True Authenticity

From Breakpoint.org (Sept. 11, 2023):

A year ago, The Economist urged readers not to bring their “whole selves” to work. While some corporate gurus suggest that we make work feel more like home, the authors beg to differ.

Your professional self displays commitment to the job and eats lunch at a desk. Your whole self is planning the next holiday and binges ice cream on the sofa. Your professional self makes presentations to the board and says things like: “Let’s get the analytics team to kick the t[i]res on this.” Your whole self cannot operate a toaster and says things like: “Has anyone seen my socks?” Pretending to be someone you are not is not a problem; it’s essential.

That description speaks to what lies at the heart of the modern re-definition of “authenticity.” From counselors pushing transgender ideology on kids, to Christians deconstructing faith, to the recent trend of “quiet quitting,” many people today think that true authenticity is the only means to real happiness. It means always expressing our feelings, always feeling completely supported in whatever we say or do, and rejecting any relationship that asks us to do otherwise.

The problem, as the late Tim Keller once illustrated, is that this understanding of authenticity is based on a faulty premise.

Imagine an Anglo-Saxon warrior in Britain in AD 800. He has two very strong inner impulses and feelings. One is aggression. He loves to smash and kill people when they show him disrespect. Living in a shame-and-honour culture with its warrior ethic, he will identify with that feeling. He will say to himself, That’s me! That’s who I am! I will express that. The other feeling he senses is same-sex attraction. To that he will say, That’s not me. I will control and suppress that impulse.

Now imagine a young man walking around Manhattan today. He has the same two inward impulses, both equally strong, both difficult to control. What will he say? He will look at the aggression and think, This is not who I want to be, and will seek deliverance in therapy and anger-management programmes. He will look at his sexual desire, however, and conclude, That is who I am.

As Keller concluded, none of us simply choose to “be ourselves” in a vacuum. We constantly sift through contradictory feelings and evaluate them in the light of our values, which are often absorbed from our cultural setting.

The modern vision of “authenticity” is not born merely from an alternative understanding of morality, but from an alternative understanding of anthropology. In a world that has largely rejected God and objective truth as external realities, people increasingly turn inwards in deciding who they are and what they should do.

Any true understanding of self must begin by looking outward and upward, not inward. In the end, we may find conflict between what is true and how we feel. We must choose what is true. As Biola professor Erik Thoennes put it,

There’s this idea that to live out of conformity with how I feel is hypocrisy; but that’s a wrong definition of hypocrisy. … To live out of conformity to what I believe is hypocrisy. To live in conformity with what I believe, in spite of what I feel, isn’t hypocrisy; it’s integrity.

In her latest book Live Your Truth and Other Lies, author and apologist Alisa Childers points out another problem with a feelings-first version of authenticity: I can’t love myself if I’m fooling myself about who I actually am. If I deny that there is something wrong with humanity (and thus, myself), the kind of love I will offer myself will be the opposite of authentic. It will be artificial authenticity.

While it is completely out of step to think this, Scripture is clear that “the heart is deceitful above all things.” Today’s worship of authenticity requires that we lie to ourselves about this difficult reality. If we do, however, we will never truly know who we are and how we should live. [source]

Good advice to take to heart.

Top 10 takeaways from Anthony Fauci's hearing in front of Senate committee

From Just the News.com (July 29):

Former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, where he was grilled about his work during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The former NIAID director refused to answer lawmaker questions throughout the hearing, invoking his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, despite having a presidential pardon that covered his work during the pandemic.

Despite Fauci's refusal to answer questions, the hearing was filled with major revelations and accusations.

Here are the top 10 major takeaways from the Senate hearing:

1. Fauci applied for government grants for himself/got government employees to do it for him

Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley revealed during the hearing that Fauci allegedly used federal employees while he was NIAID director to apply for government grants on his behalf for his work during the pandemic.

"You got rich while people were dying," a heated Hawley said. "You were using federal employees with taxpayer money to apply for and solicit cash prizes for you personally. Cash prizes totaling over a million dollars."

Hawley said he has evidence of the applications for cash prizes that Fauci received, including the Dan David award and the Smithsonian award.

"You actually wrote to people and said, 'Do you think maybe I'd qualify?' And you got cash for all of this. And it wasn't just one or two employees, was it? In fact, you used eight separate federal employees on federal time using federal resources to solicit cash awards. Isn't that true?"

Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment in response.

2. Ron Johnson alleges Fauci covered up evidence ivermectin works

Wisconsin GOP Sen. Ron Johnson accused Fauci during the hearing of covering up alleged evidence that the controversial prescription drug medication ivermectin actually is effective against the coronavirus.

“You said there was no evidence," Johnson said. "There were all kinds of evidence. Loved ones had to go to hospitals, had to sue hospitals ... So I want to know, to what extent were you involved in sabotaging Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin?”

Johnson highlighted studies that found there were 60-70% effectiveness rate against the virus. Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment again in response.

3. Moreno asks why Fauci hired a criminal defense attorney

Ohio GOP Sen. Bernie Moreno questioned why Fauci would hire a prominent criminal defense attorney if he had done nothing wrong when it came to the COVID-19 pandemic, stating that the attorney was someone a client hires if they are in "deep s***."

"Let me tell you who David Schertler is for the audience," Moreno said. "He's a high-profile criminal attorney. He's represented some really great people like Senator Bob Menendez ... And there's an article here in the Washington Free Beacon that talks about why you would hire a guy like David Schertler. The comment is, 'if you're in deep s***, that's who you call.'"

4. Rand Paul confirms plans for Fauci contempt vote

Another top moment related to the hearing comes after Senate Homeland Security Chairman Rand Paul confirmed that he plans to hold a contempt vote against Fauci for pleading the Fifth in order to dodge answering the panel's questions.

"We believe... he didn't need to hide behind the 5th Amendment and that maybe the 5th Amendment doesn't attach when you have a pardon in place," he told reporters. "The question on contempt will be voted on and then there's the question of whether or not the Department of Justice will take that up."

5. Senators question legality of 5th amendment plea

Several senators also questioned whether Fauci could even plead the Fifth since he was pardoned by former President Joe Biden before he left office last year.

"You don't have any rights under the Fifth Amendment, because you've been pardoned, as you very well know," Hawley said. "As the Supreme Court has been clear for a century or more. Brown vs. Walker, 1896, 'when he has been pardoned he may not stand upon his privilege.'

"You know that. Your lawyers sitting behind you now, shifting nervously in their chairs, they know it. This isn't about the Constitution, this isn't about the law," he continued. "This is about contempt, contempt for this body and contempt for the American people." [read more]

The other takeaways:

1. Rick Scott tells Fauci how lockdowns hurt his own family
2. Hawley claims Fauci wanted to be 'Sun god of science'
3. Paul presses Fauci on alleged deletion of federal records
4. Fetterman regrets partisanship over lab leak theory
5. Fauci's lawyer booted from the hearing

More stories and a video on the hearing:

• Fauci Hearing and Diary Leave More Questions Than Answers
• Anthony Fauci, The ‘Covid Czar,’ Ticked Off The Wrong Moms
• Fauci gave off ‘signals of deception’ during Senate hearing, body language expert says
• Here's what the Fauci hearing is really about
• Fauci CAN'T Plead The Fifth If Congress Does THIS [video]

How to be an accurate thinker

From Naphill.org:

1. Thoughts have power, are under your control, and can be used wisely or unwisely.
2. Accurate thinking is a moral duty.
3. Nothing great can happen without accurate thinking.
4. Accurate thinkers accept no political, religious, or other type of thought, regardless of it’s source, until it is carefully analyzed. (Do your homework).
5. Accurate thinkers are the masters of their own emotions. (This is very important. You never want to make decisions based off of emotions).
6. Accurate thinking calls for the highest order of self-discipline.
7. Accurate thinking involves two fundamentals. First, you must separate facts from information. Second, you must separate facts into two classes, the important and the unimportant.
8. It takes concentration to control your attention and focus it on a problem until you have solved it.
9. Turn on the full power of your mind, and control your life.
10. Your power of thought is the only thing which you have complete control. To use this power effectively, you must think accurately.
11. Accurate thinkers allow no one to do their thinking for them.
12. Accurate thinkers know that emotions are not always reliable.

[source]

10 Life Lessons From the Book “Trump Your Life”

1. Refuse to let anyone tell you that you’re not good enough to work toward any goal you’ve identified for yourself, your family, your business, or your community. But do the work.
2. You are an original. Be courageous enough to be your authentic self.
3. Do what you love. It’s very hard to compete with someone who truly loves his or her work. You might have more intelligence or more drive, but harnessing those qualities when you’re really not committed to your craft or business will always be cumbersome instead of natural—a chore, rather than a pleasure.
4. Let NO ONE take you for a weakling, a fool, or a fraud.
5. Assume you will encounter increasing resistance as you pursue bigger goals.
• Now, we want to caution you not to believe that resistance lessens as you achieve more or say more of what you think or institute a change in your family, company, or country that matters. Resistance often increases as you move forward.
• Small minds, intent on stalling or frustrating real change or creativity, become increasingly obstructive in the face of bold momentum. Unfortunately, people who don’t know how to achieve great things often derive feelings of power by standing in the way of them.
6. Don’t be afraid to speak frankly and openly about things like friendship and love. Among strong people, connections of the heart are very powerful.
7. After hard-fought battles, whether you win or lose, don’t assume your competitors can’t become your partners.
8. Don’t be afraid to let your position on an issue evolve with more data. President Trump isn’t afraid to negotiate by first stating the facts, as they exist, and putting forth a clear and strong position based on those facts, but then continuing to pay close attention to the way circumstances change while he negotiates.
9. Making a deal doesn’t mean the deal-making is over forever.
• Donald Trump knows deals are living documents. That doesn’t mean they’re not to be honored; of course, they are. It means that deals can be revisited and perfected over time.
• That’s why Trump sometimes makes the best possible deal he can make (whether for a business or for America), knowing there will likely be another opportunity to sit down and achieve even better terms. Like Voltaire, Trump would likely say the perfect is the enemy of good. You can ask for perfect terms. You can argue for perfect terms. But if you insist on them, you might never get to “yes.”
10. Remember that you’re the real masterpiece; the universe has a plan for you.
• God or the universe will see to it that you walk through a very complex labyrinth of events in your life—including victories and defeats and lots of soul-searching—before your purpose is made clear.
• Walking the labyrinth makes you a kind of living canvas (see Lesson #9) onto which layers of paint are being applied, again and again. Sometimes, paint has to be scraped away, too. And that can be painful. You should never forget there’s a reason behind all of it.

Good lessons to learn.

Source: Trump Your Life: 25 Life Lessons From the Ups and Downs of the 45th President of the United States (2020) by Keith Ablow, M. D.

'Tired' brain cells may distort your sense of time

From Live Science.com (Sept. 28, 2020):

Time in the brain doesn't follow the steady ticking of the world's most precise clocks. Instead, it seems to fly by at one moment and practically stand still at others. This distorted sense of time may be caused, in part, by brain cells getting tired, according to a new study.

When the brain has been exposed to the same exact time interval too many times, neurons or brain cells get overstimulated and fire less often, the study finds. However, our perception of time is complicated, and many other factors may also explain why time moves slowly sometimes and quickly at others.

We have only very recently begun to understand how our brains perceive time. It was only in 2015, that researchers found the first evidence of neurons whose activity fluctuates with our perception of time. But it wasn't clear if these neurons, found in a small brain region called the supramarginal gyrus (SMG), were keeping accurate time for the brain, or creating a subjective experience of time.

In the new study, the researchers used a "time illusion" on 18 healthy volunteers to figure it out. They hooked participants up to a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine that measures brain activity by detecting changes in blood flow.

The volunteers then went through an "adaptation" period, in which they were shown a grey circle on a black background for either 250 milliseconds or 750 milliseconds, 30 times in a row.

After this, the participants were shown another circle for a set period of time as a "test stimulus." They were then told to listen to white noise for a certain amount of time and asked if the test stimulus was longer or shorter than the white noise. (They used white noise as a reference because an auditory stimulus isn't affected by the visual adaptation but the visual test stimulus is.) [read more]

So, if someone is late to an appointment or meeting can they use that as an excuse? You know, “Sorry, I’m late. My brain cells might have been tired.” Probably not. Also, I wonder if tired neurons possibly could effect other senses too. So, do they eventually go to sleep? May explain Sen. Mitch McConnell’s brain freezes. Good thing he is retiring.

5 Indicators of a Wicked and Evil Heart

From Leslie Vernick on I Believe.com (May 16, 2025):

As Christian counselors, pastors and people helpers we often have a hard time discerning between an evil heart and an ordinary sinner who messes up, who isn’t perfect, and full of weakness and sin.

I think one of the reasons we don’t “see” evil is because we find it so difficult to believe that evil individuals actually exist. We can’t imagine someone deceiving us with no conscience, hurting others with no remorse, spinning outrageous fabrications to ruin someone’s reputation, or pretending he or she is spiritually committed yet has no fear of God before his or her eyes.

The Bible clearly tells us that among God’s people there are wolves that wear sheep’s clothing (Jeremiah 23:14; Titus 1:10; Revelations 2:2). It’s true that every human heart is inclined toward sin (Romans 3:23), and that includes evil (Genesis 8:21; James 1:4). We all miss God's mark of moral perfection. However, most ordinary sinners do not happily indulge evil urges, nor do we feel good about having them. We feel ashamed and guilty, rightly so (Romans 7:19–21). These things are not true of the evil heart.

Here are five indicators that you may be dealing with an evil heart rather than an ordinary sinful heart. If so, it requires a radically different treatment approach.

1. Evil hearts are experts at creating confusion and contention.

They twist the facts, mislead, lie, avoid taking responsibility, deny reality, make up stories, and withhold information. (Psalms 5:8; 10:7; 58:3; 109:2–5; 140:2; Proverbs 6:13,14; 6:18,19; 12:13; 16:20; 16:27, 28; 30:14; Job 15:35; Jeremiah 18:18; Nehemiah 6:8; Micah 2:1; Matthew 12:34,35; Acts 6:11–13; 2 Peter 3:16)

2. Evil hearts are experts at fooling others with their smooth speech and flattering words.

But if you look at the fruit of their lives or the follow through of their words, you will find no real evidence of godly growth or change. It’s all smoke and mirrors. (Psalms 50:19; 52:2,3; 57:4; 59:7; 101:7; Proverbs 12:5; 26:23–26; 26:28; Job 20:12; Jeremiah 12:6; Matthew 26:59; Acts 6:11–13; Romans 16:17,18; 2 Corinthians 11:13,14; 2 Timothy 3:2–5; 3:13; Titus 1:10,16).

3. Evil hearts crave demand and control, and their highest authority is their own self-reverence.

They reject feedback, real accountability, and make up their own rules to live by. They use Scripture to their own advantage but ignore and reject passages that might require self-correction and repentance. (Romans 2:8; Psalms 10; 36:1–4; 50:16–22; 54:5,6; 73:6–9; Proverbs 21:24; Jude 1:8–16).

4. Evil hearts play on the sympathies of good-willed people, often trumping the grace card.

They demand mercy but give none themselves. They demand warmth, forgiveness, and intimacy from those they have harmed with no empathy for the pain they have caused and no real intention of making amends or working hard to rebuild broken trust. (Proverbs 21:10; 1 Peter 2:16; Jude 1:4).

5. Evil hearts have no conscience, no remorse.

They do not struggle against sin or evil—they delight in it—all the while masquerading as someone of noble character. (Proverbs 2:14–15; 10:23; 12:10; 21:27,29; Isaiah 32:6; Romans 1:30; 2 Corinthians 11:13–15) [read more]

Sounds like the Left especially #3. The 5th indication is very definition of a psychopath.

Dream-shaping tech from MIT channels suggestions into your dreams

From Live Science.com (Sept. 25, 2020):

MIT scientists have figured out how to manipulate your dreams by combining an app with a sleep-tracking device called Dormio. In their new study, the researchers were able to insert certain topics into a person's dreams, with some pretty bizarre outcomes.

To do so, the researchers at MIT Media Lab's Fluid Interfaces — a group that develops wearable systems and interfaces to enhance cognitive skills — used a technique called targeted dream incubation (TDI).

Prior studies have shown that during a rare dream state known lucid dreaming, in which a sleeper is aware that a dream is taking place, dreamers can use that awareness to consciously shape aspects of their dreams. TDI takes advantage of an early sleep stage, known as hypnagogia, to achieve a similar result (though not quite "controlling" dreams outright), researchers told Live Science.

During hypnagogia — a semi-lucid dream state that occurs during the onset of sleep — TDI introduced "targeted information" to a sleeper, "enabling direct incorporation of this information into dream content," the scientists wrote in a new study, published in the August issue of the journal Consciousness and Cognition. They conducted dream experiments by performing "serial awakenings" during daytime napping sessions in 25 participants.

Subjects first recorded audio prompts in an app, such as, "remember to think of a tree" and "remember to observe your thoughts," and then prepared for sleep, according to the study.

A hand-worn sleep tracker monitored the subject's heart rate, electrical changes on the skin surface, and the amount their fingers were bent or relaxed, to detect when a sleeper entered hypnagogia and was therefore "open to influence from outside audio cues," said lead study author Adam Haar Horowitz, a doctoral candidate in MIT Media Lab's Fluid Interfaces Group. The Dormio sleep tracker communicated with the app, "which delivers audio at the correct times, and records audio of dream reports" when the subject is awake, Haar Horowitz told Live Science in an email.

Just as a subject drifted off to sleep and entered hypnagogia, Dormio would coordinate with the app to wake them up with the pre-recorded prompts. This cycle repeated several times, with the sleeper also recording a brief "dream journal" entry into the app when they were awakened.

"Simply put, people tell us whether the prompts appear in their dream," Haar Horowitz said. "Often, they are transformed — a 'tree' prompt becomes a tree-shaped car — but direct incorporation is easily identified."

The scientists found that 67% of the subjects' dream reports mentioned dreams that incorporated a tree. "I was following the roots with someone and the roots were transporting me to different locations," one participant recalled. Another mentioned "a tree from my childhood, from my backyard. It never asked for anything." The same subject, in later awakenings, described "trees splitting into infinite pieces" and "a shaman, sitting under the tree with me, he tells me to go to South America."

"Dream reports increased in bizarreness and immersion with each awakening," but the scientists did not develop a universal rating system for the bizarreness of the dreams, the study authors reported. [read more]

Sci-fi to sci-fact. The benefits and drawbacks of the tech from Grok:

MIT's TDI/Dormio tech offers exciting opportunities for creativity boosts, therapy, and self-understanding by bridging waking intention with dreaming. However, it comes with ethical pitfalls around autonomy, privacy, and unintended psychological effects. As dream engineering advances, balancing benefits with safeguards (as the MIT team has discussed in their ethics work) will be crucial. More independent, long-term studies are needed before widespread adoption.

Five Keys to Professional and Personal Development

From Jeff Deist on Mises.org (Sept. 19, 2022):

The remarks I’ve prepared today relate to your personal and professional development, which are of course closely interrelated. This is not to be confused with “self-help,” a somewhat disreputable genre whose practitioners often want to sell you shortcuts. Development means just that: developing your skills, knowledge, and interests to advance toward goals which hopefully become more clear as you go through your twenties and thirties. Remember, you may well have a longer work life than your parents and grandparents, so you have more time and more choices perhaps than they did. But it is important not to waste your best years for learning, when your brain’s neurons fire at their best! Even at your age, still in college, it is not too early to view yourselves as professionals and to take your work seriously.

Here are five suggestions you can implement immediately to stand apart from your peers.

1. Sift

Access to information is virtually costless today. Your job is to sift through all of the white noise and recognize what is important.

The supply of information in a digital age outpaces demand, and makes information very, very cheap. In a digital world, information is instantaneous and often free of any financial cost. This is especially true of social media, where information and opinion are readily available but knowledge and discernment are in short supply. When something is cheap and easy, we naturally tend to discount its importance.

This was not always true. In fact, previous generations had to work hard for access to information, which was largely contained in physical books which may not have been easily available or affordable. My great-grandfather, who lived with us very briefly, was born in the late 1800s. Like many of his generation, he did not finish high school and thus was only “qualified” for manual labor. So he took it upon himself to enroll in a correspondence course, the kind of thing literally advertised in the back of magazines. He probably mailed physical cash to an address listed, then waited some time for the materials. He read each course, took tests at home, and sent the tests by mail for grading. All of this took a couple of years, but at the end he had enough knowledge and some kind of credential to become an electrician for a large company. This job paid enough to afford a middle-class home, which he largely built and wired himself. The information needed to become an electrician was quite valuable to him—it was not cheap and instantly available.

But even in the 1980s and ’90s things were much different relative to today. Your average chain bookstore at the mall maybe had a few books by Ayn Rand, and perhaps Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose. You might find John Kenneth Galbraith’s The Affluent Society and something by Henry Hazlitt if you were lucky. You certainly would not have found any Menger, Mises, or Rothbard. This was also true of your local public library, or even a university library.

By contrast, today we hold almost of all the world’s history and accumulated knowledge in the smartphone sitting here. This is both a blessing and potentially a curse. Sifting, not access, is the challenge. Your job is to sift through it all and not get sidetracked by the wrong information. Time is important, and everything you do has an opportunity cost. Forbearance can be as effective as action.

2. Read

The simplest thing you can do to distinguish yourself is to become a voracious reader. This is simple but not easy.

In fact, you should strive to read one book every week. This may be difficult if you are a full-time student, and of course you probably can’t read a 900-page treatise like Human Action so quickly. But if you make the habit now as a young person, when reading speed and retention are higher, you will reap enormous benefits. For longer books, set a target page count each day. When life intervenes, make up the lost day or days over the weekend.

Charlie Munger, the billionaire partner to Warren Buffett at Berkshire Hathaway, describes his friend’s day as 80 percent reading—often five hundred pages. Before he invests his client’s money in a company, Buffett puts the odds in his favor by reading everything he possibly can about the company itself and the broader industry. He is not always right, but he is always informed. We might imagine him flying around on private jets, wheeling and dealing, when in fact he is more likely sitting at his desk, reading everything from the great books to technical analysis.

Mr. Buffett’s reading habit provides a powerful lesson for all of us. But most Americans read almost nothing. A friend who teaches at a large public university thinks less than half of his incoming freshmen have ever read a single book in full! So while our great-grandparents saw access to books (and education) as a luxury, most people today fail to take advantage of our modern tools. This is an opportunity for you to stand out.

One caveat with respect to books you read: as Charles Haywood counsels, give strong priority to books written more than one hundred years ago, and be careful with books written in the past fifty years. Older books have passed the market test; we still read Socrates and Shakespeare for a reason. If book or author still resonates after a century, your time is probably well spent. And almost all new books, regardless of genre, have an earlier and better analogue. This may not apply to recent developments in science and technology, but when reading philosophy, history, humanities, and social sciences, you should go to original sources at this point in your education. [read more]

Not bad advice. I do like the second suggestion. The other keys are:

1. Learn Continuously
2. Avoid Arguments
3. Promote People, Not Just Ideas

Massive genetic study finds genes linked to cannabis addiction

From Nature.com (Nov. 20, 2023):

By analyzing more than one million people's genomes, researchers have identified stretches of DNA that could be linked to cannabis addiction. They also found that some of the same regions in the genome are associated with other health conditions, such as lung cancer and schizophrenia.

The findings are evidence that cannabis addiction "could have substantial public-health risks if the usage increases", says Daniel Levey, a medical neuroscientist at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and a co-author of the study, published today in Nature Genetics.

Taking cannabis recreationally is legal in at least 8 countries, and 48 countries have legalized medicinal use of the drug for conditions including chronic pain, cancer and epilepsy. But one-third of people who take cannabis end up becoming addicted, or using the drug in a way that is damaging to their health. Previous studies have suggested that there is a genetic component, and have shown links between problematic cannabis use and some cancers and psychiatric disorders.

Drug taking and addiction can be in influenced both by people's genes and by their environment, which makes them extremely difficult to study, says Levey. But the team was able to build on data from previous work by including genetic information from additional sources, predominantly the Million Veteran Program - a US-based biobank with a large genetic database that aims to improve health care for former military service members. The analysis encompassed multiple ethnic groups, a  first for a genetic study looking at cannabis misuse.

As well as identifying regions of the genome that might be involved, the researchers saw a bi-directional link between excessive cannabis use and schizophrenia, meaning that the two conditions can in influence each other. This  finding is intriguing, says Marta Di Forti, a psychiatrist-scientist at King's College London. Cannabis use "is the most preventable risk factor" for schizophrenia, she says, adding that the type of genetic data examined in the study could be used in future to identify and support people at increased risk of developing psychiatric disorders through cannabis use.

More information about the biological mechanisms that connect cannabis use with health conditions will provide a better evidence base for policy and medical practice, says study co-author Joel Gelernter, a psychiatric geneticist at Yale University.

He adds that researchers need to continue to build on this knowledge and use the data to understand the health risks of both medical and recreational cannabis use. Di Forti agrees, adding that it will also be important to investigate the specifics of how the drug is administered, and how much of the psychoactive component tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) users consume. [source]

China’s Psychological Warfare on America

Another leading Chinese PLA strategist, Zeng Huafeng of the National University of Defense Technology (NUDT), wrote of a cognitive, or mind, war on the United States, and proposed how to defeat us without firing a shot. NUDT works with ByteDance on national artificial intelligence projects involving the Chinese military. Zeng defines the “cognitive space” as “the area in which feelings, perception, understanding, beliefs, and values exist” and argues that this is where the battle can be won. To that end, he said, Beijing must use “information and popular spiritual and cultural products as weapons to influence people’s psychology, will, attitude, behavior and even change the ideology, values, cultural traditions and social systems.” According to Zeng, these cultural tools, including apps, video games, and films, should be used to “target individuals, groups, countries, and even people around the world.”

Stop and contemplate what these two prominent strategists in China are saying about the “cultural products” we invite into our homes and minds: they are to be used to steer people’s psychology and change their values and cultural traditions. Zeng argues that Beijing can win “mind superiority” through:

• “Perception manipulation” via propaganda, by changing how people look at the present
• “Cutting off historical memory” by warping their views of their own country’s past so people will be open to changing their values
• “Changing the paradigm of thinking” by targeting people to change the way they view problems and thereby changing their beliefs
• “Deconstructing symbols,” by getting people to reject certain traditional symbols and thereby modifying a nation’s identity

But here is the kicker: “The ultimate goal is to manipulate a country’s values and achieve strategic goals without an actual overt military battle.” (Emphasis added.) Sun Tzu could not have said it better.

Source:  Blood Money: Why the Powerful Turn a Blind Eye While China Kills Americans (2024) by Peter Schweizer.

The Weight of Too Much “Choice”

From John Stonestreet & Maria Baer on Breakpoint.org (Aug. 24, 2022):

Regular listeners to the weekly Breakpoint This Week podcast know that my co-host Maria and I are fans of the reality competition show Alone. Ten wilderness experts are dropped in the middle of nowhere, usually a place that is cold and full of bears, forced to fend for themselves. Whoever stays the longest wins.

In the latest season, a military veteran with strong survival skills and extensive experience overseas seemed poised to win. Instead, he called it quits just a few weeks in. In an interview afterwards, he explained, “When I was in the military and separated from family, I didn’t have a choice. Out here… I had that opportunity to get on the radio or the phone and say, ‘Hey, I’m going to go back to where I’m comfortable.’” In other words, having the choice to go home made staying much harder.

According to conventional wisdom, at least the kind accepted in this cultural moment, the opposite should have been true. More control and more choices are supposed to bring easier and more satisfying lives.

That misconception is, in fact, a feature of life since modernism. For most of human history, humans held no illusions of being masters of their own fate. Writing back in 1976, American sociologist Peter Berger identified what changed, especially for Westerners. Because of the dramatic progress brought by science and technology, humans in the modern period began to believe that the world would eventually be fully understood. And if understood, it could also be mastered, as well.

“What previously was experienced as fate now becomes an arena of choices,” Berger wrote. “In principle, there is the assumption that all human problems can be converted into technical problems… the world becomes ever more ‘makeable.’”

A mark of our late postmodern era is the obsession with having choices. The higher the stakes, the more acute is the illusion of freedom. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy described this impulse in his now overturned Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, when he wrote that “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” In his view, the “freedom of choice” extends to even choosing what is real. Is it any wonder that people now believe that choice extends beyond sexual behavior to sexual identity?

However, if happiness truly comes from the control made possible through infinite choices and the ability to “make the world,” why did the military officer competing on Alone find the opposite to be true? Why did his freedom of choice turn out to be too much of a burden? Why do so many studies show that we are less happy than ever?

The postmodern assertion that we can “make the world” exploits a weakness inherent to our fallen humanness and especially acute today. We struggle to delay gratification. We might fool ourselves into thinking that we can, in fact, define our existence or choose our gender. We may think our decision about whether to stay married or whether to bring an unborn child to birth is based on deep reflections. However, because we can, we tend to choose comfort now at the expense of flourishing later. If we have the option, we call the producers and tap out.

Justice Kennedy was wrong. No matter how many choices we have, we cannot remake the world. Everywhere we turn, we butt up against the limits of creation. According to a Christian worldview, this is actually good news. God created the world with limits: physical and moral laws, bodies, certain geographic locations and times in history, and not other ones. He gives us specific parents and siblings and children, whose specific needs constantly impose limits on our choices.

Even if, in modernity and postmodernity, such limits are anathema, to be resisted and fought against with all the science and technology we can muster, true freedom is found by recognizing and resting in God’s good limits, both physical and moral. If God is good, then the limits He imposes are not burdens. They’re blessings. [source]

No matter what you believe about Reality, Reality always has the last say and doesn’t care what you believe. If your beliefs don’t match Reality then you are deluding yourself.

Learning Styles Don’t Actually Exist, Studies Show

From FEE.org (Aug. 12, 2022):

Are you a visual, auditory, reading/writing, or kinesthetic learner? For millions of students, this question has become so familiar that they already have an answer ready to go. Some identify as visual learners, which means that, in theory, they learn best by seeing concepts in pictures and diagrams, perhaps on a blackboard or in a video. Others identify as auditory learners, which means they learn best by hearing, or reading/writing learners, which means they learn best by reading books and taking notes. Still others identify as kinesthetic learners, which means they learn best when they can physically engage with things, such as in a chemistry lab.

For most of us, the idea that different people have different learning styles is so obvious that it is simply common knowledge. But there’s a problem here, a big problem. No matter how hard scientists have looked, they haven’t been able to find any good evidence for the learning styles theory. Indeed, many academics who study this for a living consider learning styles to be one of the biggest myths in education.

“There is no credible evidence that learning styles exist,” write psychologists Cedar Riener and Daniel Willingham in a 2010 paper titled The Myth of Learning Styles. “Students may have preferences about how to learn, but no evidence suggests that catering to those preferences will lead to better learning.”

If that sounds far-fetched, well, there’s plenty more where that came from.

In a 2009 review paper entitled Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence, researchers investigated the “meshing hypothesis,” which is the idea that students learn better when instruction is provided in a format that matches their learning style. Their conclusion is a hard pill to swallow. “The contrast between the enormous popularity of the learning-styles approach within education and the lack of credible evidence for its utility is, in our opinion, striking and disturbing,” the researchers wrote. “If classfication of students’ learning styles has practical utility, it remains to be demonstrated.”

A 2006 study looking at multimedia instruction came to a similar conclusion. “There was not strong support for the hypothesis that verbal learners and visual learners should be given different kinds of multimedia instruction,” the authors concluded.

But perhaps this is just a few fringe studies? Perhaps there is still some debate on this within academia? Not so, says the American Psychological Association. “Many people, including educators, believe learning styles are set at birth and predict both academic and career success even though there is no scientific evidence to support this common myth,” the APA wrote in a 2019 press release titled “Belief in Learning Styles Myth May Be Detrimental.” The release goes on to say that “numerous studies have debunked the concept of learning styles,” and that there is a “lack of scientific evidence supporting them.”

This lack of evidence stands in stark contrast to popular opinion. Indeed, surveys show that 80-95 percent of people in the US and other industrialized countries believe in learning styles.

Having said all that, it’s important to be clear about what exactly researchers are criticizing when they talk about the myth of learning styles. They aren’t saying there are no differences between students, or that tailored teaching approaches can never be helpful. There are plenty of individual differences between students, such as talent, background knowledge, and interest in the field, and researchers agree that teaching with these differences in mind can have a positive impact.

There is also evidence that using multiple teaching approaches together (such as words and pictures) tends to improve learning across the board, a phenomenon known as the multimedia effect. Again, researchers don’t take issue with this. What they dispute is the idea that each student has a particular learning style, and that teaching to a student’s preferred learning style will improve their educational outcomes. [read more]

Main Points of Jonathan Alpert's Article "Is 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' Real?"

From Grok.com:

Jonathan Alpert, a Manhattan-based psychotherapist, argues in his Wall Street Journal opinion piece (published around early November 2025) that "Trump Derangement Syndrome" (TDS)—a term often used dismissively in political discourse—is a legitimate psychological phenomenon he observes in his clinical practice. Drawing from his experiences treating patients, Alpert frames TDS not as mere partisanship but as a form of obsessive preoccupation akin to anxiety disorders or OCD-like behaviors. Below are the article's key points, based on its core arguments and examples:

• TDS as a Real Psychological Pathology: Alpert asserts that TDS is not hyperbole but a "profound pathology" manifesting as hyperfixation on Donald Trump, leading to irrational emotional distress. He describes it as the "defining pathology of our time," where patients exhibit symptoms like restlessness, sleep disturbances, and trauma-like responses triggered solely by Trump's image, name, or news coverage.
• Prevalence in Clinical Practice: He claims that approximately 75% of his patients present with TDS symptoms, often within minutes of starting sessions. This widespread occurrence, particularly in a liberal-leaning area like Manhattan, underscores its impact on mental health, with patients seeking therapy explicitly for Trump-related distress.
• Specific Symptoms and Triggers: Common manifestations include inability to sleep, feeling "traumatized" by Trump, and compulsive checking of news for Trump-related content, which exacerbates anxiety. Alpert shares an anonymized example of a patient who couldn't enjoy a vacation because seeing Trump on her device caused immediate triggering, illustrating how TDS disrupts daily life and enjoyment.
• Beyond Ideology: A Mental Health Issue: Initially skeptical and viewing it as ideological bias, Alpert evolved to see TDS as unhealthy fixation on a single figure, regardless of political validity. He emphasizes that such obsession—where Trump dominates thoughts and emotions—is maladaptive and requires therapeutic intervention to restore balance, rather than being dismissed as "normal" political disagreement.
• Call for Awareness and Treatment: Alpert urges greater recognition of political obsessions in mental health discussions, suggesting therapy techniques like cognitive reframing to help patients detach from the fixation. He warns that ignoring TDS could worsen societal polarization, positioning it as a broader cultural symptom needing professional address.

The article blends clinical anecdotes with broader commentary, sparking debate (e.g., criticism for potentially breaching patient confidentiality or politicizing therapy). Alpert's Fox News appearance around the same time amplified these ideas, but the WSJ piece focuses more on professional insights than partisan rhetoric.

Losing Our Religion: Blue Laws Decline While Deaths of Despair Do Not

From Breakpoint.org (Sept. 23, 2022):

A mortal affliction affects much of America’s heartland. Known as “deaths of despair,” both the Rust Belt and Appalachia have seen incredible spikes in rates of addiction, overdoses, violence, and suicide. In addition to the thousands who die each year by various forms of self-harm, thousands more live Gollum-like, trapped by their chemical chains and in loneliness.

It is a complex situation. While we must not diminish anyone’s moral agency, the downward paths we are on are paved, lined, and greased by a number of contributing factors. For example, Beth Macy, the author of the book Dope Sick, has documented the lethal partnership of doctors and drug companies, not to mention the co-option of government oversight agencies, which inflicted a plague of highly addictive opioids on some of America’s poorest areas of the country.

A new recent study, however, points to an additional complexity, an oft-ignored element of this cultural disease: the decline of religion. According to the study’s authors, there is some correlation between the end of so-called “Blue Laws” and the opioid epidemic. In certain parts of the country, Blue Laws have long limited the range of activities allowed on Sundays. Certain businesses were not allowed to be open, and certain things (especially alcohol) could not be sold. Though these laws continue in certain areas, particularly in Europe, they began to disappear in parts of the United States as the 20th century wore on, to the point that now they are few and far between.

Of course, a significant, culture-wide phenomenon like the opioid crisis cannot be reduced to something as simplistic as whether or not people can shop on Sunday. To do that would be to mistake causation for correlation, kind of like saying murders go up with ice cream sales. And this is something the study’s authors readily admit.

Rather than claiming that the end of Blue Laws created the opioid crisis, they use the end of Blue Laws as a marker to track the decline in American religiosity. The diminishing connections to faith in communities across the country, especially in those areas where they were once so strong, are among the factors that contributed to our nation’s chemical plague. In other words, Blue Laws are a kind of canary in the coal mine, marking when we’ve crossed a dangerous line.

In light of these diminishing religious commitments, reinstating Blue Laws likely will not lead to a reversal in rates of addictions or other deaths of despair. Even if they were an important part of our cultural life of faith at one time, too much has changed for such an easy fix. However, what these laws represented and what has been lost as they disappear points to the underlying causes, not only of the opioid crisis but many of our parallel pains as well.

What we need to ask is, in a mix of Friedrich Nietzsche and REM, what is the cost of losing our religion?

As much as we prize our individualism, particularly here in America, human beings aren’t just dust motes of consciousness, floating on the air currents of life. We’re connected, not just to one another, but to a host of other elements through relationships that give us meaning, identity, direction, and hope. To be healthy, as individuals and as communities, these relationships (upward, inward, outward, and downward) must be strong.

Human beings need a connection to something beyond ourselves, something higher and transcendent in order to find ourselves, to know who and what we are, to be sure of our identity. We need connections with one another, especially the links of family and friendship, in order to be accountable, supported, and complete. And, we need proper connection to the physical world around us, so to be tethered to reality through things like meaningful labor, a place to call home, and some part of the world to call “mine.”

Marx got it wrong. Religion isn’t the opiate of the masses, but instead a part of life most needed, irreplaceable by technological convenience or scientific mastery. The loss of religion has been a bad idea wherever it has been tried, and those suffering across Appalachia and the Rust Belt are some of its most obvious victims. By abandoning religion, specifically the Christianity which once provided meaning to these now missing relationships, the essential connection between individuals and communities and a higher purpose has been lost.

As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said all the way back in 1983, “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” Blue Laws didn’t hold off the effects of substance abuse, but the religious impulse that such laws represented were part of a way of seeing life and the world, one in which we weren’t just reduced to being cogs or animals or sexual expressions. The Christianity that the world has rejected offers the hope that the world so desperately needs. [source]

Main Points of Jonathan Alpert's Article "Is 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' Real?"

From Grok.com: 

Jonathan Alpert, a Manhattan-based psychotherapist, argues in his Wall Street Journal opinion piece (published around early November 2025) that "Trump Derangement Syndrome" (TDS)—a term often used dismissively in political discourse—is a legitimate psychological phenomenon he observes in his clinical practice. Drawing from his experiences treating patients, Alpert frames TDS not as mere partisanship but as a form of obsessive preoccupation akin to anxiety disorders or OCD-like behaviors. Below are the article's key points, based on its core arguments and examples:

• TDS as a Real Psychological Pathology: Alpert asserts that TDS is not hyperbole but a "profound pathology" manifesting as hyperfixation on Donald Trump, leading to irrational emotional distress. He describes it as the "defining pathology of our time," where patients exhibit symptoms like restlessness, sleep disturbances, and trauma-like responses triggered solely by Trump's image, name, or news coverage.
• Prevalence in Clinical Practice: He claims that approximately 75% of his patients present with TDS symptoms, often within minutes of starting sessions. This widespread occurrence, particularly in a liberal-leaning area like Manhattan, underscores its impact on mental health, with patients seeking therapy explicitly for Trump-related distress.
• Specific Symptoms and Triggers: Common manifestations include inability to sleep, feeling "traumatized" by Trump, and compulsive checking of news for Trump-related content, which exacerbates anxiety. Alpert shares an anonymized example of a patient who couldn't enjoy a vacation because seeing Trump on her device caused immediate triggering, illustrating how TDS disrupts daily life and enjoyment.
• Beyond Ideology: A Mental Health Issue: Initially skeptical and viewing it as ideological bias, Alpert evolved to see TDS as unhealthy fixation on a single figure, regardless of political validity. He emphasizes that such obsession—where Trump dominates thoughts and emotions—is maladaptive and requires therapeutic intervention to restore balance, rather than being dismissed as "normal" political disagreement.
• Call for Awareness and Treatment: Alpert urges greater recognition of political obsessions in mental health discussions, suggesting therapy techniques like cognitive reframing to help patients detach from the fixation. He warns that ignoring TDS could worsen societal polarization, positioning it as a broader cultural symptom needing professional address.

The article blends clinical anecdotes with broader commentary, sparking debate (e.g., criticism for potentially breaching patient confidentiality or politicizing therapy). Alpert's Fox News appearance around the same time amplified these ideas, but the WSJ piece focuses more on professional insights than partisan rhetoric. 

Source: Is 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' Real? 

Definitely it is a mental disorder. The people with the disorder seriously need help. See the link below for why.

Therapist says he received threats after calling ‘Trump derangement syndrome' real 'pathology'

When Intelligence Is Stupid

From R. J. Snell on The Public Discourse.com (July 10, 2022):

I’ve long engaged a group of close friends in political and theological discussion. As it happens, two of us agree on most topics and ally against the others. Mostly in banter, although not entirely so, we refer to ourselves as “Team Intelligence.” It’s friendly and jocular, even if somewhat ridiculous.

Who could be against intelligence? Who would wish to be dimwitted or slow; or worse, to be thought dimwitted and slow?

In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle describes intelligence or understanding (nous) as the intellectual virtue by which we apprehend first principles. Such principles are known, but as first, they cannot themselves be demonstrated or based on other more fundamental premises. The intellect grasps them as true by an insight that is neither an intuition nor a conclusion. Thus, all other theoretical reasoning depends on intelligence, which provides fundamental principles.

Nonetheless, it is obvious to any person of experience that intelligence is no guarantee of wisdom, morality, or even basic decency. The intelligent person may turn out worse than the dull precisely because he is clever and scheming. Just as one eventually concludes that interesting people are fine but solid and serious people make better friends, perhaps maturity requires moderating our admiration for the intellectuals, the clerks, and the clever types.

If honorable stupidity is a weakness of understanding, the dishonorable version “is by far the more dangerous.” It is not the absence of intelligence so much as “failure of intelligence.” Intelligence is present but out of balance and “misshapen and erratically active,” diseased in some manner. The “higher stupidity” is a “misculture” causing not dullness of mind but a kind of blindness or refusal to see.

Musil suggests three primary qualities of this kind of intelligent stupidity. First, it claims accomplishment and facility in matters beyond its competence. Second, it gives way to emotions at the expense of reason. Third, it is clever enough to invent rationalizations for its views, no matter how bizarre the view or silly the excuse. As a result, intelligence does not orient toward true knowledge of first principles and reality, as in Aristotle’s vision, but confuses the spirit. It results in a flight from reality, with all the cultural and spiritual pathologies attendant on living in an ersatz reality. Of course, given the unity of the human being, stupidity of this sort affects sensibility, causing taste and emotions to unmoor. Such intelligence becomes a dangerous disease of the mind and “endangers life itself.” [read more]

The difference between intelligence and wisdom. Aristotle was talking about wisdom.

Science Has a Major Fraud Problem. Here’s Why Government Funding Is the Likely Culprit

From FEE.org (Jan. 9, 2024):

President Biden’s 2024 budget includes over $210 billion directed toward federal research and development, an approximately $9 billion increase from 2023 funding. That might not sound particularly bad—after all, who doesn’t like science and innovation?

But, although seemingly noble, the billions pumped into the US government’s National Science Foundation don’t always translate into finding cures for debilitating diseases, or developing groundbreaking technologies.

In recent years, although technology and peer-review techniques have become more widespread, fraud has remained a consistent issue. The problem has gotten so out of hand that world-class researchers and medical ethics analysts believe the public should be aware of the widespread inaccuracies plaguing medicine.

Dr. Richard Smith, the former editor-in-chief of the BMJ and cofounder of the Committee on Medical Ethics (COPE), details,

Health professionals and journal editors reading the results of a clinical trial assume that the trial happened and that the results were honestly reported. But about 20% of the time, said Ben Mol, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Monash Health, they would be wrong. As I’ve been concerned about research fraud for 40 years, I wasn’t as surprised as many would be by this figure, but it led me to think that the time may have come to stop assuming that research actually happened and is honestly reported, and assume that the research is fraudulent until there is some evidence to support it having happened and been honestly reported.

Independent analysis done by J. B. Carlisle confirms Dr. Smith’s suspicions. As Carlisle analyzed dozens of government-funded control trials, he found a staggering 44% contained false data. These findings are swept under the rug by most mainstream news outlets, which is a problem in itself. If government-funded research produces such sloppy results, the taxpayers funding it at least deserve to know the outcomes of the experiments they paid for.

Getting to the Root of the Problem

To understand why government-funded research tends to be so inaccurate, it’s crucial to look at history and remember how government involvement in research started.

It all ties back to the National Science Foundation (NSF), one of the first government agencies built for funding science. In the late 1940s, one of the most outspoken supporters of the NSF was Democratic Senator Harley Kilgore. His motivations were clear: the NSF was to provide the government with a pool of educated researchers that could be used for strategic purposes during the Cold War. Scientific inquisition was never the primary purpose of the NSF.

In addition to this, the system of “checks and balances” in scientific research is completely off-kilter. Private journals risk damage to their reputation if it is revealed that they have published fraudulent research. Privately funded journals compete to be the best among pools of hundreds of other publications. To maintain legitimacy in the eyes of future researchers and funders, publishing high quality research is in the private journal’s self-interest.

Academic institutions funded by governments, on the other hand, are motivated to shield their researchers, as researchers play a crucial role in securing substantial grant funding for the institution, often reaching into the millions of dollars. Government exists in a playing field outside the private sector—they aren’t competing against other specialized journals. Because they aren’t specialized and fund a wide array of projects, they can often afford to let “a few bad apples” through (unfortunately, at the expense of taxpayers).

The source of funding also undoubtedly (at the very least subconsciously) sways the research outcomes. There are several ways the government introduces bias into research. For one, the state often ignores certain scientific queries, forcing researchers to adopt different hypotheses or study different questions to gain any funding. Without any market forces guiding research and development, study objectives start aligning more with the interests of bureaucrats and less with the interests of patients.

Government agencies also don’t want to fund proposals that contradict the agency’s political ideas. If the research’s outcome even slightly threatens the government’s power, funding is likely to be cut off, often for extended periods. These outcomes are clearest when it comes to funding regarding the social sciences and economics, but also occur with life science research. 34% percent of scientists receiving federal funding have acknowledged engaging in research misconduct to align research with their funder’s political and economic agenda. Moreover, a mere 24% of these researchers have disclosed these ethically questionable research practices to their supervisors.

This incentive structure also explains why there is a limited amount of research into the accuracy of government-funded research. Many researchers are simply too afraid of the funding and reputational consequences that come with revealing problems with government funding. When there is research into federal funding bias, it is often concentrated on very specific and politically divisive topics (such as the use of stem cells). A team of researchers at the CATO Institute found just 44 Google Scholar articles from 2010-2014 that dealt with this type of government bias influencing research.

The Private-Sector Alternative

The government’s overpowering role in science simultaneously crowds out private sources of funding. Despite this, there is some good news: the private sector is getting more and more involved in scientific funding by the day.

Globally, 70% of science is financed privately. Charities like the American Cancer Foundation and Howard Hughes Medical Institute collectively contribute billions of dollars to spurring innovation in their respective fields.

For example, renowned neurologist Dr. Helen Mayberg’s research into deep brain stimulation as a depression treatment wasn’t supported by government grants. Instead, private sources funded her research. Yet, her discoveries led to additional trials and eventually breakthroughs in the way depression is treated.

Most Americans treat government-funded science as the holy grail of scientific research, but it truly isn’t. Without proper market signals guiding the direction of research, millions of tax dollars are lost, and thousands of hours of scientific research are wasted. As Milton Friedman explained regarding government funding of science, “The scientific ability of really able people is being diverted from the goals they would like to pursue themselves to the goals of government officials.” It’s up to the next generation to decide who they trust more: scientists, or the state? [source]

How Valid Is Evolutionary Psychology?

From Steve Taylor Ph.D. on Psychology Today.com (Dec. 9, 2014):

Why do we find natural scenes like green fields, trees, and rivers beautiful? Why do people have an urge to gain wealth and power? Why do human beings fight wars? Why are human beings creative?

According to evolutionary psychology, the answers to these questions are linked to survival and reproduction. Evolutionary psychology explains present-day human traits and characteristics in terms of the survival value they possessed for our ancestors. These traits have survived because the genes they are linked to were ‘selected’ and have remained part of our genetic heritage. So in terms of the above examples, we find natural scenes attractive because for our ancestors they represented survival—lush vegetation, trees laden with fruits and nuts, rivers. People have an urge to gain wealth and power because, in prehistoric times, they enhanced their chances of survival and increased their reproductive possibilities. The instinct to wage war is so strong because prehistoric tribes of genetically similar people were in constant competition for resources with other groups. The creative instinct can also be seen as a way of increasing our reproductive possibilities—successful creativity increases our status and so makes us more attractive to potential mates.

It’s clear from these explanations (all of which have been put forward by evolutionary psychologists) that evolutionary psychology has a great deal of explanatory power—seldom has such a simple idea been used to explain such a wide variety of human behavior. This is probably the reason why the theory has become very popular, especially in the media and amongst non-scientists. As human beings, we have a strong need for explanation, to make sense of our behaviour and of the world around us. (This is part of the reason why religions are appealing to many people too.) However, the negative side of this is that, when theories do have explanatory power, we tend to become over-enthusiastic about them, and to over-estimate their validity. And I think this is the case with evolutionary psychology. Seldom has a theory gained such widespread support whilst being based on such shaky foundations.

Having said that, my problem with evolutionary psychology isn't so much with the theory itself, but with how it has been used to justify a particular view of human nature. After all, it makes sense to assume that we have inherited some behavioural tendencies from our ancestors, that some of the instincts we carry originated millions of years ago. As I suggest later, it might be possible to formulate an alternative interpretation of evolutionary psychology that doesn't make such grandiose claims, and is more in line with anthropological evidence. [read more]

Why atheists and Christians should never trust themselves

From Christian Post.com (July 14, 2023):

It is purely natural for man to trust himself. He assumes his ideas and conclusions are reliable. But what about when man gets it wrong? Every day we hear stories of people who misled themselves into making some awful decisions.

Christians and atheists are similar in this sense. People in both groups can be and have been wrong on multiple issues in their personal lives. They advanced positions that turned out to be completely inaccurate or engaged in behavior that is unseemly.

Why do such mistakes happen so frequently? The answer is simple. Atheists rely solely upon their fallible brains, while Christians at times pursue a course that flows from their sinful nature rather than from the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.

Let’s start with atheists. John Lennox is a Northern Irish mathematician, bioethicist and Christian apologist who said in an interview:

“As a scientist, the very bottom line for me is that atheism doesn’t even give me a reason to trust the mind with which I do science because it tells me that the mind with which I’m doing science is essentially equal to the brain. And the brain is the end product of a mindless, unguided process. Well, no scientist I have ever asked would trust a computer if he or she thought it was the end product of a mindless, unguided process. So, there’s a big black hole at the bottom of atheism’s thinking when it comes to science.”

And yet most atheists continue to overlook the irrationality of their approach. You see, it is only reasonable to trust your mind if an intelligent Creator produced it. Otherwise, it is utter foolishness to place full confidence in a brain that simply evolved from a mindless process.

Atheists pick and choose which ideas and outcomes to rely upon and which ideas and outcomes to summarily reject. They assume God does not exist and they reject every supernatural claim. In the end, they stake their immortal soul on a faulty assumption rather than on an intelligent investigation of the facts surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (Check out the blog post by Rachel Boulos titled, “23 Mind-Blowing Facts About Jesus’ Death and Resurrection You Might Not Know.”)

John Lennox stated: “Of course, I reject atheism because I believe Christianity to be true. But I also reject it because I am a scientist. How could I be impressed with a worldview that undermines the very rationality we need to do science? Science and God mix very well. It is science and atheism that do not mix.”

C.S. Lewis observed:

“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so, I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” 

[read more]

Profound insight.

12 Principles of Economic Wisdom

From Economic Wisdom.org:

Our vision of economic wisdom is summarized in twelve “elements” that provide starting points for thoughtful, biblically informed understanding of contemporary opportunities and challenges.

……..

Stewardship and Flourishing

We were given stewardship over the world so our work would make it flourish for his glory.

1. We have a stewardship responsibility to flourish in our own lives, to help our neighbors flourish as fellow stewards, and to pass on a flourishing economy to future generations. (PDF) (one-pager)

2. Economies flourish when people have integrity and trust each other. (PDF) (one-pager)

3. In general, people flourish when they take responsibility for their own economic success by doing work that serves others and makes the world better. (PDF) (one-pager)

Value Creation

Through economic exchange, we work together and create value for one another.

4. Real economic success is about how much value you create, not how much money you make. (PDF) (one-pager)

5. A productive economy comes from the value-creating work of free and virtuous people. (PDF) (one-pager)

6. Economies generally flourish when policies and practices reward value creation. (PDF) (one-pager)

Productivity and Opportunity

Economic systems should be grounded in human dignity and moral character.

7. Households, businesses, communities and nations should support themselves by producing more than they consume. (PDF) (one-pager)

8. A productive economy lifts people out of poverty and generally helps people flourish. (PDF) (one-pager)

9. The most effective way to turn around poverty, economic distress and injustice is by expanding opportunity for people to develop and deploy their God-given productive potential in communities of exchange, especially through entrepreneurship. (PDF) (one-pager)

Responsible Action

Economic systems should practice and encourage a hopeful realism.

10. Programs aimed at economic problems need a fully rounded understanding of how people flourish. (PDF) (one-pager)

11. Economic thinking must account for long-term effects and unintended consequences. (PDF) (one-pager)

12. In general, economies flourish when goodwill is universal and global, but control is local and personal knowledge guides decisions. (PDF) (one-pager) [read more]

Nice. H/T: “12 Principles of Economic Wisdom” table podcast from voice.dts.edu.