Posted on

Conflict of Visions: A Book Review- Part III

The Unconstrained and Constrained Visions of Freedom and Justice

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

In this conclusion to the series, freedom and justice are viewed quite differently, depending on who you’re asking. While these concepts seem axiomatic, as you are about to see, when viewed through the lens of the unconstrained and constrained visions, they appear to be very different Forms, as Plato might put it.

Freedom

In the unconstrained vision, individualism means to participate in the articulated decisions of collective entities while some with supreme wisdom possess exception from systemic or organized social restraints, like military service, or even laws.

Sowell articulated the constrained vision this way:

“Individualism means leaving the individual free to choose among the systematically generated opportunities, rewards, and penalties derived from other similarly free individuals without being subjected to articulated conclusions imposed by the power of organized entities such as government.”

According to the constrained vision, knowledge, wisdom, and virtue are derivations from the masses, and because so, the most an individual can expect is to be left free to choose among the various rewards and penalties emerging from systemic social processes without exemption from any of them.

Justice

Justice involves the attempt to change people’s motives, leaving incentives less important. This, according to the unconstrained vision, is an attempt towards a solution. Justice involves the mitigation of the breakdown of order. This, according to the constrained vision, is a trade-off because those in the constrained vision are aware of inherent human limitations.

To the unconstrained vision, justice is the conclusion of fairness and equality of results. Morality within justice is equal rights to the results. To the constrained vision, justice is the restriction on others to impede the process, making all processes equal. Morality within justice is equal rights to the process.

Conclusion

Both visions are concerned with social results. The limitations of man are at the heart of the theory of the constrained vision, while the potential of human nature is at the heart of the unconstrained vision.

The unconstrained vision seeks social results through collective decisions prescribing desired outcomes. The constrained vision believes it is beyond man’s capability to manage such vast knowledge and is dangerous to concentrate such power to make decisions, even if it were possible.

The unconstrained vision sees degrees of freedom as that which produce desired results. This is also true with justice through outcomes, power through control of one group over another, and equality being desired results having been achieved.

The constrained vision sees these entities quite differently. The characteristics of processes defined to restrict malevolent nature, whether it be freedom, justice, power, or equality, such processes have significance. A social process has freedom so far as it refrains from interfering with choices of individuals. A social process of justice ensures laws are just. A social process of equality means everyone abides by the same rules.

While results matter to the constrained vision, the general effectiveness of processes are the barometer for success and not measured by each individual result in isolation.

In the unconstrained vision, the moral and intellectual elite failing is preposterous and damning. To those with the constrained vision, failure is no surprise.

In the constrained vision, their adversaries are referred to as “well-meaning.” To the unconstrained vision, they are a “moral outrage.”

In the unconstrained vision, surrogate decision makers are best qualified to speak on our behalf. Such knowledge is consolidated. In the constrained vision, knowledge is inadequately possessed compared to knowledge systemically and collectively mobilized through free markets, values, and social processes. Thus the reason for restricting surrogate decisions makers’ power to rule over the discretion of others.

Thomas Sowell concluded his book by making this bold statement:

“While visions conflict, and arouse strong emotions in the process, merely ‘winning’ cannot be the ultimate goal of either the constrained or the unconstrained vision, however much that goal may preoccupy practical politicians. The moral impulse driving each vision cannot be jettisoned for the sake of winning, without making the victory meaningless.”

Sowell is calling for truth, compromise, and agreeing to disagree with the mass being represented in mind. Though there is a conflict of visions, there does not have to be a conflict of social prosperity.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

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

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