APPROPRIATE SHARING

Sandra C. Lewis, Ph.D.

Editor

As this newsletter goes to press the world continues to try to solve Problems of Living with behavioral tools that in many cases may be outdated.  Any of us could be using such tools and just haven’t had the time to hit “Refresh” on our computers or to wade through the myriad of sources of information to help us function more effectively.

            One salient problem continues to be Healthcare.  Time magazine’s February 22, 2010 issue entices us with its cover entitled “The Science of Living Longer” – a new wrinkle in healthcare planning.  We are led to see what it’s like to live longer if and as more knowledge about taking care of our bodies emerges.  Since my family buried our 102½-year-old patriarch, my father, last summer, I believe I have a good idea what such entails.  In looking back on approximately 8 years of intense helping parents, I’m hitting the reset button on planning for what one of our advisers, Alex Ostrom, calls “Lifelong learning.”

One topic of concern among middle-aged parents these days has been “boomerang children” who come back home to live until they get on their feet – a process that may take longer and longer, as some have observed.  The Time article on living longer highlights that “The number of ‘boomerang seniors,’ aging parents who move in with their adult children, has risen 50%.”

            Against the backdrop of increasingly strained resources in a recovering economy we have the debate in Washington, D.C. over the Healthcare bill.  Since attempted bills on this and other topics have stalled along party lines, we see a weeklong television series running on “broken government,” and suggestions that Washington is “frozen.”  Anarchist-sounding individuals form populist groups such as “Tea Parties” that imply that individuals know better than organized government about almost anything.  The word “socialism” is used in fear mongering (but don’t you touch my family’s use of Medicare or my government protection from law breakers or my convenient roads to get where I am going!)

Community and Individualization

            We want to be able to count on others at times and yet we want our independence.  Is there some gold in our sifting through all these issues we have to deal with?  Don’t we have to agree on our criteria for judging our actions (our Shoulds, Oughts and Musts or SOMs) in order to pull the wagon together in the same direction when needed?  Could we try to hit the reset button on how Behavioral Dynamics apply to these behavioral problems of our concern?

The Fore(In)Sight Subjective Truths, or STs, are primarily focused on Behavioral Dynamics.

  The Fore(In)Sight SOMs are tied to what we see as Positive Christianity with primary emphasis on Love Thy Neighbor.  The “love” is the emotion or Affect (AF) required to do the tough love type helping where we consider the long term effect of our actions on the welfare of others, as opposed to the Song of Solomon type of sexual “love” that really is what we differentiate as “gamma” – focusing more on our own pleasure rather than on the enhancement of others.

            The morality factors of SOMs and the emotional factors of AF combine to be our motivation. Our views of reality are STs.  If we have the right combination, we get some ACTION or PSYCHOMOTOR behavior that may be the fit we are looking for regarding a certain problem.  Some call it “walking the talk.”

            The end of this newsletter is about our next Fore(In)Sight Association Seminar on health concerns.  As you think about our sharing healthcare and other resources, you may enjoy reading or re-reading some of Dr. Bernard Murdoch’s thoughts in these areas:

“OBVIOUSLY”

Obviously, the word “obviously” is not only very ambiguous and frequently misused, it has implications which are likely to produce a feeling of being threatening for the hearer; e.g., “obviously, you don’t understand.” Or “obviously this is beyond your comprehension.”

            There may be many mild usages of it, such as “obviously, the Bible says that one should do ______” or “obviously, the Constitution does or does not give people the right to do ______.”

            Each of the uses of this word is based on perception – e.g., when two people’s perception of the same point, such as might be found in the Bible or the Constitution, or if it seems to result from reasoning – and the perceptions are different -- then the two can be experiencing a communication problem in spite of the fact that each is being sincere.

            We see here the phenomenon of persons’ assuming that their specific view of what is real and true is indeed that, and therefore, the other person should be having the same perception, or in the case he doesn’t, he is obviously wrong.

            Our school system and educational programs must in the future help people realize the situation-bound aspect of one’s viewing of reality and what is right.

                                                      Bernard C. Murdoch, Ph.D.