This is a response to the one-word prompt “Assumption” by “THe Daily
You Will have to look pretty hard to find someone you have not had a negative experience from making an assumption about something or someone. Most of “us” know the saying “if you #assume, you make an ass out of you and me.” Yet, if that is the case #why do #we still tend to assume so many things in our daily lives?
Because we tend to in cases where we do not have all the information, to go with what “makes sense” (common sense) to us with what we do have. We, when we make assumptions, we do so when we are being lazy and don’t feel like looking deeper and getting confirmation on what we are assuming.
That’s basically all that assuming is, a “shortcut” or cheap way of coming to a “conclusion” usually on short notice. And that is why we still tend to make them despite knowing the consequences of doing so in most cases.
So what are your thoughts and view points on the subject? Please do share.
This is a response to #the one-word prompt “Infect” by “The Daily Post.”
America is very divided these days when it comes to “#politics,” but that is no surprise to anybody now (unless you #have been under a rock). The political divide #has been going on #for years, and only increasing as it continues. There have been and are many explanations for this, but I won’t mention those here, except for “a Lack of dialog” (straight talking & listening). Some are right and some wrong, and some offer part of the explanation, but it is “a lack of dialog” that makes the most sense.
A lot of the more heard and discussed possible explanations, all offer only a part of how #we as a nation have gotten #so divided as we are now, including “a lack of dialog.” But underlining any and all possible explanations is that deep down we have “#too#much” #passion for #our political #beliefs. For yes, one of the main problems causing our political divide is a “real honest lack” of dialog, there is a little more to it than that.
Real dialog or conversation consists of two parts, talking and listening where everyone involved #in the conversation is able to contribute and the other/s being “active listeners.” The problem being is that even when there is an honest attempt at dialog, there is an “interference” preventing the active listening part of the conversation.
The listener/s are paying attention to the one doing the talking, but they are not indeed taking it in to “think/contemplate it. Which that is what talking is all about, sharing and presentation ideas and thoughts to others and everyone involved observing them as well as getting to know each other.
The interference is our passion for our beliefs getting in the way. This would mean we tend to have to much passion for our opinions if they are holding us back from having any consideration or just clear thought over anything that may seem counter to said beliefs. Having passion can be and often is an excellent thing to have, especially when it comes to a firmly held belief about something. It helps to motivate us and advocate for that belief and/or to act on it/them.
Yet, at the same time if our passions in anything, not just our beliefs start to hold us back from doing something or they cripple ourselves and society, then any good we get from them will be wade out. Passion like a lot of other things in life requires moderation; a little being good and too much not so good.
If we are going to stand a chance of bringing down the political divide amongst ourselves, then we need more dialog, getting to know each other, and understanding each other’s political views. But in order to have that we need to be aware of just how much passion we each are having for our political views and learn how to moderate that passion, just as we do for our other passions in life.
So what are your thoughts and viewpoints on this subject? Please do share them; all are welcomed and wanted.
This #is#a response to the one-word prompt “Rapid” by “The Daily Post.”
Let me ask you something, and I want you to really think about it before answering. When you work #on a “project’ #or any kind of “choir/job” how long on average do you spend on completing it? Do you finish it in the #time allotted, a “little less than,” or “a little more than?” When we are working on something that tends to take awhile, we tend to try and do our best to complete it as quickly as possible for many of reasons. But time’#s tricky hands can and often do stop us.
Sometimes it is because we are “lazy” and just want to get it over with. Sometimes it is because we seek to save time by #getting it #done before the “projected” time of completion to move on to other important #things or to impress. And of course sometimes it is none of these, we just spend the minimum amount of time required.
The impressive, shocking #thing that I have found from my own experiences and that of others is that in a lot of cases it can be very beneficial to complete something on time or ahead of schedule; which are the most widely held beliefs on the subject. Yet, it can in some rare cases actually be better #not to “rush” or finish on time, but to take our time even if it means “working overtime.” This is usually the case when the “project” we are working on requires delicacy and permission.
A #good example is writing, which can regularly take more time than first thought. It is in cases like these that in allotting or being allotted time for the project, the amount of work/man hours needed to complete the project can be underestimated. Thus it is left to the person who is actually working on it to make a “judgment call.
So, what are your answers to the questions at the top and does this make you really question if you are usually giving the right amount of time on your project? Are you usually spot on in time spent? Or do you tend to be “lazy” sometimes, be honest it happens to all of us from time to time?😇
So what are your thoughts and viewpoints on the subject? Please do share them, all are welcomed and wanted.
This is a response #to the one-word prompt “Abrupt” by “The Daily Post.”
When you attend social/community events, do you tend to be one of the first to #leave towards the end? Are you one who is #quick to drop whatever you are doing at a given time and start on something else? I have been guilty of both.
For me at least, I attribute this to my autism because of which I have more trouble in social situations than most do. Thus, when going to small informal social events, tend to be one of the first to leave when the #event “dies down” because there is only so much time my mind is able to focus on just social interactions.
Despite this, I know there are times when I am perhaps a little #too quick to leave #an event, (even though that event is pretty much close to over, with people just making light conversation). While I know it is time for me to leave, that I have reached my limits I do still have a little regret for seeming to rush out at the “end.” The best thing that I can do in the future is when leaving an event that is “winding down” I can at least make sure I don’t “rush” out.
I can do this by making one last round to all the people there (or at least those I had talked to if a pretty good size group/event) to say a few more words and get some last minute quick conversation or two in. By doing this I make sure that my leaving is a little more “natural” feeling instead of “rushed.” I can’t really control when my mind wants to stop interacting with others (when it already was working overtime to do so for awhile), but I can control how I leave as a result.
What about you; have you face a similar situation? How do you plan to or did you manage to handle it?
Please, do share your thoughts and viewpoints on this subject. All are welcomed and wanted.
This is a response to #the one-word prompt “Mentor” by “The Daily Post.”
Who were your #mentors in life? Who are your mentors? Have you or are you currently being a mentor to someone? Throughout our lives, we all have had and/or will have mentors to help us along the way. Those special, important few that stand out in our lives above all others we know and will come to know in our lives as having a very large impact in the direction we take on the “road #of life.”
Mentors offer to us, individuals, to look up to and encourage us in our lives and our pursuits. They are there to give advice, to point out our gifts and faults and to help us correct our faults and improve on and grow our gifts. While mentors can and often are family members and one’s parents, usually when we talk of who our mentors in life have been/are, we are talking of those who we have met in our lives outside of family relations. Teachers, college professors, and coaches being among some of the most common mentors one will have in life.
Having a mentor/s in life can be and is very helpful in growing and advancing in life, but so too is being a mentor to someone. Not only are you helping out someone as you were helped out in your life journey but the relationship between mentor and mentoree is not a one-way street. It is very much two-way with each one giving and receiving. The mentor can learn from his/her mentoree just as much if not more as the mentoree gets from the mentor.
I know who most of my mentors have been so far in my life (a couple previous college professors, and friends from church). I also know of some who while did not really mentor me pre say did give me great advice and/or insight at one time that played a big part in my life.
I am extremely grateful to have had them in my life and to have learned from them. I have not really been a mentor my self as far as I know per say, but have given advice and have been there for others in the past (which is what a mentor does). I look forward to the day when I do become a “fulltime” mentor to someone where I can help out as I have been so far in life.
So who are your mentors in life and have you been a mentor yourself yet? Please do share your thoughts and viewpoints on the subject. All are welcomed and wanted.
This is #a response #to#the one-word prompt “Crank” by “The Daily Post.”
Is there someone #in#your#life that you come into regular if brief contact with that are just never in the “mood” and really have anything nice to say to anybody. I think we all at least once in our lives have come across one of these “#cranks” and we are never quite sure how to deal with the person.
Usually, when we look a little deeper we tend to find that the “cranks” in our lives do not behave as they do “just because” but that there are actual reasons behind the behavior. Any number of reasons that prevent them trying to connect with others. The best thing to do is whenever you see the person is just as a starting point give them a friendly greeting and move on, but keep doing this every time you see the person.
Eventually, hopefully, this will “break the ice” at some point and those greetings will turn into small conversations which may then turn into a friendship of shorts and before you know it, you are no longer dealing with a “crank” but a normal person. Which they have always been, the “crankness” was always just a cry of help; the person needed a #friend. So why not #be that friend whenever you encounter a so-called “crank.” You will begin to make the world a much better off place as a result. It also does not take much if any effort on your part but the impact pays “big dividends.”
So what are your thoughts and viewpoints on this subject? Please do share them, all are welcomed and wanted.
This is #a response #to the one-word prompt “Glimmer” by “the Daily Post.”
How important is it to #have “#hope” in tough situations? Is it actually encouraging and helpful or is it really damaging in the long one? These are questions that people have struggled with forever. On the one hand, “hope” does seem to allow us to get through our challenges in life by focusing our attention less on the bad situation/possible outcomes and more on something positive that gives us reason to “push on.”
Yet “hope” can indeed be damaging if those positive outcomes do not materialize. We then will “lose hope” and become even more demoralized. Although I would say that the danger here lies not so much in “hope” but in reality “false hope.” Wheres “hope” can give us something to hang onto that encourages us to “fight on” despite how bad the situation may appear; it never does so by “magically changing” the situation we may be facing, only how we perceive it.
Before getting “hope” we already had the “tools” and ability to “get out” but our “despair” prevented us from seeing that. With “false hope” we are given something positive to hold onto, but when we really don’t have the ability to make things better. So the problem with “hope” is not that there are times when we can get “too much” #of it, but that we can confuse “false hope” for “real hope.”
To have real hope in our lives, at our “deepest lows” is to the have the “tools” needed to “get out” at our disposal and the “vision, courage, and drive” to make use of those tools. “Hope does not give us anything new that we don’t already have, merely a reason for us to make better our situation.
So what are your thoughts and viewpoints on this subject? Please do share, all are welcomed and wanted.
This is a response to #the one-word prompt “Thwart” by “The Daily Post.”
In the wake of the Parkland Florida school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School which killed 17 people, there has been a considerable nationwide #debate#on how to better protect our schools and children in them. Some of it has been good and productive, but a lot of it has just been “noise” that is really only inflaming passions on all sides of the “political spectrum but having little actual productive results.
There has been new legislation passed by some state legislatures to answer some of the perceived weaknesses in school security. In Florida’#s case, it is a mixed bag with a lot of good things being done but also a lot of “showboating” (as is the case whenever politicians get involved). While the legislation does carry some new rules for dealing with handling mental illness and its treatment it also bans the buying of guns till the age for 21 (it was previously and is in most of country 18).
The call for banning gun sells until 21 years of age ignore the fact that most teenage shooters unlike the one in the Parkland Florida shooting do not own their own guns but take them from home, i.e. parents or relatives who do. Thus, banning the sell of guns until age 21 won’t do anything in #reducing the risks to shooting in our schools.
Those who advocate for tougher/more gun control laws always use the term “sensible” in describing just what they want. A gun control measure can only be called “sensible” if it actually does or makes a considerable effort to the objective it would be put in place to accomplish. How can the measure just mention contribute to our preventing more school #shootings if the majority of teen/school shooters don’t buy the guns they use to shoot up schools?
Unfortunately, this detail largely escapes the ongoing debate of the issue above because of the raw emotions evolved and the very little actual, rational thinking among those partaking in the debate on both sides. Everyone wants to just “do something” to keep our schools and children safe. Yet, that there is the problem, our need to “do something, anything.” Just “doing something” will not help solve this or problem. Solutions need to be concrete and precisely targeted in order to have the best results.
The only way we as a nation and as a people are going to be able to come up with solutions to better protect against school shootings (any mass shootings) is to #remove our emotions #from the actual decision process. They may be good for the initial call to action, beyond that they always only cause more harm than good.
What are your thoughts and viewpoints on this issues? Please do share them; all are welcomed and wanted.
#Brion#McClanahan‘s book “#The#Founding Father’s #Guide#to the #Constitution” is #a very compelling and complex history of just how The Constitution to the United States had come to be and of the views for and against it. The way he percents his facts and figures and the back-stories behind each of the debates during the Constitutional Convention and the ratifying debates is just stellar in the thoroughness and ease of following.
Especially compelling is how he counts not just the well-known men that “we” all “know” from history as “Founding Father’s” (Washington, Madison, Hamilton, so forth), but literally everyone involved in the making and ratifying of the Constitution. He measures involvement #by the debates on what type of government the United States should have; which were going on all across the thirteen states since during the Revolution on till the ratification its self.
He tells how the “founding #fathers” included not just the names we recognize such as those mentioned above, but many others such as Luther Martin, Rodger Sherman, and George Mason, to name a few. He also does away with the “common” terms of “Federalist” and Anti-federalist” in explaining his reasoning; where he shows how the opponents of the Constitution were actually wanting to preserve the existing federal system of the Article of Confederation.
Brian’s work shines because of the detail he puts into his findings that the Constitution would not have passed ratification let alone pass the Convention floor if it was not understood to be putting in place a strong centralized government, but one with limits in place. He also does a wonderful, enlightening job of explaining away certain preconceived notions and myths about the “founding fathers” and the making of the Constitution.
It is a myth-but one often repeated-that the Framers “really wanted” the president to be chosen by the people at large; supposedly they rejected this method only because the people in one State would not know enough about the candidates from others States. But the records from the Philadelphia Convention clearly illustrate that the Founders intended the Electoral College to be a buffer against the potential abuses of democracy (p.129).
Overall, the book is a very well thought-out, telling of the history of the Founding of the (2nd Republic) of The United States under the current Constitution. He does an excellent job of keeping to a “fact-based” scholarly approach while at the same time showing the suspense and conflict experienced by our “founding fathers” to keep the reader entertained as well as informed and not be drowned in “dry” texted. A very good history of the subject with some surprising turns in its direction. The most important point from a historical perspective is that the author Brian does so well in not just telling the history of the Constitution’s making, but the telling of “all the sides” involved.
I hope you enjoy this book #review; please do share your own thoughts and viewpoints. All are welcomed and wanted!
This is a response to the one-word prompt “Explore” by “The Daily Post.”
What was one your favorite activities to do as a child growing up? For me it was the make-believe/pretend. The playing soldier and running through the backyard and the trees behind the house. Whether it is the childhood pretend games or the exploration of space and/or the ocean to making any kind of scientific/new discovery as an adult we as humans have a deep inner need to explore our surroundings
If we are confronted with something that we do not know, eventually we will be driven to confront it, to find out just what that thing is. Oh, it may not happen right away, and we may be frightened into staying away form that something for a time, but eventually we will confront it; our curriortsity will be too much for us to handle.
Yet, our deeply inner need to explore and find out new things and ideas is becoming a problem for society’s development when it comes to technology development and how that effects said society. In order to see why, lets look at the two fundamental motivations of “#explorers/scientists” and “#inventors.” Explorers are driven by the need for discovery for discoveries sake. They are in it for the knowledge that they gain. The inventor on the other hand while may take the knowledge gained from the explorer/scientist’s discoveries, is primary motivated on applying that knowledge to solve a problem or provide a need for both the individual and society at large.
The problem arrises or can arise when the jobs of “scientist/explorer” and the “inventor” become entwined. For when the explorer is doing both the “discovering” and applying of new ideas, he is not concerned with “is this needed” but only “in can this be done.” Jeff Goldblum’s character Ian Malcom from the first Jurassic Park movie said it best in the line “Yah, but your scientists where so focused on ‘can we could do this,’ but never asked themselves ‘should we do this.'”
Now there, the question is more on the moral need of society and advancement, but still is needed in answering the question of a perceived need or benefit to society by a new discovery/invention. I am not one to take away from all the technology breakthroughs in the last decade or so, nor the ones just coming around the “corner in a few years ( in fact I am quite excited ); but I do think with the rapid advancement of said technology, we are having the problem of only trying to figure out if “something can be done” and not truly “asking should it be done, is it needed.”
We as humans are driven to explore and find out how “this or that works” and we are also driven to come up with better ways of doing things and making our lives easier. When the two natures are balanced and while connected still in their proper spheres of influence, human society benefits. The trick is to find that balance, to be able to discover to our hearts contents, yet still be able to ask the question “is this truly necessary; should it be done?” That is the unending conflict between “explorers and inventors.”
What are your thoughts and viewpoints? Please do share them, all are welcomed and wanted.