How to Hold a Conversation

Conversing in a constructive, educational, manner is apparently not a common skill. I find that many people just don’t know how to do it.

Years ago, while Nancy and I were in the Navy, we had the opportunity to attend several social events held among the Navy’s officer corps. We saw there, first hand, how the art of conversation should be an experience in education and how conversation should stimulate interest—also, we learned how good conversation can be entertaining.

Here’s how good conversation is done: At those old-fashioned Navy social meetings, one would be approached by people with a smile on their faces and their eyes making good contact. A hand shake or a pat on the back was a starter. The encountered person would then gently begin probing around to find some area of common interest. Soon, finding that touch point, the conversation would begin. Points of common interest would deliberately begin; and the participants would concentrate on LISTENING carefully to the words of one another. The conversants would not drift off the subject by allowing the eyes to rove over other people or things in the room—no looking out the window. The people involved in the conversation would often repeat something the other would say, thereby indicating that words were being heard and understood. The conversation would gradually be guided into areas of real interest, trivia and insignificant subjects were not often dwelt upon. Listening would always seem more important than talking. An effective skill in conversation was learning and demonstrating mental retention of one another’s name. Repeating that new name indicated that the other person was taking gleaned information seriously. Learning names is a skill that should be cultivated. 

I am told that former President John F. Kennedy was a master of useful and interesting conversation. He would look carefully for new and interesting information in almost everyone with whom he came into contact. He seemed to be able to learn something from every person with whom he was talking. There was no time wasted in a conversation with President Kennedy!

Last evening, Nancy and I watched a long segment of a press conference with President Trump. Let there be no question about this: I am very happy with most of the things the Trump administration had done; but I am not pleased with the President’s demeanor in conversation. Although he can be friendly and amusing at times, his concern for the people with whom he is supposedly conversing leaves a lot to be desired. He interrupts their words, and he persists in speaking in a very proud way about the wonderful things he has done. There is no give and take in President Trumps conversation. He apparently learns nothing from the ideas of his contact people. I would hate to work for him. His conversation is all about him; nobody else seems to count.

All that being said, I want to point out that trivial subjects in conversation are often useful in order to establish rapport with the other person in a conversation. However, whenever possible, trivia should be minimized, and the conversation turned to more salient matters. A conversation should be guided into subjects that cause one to remember the content.

My wish for you is for you to have many happy and useful conversations! Seek information; remember names; and, above all, LISTEN!

The Perseid meteor shower

How to access my blog post http://bit.ly/1zOaIaV 

One thousand years ago, the comet Swift-Tuttle passed through the earth’s orbit, scattering rocks and other debris all over the place. Since then, these rocks have been showering into the earth’s atmosphere whenever the earth passes under the Constellation Perseus. This produces a spectacular meteor shower, known as the Perseids. The shower will be visible in the evenings from 11 August through 14 August. It will be particularly visible this year, because the moon will have set before sundown, and the night sky will be very dark, making these meteors easily visible.

 

Actually, the meteors will be falling also during the daytime; but they will not be very visible at that time because the light of the sun will obscure them. 

https://binged.it/2AGoQ3I Press Control+click, and you will see the constellation Perseus between Cassiopeia and Taurus on your computer screen. Perseus is in the northern hemisphere. The brightest star in Perseus is Mirfak. Andromeda is a constellation to the west of Perseus; and Cassiopeia is to the north. The Andromeda nebula in the constellation of that name is the most distant object visible to the naked eye. The Andromeda nebula is 2.4 million light years away from earth; and it contains 1 trillion stars!

Have fun watching the show!! 

When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? 

Ed and Nancy Manring

 

Protect Life Rule

President Trump’s administration has proposed a regulation to the Department of Health and Human Services Department (HHS), called the “Protect Life Rule.” If activated, this regulation would defund Planned Parenthood of about $60 million.

HHS is inviting comments on this new regulation before it is either activated or rejected. The period of time for comments to be received from people in America is 31 July 2018.

 I am asking all of my blog recipients to write to HHS in support of this proposed regulation. You may write your opinion to the proper recipient by going to https://bit.ly/2m920rq.

You can also comment by going to https://www.sba-list.org/action-center or https://frc.quorum.us/campaign/12309.

Thanks for your attention to this matter.

 

The Sexual Revolution Backfires!

 

Mary Eberstadt has written in the Weekly Standard of 25 June 2018 about the sexual revolution, which took place in America and even around the world, fifty years ago. It has had dilatory effects on our culture. The manifestation of “free sex” pushed forward by the reform movement has caused five obvious consequences of this trendy way of thinking about sex roles:

First, the modern use of birth control pills has resulted, not in freedom and family health, but in increased frequency of divorce, cohabitation, and abortion never before seen in history.

Second, the limitation on family growth is leaving thousands of elderly people to live lives of loneliness and abandonment, because they have very few progenies to care for and pay attention to them as they age. The New York Times has reported 4000 deaths weekly of lonely old people without family support. In Japan, people are even being found dead in their apartments only after neighbors suspect something wrong after the odor of a decaying body alerts them.

Third, pornography is substituting for healthy sexual activity between married adults. This is leading to divorce and psychological damage.

Forth, the cheapening of sex among the population is causing an increase of sexually transmitted diseases and the perverted practice of egg donation for monetary profit to those who cannot conceive normally because of abnormal family arrangements or the results of sexually transmitted diseases.

Fifth, the MeToo movement has cropped up due to the widespread belief that women are available for sexual exploitation and dishonesty about their willingness for extramarital sex.

I would add to these five problems outlined by Ms. Eberstadt the fact that illicit sex is ruining the character of both men and women who are disappointed, disillusioned, and disheartened by unfulfilled and uncommitted sexual activity. Both the family and the personal character of men and women is suffering.

Furthermore, the sexual revolution is destroying and emasculating male character in men who take what they want sexually and deny the responsibility of supporting a wife and children. Instead of getting out of the house, working for a living, and supporting moral values, they stay at home on the couch watching TV sports, drinking, and even using illicit drugs to squelch their feelings of worthlessness.

The sexual revolution has not fulfilled the promises that women’s liberation said it would.  

Appeasement Agreement with Kim Jong-un

Since the victorious return of President Trump to America after his visit with Kim Jong-un, I am reminded of the return of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to London in 1938, waving the appeasement agreement he had made with Adolf Hitler in Munich. The crowds were cheering; the newspapers were mostly in agreement with the crowds and the statement of Chamberlain. “My good friends this is the second time there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Now I recommend you go home and sleep quietly in your beds.”

King George VI issued a statement to his people, “After the magnificent efforts of the Prime Minister in the cause of peace it is my fervent hope that a new era of friendship and prosperity may be dawning with the peoples of the world.” His mother, the dowager Queen Mary remarked that “the Prime Minister was delighted with the results of his mission, as are we all….He brought home peace….”

The House of Commons discussed the Munich agreement on 3 October. Winston Churchill spoke harshly against the agreement; no Conservative voted against the pact. But 20-30 of them abstained from voting, including Churchill and Anthony Eden.

Hmmm…I wonder. I hope we are not repeating the error of 1938. It has been said that those who disregard the lesson of the past are prone to repeat it. I hope not.

Is The #MeToo Movement Beneficial?

A recent article in Imprimis by Heather MacDonald deserves comment: She has pointed out that the #MeToo movement has some decided drawbacks that are damaging to our culture.

Ms. MacDonald points out that “#MeToo (a movement in which several women are claiming to have been sexually abused by male employers) is going to unleash a new torrent of gender and race quotas throughout the economy and culture, on the theory that all disparities in employment and institutional representation are due to harassment and bias.” She says that the movement is already causing one social group in particular—white males—to be discriminated against in favor of supposed “diversity.” This push for “diversity” is manifested in the practice of choosing women for employment in preference to more highly qualified men, particularly white men.

She points out that the feminist movement is denying the differences between men and women in their proclivities to choose different types of activities and occupations. Men, she points out, tend to choose fields that are characterized by departments which use science, technology, engineering, and math. Women are naturally attracted to fields which “make the world a better place, according to the common understanding of that phrase.” In general, women are better at activities of nurturing and interpersonal relationships than are men. It seems certain to me, that women make better homes and do better in the tasks of child raising than do men.

Women, these days, are being encouraged to engage in activities and professions that have previously been dominated by men. Often, women do very well in these professions; but at other times, they do not do as well as highly qualified men who are pushed out of competition because of pigment or sexual differences.

We have a good example of this kind of discriminatory activity in one of our granddaughters. She is a young woman who has been strongly encouraged to become an engineer because her parents believe she should learn how to make money in the market place. Although she is doing well in engineering school, she does not have any significant desire to be an engineer. She spends all her time out of school working in refugee camps around the world. I, personally, think she should be studying sociological subjects and how to help people manage difficult problems in their lives.

Another example from our family is one of our sons, who, several years ago, applied to the University of Oklahoma for a position in the Engineering department. He was denied the position. The department told him that, “We would like to hire you, but you are the wrong color and the wrong sex.” By turning him down, the University of Oklahoma missed hiring a young engineer who later became a world-class research engineer in hydraulics at the University of Missouri.  

In our own family, we have found that a mother in the home has been the most beneficial effect we could imagine. I am pleased to report that our six children have not succumbed to worldly temptations that are ravaging our culture, today. They don’t spend their time in video gaming, drugging, premarital sex, etc. Our success in family structure and functioning is due to the fact that Nancy was what is disparagingly called a “stay-at-home mom.” Any success we have had in life has been due to the emphasis on family that has been instilled by that “stay-at-home Mom!”  

How Do You Understand the Scriptures?

There are two ways to understand what you are reading in the Bible—two ways of thinking. You can look at the Bible from an inductive or a deductive viewpoint. Often, both types of thinking are helpful.

First of all, deductive Bible study involves what is called “a priori” thinking. “A priori” thinking means “to the front.” In simplest terms, it means coming to the Scripture with your preconceived ideas in order to understand the essence of the passage in question. Bible students who use “a priori“ thinking come to the reading with an idea about it already or a story that defines the idea; then, the preconceived idea adds to the reading to deduce the meaning. “A priori” thinking involves adding a story to get the meaning of the reading.

If we are reading Psalm 139, and we are using this deductive thinking technique we will ask ourselves, “How can I apply this Psalm to my daily life and future, i.e., what can I deduce from it judging directly from the words of the Psalm and my own ideas about the subject. In order to understand this Psalm, I must add a story to the words expressing my own impressions.  This deductive reading can imply that the reader  already thinks he knows what is the truth of the reading; and he does not need to consult with the original writer through a posteriori thinking.

Inductive Bible study is a technique of study called “a posteriori” thinking. “A posteriori” thinking involves looking at a reading to figure out what the author actually meant when he wrote it. “A posteriori” thinking involves looking at the story that preceded the reading to get the meaning.

Let’s look at an example of what I am saying:

Again, thinking of Psalm 139, we may ask ourselves, “What does God think about this Psalm? What can we learn about Him from reading this Psalm?” This can be thought of as “thinking to the back,” This is “a posteriori” thinking.  In this kind of thinking mode, we are applying our reason to the task of literary interpretation, i.e., understanding what the Psalm means from the viewpoint of the author. We are looking at what we can understand about God from reading this Psalm.

As I have said above, however, both kinds of reasoning can be profitably applied to our understanding of the Bible. For instance, if we read inductively (“a posteriori”) we can learn some of the qualities of God, who wrote the Psalm. Then, we can ask ourselves the question, “What can I say about my understanding of how I should apply this knowledge to the life I live in the present?” This last question converts the study of Psalm 139 to a deductive process of thinking from an inductive technique. Deductive (“a priori”) thinking asks us to use our reason to understand how to fully apply the knowledge of God gleaned from our inductive (“a posteriori”) study to our lives in the present and the future in a reasonable way.

We all should use both kinds of thinking in our daily Bible reading. We need to look at the Scriptures to see what kind of God wrote it (“a posteriori” or inductive) and how we should use the information we have gained from that understanding to tell us how we should act and think (“a priori” or deductive). The utility of these understandings is that if we read the Bible, we should understand what parts of our reading tell us about God and His ways and what parts tell us about ourselves and our ways.

In reading the Bible, we need to ask ourselves, “Am I looking at God’s ideas, or am I looking at my ideas?” We must all remember that we each bring our own ideas with us when ever we open a Bible. We need to carefully separate our own ideas from God’s ideas in our understandings.  

There is one other feature of the term, “a priori” which might be somewhat confusing. The term “a priori” can also mean “self-evident.” In that case, the truth of an “a priori” statement is obvious and right out in front—the meaning of the statement is so obvious it requires no further explanation. Its meaning clearly shouts out of the passage. An example of this is the statement, “The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.” There is no question about the meaning.

On the other hand, “a posteriori” statements are never self-evident. They require study and examination to understand their truth. For instance, the statement, “The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some understand slowness. Instead, He is patient with you not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9) This statement may seem to be true to some Bible students on an “a priori” basis; but I would posit that readers of the Scriptures should examine this statement to see what it says about God. Thus, understanding this statement in this way is an “a posteriori” task.

In studying the Bible, it is always best to use the inductive (“a posteriori”) method first. Seek to understand the mind of God by this kind of thinking. Then, and only then, draw your deductive conclusions using a priori ways of thinking. Don’t jump to conclusions based on your preconceived notions. Even the simplest biblical principles need inductive data to fully understand them, e.g., “God is love.” Always ask yourself this question: “Am I using inductive or deductive reasoning as I read the Scriptures? Am I reading to understand God, or am I deducing things to confirm my own preconceived ideas?”

The wrap-up of this blog post in the simplest terms is this: Look to God and his written word first; then…apply your own thinking in order to apply these concepts to your life.