, you can better understand what is happening, which could help you better navigate the discussion.
I want to start by breaking down the main points of the argument.
Sam Harris sets the base for his argument thus: “We have been sold this meme of Islamophobia, where criticism of the religion gets conflated with bigotry towards muslims as people.” Before he can finish his thought, Affleck interjects, “Hold on — are you the person who officially understands the codified doctrine of Islam?”
Affleck is not even listening to the argument. He is so ready to defend his belief that he questions Harris’ authority on the subject. This diversionary tactic is common in conflict. Affleck then continues to drag the discussion off topic by claiming that questioning Islamic teachings is racist. As he continues to melt down he states that “we are endowed by our Fore Fathers with inalienable rights….” After agreeing that we (referring to Western Liberals) have to be able to question bad ideas, Sam Harris doubles down on his argument: “Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas.” At this point, Affleck is so lost in his anger that he grasping at straws and while declaring his own evidence, that what Harris and Maher are saying is not true, and offering no evidence, he demands to know the evidence of the other side. When offered further evidence, Affleck simply gets dismissive. “Alright, let someone else talk. You’re doing a lot of talking.”
Michael Steele jumps in and re-frames Harris’ argument beautifully, “You’re saying that the strongest voices are coming from those who are jihadists and extremists and that represents a bigger piece of the pie than we often think is true.” He then goes on to state that what is lacking is the amount of national and even global news coverage of Muslims who stand up to radical ideals.
This begins to move the discussion forward but Ban Affleck cannot help himself and launches back into the fray. He demands to know, “What is your solution, to just condemn Islam?” Then, rather than waiting for an answer, he launches into his own set of points on why the West is to blame for radical Islam. Affleck’s final point is typical of this kind of disagreement, “I’m telling you that I disagree with you… and I don’t understand you.” He then cycles back into false claims and blame shifting. In so doing, Affleck reinforces Harris’ primary argument, that “We have been sold this meme of Islamophobia, where criticism of the religion gets conflated with bigotry towards muslims as people” by accusing Harris and Maher of condemning muslims as people because of radical ideas.
Conflict and Identity
Ben Affleck presents several common diversionary tactics in this discussion that many people use when they fight or argue with someone else.
By avoiding these four diversionary tactics, we can move toward discussion and understanding. Building understanding is a corner stone of conflict resolution. If you find yourself doing one or all of these in an argument, as yourself, why am I doing this?
The answer might surprise you: the argument threatens part of your identity. This post is already getting lengthy so I’ll leave some links at the bottom for you to further explore the relationship of identity and conflict. I will leave the discussion on this thought. Ben Affleck appears to whole-heartedly believe that if you question the teachings of Islam, you are a racist. This explains his inability to even listen to someone challenge that. It threatens part of his identity (he is not a racist). If he listens and considers what Harris and Maher have to say, then he may have to admit that he is racist. This is a misunderstanding on Affleck’s part, but he won’t allow himself to get far enough to realize that his assumption is wrong.
When we fail to allow ourselves to listen to other points of view, we remain mired in our own world and deny ourselves opportunity for growth. When we allow ourselves to listen to other points of view and consider them, we allow ourselves the opportunity to better strengthen our own belief, or question that belief if we find it lacking.
Unpacking things: https://myconstructedreality.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/unpacking-things/. This blog post was written at the end of my undergraudate studies and contains material from a capstone paper that I wrote.
Construction of Online Identity: https://myconstructedreality.wordpress.com/2011/09/10/construction-of-online-identity/. This blog post is a portion of a paper written for one of my graduate classes, Social Dynamics of Communication Technology.
Books to Read:
Continuing the ongoing debate of 9mm vs. .45 ACP, I received an email from AmmoForSale.com today regarding their contribution to the discussion.
I’m writing today to let you know about something pretty cool we just finished related to the great 9mm vs. 45 ACP debate that I think you’ll really like.
We quoted some fellow shooters and coded some unique tools to help folks understand the case for both 9mm and .45 ACP as the best caliber ever!
If you get a chance, I’d love to hear your thoughts – the case for 9mm is here:
The case for .45 ACP is here:
We really worked hard to make these a great definitive guide. If you think it’s of value, we’d love it if you shared it with your readers to help spread the word!
So here it is. Both articles are entertaining and pretty much encapsulate the debate. I carry and shoot a .45. I’m not a competition shooter, I’m not a large voice in the online firearms community. I’m just your average Joe. My contribution to the debate is, you shoot what you like and I’ll shoot what I like.
Please read this:
Yet Vernon believes that African-Americans, of all people, should embrace the right to bear arms, even if they don’t want to carry a gun themselves. “Black people have been programmed to think that self-defense, our defense, is someone else’s responsibility—that good, honest, decent black people have nothing to do with guns, because guns are for white folks, police, and black criminals. I find it to be an absurd notion. The vast majority of gun laws in America have been aimed at trying to disarm black people.”
Education is key to overcoming the fear of the unknown.
As part of a discussion on Facebook regarding the current events in Ukraine, one person commented,
I don’t even understand why these violent protests are occurring. Is it truly just because of the president’s refusal to join the EU? Images like the ones I’ve been seeing usually come from countries with starvation and government death squads. Is there some other motivation behind these riots that is being concealed?
I lived in Ukraine for two years and have been following the news with interest, just as I did the news of the Orange Revolution in 2004. My response to this comment was as follows:
[Please] do a quick review of Ukrainian history from 900 A.D. to present and you’ll see why maintaining independence from Moscow is important to Ukrainian’s. Kyiv Rus was THE political power in Eastern Europe until the Golden Horde destroyed it. Then, two powers rose from the ashes: The Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Grand Duchy of Moscow. Since that time, Ukraine has been ruled by one or both of these powers. The Poles turning Ukrainians into surfs, the destruction of Kozak (Cossack) identity by Katherine the Great, the genocide committed by Stalin; Ukraine has been fighting for independence and self-directed government for 600 years. That is why the people fight. To turn away from Europe and toward Moscow is to turn away from freedom and toward tyranny. I lived in Ukraine for two years. Their culture, their history, and their language mean a great deal to them. This is about more than the EU and Moscow, this is about the soul and identity of a nation and a people.
If you have had similar questions about these events in Ukraine; if you have been wondering why the Ukrainian people are so outraged by the actions of their government, I encourage you to take the next few minutes and get the Wikipedia version of Ukraine’s history. This will give you enough of an understanding of the depth of history and culture for which the Ukrainian people are fighting.
Russia is nothing more than a bratty child, ungrateful for the gifts of a beloved parent. Russia even went as far at one point in its history to name Ukraine “Little Russia.”
As I said in my Facebook post. These riots, this fighting, is bigger than the EU and Moscow. The outcome of these events is about the soul and identity of a nation and a people.
He called for a specifically enumerated constitutional right to be conditioned on a requirement which is not been deemed acceptable for any other right.
That’s why he lost his job. Not because of crazy, extreme gun nuts.
A few days ago I linked to an article written by Dennis Prager titled Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality.
Dennis Prager then re-tweeted, which caused a flurry of activity (for one of my tweets) and a 31 comment back and forth between two people, @azach79 and @Rx4nails. It is in this post that I seek to address the questions posted between these two, primarily @azach79.
In the article, Mr. Prager describes how Judaism restrained sexual activity for its followers and the positive consequences of this sexual restraint:
The Hebrew Bible, in particular the Torah (The Five Books of Moses), has done more to civilize the world than any other book or idea in history. It is the Hebrew Bible that gave humanity such ideas as a universal, moral, loving God; ethical obligations to this God; the need for history to move forward to moral and spiritual redemption; the belief that history has meaning; and the notion that human freedom and social justice are the divinely desired states for all people. It gave the world the Ten Commandments, ethical monotheism, and the concept of holiness (the goal of raising human beings from the animal-like to the God-like).
In so doing, he makes a broad claim that Judaism, and by extension Christianity, are the foundation of Western moral, value, and ethic systems, and thus have done more to impact the creation of modern Western society than any other civilization, including the Greeks and Romans. This appears to be where @azach79 disagrees.
The twitter conversation got off on a tangent and finally ended in
To @azach79 I believe that Mr. Prager would say, “Yes. Ancient sex practices derailed ancient civilizations. Jewish sex practices, monogamy (with few exceptions), fidelity within marriage, establishment of family as the central, or primary, unit in society, leads to social stability and strength. Even the Kingdom of Israel fell when the people moved away from these practices.”
I would support Mr. Prager in that argument. The leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints affirmed this position in 1995 in The Family: A Proclamation to the World.
All in all, the essay is not about how the Jews built a larger or more prosperous society than the Greeks or Romans. It is not about how the Jewish math, or science, or philosophy is/was grander than the Greeks or Romans. It is about how Judeo-Christian morals, values, and ethics have done more to influence modern Western society than other ancient cultures and that the primary difference was Judaism’s sex practices.
All I said was that the article was an interesting read.
“But unless America behaves as a leader and the guarantor of the world order, it will be inviting regional powers to test their strength by bullying neighbouring countries.” Found here.
There is a belief held by the Left. A belief which I believe to be dangerous. That is the belief that, in order for there to be equality, be it social, economic, or what have you, those who have more power should have it stripped from them so that all are the same. The danger is that, while the Left believes that this makes everyone the same, it makes everyone equally weak.
Let me use an analogy to explain this. In my work as a job coach, I find that my class as a whole does better, has more success at finding employment, when I maintain high standards for participation and when I am firm in enforcing rules. The same principle exists with my children. When my wife and I enforce structure, our children thrive. When I lower the bar of expectation in either of these situations, positive results decline.
So it is in larger social systems. Power is a social property, not a personal property. The Left would have the world believe that the only way to make the world “fair” is to weaken America’s position in international relations. To lead from behind, as it were. That the only way to “make things fair” for the rest of the world is not to help build them up, is not to help them grow and develop, but to weaken ourselves and become more like them. To lower the bar so that it is easier for everyone to reach.
This, unfortunately, will lead to failure for all.
The Left, in its politically correct induced stupor, takes this definition of equality, this reduced capacity for all, and applies it unilaterally, sort of. Nothing is held up as superior than anything else, with the exception of secularism, which is, of course, superior to everything else because it supports, supposedly, the Left’s definition of equality. Thus, democracy is only superior to other forms of government when it supports equality. Otherwise, constitutional republican protection of minority rights is superior, but only of a secular minority, in order to support equality.
I’m moving off point, so let me return. The Left denounces coercive power because it is through this form of power that the evil white man has ruined the world. And while it can be said that coercive power is widely used in modern society and is responsible for many of the social ills that we face, coercive power fails primarily due to its reliance on force.
Persuasive power is the ultimate goal: where a vision or dream is laid out and the follower uses his or her full capacity of choice to accept or reject it. The difference between coercive and persuasive power is in the attitudes and values of those holding and using power and in the actions the leader takes to accomplish his or her goals. Martin Luther King Jr., Paulo Freire, The Buddah, Jesus Christ, all taught this principle. Persuasive power mandates that there is a better way. It states boldly that not all things are equal or the same.
Persuasion is then carried out, not by manipulative means, “but persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile — reproving betimes with sharpness…, and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; that he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death” (D&C 121: 41-44).
Power in and of itself is neither good nor bad. It is the way in which that power is used. The Left fails to understand the principle that the powerful should seek to raise up those who are weak. Rather, the Left seeks to make everyone equally weak.