Posted on

Conflict of Visions: A Book Review- Part II

The Unconstrained and Constrained Visions of Social Processes, Equality, and Power

This a three-part series on “Conflict of Visions” by Thomas Sowell. It is split into the following categories of the way in which the unconstrained vision and the constrained view these subjects:

Part I: Human nature, Knowledge and Reason

Part II: Social Processes, Equality, Power

Part III: Freedom, Justice

As with anything else, most desire thriving among those close to them. To arrive there, agreement is often hard to find among those with differing views on how to arrive. Here, we see how the constrained and unconstrained visions differ in their view on social processes, equality, and power.

Social Processes

In the unconstrained vision, changes in human nature are the scenery itself, rather than just the costume. And only sweeping changes are deemed appropriate for the future. In the constrained vision, changes in human history are differences in costumes. It is the same fractured nature replaying itself in various new ways.

In the unconstrained vision, Loyalty, promises, patriotism, gratitude, precedent, oaths of fidelity, constitutions, marriage, social traditions, and international treaties are constrictions imposed earlier when knowledge was less, on options to be exercised later, when knowledge will be greater. In the constrained vision, true government requires more skill and experience than any one person can possess.

Comparisons between the morally and intellectually superior to the average person are commonplace in the unconstrained vision. The most outstanding individuals, intellectually or morally, are inherently limited in their capacity for knowledge in the constrained vision.

In the unconstrained vision, human nature is a variable, and variables can change. Obstacles to progress are to be overcome by the commitment, intelligence, and imagination of those who have grasped the possibilities open to society. Understanding human nature’s limitations is foundational to the constrained vision. Those in the constrained vision see outcomes as a function of incentives presented to individuals and conditions under which they interact in response to those incentives.

Best results should be sought directly in the unconstrained vision. When there are equality of results among those who have contributed, abstained, and hampered production, it strikes offense to the equality of process among those with the constrained vision. If a foot race is conducted under fair conditions, the result each time does not define justice in the constrained vision.

In the unconstrained vision, human capabilities permit social decisions to be made collectively through the articulated rationality of surrogate decision makers. In the constrained vision, decisions are to be made collectively through a composite of the average many, rather than the elite few.

What is justice and liberty, and how do we solve the issue of poverty? Here are the differences among the visions:

Unconstrained

  • Justice– something is just or unjust based on the end results that occur.
  • Liberty– results maximize scope of choice of individuals, often leading to advantages to those whose social backgrounds would handicap them in competition.
  • Poverty– subsidize them to produce a more desirable result in the form of higher living.

Constrained

  • Justice– adherence to agreed-upon rules.
  • Liberty– freedom from coercion and arbitrary power of other men.
  • Poverty– Provide incentives to succeed individually.

Equality

Attempts to equalize economic results leads to inequality in political power. Where achieving equal economic process limits centralized power because everyone must play by the same rules. Disagreement does not rely on degree of inequality, but what is to be equalized.

In the unconstrained vision, equality is achieved through results. Equality of opportunity means equalized probabilities of achieving given results. If the process given doesn’t produce equal results, then the process must be changed to maximize equal results for individuals. In the constrained vision, equality is achieved through process. As long as everyone is treated the same and operate under the same set of rules, the process is equal, resulting in equality having been achieved.

Those in the unconstrained vision believe some have little because others have much. There are finite resources. Those in the constrained vision believe consequences of decisions cause one to have little or much. Incentives drive this.

Equalizing material conditions of life are to be equalized under the influence of power of those with intellectual and moral superiority, according to the unconstrained vision. And according to the constrained vision, discretion is to be equally and individually exercised as often as possible under the boundaries of traditions and values derived from the widely shared experience of the many rather than special articulation of the few.

Power

To reduce the chances of war, in the eyes of the unconstrained vision, lean on the morally superior, communicate with enemies better, reduce arms seen as a threat to peace, and de-emphasize patriotism. To reduce the chances of war, in the eyes of the constrained vision, have military maximally prepared, promote patriotism, make adversaries aware of your military might, negotiate only when it can be done so without blackmail.

For crime, William Godwin said, “It is impossible that a man would perpetrate a crime in the moment when he sees it in all its enormity.” People are forced to commit crimes for specific reasons, poverty, discrimination, and unemployment. Therefore, reducing such reasons would reduce crime to those with the unconstrained vision. For crime, the constrained vision rests in the belief that it is axiomatic humans will be given to criminal nature.

Governmental Power?

  • Unconstrained: Governmental power in economics: it is a matter of intentions.
  • Constrained:Governmental power in economics: it is a matter of incentives.

In the unconstrained vision, power is to be seen as limited by intellectual elite through socially desirable results within man’s capabilities. In the constrained vision, power is to be seen as one reducing other’s options. It is not within man’s capabilities to monitor a myriad of individual results of behavior. Therefore, efforts must focus on restrictions of power, thereby restricting the ability of some to reduce other’s options.

Conclusion

Yet again, we see the pattern that both visions long for people among them to thrive in every possible avenue. The mechanisms of how and who decide distinguish the two visions.

For the next and last part, we will look a little closer at the ways in which the two visions disagree on freedom and justice.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Conflict of Visions: A Book Review- Part I

The Unconstrained and Constrained Visions of Human Nature, Knowledge and Reason

This a three-part series on “Conflict of Visions” by Thomas Sowell. It is split into the following categories of the way in which the unconstrained vision and the constrained view these subjects:

Part I: Human nature, Knowledge and Reason

Part II: Social Processes, Equality, Power

Part III: Freedom, Justice

I just completed arguably the best book I’ve ever read, excluding the Bible. In his book, Conflict of Visions, Thomas Sowell managed to lay out broadly, yet perfectly, two ways in which the world can be viewed. His impetus for writing such a book was based on a thought that plagued him; why can one predict that if someone holds one value, they will hold certain other values that are not, in any way, related? For instance, if one is pro-life, they are also pro-2A and border enforcement. Conversely, if one is anti-ICE, they are also pro-government programs, income redistribution, and socialist policies, like free healthcare. None of those things are related, barring a religious interpretation.

Once faced with this complexity, Sowell began diving in. The result was this amazing book. Sowell primarily referenced Adam Smith as an archetypal guide for the constrained vision and William Godwin as an archetypal guide for the unconstrained vision. The beauty of it may lie in the fact that no one purely resides in one vision. What we find is most people view the world mostly one way and see certain aspects of life in the view of the other vision, if they were being transparently honest. I am no exception.

“It is the lot of all human institutions, even those of the most perfect kind, to have defects as well as excellencies, ill as well as good propensities. This results from the imperfection of the institutor, man.”

“It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?”

“Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.”

– Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist papers

Human Nature

The unconstrained vision is focused on solutions. The constrained vision is focused on trade-offs. In the unconstrained vision, solutions are achieved when trade-offs are no longer needed.

In the unconstrained vision, man’s understanding is capable of intentionally creating social benefits. In the constrained vision, morally and socially beneficial behaviors arrive from incentives.

Given the immeasurable (or unconstrained) possibilities in human nature, poverty, or other social ills, are a result of evil intentions or blindness to solutions readily available by changing institutions. Those with constrained visions are not trying to create the ideal, but to establish the best that the people can bear.

Believers in the unconstrained vision seek the causes of war, poverty, and crime. Believers in the constrained vision seek the causes of peace, wealth, or a law-abiding society.

In the unconstrained vision, human nature can be changed and social customs and traditions are expendable holdovers from the past. Human nature is unchangeable over time in the constrained vision.

The unconstrained vision is concerned directly with results, irrespective of processes. The constrained vision is concerned with the process considered integral to desired results, but inevitably with unhappy side effects, which are accepted as trade-offs.

Summarized, a constrained vision holds that human desires exceed both personal and societal resources, and people will not voluntarily limit themselves to what society can provide. Therefore, external constraints, like prices, laws, traditions, and social pressures, are necessary to force individuals to live within real limits and reduce harm to others. These limitations apply universally, even to the wisest or most compassionate people. Only by recognizing that all humans are bound by such limits is the constrained vision complete.

Knowledge and Reason

The unconstrained vision believes knowledge is reserved for the special and elite few to serve as guides and instructors for those not blessed with above average intellect. The constrained vision believes knowledge is too vast and complex for explicit articulation. The process must travel through multiple channels, through the collection of the average many.

John Stuart Mill, through an unconstrained vision, viewed legal precedents as “an absurd sacrifice of present ends to antiquated means.” Unequal intellectual and moral standing would justify having equality imposed on others, regardless of their consent, and only “very unequal power would make it possible.” The constrained vision is less concerned with economic and social equality and more concerned with the dangers of inequality of power producing an articulate ruling elite.

A socially responsible businessman would hire the disadvantaged, invest in what is needed most by society, rather than profit, and turn proceeds over to charity in the unconstrained vision. In the constrained vision, The businessman’s competence in his particular field yields prosperity. Competition, rather than individual intentions, comprises the constrained vision and its reliance to produce social benefit.

In the unconstrained vision, the judge’s moral duty is to interpret or change the law as it fits society in the present, relinquishing the grip on the past and applying reason to the present. In the constrained vision, The judge’s moral duty is to faithfully carry out the law he was sworn to uphold, regardless of how he sees the outcome.

Conclusion

As you can see, both distinct visions share the same desired destination. Happiness and flourishing for all. The separation arrives at the mode of discretion (how the decisions are made) and the locus of discretion (who makes those decisions).

Next, we will look into the two visions and how they view Social Processes, Equality, Power.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Collectivism vs. Community

The Subtle, Yet Glaring Distinction

The distinction between collectivism and community is important. While they get conflated with each other, they’re not the same.

I recently had a couple in counseling who had hit the most common gridlock I see in couples. She says, “He doesn’t notice all I do” and he says, “No matter how much I do, it is never enough.” I asked them the last time they went on a date. They laughed and couldn’t remember. I laughed along with them in a mirroring technique helpful in counseling. But internally, I wasn’t laughing. My goal was to get fired, but for good reasons, they would no longer need me.

Thanks for reading Tidbits of Audacity! Subscribe for free to receive new posts every Tuesday.

I asked why they hadn’t gone a date recently. They quickly named off reasons that are better described as excuses. The most prevalent was not having a babysitter. I began asking about their support group. They had no such group in their lives. They were “doing fine” on their own. I retorted, “So fine that you’re in here.” They laughed again, but it was less enthusiastic.

This couple had bought into rigid individualism, losing sight of the communal necessities affording us to live our best lives.

Individualism vs Collectivism

People often discuss the juxtaposition of collectivism vs. individualism. In the West, we typically prefer individualism. After all, it is how we became the greatest nation on earth. We fought for individual freedom, demanding the government get out of our business. We originally declared the federal government good for three purposes:

  • National security
  • Federal banking system (states would not play nice with their separate forms of money)
  • Interstate regulation (making states play nice in all areas)

So it’s easy to see how we arrived at a place where we prefer individualism over collectivism. Our ancestors witnessed the group tyrannizing the common man, and when the commons man prevailed in the Revolutionary War, individualism built roots in our soil.

But I had recently been thinking on the ways in which collectivism gets some things right, and we as individualists, tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater (Ok, no one is throwing babies. It is just an old saying). While thinking on this issue, a fellow stacker, Pastor Ron brought up an interesting point. Maybe it’s community that the collectivists got right, and maybe community exists independently of collectivism.

The Distinction

When you really step back and look at collectivism, searching for the community aspects and how they are alike, yet how they differ, quite a few things stand out.

If you’re asking, “What is the best for the group?” and “How we can help each other flourish together?”— these are very different questions, particularly as it pertains to authority, agency, decision-making, autonomy, and individuation. For instance, view the distinction between the collective good vs the common good. The collective good will view and treat individuals as a means to achieve a larger social goal. The common good will recognize relationships bring out the best in individuals, while allowing agency to remain priority.

The aspects of coercion vs voluntary action, group-think vs autonomy, and even geographically remaining in close proximity vs individuation highlights distinctions between community and collectivism.

The History of Community vs Collectivism

  • Alexis de Tocqueville argued that a free democracy was possible through voluntary associations like churches, neighborhoods, and local groups. He warned of the “Tyranny of the majority.”
  • Robert Nisbet echoed sentiments of Tocqueville in that community consisted of aspects of voluntary participation in local groups. Nisbet believed that collectivism replaced such voluntary groups with centralized bureaucratic power.
  • Pushing back on Rawlsian thinking, Michael Sandel posits that individuation is realized through social reciprocity, community, tradition, rather than existing in the form of an isolated individual. Sandel’s work is classified as communitarianism while still denouncing collectivism as viable.
  • Maybe one of the more important voices on community is Robert Putnam, who writes that the erosion of community, like neighborhoods, church participation, and volunteer groups contribute to the moral decline we see today, while refusing to endorse collectivism, citing that that voluntary aspect of community is one of the core elements that make it efficacious. Putnam speaks of social capital, such as bowling leagues and churches, to find mutual aid and social reciprocity along all of its benefits, including belonging and various types of support when it is needed.

Lastly, Karl Marx was a collectivist. Enough said.

More Distinctions

Collectivism primarily focuses the interest of the group, while community focuses on mutual care, shared purpose, and the flourishing of individuals within the group. Often, social and psychological benefits commonly attributed to collectivist are actually products of good, healthy communal entities rather than prioritizing groups over all agency.

I’m firmly convinced that the protective effects often attributed to collectivist cultures can also be found in communal bonds through strong local communities, families, and churches without the requirement of coercion, loss of autonomy, or removal of individual purpose and meaning.

Conclusion

What it comes down to is, I simply don’t believe in being rigidly individual to the point of social isolation. This has been the residual effect of people unable to see benefit of communal entities like churches and support groups. They move to another town, know no one, and begin to struggle immensely with everyday household negotiation. This is because we weren’t meant to do this alone.

The phrase, “It takes a village” is needed, necessary, vital to survival and flourishing when maintaining a home, raising children, and helping our fellow neighbor in times of need. This does not require collectivist assimilation, only recognizing communal needs. My suggestion to the couple was to find community, and fast. They did. Life is better. Then they did what I always long for, they fired me.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Testify to What?

Why Love Isn’t Love

L-R: Michael Passons, Melissa Greene, Ty Herndon

I absolutely love this song. Their performance is incredible. I have no problem with anyone, including gay people singing Christian music. This article is in response to a specific statement made by one of the singers of this song.

Spending my first 15 adult years in the music business in Nashville, I encountered many things I thought I’d never see. Of those remains to be the number of Christian music artists that were closeted homosexual. Keep in mind, to those of us in the industry, it wasn’t that closeted. On 16th and 17th Avenue in Nashville, they wore their identity without apology. But the instant they stepped beyond that sanctuary, they slipped into a disguise, pretending to be someone they weren’t.

Realities of the Music Industry

The reasons are clear. If the rest of the world, especially the Christian music listeners, were to learn of their favorite singer’s homosexuality, they would stop listening. This affects the financial bottom line. As a result, there was an unwritten code that artists were to keep their homosexuality on the down-low and everyone made money. If their homosexuality were to become common knowledge, sales would go down, managers would get less, publishers would get less, the artists would get less, there would be no tour. It’s financial ruin.

There has typically been the same unwritten code in country music. So when Ty Herndon was discovered by law enforcement committing a homosexual act in public, his label did their best to cover it up, minimize, and even alter the narrative surrounding the events. This couldn’t get out. But for different, yet similar, reasons. Those buying records were conservative, God-fearing, country boys and girls who did not want their favorite singer to be gay. Again, the fairness of this can be debated.

You could make the argument as to whether this is fair or not. For Christian singers, they adhere to what the Bible says. For country music, the clientele buys the records. If they don’t buy, you don’t have a job. In both cases, it was mostly economic.

New Take On an Old Song

Insert the new single by Ty Herndon, Michael Passons, and Melissa Greene. The song, “Testify to Love”, is a cover from the Chrisitan group Avalon, of whom Michael was a member of at one time. Michael left the group in 2003, citing other opportunities. Then in 2020, Passons came out as gay, recanting that leaving the group was involuntary due to his sexual orientation.

When the song comes out (no pun intended), it quickly becomes a hit. The initial reason is clear, they are amazing vocalists. Quickly, this begins to stir the airwaves, claiming this is “the first hit by an openly gay Christian artist.” For this reason, they received criticism.

Melissa Greene and Michael Passons took another step. Their claim was that “Christian music was built on the backs of gay people.” This is the statement that got my attention.

Christian Beliefs

Before we can continue, we have to clarify certain things. For the sake of this conversation, it must be noted that the Christian tradition believes that people are to be loved, but sins are not. And that homosexuality is considered a sin (missing the mark, not God’s design). Christians believe that love isn’t love, God is love. You can debate that on another day. Today it’s about the statement made by Greene and Passons.

Exploitation vs. Good Business

By their statement, they are saying that there were/are many gay people in Christian music and that it was exploitative to demand they keep this knowledge a secret. There are a few problems with this thought.

First, if they are going to go by the Bible, they should not be engaged in a homosexual relationship. They have abandoned that reality. Now, they choose to sing in the Christian music industry. It’s worth nothing that many in Nashville believe some people enter the Christian music industry because they can’t get signed in Country or Pop. Essentially, that’s unfair. However, there have been many cases where that was the clear truth.

Therefore, they should know that if they don’t abide by the rules of the industry, they will not have a job. This is no different than the Dixie Chicks debacle. In 2003, The lead singer, Natalie Maines, said she was “ashamed that the President of the United States was from Texas.” Outrage ensued. People were literally burning their records, t-shirts, and pictures. Their tour sales suffered greatly. They virtually tanked, dissolved, and were ostracized by the entire industry. But why? Because their clientele were the ones buying the records and going to the shows. And their clientele didn’t want to hear disrespectful things about their president. It’s free market capitalism 101.

This is why the statement by Greene and Passons that “Christian music was built on the backs of gay people”, hasn’t landed well. If it were to get out that a Christian singer was gay, that group would no longer have a career.

The other problem is this remake has usurped the meaning, slapped a concept creep on it, and decided they know what’s best, rather than the God they so lovingly sing about knowing what’s best.

True Meaning Behind the Song

If the song is to champion the idea that God loves gay people and you should too, then I’m totally on board with this. The message Jesus taught wasn’t a heterosexual or homosexual message, it was a God message. “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34-35). In that context, I will testify to love too. Because in testifying to love, I’m testifying to God.

If they are attempting to make the claim that God is perfectly accepting and happy that they are engaged in homosexual relationships, this would be directly against what God has said, and those in the industry knew that, thus the request for secrecy. In that context, I would ask, what is love? If God is love, then the literal translation of the song is, “I will testify to God.” And if we’re doing that, we are asking for grace, mercy, and forgiveness for missing the mark, and noting that homosexuality would be considered missing the mark.

There was no exploitation. There was a business model. And in order to have a career in Christian music, that model needed to be followed. One would either need to find a different path, or “deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). But expecting an entire industry to bow to your ill-informed opinion of what the text of the Bible says about homosexuality isn’t reasonable.

There will be a follow up about homosexuals in the church, and it will not be easy to read if you’re a Christian. I’m taking the gloves off for that one. For now…

Stay Classy GP (God’s People)!

Grainger

Posted on

Just a Spell Too Far

Pastor or Fighter? Yes

Pastor Tony Spell

Should a pastor be throwing hands? What do we expect of him? Is he allowed to be human? How far is too far? All questions I searched to answer.

When I was a kid, I remember grandfathers and uncles saying, “That dog was gone for a spell.” As a young child, I had no idea what they meant by that. After a while, I learned. A “spell” meant a significant amount of time. So, by that logic, I’ve been writing for a spell.

Recently, my social media feed was inundated with a pastor named Tony Spell who gave a young man a beatdown. I mean, he laid hands on him. As the story goes, the young man repeatedly antagonized the pastor by stating, according to Spell, when Spell leaves his house, the young man is going to rape his wife and children. After many occurrences of this nature, the pastor had enough. He approached the young man to address the situation verbally when the young man took a swing at Spell. The pastor promptly defended himself by swinging back. If that were the end of the story, there would be no article written.

As it turns out, the pastor, after engaging the young provocateur, beat the young man to the ground. Once on the ground, the young man curled up into the fetal position to protect his head from the beatdown he was receiving. From this point, the pastor continued to lay his hands on him, several times.

As you can imagine, this made national headlines. But for the wrong reasons. The repeated issues were:

  • Was the pastor using self-defense?
  • Should a pastor be fighting at all?
  • Did he go too far in the fight?
  • Was he being prideful and arrogant?

Self-Defense

First, was he entitled to defend himself? Absolutely. Was he justified in defending the honor of his family and sending the message that words have consequences? I believe so. The fact that this pastor gave this big-mouthed kid a beating he’ll likely never forget didn’t bother me at all. Chances are, that kid has never been told “no.” He’s never been smacked in the back of the head with a flip-flop, and it shows. This kid clearly hasn’t learned the reality of consequences. It’s likely his father shielded him from consequences, thinking that was right path in fatherhood. Most know, this is far from the truth. If they don’t learn consequences at home, they will learn them in a much harsher fashion out in the real world.

Meekness

While he had his infractions here, and his character needs addressing, from a biblical standpoint, there are those that simply don’t like the idea of a pastor swinging at all. I take issue with this. First, this pastor is no Jesus. To expect him to be is quite unreasonable. He is a human with a family. He defended he and his family. He let the social media fame go to his head. But he is still a human being. He has every right, within both the law and biblical precedent to defend himself and mitigate any future altercations by sending a clear message.

At the end of the day, this pastor is allowed to defend himself. But make no mistake, meekness is strength under control. It’s the power to choose restraint, when necessary. There’s nothing weak about being meek. They merely rhyme. That’s the end of their commonality.

Too Far?

The young man was in submission. He was in the fetal position. This is universally recognized as a position of surrender. Beyond this point, the pastor continued to pummel the young man. This leaves the arena of “coming in with a whip”, as many chose to cite from the Bible concerning Jesus clearing the temple. This traveled into the arena of taking out his unresolved cumulative anger on the young man in front of him. This left righteous anger and dove headfirst into the sin of anger. They are not the same. There simply was nothing constructive about continuing the batter the young man after he’d been defeated, other than to release some bottled-up emotion. Did the pastor take it too far? I believe he did.

Pride Before Fall

Following this event, the father of this young man called the police to protest the pastor mowing the yard of the church at 4AM. The officer informed the angry neighbor that no one has the right to tell a man when he can mow his yard. The officer also stated that the cars driving by were louder than the mower. It was clear this was personal. This had very little to do with a mower or the time of morning. This was war.

The officer went to the pastor and stated that he was simply responding to a noise complaint. When the officer asked for his name, his response was, “Everyone in the world knows my name. What do you need?” This is reminiscent of Zsa Zsa Gabor slapping a police officer after being pulled over in 1989, or Reese Witherspoon telling an officer in 2013, “Don’t you know who I am? Well, you’re about to find out who I am.” The problem here is, this pastor is not Reese Witherspoon, and even if he was, the arrogance was off-putting when Witherspoon said it, and comical when the pastor said it. Again, he crossed into the realm of arrogance. And pride always comes before a fall.

There are some who are dissecting and eviscerating his theology. And from what little I’ve read, his theology lacks biblical evidence. But to me, this isn’t about theology, it’s about a pastor being a man. Yes, the book of James (Chapter 3, verse 1) says that leaders will be held to a higher standard, but the bar many pastors are asked to meet is quite literally heavenly-high and unreasonable.

Conclusion

He’s a man. He defended himself. However, his unmanaged rage and arrogance need addressing if he plans to truly successfully shepherd God’s local flock. He simply took it a Spell too far. And for that, he has God to answer to. Yet make no mistake, pastors are absolutely within their biblical and legal right to lay hands on someone in defense. Some of these pastors are country boys. So you may not want to let your ego write a check your body can’t cash.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

9/12/2001

The Day Tribalism Didn’t Exist

This is an excerpt from my first book, “America’s Greatest Threat: America.” I’ve updated it to fit more appropriately into today’s zeitgeist.

I grew up an LSU fan and a New Orleans Saints fan. They were my teams. Even when the Saints were bad, they were my team. I pulled for them when they were bad, terrible, when players got in trouble. It didn’t matter. I pulled for them every Sunday.

When they were wearing bags on their heads, I was pulling for them. Unfortunately, we’ve decided as a nation to join a fan club of one of two teams, Donkey or Elephant, and love them no matter what…except they truly do not care about you, only your vote. And it’s not a football game, it’s life.

Let’s play our own game. I’ll give you four quotes. Then I’ll give you four political leaders. You match them up without using any help, such as google or AI. Then see if you’re correct. You will see the answers at the end, so don’t cheat. Give it your best shot. Think about what you think each leader has said and guess accordingly.

  • A. “Freedom is secured every day by our men and women in uniform. We must build a future worthy of their sacrifice.”
  • B. “No dream is too big; no challenge is too great. Nothing we want for our future is beyond our reach.”
  • C. “Facts are stupid things.”
  • D. “I’ve now been in 57 states, one left to go.”
  1. President Obama
  2. President Reagan
  3. Nancy Pelosi
  4. President Trump

Read on to see how you did.

Over time, our society has grown into this dark, blinded place where we accept anything and everything that is delivered by our “team”, regardless of factual efficacy. We just accept it. We gravitate towards the emotion of anger and betrayal long before the emotion of love and understanding. Here’s a smoother and more compelling rewrite:

We’ve somehow forgotten that we’re Americans first. Too often, we lose sight of the basic decency and goodwill that exists in most of our fellow citizens.

Part of the problem is that the media is built to highlight the extremes, because conflict, outrage, and division make headlines. Ordinary people treating each other with respect, helping their neighbors, or having thoughtful civil discussion simply isn’t considered newsworthy. As a result, we’re constantly shown the exceptions instead of the rule, and it distorts how we see one another.

The story of the catholic schoolboys and the Native American is a perfect example. The first story that hits is that the boys are taunting and antagonizing the Indian gentleman, Nathan Stanard-also known as Phillips (I choose to call him by the name he used to enlist into the military). Everyone on the elephant team says, “He did nothing wrong!” Everyone on the donkey team says, “Punch that smirk off his face!”

One story, from one camera and one very unreliable news source comes out. No one knows the facts yet, but their team is under attack. Then the facts come out. Turns out, Mr. Stanard was first attempting to get between the Black Hebrew Israelites and the boys. He then began walking towards the kids and began beating the drum in the face of one of the boys. When that particular boy wouldn’t move out of the way of Mr. Stanard, the incident took form. We now know that there were no ill words spoken by any of the boys. None spoken by Mr. Stanard either. Only the foul language and hate-filled words by the BHI, who appeared nowhere in the first version of the story. We also now know that Mr. Stanard was NOT a Vietnam War veteran as was originally claimed.

So now with all the facts, we should be able to properly assess what went right and what went wrong. But there are two huge problems.

  1. The first problem is that we ran to judgment in the first place without researching facts. That’s the biggest problem we face as a nation. Delivering opinions soaked in vitriol without even knowing what the facts are. Someone attacked our team so we must defend. We’ve subscribed to the notion that our team is right, regardless of the facts. That’s a GINORMOUS problem!
  2. The second problem could be viewed as worse. After the facts come out, we either ignore them or we’re so angry from what we first believed that we continue to spew hate towards “the other team” anyway. Facts are just that. Facts. They don’t have emotions tied to them. We cannot simply ignore the facts in order to justify our feelings about something.

This is a problem on BOTH sides. Neither is better than the other. As a self-proclaimed Republicratitarian (yes that’s a combination of 3 political parties), I’m urging you towards a revolution. One that requires you to be honest with the facts. If you are typically conservative, then don’t give Trump or Fox News a pass when they report stupid ideology just because they represent your team. Don’t give conservative leaders and commentaries a free pass when they are wrong. If they are wrong, then they should be called wrong. If you are typically liberal, then call the liberal leaders out when they are wrong. Don’t give Maxine Waters a free pass when she’s clearly inciting violence.

My request is that we stop blindly following a team and start looking at our fellow Americans as Americans and not just on a team. Start calling foolish rhetoric foolish, regardless of which team it came from.

One thing I’ve learned about all of this over time is that, if we really step back and look, we all want the same thing. We simply have different fundamental ideas of how to get there. Some think the government is the answer, some don’t. Some think all religions should be allowed. Some think none should be allowed. Some believe more laws are the answer to certain problems, some don’t. But what we all want is usually fundamentally the same. A thriving, peaceful country where people take care of each other and flourish in a healthy economy. No one would argue that. But we seem to argue how to get there as if someone slapped our child in the face. It’s just policies. Some work. Some don’t. It’s ok to disagree.

Civilly agreeing to disagree… It’s possible to get back to that, but it’s going to take work… starting with the man in the mirror. What would that look like?

Remember the day after 9/11? Remember how there were no Republicans, Democrats, LGBTQ, Pretty people, ugly people, rich people, poor people…NONE of that existed on 9/11. We were defined by one thing that day. We were ALL AMERICANS. Nothing more and definitely nothing less.

On 9/12/01, the entire country came together. People were hugging strangers at random. There were virtually no fights on subways. Random acts of kindness were rampant that day. Churches that Sunday were overfilled everywhere. No one cared who won in football. The only thing that mattered was that we were Americans and that we were not going to let this tear us down as a nation. We were going to stand together no matter which team you were on. We were Americans and Americans don’t back down.

I’m fully convinced that if you knew how little your team leaders thought about your actual well-being, you’d be less inclined to just follow what they say and defend them without facts.

Leave your current team and go home, look at your family and choose to protect and love the only team that matters. Now, let’s see how you did…

  • A. 3
  • B. 4
  • C. 2
  • D. 1

How did your team do?

Two of those leaders are known as eloquent speakers (Obama and Reagan) and two are known for bizarre rhetoric (Pelosi and Trump). You just never know.

As we celebrate our Nation’s 250th anniversary of cessation from Great Britain, let’s try to remember that we are Americans. Let everything else fall where it may.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

The Nuclear Family: The Standard We Stopped Defending

Culture Says It Doesn’t Matter. Science Says It Does

In Tennessee, the Governor declared June “Tennessee Nuclear Family Month.” Immediately, the boo-birds came out. To an extent, I understand why. The nuclear family appears to be dissipating before our eyes.

More and more people every year do not raise their children in such environments. Therefore, when you raise the question of what is the ideal way to raise children, the answer is usually, “The way I’m doing it right now!”

Moreover…

–But why am I hearing that it is a good idea?

–What’s so great about it?

–Are you saying I’m inferior if I didn’t grow up this way or raise my children in this family system?

As controversial of a question it is to consider the nuclear family ideal, the only real question should be an empirical one.

First, this is not meant to hurt anyone, make anyone feel inferior, or suggest that families and children can’t recover from being raised in a disrupted family home structure. My own children were not raised in a nuclear family. Therefore, that is not the purpose of this article. The purpose of this article has two missions:

  1. To set the standard by which we should all aspire.
  2. Debunk the idea that the nuclear family is no better than the other family systems

Research

  • One major study concluded that children not living with both biological parents fared worse than others across domains such as psychological well-being, education, health, and carrying into adult outcomes like employment longevity and family formation.1
  • Researchers at Ohio State University conducted research that was published in the Journal of Marriage and Family.2 In this study, they looked at six different family formations. They found that academically, non-disrupted stepparent homes performed better than non-disrupted single parent homes. They also found that non-disrupted two biological parent homes outperformed all disrupted household types in every category.2

Therefore, it is statistically proven that the best possible environment for a child to be raised is in a non-disrupted two-biological parent home. This is the goal to attain. The standard to measure society against. And yet another study came to the same conclusion:

  • In another study, they showed measurements of higher emotional and behavior problems as well as chronic disease and overall physical issues among those in single parent homes as compared to two-parent homes.3
  • Another study discovered that the only scientifically proven conclusion that has been reached on raising children is that children who are raised by their two biological parents are given the best possible opportunity to achieve the healthiest developmental outcomes.4

This does not state a guarantee of sorts, just that they have the highest chance for the healthiest developmental outcomes. They also concluded that there is zero evidence supporting the claim that there is no difference in the developmental outcomes of children from same-sex parents or two biological parents.

Children from nuclear families show higher academic achievement compared to single-parent homes and blended families. Again, my children grew up in a blended family.

Anderson J. (2014)

  • Anderson (2014) found that children in nuclear families are less likely to develop behavioral problems and mental health issues compared to disrupted family structures.
  • This same study showed a decreased rate of ADHD diagnosis in children from nuclear homes, after controlling for income and education.
  • They’re also less likely to be in poor health.5

One group, after looking across 39 studies, found children from nuclear families had superior outcomes in emotional well-being, psychological well-being, behavioral outcomes, parent-child relationships, physical health, academic performance, and cognitive ability.6

Conclusion

Economic resources matter. Community conditions matter. Parenting quality matters. But family structure matters as well because it sets the course for outcomes in various domains.

None of this should be interpreted as condemnation of single parents or divorced families. Many are making extraordinary sacrifices under difficult circumstances. Rather, the evidence points toward a practical conclusion. Whenever possible, children benefit from stable family environments that preserve strong relationships with two biological parents.

In a culture that is driven by ideology, rewards immorality, and celebrates dysfunction to the tune of “Misery Loves Company”, this empirical insight paints a clear picture that evidence matters when it comes to our children. And the evidence says children are better off in a non-disrupted two-biological parent home than any alternative available.

This won’t fit the cultural narrative, some won’t like the conclusion, and many will begin to dissuade the findings here with tactics explained with precision in Thomas Sowell’s book, “The Vision of the Anointed.” But the facts point in one direction. And so should we.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

1 Härkönen, J., Bernardi, F., & Boertien, D. (2017). Family Dynamics and Child Outcomes: An Overview of Research and Open Questions. European journal of population = Revue europeenne de demographie, 33(2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-017-9424-6

2 Sun, Y., & Li, Y. (2011). Effects of Family Structure Type and Stability on Children’s Academic Performance Trajectories. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(3), 541-556. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00825.x

3 Rattay, P., von der Lippe, E., Lampert, T., & KiGGS Study Group. (2014). Health of children and adolescents in single-parent, step-, and nuclear families: results of the KiGGS study: first follow-up (KiGGS Wave 1). Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 57(7), 860-868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-014-1988-2

4 Finn, T. (2013). Social Science and Same-Sex Parenting. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 13(3), 437-444. https://doi.org/10.5840/ncbq201313325

5 Anderson J. (2014). The impact of family structure on the health of children: Effects of divorce. The Linacre quarterly, 81(4), 378–387. https://doi.org/10.1179/0024363914Z.00000000087

6 Vowels, L. M., Comolli, C. L., Bernardi, L., Chacón-Mendoza, D., & Darwiche, J. (2023). Systematic review and theoretical comparison of children’s outcomes in post-separation living arrangements. Plos One, 18(6), e0288112. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288112

Posted on

Tennessee’s Education Paradox

Spending vs. Educational Outcomes

My wife is a teacher at a public school as one of her many careers. I get a firsthand account of the state of public school education in Tennessee. So, when this article came out, I dove in. And I heard the same, tired song.

Tennessee’s Rank in Public School Spending

The newest rage in Tennessee is that the state registered lowest in the country in public school spending. This predictably outraged various groups of uninformed, rage-baiters into the playbook manual of feelings of over facts:

  • Feel angry
  • Call it out
  • See evidence-based refutation
  • Name-call and scream louder

Rather than look to see why, or if this is even something to be concerned about, how bad it is, they just came out swinging. I dug into it a little. Questions I had were:

  1. Where did Tennessee rank in educational outcomes?
  2. Does spending correlate to educational outcomes?

Educational Outcomes

What I found- Tennessee is slightly above national average

Tennessee ranks:

  • 25th in combined proficiency
  • 24th in 4th grade reading
  • 21st in 8th grade reading
  • 13th in 4th grade math
  • 20th in 8th grade math
  • One of the fastest improving states in the country.

So let me get this straight. Tennessee ranks lowest in public school spending but above the national average in educational outcomes? This alone indicates a lack of causation between spending and educational outcomes.

By the Numbers

But don’t take my word for it. Let’s actually look at numbers.

Spending

1980: $2300 per student ($9,000 in today’s dollars)

2023: $16,500 per student (National average is now $18,000. Some states exceed $20,000)

Right away, you would expect to see educational output almost double over this same time period. Unfortunately, this isn’t supported by the data.

Educational Outcomes

1980:

NAEP Testing age 13- reading 258, math 266

SAT testing age 13- verbal 421, math 466

2023:

NAEP Testing age 13- reading 256, math 263

SAT testing age 13- verbal 520, math 508

Here’s a graph of what that looks like:

Spending Per Student vs. Educational Outcomes from 1980-2023

This data is controlling for population changes (SES, racial makeup, neighborhood disparity).

The evidence is clear. Spending has no correlation to educational outcomes. By any reasonable logic, we should expect to see an increase in educational outcomes. There is none. So if money doesn’t matter to educational outcomes, what does?

The Monopoly

Competition. The government has no incentive to produce better outcomes because there is no one to compete with. The other two alternatives to public schools are private schools and home schools. Currently, the average cost per student in Tennessee for a private school education is $13,000 per year. The average cost per student in Tennessee for a homeschool education is $2,000 per year. This means that the public school system is the ONLY FREE education offered in Tennessee. This is the literal definition of a monopoly.

Websters Dictionary: Monopoly- An exclusive privilege to carry on a business or service granted by the government. The market condition that exists when there is only one seller.

Everyone knows that competition drives costs down and quality up. Until government schools have competition, there is no incentive to be more proficient, increase educational outcomes, and reduce teacher inefficiency. You can just keep rolling along with arbitrary teacher tenure, protection for ill-behaved children, and lack of control over violence in schools.

I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but what I know is spending more money on schools is not the answer, and creating competition is at least one answer.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Moral Relativism: The Tyranny We Call Kindness

When Everything is Allowed, Nothing Works

James Orr and Freya India

In Case You Missed It:

I recently watched a podcast where James Orr discussed with Freya India the idea that therapy, and therapy culture, replaced morality. While I believe the current, overall culture of therapy is the location of toxicity in human behavior, which leads me to agree with their take, true therapy or counseling should operate from sound, objective realities, objective truths, and objective morality. The therapeutic endeavor itself isn’t the problem, it’s the improper application of it. When therapy abandons objective anchors, it stops being therapeutic and becomes permissive. It doesn’t heal, it pathologizes. Having said that, the conversation struck a nerve in the realm of moral relativism.

Moral relativism didn’t arrive like a catastrophe, it showed up like a shrug. Do whatever works for you. It’s your truth (which doesn’t exist). We’ve torn down shared moral boundaries and replaced them with personal preference, as if a society can survive on nothing but individual feelings. The psychological fallout is obvious. Confusion, anxiety, lack of direction, and a culture that can no longer tolerate discomfort without calling it trauma. It is the literal breeding ground for the epidemic of apathy we see in Gen Z.

Freya India said it bluntly,

“When everyone makes up their own morality, we end up in separate worlds.”

That’s exactly what this moment feels like. The inability to grip agreed upon values. How did we get there? By wanting the outcomes of moral discipline without the discipline itself. We want the fruits of sacrifice without the sacrifice. We want maturity without constraint. We bought the idea that anything which constrains destroys. The result is a generation that celebrates its authenticity but collapses under the slightest internal pressure.

This is what moral relativism produces. When everyone defines right and wrong according to personal preference, emotional comfort replaces morality. The fear of hurting someone’s feelings now outweighs the obligation to speak truth. People stay silent, not because they’ve thought deeply, but because they’re terrified of being called judgmental. Once emotional safety becomes the highest value, every other value gets downgraded. Responsibility looks oppressive. Boundaries look abusive. Expectations look cruel. Freya said,

“We have forgotten the word morals and replaced it with boundaries.”

Limitations as Liberation

Jordan Peterson, for years, has been saying that we’re being taught that all boundaries are tyranny. But a world with no boundaries isn’t free, it’s chaotic. Everyone understands this at the fundamental level. A child without boundaries becomes anxious. A marriage without boundaries falls apart. A society without boundaries dissolves into factions. And yet, somehow, we’ve convinced ourselves that moral boundaries are uniquely dangerous, while pretending the psychological fallout doesn’t exist.

Jonathan Haidt’s research shows how this plays out. When “safetyism”, or harm avoidance, becomes the highest moral priority, the definition of harm expands until anything can count. Expectations hurt. Standards hurt. Disagreement hurts. This inflated sense of fragility is exactly what we see now. We have a population that is both hyper-sensitive and chronically distressed. A terrible psychological combination. People can’t tolerate discomfort, and they can’t find stability. They’re told to look to the self for their moral compass, but the self is what got them here.

The symptoms are real. The rise in anxiety, the inability to commit, the paralysis around decision making, the hostility toward accountability. When nothing is objectively right or wrong, people don’t become liberated, they become overwhelmed. Every choice becomes existential because there’s no stable framework to lean on.

Freya went on to acknowledge something powerful. Society loves celebrating the milestone of marriage. 25 years. 50 years. But hates acknowledging what built it. Sacrifice, grit, restraint, discipline. Those things require boundaries, and boundaries are incompatible with relativism. If my values and your values are all that exist, then no one is allowed to say that any set of behaviors is necessary for a stable relationship. So we glorify the outcome and denounce the process. It’s delusional and dishonest.

Here’s the harsh truth. Boundaries don’t suffocate us, they stabilize us. They give us a structure to push against so we can grow. They keep our impulses in check so we don’t destroy ourselves. They give meaning to our commitments, weight to our promises, and direction to our choices. Remove them, and you don’t get freedom, you get fog.

The Results

And fog is exactly what we’re living in. A society that treats morality as personal preference will inevitably wonder why they feel so detached. Why kids are anxious. Why adults feel lost. Why relationships crumble. Why communities can’t agree on anything. Why we’re constantly offended yet never fulfilled.

We don’t have a cultural crisis of compassion, we have a crisis of clarity. People are starving for direction while being told that direction itself is oppressive. They’re collapsing under the weight of freedom because freedom without structure is psychologically unbearable. It’s too much choice without any grounding.

Our Next Move

We need to stop pretending that moral relativism is harmless. It’s not. It’s a psychological toxin. It produces confused individuals and fragmented communities. It destroys resilience. It undermines accountability. It dissolves meaning. It rewards fragility and punishes strength.

We need to reclaim objective standards. Not because we want control, but because humans cannot function without them. Children need boundaries. Adults need responsibility. Communities need shared expectations. Society needs a common moral starting point, or it will tear itself apart.

This doesn’t mean returning to some rigid, nostalgic fantasy. It means recognizing the psychological truth that people thrive under clear structure and crumble under limitless freedom. Our greatest liberties are found inside boundaries, not outside them.

We can keep pretending relativism works, or we can face reality. One path leads to stability, resilience, and meaning. The other leads exactly where we are now. Resentful, anxious, and foggy.

It’s time to choose.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

According to Research, You and I Are Probably Wrong

Curiosity, Conversation, and the Quiet Collapse of a Divided Society

In Case You Missed Recent Articles

The recent “No Kings” protests garnered less attention than previous rallies. While it seems to be dying out, it still got my attention. I spoke with people who attended them, read write-ups on the protests, and watched various clips covering the day’s events. I was curious as to what exactly they were protesting. The results were baffling.

Some of the main points included:

  • Executive orders
  • Removing illegal aliens
  • Ignoring the constitution

I couldn’t help but think, where were these outcries when Biden was in office? These are some of the same things the other side were upset about when Biden was in office. I thought, why are they mad now, but not back then? And why are conservatives not mad now, but were back then?

Executive Orders

It is fair to say Trump has issued the most EOs in recent history. As of this writing, here are the EO numbers to date:

  • Trump – 220 in his first term and 255 so far
  • Biden issued 150
  • Obama issued 276.

All three president’s numbers warrant a tyranny label. For reference, James Madison issued 1 in eight years. One.

Deportations

Where were the “No Kings” rallies during the Obama administration? As of this writing, here are the deportation numbers by president:

  • Trump: approximately 1 million
  • Biden: approximately 1.5 million
  • Obama: approximately 3 million (Garnering the nickname Deporter-in-Chief)

Where was the deportation outrage among liberals from 2008-2024? There should have either been outrage this entire time, or no outrage now. And where are the conservatives now that were outraged during the terms of Obama and Biden?

When asked which constitutional amendment, provision, clause Trump is ignoring, the only answer I got was “All of them!” They simply could not answer it. They had no defense of their own. The binary approach is what is disingenuous. It’s not that they disagree with tyranny, it’s that their team isn’t in office.

There is a current issue with this on the other side. Conservatives are no better. Why aren’t more conservatives speaking out against the number of EOs? I understand the need for them, but the abuse is rampant and every president uses them like tyrannical building blocks. They have no place in a republic.

For the record, I haven’t seen much in the way of ignoring the U.S. Constitution on the part of Obama or Trump. Biden, however, trampled on it, particularly through Covid.

A Call to Action

So why are we only hearing about the president on the “other side?” (Reminder, you don’t have a side. They don’t care about you. And the sooner you realize this, the better off your mental health will be).

We must find a way to bridge this divide. The reality that we cannot see or understand those on the “other side” is quietly dissolving the moral and social fabric upon which our society depends.

Homophily is common. This is the tendency to interact with those similar to ourselves more often than those considered different. You see this every day. Think about who you’re drawn to.

  • Frequents the same establishments
  • Enjoys the same hobbies
  • Has a similar intellect
  • Similar familial situation
  • Political and religious worldview

What Research Says

Individuals tend to underestimate the extent to which dialogue with those holding opposing views can refine their thinking and enhance their understanding of complex issues. Multiple research studies suggest that individuals may underestimate their level of agreement with a piece of communication from across the political aisle.

  • People expect that listening to opposing views will be unpleasant (Dorison et al., 2019). This was found to be a forecasting error. Their assumption stood directly in their way, subsequently affecting information consumption.
  • They expect that others who do not share their views will respond negatively to them (Wald et al., 2024). They found that people underestimate the degree of common ground that would emerge in conversation and from failing to appreciate the power of social forces in conversation that create social connection.
  • People are afraid they will not feel heard by others during a conversation (Teeny & Petty, 2022). Feeling, in advance, that they will not be heard, they are significantly more reluctant to enter into conversation with anyone with opposing views.
  • Brand new research showed that each participant underestimated levels of depolarization after having a conversation with them about various topics: Dogs vs cats, cancel culture, Biden’s performance as president (Kardas et al., 2026). All had the same outcome. Another finding within this study was that if one was told that it’s been shown that polarization reduces after conversations with others with different viewpoints, their own polarization reduced, without the conversation ever having taken place. Just the idea that someone else may have a different view and that previous experiments showed most depolarized after discussions caused a solid shift in their own polarization. Each participant found unexpected areas of agreement when discussing issues typically viewed as polarized.
  • Todd Kashdan proposed that curiosity itself was a driving factor behind reluctance towards political conversation. His team found that people incorrectly assumed others would be closed-minded towards cross-aisle conversations. Yet when they discovered that their political in-group displayed more humility and open-mindedness than originally anticipated, their curiosity increased, leading to more fruitful and willing conversations across the aisle (Kashdan et al., 2025).

Tribalism Must Go

Moral of the story? You’re probably wrong. And so am I. And that’s ok. Let’s change. Tribalism is a cancer. It does no one any good. It becomes evident that we have misjudged the depth of our own intellectual flexibility, as well as that of others, underestimating our shared capacity to adapt, to remain curious, and to reshape our thinking in response to new evidence. I’ve been as guilty as anyone. I get caught up in, “They’re not going to listen to anything I have to say anyway, I’m not going to waste my time.”

Sometimes this is rooted in a quiet but powerful presumption that we already possess the truth, and that the task of the other is merely to recognize it and follow. In such a posture, curiosity is not only diminished but also displaced, though it may be the most essential element of all.

Such curiosity led me to here. Years ago, I decided to learn. Really learn. And the more I learned, the more I understood the premise behind Socrates’ claim, “I am the wisest among you because I know nothing.” He found that the more he learned, the more he realized how much was out there to learn. And he possessed a small, minute fraction of the information available. For me, this led to openness and curiosity. Which led to anti-tribalism.

As stated in my first book, America’s Great Threat: America, America won’t fall from the outside. It will collapse from within, foremost among the causes is a rigid, binary way of thinking that divides people and discourages curiosity.

End Tribalism!

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

Dorison, C. A., Minson, J. A., & Rogers, T. (2019). Selective exposure partly relies on faulty affective forecasts. Cognition, 188, 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.02.010

Kardas, M., Nordgren, L., & Rucker, D. (2026). Unnecessarily divided: Civil conversations reduce attitude polarization more than people expect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 130(2), 187–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000469

Kashdan, T. B., McKnight, P. E., Kelso, K., Craig, L., & Gross, M. (2025). Enhancing curiosity with a wise intervention to improve political conversations and relationships. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 40272–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-24021-8

Teeny, J. D., & Petty, R. E. (2022). Attributions of emotion and reduced attitude openness prevent people from engaging others with opposing views. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 102, 104373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104373

Wald, K. A., Kardas, M., & Epley, N. (2024). Misplaced divides? Discussing political disagreement with strangers can be unexpectedly positive. Psychol Sci, 35(5), 471–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976241230005