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

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

Fathers Are Coming Home

The Quiet Revival

To the fathers out there, we see you, and we’re seeing more of you!

Every year around this time, pastors all over the country walk up to the pulpit and deliver a scathing state of the union address concerning current fatherlessness in America. And rightfully so. Men get dressed up, sit next to their wife (who just four short weeks ago was being praised for holding the world together) and get the tongue-lashing society believes they deserve. For a while, it seemed to make sense why. Fathers had checked out. But there was a reason. They were asked to leave.

History of Fatherlessness

Following President Johnson’s overreaction to the Moynihan Report, single mothers were incentivized to remain single, or at least without a man in the home. Prior to this great degenerative incentivization, 8% of white babies were born to single mothers and 24% of black babies were born to single mothers. By 2020, both numbers virtually tripled, showing that this policy did not affect one race more than another. It was equal opportunity disaster.

The Greeting Card Experiment

Author Gary Smalley wrote in his book, “Making Love Last Forever” about an event that took place in prisons. There was a lady who volunteered at the local prison who wanted to help prisoners reconnect with family. She requested donations of greeting cards from a card company and they agreed. When Mother’s Day came, she brought them out to give away to the prisoners. They went so fast that not everyone was able to get one. So she ordered more.

Following such success, she decided to do the same for Father’s Day. She collected her cards, set them up, and anxiously awaited. The smile slowly turned to disappointment on the volunteer’s face. Not one single prisoner came to get a free father’s day card.

The message: Human beings are formed as much by what is missing as by what is present. The void left by absent fathers became an unfortunate formation in the lives of many of these men, and it is willful blindness to ignore the possibility that the same absence helped chart the course that eventually led them to incarceration.

Historically, fathers have a pretty poor track record. During the 1960s, roughly 88% of children lived with two parents. By the 1980s, that figure decreased to around 77%. By the late 1990s, that number had, yet again, decreased to around 69%.

How the Turn Tables

Somewhere around the turn of the century, people looked around and decided to invite men back into their homes. In some cases, men began to fight for the right to see their children after being separated from them against their will. Whatever the method, the tide was turning. Before you knew it, men were showing up to all their kids’ practices and games. Men were spending more time with the family and began requesting less work hours. They were becoming more likely to share in caregiving and see themselves as more than financial provision, but an integral part of their children’s development, as well as finding joy in their marriage.

I had a good father, so I never desired to be anything except a great father. I didn’t quite achieve that, but I tried. I was always thinking about my children and what I could do to both love them where they are and also urge them towards what they could become. My suspicion is this isn’t uncommon.

The Good News

Here is where the good news comes in. Since the early 2000s, those numbers of fathers in the home have increased, steadily. See for yourself:

But the greatest increase comes from the black father. Where there was a 6% increase in overall fathers, there’s an almost 13% increase in black fathers in the home. There are more black fathers in the home than in 1980. And there have been for 10 years! See for yourself:

Conclusion

So, on Father’s Day, while there will likely be a large number of pastors pointing their finger at men and smiling at women, I will be thanking the fathers for doing their part.

  • For taking part in one of the most thankless jobs ever.
  • For doing the hard thing, the selfless thing, the sacrificial thing, and never flinching or complaining.
  • For being the reason your children become healthy contributors of society, rejecting passivity and embracing resilience.
  • For instilling a proper self-perception into your daughters, causing them to pick the right guy because they know their true worth.

You, sir, are being saluted. The numbers are in! And more fathers in the last 45 years are taking their rightful place in the home and being the man the moment demands. Do we have work to do? Yes. The struggle isn’t over. But the numbers show that with each passing year, more men are choosing their family over their selfish ambition. And that’s worth celebrating. Happy Father’s Day Gents!

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

What Forgiveness is Not

Letting Go Without Losing Yourself

If you know anything about me, you know I talk often about forgiveness and its benefits. There are many studies detailing the physiological benefits of forgiveness. I cover some of it in this article. Recently, after writing about what forgiveness looks like, I received some feedback regarding what forgiveness is not. I collected my thoughts on the validity of this idea, and this is what landed.

Forgiveness is Not Restoration

Restoration is the reunification of two people. Someone does you wrong, you want to forgive them and reignite friendship with each other. This requires both parties’ consent. Forgiveness can be involved in this transaction, but restoration is not required for forgiveness. Forgiveness only requires one person. That’s because unforgiveness only affects one. We should not feel obligated to restore to someone while forgiving them..

Forgiveness is Not Transforming Into a Doormat

Forgiveness does not give the offender the right to inflict further abuse. He slips up one night and after too many beers, he smacks her. He is visibly upset and remorseful. He apologizes. She says she forgives him. He thinks, “Good, then I can do it again.” Absolutely not. Forgiveness is not a license to continue damage. One can forgive, standing strong in their conviction that they have done nothing wrong and will not stand for such calamity any longer.

Forgiveness is Not Manipulation

Forgiveness cannot be coerced. It must be voluntary. Often, a child is the target of physical or verbal abuse and the parent cries and asks for forgiveness. When the parent commits such an action later, they remind the child, “You forgave me, remember? So you have to forgive me again!” This is nothing short of manipulation. Remember, restoration and forgiveness are not the same. Yes, you could forgive the parent again, but you will feel much less inclined to restore that relationship. This maneuver also involves a bit of vulnerable narcissism (different from grandiose narcissism).

In vulnerable narcissism, the subject must be the center of attention, and in order to get this attention, they draw attention to the negativity in their life. Even (and especially) if they are the instigators of such dysfunction. This is what some parents do.

Forgiveness Doesn’t Justify the Infraction

Erica Kirk publicly forgave her husband’s killer. This does not make the murder acceptable. There still remains consequence. Moses needed forgiveness from God for placing himself too high on the spiritual ladder. God forgave, but Moses did not enter the promised land.

  • Justice = getting what you deserve
  • Mercy = not getting what you deserve
  • Grace = getting what you don’t deserve

True forgiveness typically stems from the recognition of grace extended to me, through mercy, while remaining entangled in the justice I invited.

Forgiveness is Not Forgetting

The idea to “forgive and forget” is absolute nonsense; not tangible, reasonable or, in many cases, possible. Forgetting may seem insurmountable, but the sting doesn’t have to linger. How does one remove the sting? By shaping the mindset from “you did this to me so I hope you get what you deserve” to “I feel sad for you and what your decisions have cost you.” It’s seeing the humanity in people. Remember, victims perpetrate, survivors heal. Victims say, “Now it’s your turn to get what you deserve.” Survivors say, “I hope you get the help you need. But I forgive you.”

Keep in mind there is an amount of determinism involved in certain malevolent actions. They got here through a series of events they had no control over, leading them to make decisions that were mostly in their control, but heavily influenced by what they could not control.

Example: A young man doesn’t have a father. Mother is an addict. Raises himself. Gets connected with people who are addicts and in gangs. His grandfather was also an addict and stayed in trouble. And his grandfather’s father was in and out of prison. This young man literally has no example of what normality or proper functioning looks like. One could even include the man that had parents in the home but threw money at their son so he’d go away. He wasn’t parented. He doesn’t have an example of how to act either. So he turns to nature’s way, which is hungry for acceptance through power, greed, and tyranny.

Forgiveness is Not Emotional Numbness

Some people believe forgiveness means becoming unaffected by what happened. It does not. Forgiveness is not the absence of pain, anger, grief, or disappointment. In fact, attempting to forgive too quickly often results in emotional suppression rather than genuine healing. A person says, “I’m over it,” while resentment quietly festers underneath the surface. Avoidance helps no one and paralyzes the progress of forgiveness.

Healthy forgiveness allows room for emotion. Jesus wept. David lamented. Job grieved. Emotional pain is not evidence of spiritual failure. It is evidence that something meaningful was damaged. The goal of forgiveness is not to become cold or indifferent, but to prevent pain from transforming into hatred, bitterness, or revenge.

A scar may remain tender long after the wound closes. That does not mean healing has failed. It means you are human. Forgiveness says, “This hurt me deeply, but I refuse to let the injury harden my heart or define my future.” Forgiveness doesn’t mean being conformed, it’s means not being consumed.

What It Comes Down To

Forgiveness is release without denial. Mercy with delusion. Compassion without sacrificing truth. Freedom from hatred without freedom from consequence. Should you forgive? Absolutely. Should you relinquish all agency over it? Absolutely not. That’s what forgiveness is not.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

I. A. B. P.

Identity-Anchoring Belief Persistence

I’ve noticed a pattern in discourse lately, the refusal to be wrong. Ok, not lately, always. We grip tightly to preserve “street cred.” The psychology behind this has plagued me for a while. So I did some research on it, coupled with recent online dialogue. I channeled my inner-PsyPhi, invented a diagnosis (no different than what they did in the DSM-V), and this is what came out.

There’s a strange paradox at the heart of human intelligence. We are capable of learning almost anything while being highly skilled at refusing to learn. This is less about intellectual fervor and more about protective adaptation. I call it Identity Anchoring Belief Persistence. It’s the tendency to connect our previously held beliefs so tightly to who we are that new information feels like an attack. When that happens, the goal of critical thinking shifts. It’s no longer about getting smarter. It’s about keeping it together.

When Being Wrong Feels Dangerous

Imagine someone presents you with solid evidence that contradicts something you’ve believed for years. You attempt to simply process it cognitively, yet you find that you actually feel this information. Your chest gets tight. Defensiveness rises up, at times, evidenced by an increase in your blood pressure. There’s an urge to push back or at least retreat. That reaction is pure psychological self-defense.

Research on what’s called the backfire effect shows that when people encounter evidence that challenges deeply held beliefs, they don’t always correct their thinking. In some cases, they double down, becoming more convinced they were right all along (Nyhan & Reifler, 2010).

Why? Because beliefs are more than ideas. They’re part of the value-system makeup inculcated into our very fabric, often defining our existence. It’s the rooted internal dialogue calibrated to be right. One way of putting it is our belief systems function like a “house” that our identity lives in. Threaten one piece, and the whole structure gets shaky. So we defend it with everything we’ve got.

Protective Cognition

Most of you reading this are educated, or at least intelligent. This is where things get a bit surprising. You might assume that more intelligent or more educated people would be less vulnerable to this. They’re not.

Research on identity-protective cognition shows that people often use their reasoning abilities to defend the beliefs of their group or identity regardless of truth being presented. In fact, those with higher analytical capabilities can be better at rationalizing their existing beliefs. They dismantle new information like an angry lover with a baseball bat, ridding themselves of acute pain. At times, they reinterpret new information, find flaws in it. Selectively accept parts of it, while feeling completely objective.

This is what psychologists call motivated reasoning. The tendency to process information in a way that aligns with what we want to be true, as opposed to cognitive bias where we search for what we already believe (van Doorn, 2024). In other words, intelligence doesn’t guarantee openness. It often simply equips us with better defenses.

It’s Possible I Might Be Inadequate

Jordan Peterson describes this fear as the “specter of possible cataclysmic characterological inadequacy.” It’s a mouthful, but the idea is simple:

  • If I’m wrong about this, what else am I wrong about?
  • And if enough of what I believe is wrong, what does that say about me?
  • Am I broken, delusional, or just severely misguided?

That’s the real threat. The limitless implications. So instead of integrating the new information, we reject it completely. Because accepting it feels like it would unravel us, even and especially if it’s true.

Why Some Grow and Others Don’t

To be fair, not everyone reacts this way. Some people encounter new information and feel curiosity instead of threat. They lean in instead of pushing away. What’s the difference? It’s not raw intelligence, education level, or even exposure to facts. It’s psychological safety.

If your identity is too rigid, built on the need to be right, to belong, to maintain a certain self-image, then new information is destabilizing to say the least. But if your identity is flexible, you have the ability to see yourself as someone who learns, rather than someone who is right. New information looks like an opportunity.

The same fact lands differently depending on the view of the self it encounters. This is often established and developed early in life. It explains why it is so hard for those who didn’t develop this flexibility early to reintegrate a proper view of the self.

The Hidden Cost of Being “Right”

Here’s the uncomfortable truth, the stronger your attachment to being right,

the more difficult it will be to become right. Because learning requires a temporary willingness to be wrong. One of the things I learned in counselor training was that I needed to accept being wrong. I could not hold on to any rigid formation of my ego, as it would devour any therapeutic potential presented in the moment.

If being wrong feels like a threat to your identity, you’ll avoid it, even at the cost of truth. This is why debates often go nowhere. People aren’t exchanging ideas. They’re protecting identities. And when identities are on the line, facts lose their importance.

Why This Matters Now More Than Ever

In a world saturated with information, we enjoy proclaiming the problem is ignorance. It’s not. The problem is our filter by which we accept newness. Information isn’t passively pursued like the church we attend. We actively select information, interpret it, then defend against it the moment we feel rattled by our ego.

According to research on misinformation and belief persistence, even when new, correct information arrives, it often continues to influence our thinking because it’s been integrated into a person’s mental framework, known as the continued influence effect (Ecker et al., 2022). Once something becomes part of your identity, removing it is a full-scale reconstruction project.

A Different Way to Think About Thinking

If you want to become someone who actually learns, updates, adapts, and grows, you have to change nature of the game. Stop asking:

“Is this true?”

Start asking:

“What happens to me if this is true?”

Because that second question reveals the real barrier. And if the answer is:

“I’d feel embarrassed” or

“I’d feel worthless” or

“I wouldn’t know who I am anymore,”

…then you’ve found the real problem. And the problem isn’t the information. It’s the insecurity.

Final Thought

Most people truly believe they’re seeking truth. But more often, they’re seeking stability. And when truth threatens stability, stability wins. Until you consciously take steps to decide otherwise. Because growth requires a radical paradigm shift from defending who you are to becoming who you want to be in the face of a challenged ego. It’s difficult, but possible. You got this.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N., Kendeou, P., Vraga, E. K., & Amazeen, M. A. (2022). The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y

Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2

van Doorn, M. (2024). The skeptical import of motivated reasoning: A closer look at the evidence. Thinking & Reasoning, 30(4), 548–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2023.2276975

Posted on

Mother Knew Best

It’s worth noting that while there are so many great mothers out there, some did not grow up with a good mom. For some it’s a source of pain to even consider. For them I say, there’s a good example to look to.

Picture it, Jesus is hanging out at a wedding. Just trying to enjoy his time. They run out of wine. Jesus’ mom, Mary goes over to Jesus and says, “They have no more wine.” I imagine there was a look that accompanied that phrase. You know the look. The one where a mom says, “your room still isn’t clean” then gives that look.

Then Jesus says, “why are you involving me in this? It’s not my time yet.” She all but ignores his insistence on remaining anonymous. She just turns to the servants and says, “Do whatever he tells you to do.”

The very first miracle Jesus performed took place because mother knew best. She didn’t listen to his desire to stay away. She knew his calling and didn’t let him sit idle.

This Mother’s Day, remembering Mary is a good idea. Her life was very difficult, yet very rewarding. And she embraced the role of a great mother till the very end.

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

The Dirty “S” Word

Reclaiming a Biblical Concept the Modern World Can’t Stand

Grainger and Kelly Jackson

Grainger is a free-thinking writer with insights on modern fatherhood, relationships, and raising emotionally healthy kids, at the crossroads of psychology and spirituality. Multiple degrees in Psychology. Husband. Father. Counselor/Therapist.

Kelly Jackson is a Christian, wife, and mother who walked away from corporate success to follow a deeper calling. Through her work, she has supported hundreds of women through career shifts, nervous system stabilization, identity transitions, and the quiet work of legacy-building. Her mission is to help women return to what really matters in life.

Together, they bring you a difficult topic delivered at the intersection of compassionate kindness and unapologetic truth.

Kelly’s Message to the Ladies

Few words trigger a reaction like submission.

Say it out loud and watch shoulders tense. For many women, it conjures images of silence, shrinking, blind obedience, power misused. It sounds like erasure.

And if that’s what submission were, it should be rejected.

But the biblical vision of submission in marriage is not about domination or loss of agency. It is about order rooted in love, strength expressed through trust, and voluntary yielding within covenant.

A brief clarification: biblical submission only makes sense within a Christian worldview. If Scripture is not authoritative to you, we may not land in the same place—and that’s okay. This conversation is for those willing to consider God’s design on its own terms.

The Verse Everyone Quotes — And the Context They Skip

“Wives, submit to your husbands…” (Ephesians 5:22)

That line rarely stands alone in Scripture, though it often does online.

The verse immediately before it reads:
“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Ephesians 5:21)

Submission in marriage does not begin with wives. It begins with both husband and wife submitting themselves under Christ. Wives are called to submit within a structure where husbands are simultaneously commanded to love as Christ loved the Church.

And Christ did not dominate the Church. He died for her.

The Weight of Headship

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” (Ephesians 5:25)

Biblical headship is not privilege. It is responsibility. It is leadership under judgment. A husband is called to lay his life down in tangible ways—through protection, provision, humility, and spiritual stewardship.

Any version of submission detached from sacrificial leadership is not biblical. It is distortion.

Scripture never authorizes a husband to demand what he refuses to embody.

What Submission Is

Submission is a posture, not a personality.

It is:

  • Trusting your husband’s leadership when he is seeking God
  • Choosing cooperation over competition
  • Yielding preference for unity
  • Respecting the role God designed
  • Allowing yourself to be led without disappearing

It is voluntary, not coerced.
Strong, not passive.
Intentional, not automatic.

Take the Proverbs 31 woman. She is not voiceless. She is wise, industrious, discerning, and respected. Her alignment does not make her small—it makes her steady.

What Submission Is Not

I want to be super clear, as I know many will be thinking about the extremes.

Submission is not:

  • Enduring abuse
  • Obeying sin
  • Silencing legitimate concerns
  • Abdicating discernment
  • Shrinking to protect ego

When commanded to comply with wrongdoing, the apostles responded: “We must obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)

Submission never overrides obedience to God. It is not unquestioning compliance. It is not a command to tolerate harm.

Why the Word Offends Modern Culture

In a culture that treats power as something to seize and defend, submission sounds like loss.

But Jesus redefined greatness:
“Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant.” (Mark 10:43)

Christianity frames strength differently. Voluntary yielding under God is not weakness. Christ submitted to the Father—and commanded storms.

It’s important to distinguish that submission becomes dangerous when demanded. But it becomes life-giving when freely offered within a marriage anchored in Christ.

When a husband leads with humility, a wife can yield without fear. When a wife responds with respect, a husband is strengthened in leadership. Neither weaponizes Scripture. Both submit first to God.

This kind of order removes rivalry. It replaces scorekeeping with trust. Marriage stops resembling a corporate ladder and begins reflecting covenant.

Biblical submission does not erase women. It steadies homes. Properly understood, it does not silence wives—it anchors marriages in something stronger than personal will.

Grainger’s Message to Men

Ok fellas. You’re not off the hook just because she said wives should be better at the “S” word. We need to be better also. First, the scripture Kelly mentioned in Ephesians 5, well, is your spouse worth dying for? Chances are you’d say yes. And if so, then are you worth submitting to? That depends on the aspect of leadership that you employ. If leadership to you looks like ruling, being the boss, and instructing, then no, you’re not worth submitting to. If it’s servant leadership, then maybe.

Reclaiming the Word Submission

The etymology of the word submission closely translates to the words under to send or let go. So I submit my life to the authority of my pastor. I am under him to be sent or to let go of total control. I told him, “If you’re following Jesus, I’m following you.” This doesn’t make me inferior. Weak. Spineless. Quite the opposite. It makes me meek, strong yet in control. So submission doesn’t mean your wife is weak, it means she is strong yet in control. I’m not following my pastor blindly. If he tells me to shave my head and move to Waco, TX, he is on his own. I’m not going. But if he leads biblically, I’ll follow; I’ll submit.

The Verse Everyone Quotes

Kelly said it well. We first submit to each other. And to the men, if you’re not worth submitting to or are leading in a direction not aligned with God’s word, there’s no biblical validity to her staying in such abuse. So please don’t try to use that against her. It won’t work if someone like me, who knows the Bible in and out, is around to debunk your narcissistic tendencies.

The idea here is bilateral submission. The wife submits (follows under to send while strong and in control or restraint) to her husband and the husband simultaneously submits to Christ, so much that he will lay his life down for her. Both must happen to be in alignment with God’s will for our lives. Unilateral submission is the breeding ground for disaster. Submission to Christ looks like chasing God first, then your spouse, then leading your children, in that order. And chasing isn’t passive, it’s intentional.

What It Looks Like to Lead

So what should she submit to? Leadership implies:

  • Someone is voluntarily following. If not, you’re dictating.
  • You’re taking someone from one place to another. If not, you’re managing.
  • Leading from underneath, allowing those you lead to take credit for the everyday wins. If not, you’re bossing.
  • Serving first and eating last. If not, you’re insecure.

What It Looks Like in Everyday Life

Initiate, Serve, Follow Through.

Initiate

Initiate getting the kids up in the mornings. Initiate getting the kids’ clothes out. Initiate fixing breakfast. Initiate praying with the kids and with your wife. Initiate being on time to church. Do not wait for her to take control of these situations if you are able to initiate it.

Serve

Serve her. What restaurant does she want to go to? What movie does she want to watch? What would make her evening less stressful? This leads to reciprocity. Women often respond to such initiation and service in the most generous of ways. Sometimes, they don’t even realize this is an innate part of them until they’re given the liberty to inhabit such freedom. It starts with you.

Follow Through

Follow through with what you say you will do. This is true for consequence, reward, or simply showing up. If you tell your children not to touch the TV and they do, and you do nothing, they have learned not to respect you and your word means nothing. Likewise, if you say you will be at their piano recital and you don’t show up, they learn you don’t really mean anything you say. However, if you do provide consequences, and you do show up to the recital, you are teaching them you are a man of your word, which mirrors the God we serve. He is a man of his word.

If I say I’ll meet you for coffee at 9 AM, and 9 AM arrives and I’m not there and you haven’t heard from me, you might as well call the highway patrol. I’m on the side of the road somewhere. I’m a man of my word 100% of the time. This applies to our spouses as well. If I say I’ll get the house ready for guests, I better get it ready (to her satisfaction, not mine).

Final Reflection

Before moving on, consider:

Ladies:

1. What immediate reaction does the word submission stir in you—and why?

2. Where might God be inviting you to release control as an act of trust and obedience?

3. How does viewing submission as a spiritual discipline—not a gender deficiency—shift your understanding?

Men:

1. What areas of your life need improvement in initiating, serving, or following through?

2. Where might God be inviting you to accept responsibility and make internal changes with external and eternal rewards?

3. How does viewing submission as a two-way street that begins with you serving her shift your understanding?

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger & Kelly Jackson

Posted on

Single Awareness Day

Why Being You and Working On You Are Both Good

This is for my single friends.

When I was single I celebrated the hatred of Valentine’s Day. Literally got with other miserable young men and drank to the hatred of Valentine’s Day. I’m still not excited about the marketing pressure to make purchases you shouldn’t in order to meet cultural norms. It’s worse in dating than marriage. But still awful.

Here are some things I wish I knew when I was younger.

Why Do You Get Married?

If you marry because you love them, you’ll divorce them because you don’t love them. Love cannot and will not be a sustaining factor in marriage. It must be commitment. Commitment when it’s hard, messy, gross, frustrating, and truly no fun.

The work gets you through the tough times and makes the good times better than they have ever been.

Note: For Christians, you must marry someone solely because you believe God put this person in your path on purpose. What God put together let no man separate.

Marital Problems

Martial problems are rarely marital problems. They’re almost always singleness problems that never got dealt with.

Deal with you. Make you better. A partner won’t transform you. They will just exacerbate what’s already there. So put yourself in the strongest position possible before expecting success. Your relationship will never be successful if either of you are still broken.

Single Is a Whole Number

You aren’t a fraction of a person when you’re single. You aren’t second rate. Inferior. Missing out on life. You’re single. Some choose to stay single their whole lives. Some don’t. But if you’re someone who wishes you weren’t single, it’s ok. You won’t be forever. Just for now. If you rush, it will be a mistake.

What You Emit, You Attract

I had a daughter that at age 13 was posting sports bra pictures on Instagram. I sat her down and asked her what type of guy will like that post. She thought about it, and with honesty, said, “Boys that only care about one thing.” Yup.

“What kind of boy would respond to a post where you have a cute outfit on holding a cup of coffee and a Bible?” She said, “The marrying kind.” Yup.

The presentation you deliver into the world will equal the response you receive. If you give thot vibes, you will get thots in your DMs. If you give classy vibes, you’ll get classy in your DMs. Work on your presentation. And be the person you want.

Familiarity

There was a study done at Yale involving 3-month-old to 7-month-old babies. The experiment involved three phases: Good vs bad, same vs different, the first two combined.

Infant Morality

In the experiment, they performed a puppet show for the babies. A gray bunny was trying to open a box but was struggling. Along came an orange bunny and helped him finish opening the box. Next, while the gray bunny was trying to open the box, a blue bunny came along and abruptly shut the box door so the gray bunny couldn’t open it. They then presented the two bunnies for the infant to choose. Over 70% of the time they chose the good bunny.

Taste Buds Rule

Next, they presented two types of food. Cheerios and Golden Grahams. The baby selected. Then the green bunny chose the same food they chose, while the purple bunny chose the other food and saying they didn’t like the food the baby chose. Again, they were tasked to choose a bunny. Over 70% chose the bunny who chose the same food.

A Fork in the Road

Lastly, they took the green and purple bunny and placed them in the first scenario. The green bunny who chose the same food as the baby was the bad bunny (no, not the Super Bowl guy) who slammed the box down. The purple bunny who chose a different food was the good bunny. They were at a crossroads. Do they choose the good bunny who chose a different food or the bad bunny who chose the same food? The majority chose the bad bunny who chose the same food. Familiarity took priority over morality.

Be intentional in choosing the right person, not the familiar person. This explains why people choose abusive partners. I had a client in my office last week. First session. She tells me her ex-husband was abusive and she just broke up with an abusive man. I asked her how often her dad abused her. She just started sobbing. She had yet to mention her dad. She didn’t have to. She found what was familiar.

It’s why people go back to spouses that abuse them. It’s familiar. And I get why. New is scary. It’s unchartered territory. It’s unknown. It’s just much easier to go back to what we already know, even if what we know is not good for us. This is why we must surround ourselves with the right people who will support us in this transition out of what’s familiar and into what’s best.

DO NOT settle for familiar. In fact, don’t settle at all. You’re worth more. See your value the same way you value others.

Lastly, when you do find a partner, don’t make Valentine’s Day such a big deal. It’s just another way retailers found to market our emotions. I treat my wife like she’s a queen every single day of our lives. Therefore, when Valentine’s Day gets here, it’s just another day.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger