What You Say and Don't Say

There’s a curious power in silence. Not just in what isn’t spoken, but in what is deliberately withheld. Every conversation, every sentence, even the briefest exchange, is an act of editing. We choose our words carefully—or sometimes carelessly—but either way, we’re revealing a version of ourselves. At the same time, we’re concealing something else. That’s the quiet truth at the heart of communication: what you say is only half the story. 

Think of the last time you held your tongue. Maybe it was in the middle of an argument, when your pride ached to say something sharp, but your better judgment told you not to. Or maybe it was during a moment of vulnerability, when someone you cared about opened up—and instead of blurting out advice, you simply listened. In either case, your silence wasn’t empty. It was filled with meaning, restraint, perhaps even love.

Words carry weight, but so does their absence. We sometimes forget this in a culture that rewards volume, speed, and opinions broadcast into the void. Social media encourages us to speak instantly and incessantly, as if silence were an admission of ignorance or irrelevance. But in real life, choosing not to say something can be the strongest statement of all. It can be a sign of maturity, of empathy, of knowing that not every thought needs to be shared to be understood.

Of course, there are risks in silence, too. Not speaking up when something matters—when injustice unfolds in front of you, or when someone needs a defender—can feel like complicity. That’s the other side of the coin. Just as our silence can protect, it can also betray. The challenge is learning when to use it wisely.

Ultimately, the way we communicate is less about mastering language and more about mastering ourselves. It’s about knowing that every word you release into the world changes something, however small. And every word you keep tucked away does, too. So, the next time you’re about to speak—or hold back—ask yourself not just what you want to say, but why. Because in the end, what you choose to say—and not say—becomes the voice of who you are.

I also want to underscore the power contained in single word choices.  That is, what we say—and don’t say—is shaped not only by dictionary content but also by tone, and more specifically, by the emotional charge of the words we choose. Language isn’t just a tool for conveying facts. It’s a vehicle for feeling, for stirring emotion in others, and for revealing what lies under the surface of our own thoughts.

A single word—carefully chosen or carelessly flung—can elevate or destroy, soothe or provoke. Take the difference between saying someone is “stubborn” versus “determined.” Technically, they describe a similar trait, but emotionally, they land in entirely different places. “Stubborn” feels harsh, rigid, even critical. “Determined” feels admirable and strong. The facts remain unchanged, but the emotional color shifts entirely depending on the word.

That’s why individual word choice matters so deeply in close relationships, in leadership, and even in casual conversation. Think about how different “I’m disappointed” feels compared to “I’m angry.” Or how “I understand” can feel vastly more comforting than “I get it.” Each word carries emotional weight—a kind of invisible gravity that can pull others in or push them away.  Politicians, poets, and advertisers all know this. They wield words not just to inform but to move—to trigger hope, fear, pride, shame, or urgency. And we do this, too, even when we’re unaware. Our word choices are emotional fingerprints, revealing our moods, biases, and intentions, even in subtle ways.

The beauty and burden of language is that every word carries baggage. And that baggage enters the room the moment we speak. So, as much as communication is about deciding what to say and what to leave unsaid, it's also about the emotional texture of how we say it. A gentle word can soften the hardest truth. A harsh word can shatter even a delicate silence. In the end, words are not just tools—they are instruments. And like any instrument, they can play music or make noise. The difference is in how consciously—and compassionately—we choose to use them. The obvious point of this blog post is: what you choose to say, not say, and the words you select all determine what you communicate conceptually and emotionally, what you enact relationship-wise, and what you disclose about yourself.

Museum Machinations

 When you walk into a science museum in Canada, you might expect to see the usual exhibits: dinosaurs, space exploration, maybe a section on the human body. But in many of these museums—especially in the last decade or so—you’ll also come across exhibits that highlight indigenous knowledge systems. They supposedly are included to “integrate indigenous science” alongside Western science.

Take the Canadian Museum of Nature in Ottawa or the Science North Centre in Sudbury as examples. These places now go beyond just displaying indigenous artifacts in a glass case with a label. Instead, they  tell fuller stories that indigenous peoples have told  for hundreds of years. And, importantly, the museums are calling it, “science”. Let’s say there’s an exhibit on animal migration or weather patterns. Western science might show satellite images or data from GPS collars on caribou. Right next to that, you might see a quote or video from an Inuit elder explaining how the animals' migration can be predicted by the thickness of sea ice or the behavior of birds. The display might even note that these traditional observations—passed orally over generations—have proven reliable and are now being used to complement Western research in areas like climate change.

Similarly, in botany exhibits, you'll see how indigenous knowledge of plant medicine is featured—not as folklore or superstition, but as a parallel system of empirical, research-based science. For example, the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) people’s use of white cedar for respiratory issues is sometimes included in exhibits not just as a cultural note, but claimed to be reliable bioactive compounds.

The museums are moving away from terms like "myth" or "primitive beliefs." Instead, they use phrases like "indigenous knowledge systems," "traditional ecological knowledge," or "indigenous science." These shifts claim that while the methods and metaphors may differ from Western science, the goals—observation, prediction, and explanation of the natural world—are fundamentally scientific.

The rationalizing museum official assertion likely will be to describe their policy as an attempt to “decolonize science communication”. In other words, they are motivated to change the long-standing tendency to treat Western science as the “gold standard” for knowing the world. By incorporating “indigenous science “respectfully and on equal footing, they  seek to “broaden the public’s understanding of what science can be”.

Occasionally there are debates about whether some beliefs—such as spiritual interpretations of nature—fit into the category of science. But museums are increasingly comfortable with refusing to accept those arguments. Accordingly, museum visitors might see one exhibit showing  a geological explanation of how a mountain formed, and right next to it, an indigenous story that explains the mountain’s origin in cultural and spiritual terms. Whether intended or not, the juxtaposition implies that the “science” museum is not fully committed to the scientific method—that indigenous beliefs have equal standing.

In short, Canadian science museums are treating  indigenous knowledge not as something “other” or “less,” but as a legitimate, tested, and deeply rooted form of science.  In my opinion, this Canadian “science” approach is grossly flawed.  It is perfectly appropriate, even laudable, to respect and inquire about indigenous myths and traditions.  But equating them with science is both absurd and intellectually dishonest. Science is much more than an artifact and/or longstanding belief.  Above all, science is a continually recursive process in which ideas are proposed, tested, challenged, retested, and refined. 

I am not religious and firmly “believe” the basic theory of evolution. The belief is firmly rooted in knowing  that the theory has been tested in thousands of rigorously conducted scientific studies.  However, if compelling evidence is discovered that debunks evolution, I am ready, willing, and able to revise my evolution beliefs.  

Speaking of evolution and returning to the Canadian museum approach, I have a question:  Do their museums have Creationist explanations and displays in the evolution section?  To repeat, I am not religious and I do not believe in Creationism.  However, there is a kind of Creationism belief system known as "theistic evolution".  That perspective generally acknowledges the scientific validity of evolution while simultaneously suggesting that God initiated and guided the evolutionary process, possibly including the introduction of souls into humans.  Most notably, Francis Collins, a highly respected figure in both scientific and religious circles is a prominent proponent of theistic evolution.  He was a leading professional in the field of genetics and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Collins  has written extensively on the compatibility of science and faith, advocating for a view that God created the universe and used the process of evolution to bring about life.

If you ask Canadian museum leaders why Creationism is not worthy of inclusion in their collections, the reply quite likely will be some thinly veiled version of “Creationism is pseudoscience advocated by ignorant, science-denying, right-wing zealots”.  As to the museum “indigenous science “ that they do include, I would ask three questions:  1. What is your definition of science?  2. Specifically  explain the criteria you use to evaluate the scientific bona fides  of each indigenous science exhibit.  3. Who is/are the scientist(s) responsible for the science that you do “advertise” and endorse?

This blog, then, suggests that we never should blindly accept someone else's definition of science. When we do, we allow them to make intimidating incriminations of "You're not following the science" whenever we disagree.  We always need to know what is the science presented, who has produced it, and what is its purpose.

My just released new book

 

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=peter+j+mccusker&crid=22ORY5JO14N23&sprefix=peter+j+mcc%2Caps%2C99&ref=nb_sb_ss_fb_1_11_p13n-conservative-preferred-department-reranking

 My newly released book:

In contemporary society, words can be as destructive as bombs. Weaponized Communication: Improvised Explosive Devices explores how information, propaganda, and psychological tactics function as volatile tools of conflict—detonating social and political chaos, just as IEDs wreak havoc on battlefields.

This book delves into the parallels between physical and informational warfare, examining how narratives, misinformation, and strategic messaging are deployed to manipulate perception, destabilize adversaries, and exert control. From insurgent propaganda to state-sponsored disinformation campaigns, Weaponized Communication analyzes how groups exploit media, technology, and public discourse to create psychological and ideological explosions.

Central to this book is that weaponized communications are often multimodal, involving listening-speaking, reading-writing, and visual reception-visual presentation. As such, integrated destructive information can be spread far and wide..

Social science studies and concepts are employed to unpack the mechanics of weaponized influence and deception in modern cultural conflicts. Whether in asymmetric warfare, cyber operations, or mass media manipulation, the weaponization of communication is shown as polluting the social fabric of western culture. 

Weaponized Communication: Improvised Explosive Devices offers a gripping and critical exploration of how words, like bombs, are engineered to disrupt, divide, and destroy. Forewarned is forearmed.

It's in Your DNA ?

It’s in Your DNA.  How often have you heard that comment?  How often has it added anything relevant or substantial to the discussion?  For instance, some people use a simplistic DNA premise to explain why someone is gay, lazy, artistic, wealthy, or criminal. Obviously, DNA is necessary for every bodily and mental feature of every human being, but it rarely is both necessary and sufficient.

To make my point, I suggest considering the commonly stated scientific fact that humans and chimpanzees share about 98-99% of their DNA.  Why then are we so profoundly different from chimps?  I know of no chimp astronauts, surgeons, carpenters, or beauticians. Where is the 2 to 1% human-chimpanzee difference and what is its significance?

One most important explanation follows from the genotype-phenotype distinction.  In brief, the genotype is the genetic DNA code you inherit from your parents—a recipe that tells your body how to make proteins, which then determine things like your eye color, height, or even your risk for certain diseases. But just because a recipe exists doesn’t mean the final dish will turn out exactly as written. Your phenotype is what actually shows up—the final observable dish. 

Phenotypic traits result from the way your body expresses your genetic instructions, and depend on both your genes and your environment. For instance, your genotype might include genes for being tall, but  poor childhood nutrition can cause you to be shorter than your genetic potential. To produce their optimal effects, genes need to be turned on or off at specific times, for specific durations, and in specific settings.

Time for more monkey business.  Everyone is familiar with obvious human-chimpanzee phenotypic differences, such as differences in brain size, body shape, hairiness, tooth size, and facial muscles that give humans flatter faces and smaller jaws. The genetic differences are less familiar to most of us.  Some of the more important ones are: 

Single Nucleotide Changes

A large portion of the genetic differences are single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which are small changes in individual DNA bases. These changes are scattered across the genome.

Gene Regulatory Differences

While most of the genes in humans and chimps are nearly identical, their expression patterns differ significantly. This means the same genes may be turned on or off at different times, in different tissues, or at different levels. Regulatory regions (like promoters and enhancers) show significant divergence, particularly in brain-related genes.

Insertions, Deletions, and Duplications

Humans and chimps have differences in copy number variations—genes or sections of DNA that are duplicated or deleted. Humans have a higher frequency of duplications in genes associated with brain development and immunity.

Chromosomal Rearrangements

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, while chimps have 24. This difference is due to a fusion event in humans where two ancestral ape chromosomes combined to form human chromosome 2. Structural changes like inversions and translocations also contribute to differences.

Accelerated Regions in Humans

Certain regions of the genome, called Human Accelerated Regions (HARs), have undergone rapid evolution in humans. Many of these regions are associated with brain development, cognitive function, and limb formation.

WHAT DOES ALL THIS HAVE TO DO WITH YOU AND WITH WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO YOU?  

In the interest of your time, let’s take one very brief look at an extremely well researched, scientifically respected area of wide-spread genetic concern for many of us—Alzheimer’s Disease.  

A common gene associated with Alzheimer's disease is APOE (Apolipoprotein E), specifically the APOE ε4 variant.  There are three main versions of the APOE gene: ε2, ε3, and ε4. APOE ε4 is the strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer's (the most common form). However, having the gene does not guarantee that someone will develop the disease—it only increases the risk.  One copy of APOE ε4 (from one parent): Increases the risk by about 2-3 times compared to people without it. About 20-30% of people with one ε4 allele develop Alzheimer's. Two copies of APOE ε4 (one from each parent): Increases the risk by 8-12 times. Around 50-70% of people with two copies will develop Alzheimer's by age 85. However, people without APOE ε4 still have some risk, but it's significantly lower (about 10% lifetime risk).

Takeaways

So, Alzheimer’s disease susceptibility almost certainly is partially in our DNA. But just as sharing 98 or 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees allows for radical differences between the two species, having one or two copies of APOE ε4 does not doom us to Alzheimer’s disease.  We do not automatically go from an Alzheimer’s genotype to an Alzheimer's phenotype. As mentioned previously, genes need to be turned on or off at specific times, for specific durations, and in specific settings.

My primary point in this blog is merely to underscore that it is almost always incorrect, and potentially damaging, for you to presume that your concerns are exclusively due to uncontrollable genetics. Instead, look to what you can do to improve your behavior and environments, since they are much more amenable to your deliberate influence.  

What Do You Meme?

Most people have only a superficial understanding of what "meme" means. [The alliteration is purposeful and has meaning to me. You, too, should understand soon.]  Those who use the word “meme’ are likely also to know “mimetic,” but may or may not connect the two terms. If you are reading this mindfully, you will see clearly that the second letter in the two targeted words are different -- e vs. i . That's because they  are not etymologically related.  Since both terms are frequently spoken and written, I thought it might be useful to consider them as a way to sensitize us all to what we are saying and hearing.

The words meme and mimetic do share a common conceptual root but, as noted, they have distinct etymologies and distinct meanings, as well.  When most people speak about a meme, they mean an idea, icon, object, or action that is current and popular. But that does not conform to the original definition. 

Dr. Richard Dawkins in the Selfish Gene introduced "meme" in 1976 as a “gene" analogue that referred to a unit of cultural transmissions similar to the bodily transmissions from a gene. To him, memes, like genes, needed to possess fidelity, (be a faithful copy) fecundity (spread widely) and longevity (have long-standing influence). Of course, those three criteria can be interpreted subjectively or objectively. Regardless of whether the subjective or objective standard is applied, however, most often when I hear or read someone referring to a meme, it does not satisfy the required three criteria. So, I feel that using the word meme often is unnecessary and/or meaningless. Perhaps the user is trying to impress rather than inform. Instead of incorrectly using the word meme, for instance, why not just say "popular"--a less ambiguous word that conveys the intended idea? 

Unlike meme, "mimetic" has a long history in classical philosophy wherein it indicated the process of imitation, especially imitation in behavior or art. The original use of this word was qualitatively different than today's colloquial meaning--something mimetic had to include imitation of reality, representation of reality in a manner that evokes clear recognition or understanding, and verisimilitude (truth likeness) that strives for a degree of believability or truthfulness. It may not be an exact replica of reality but should resemble it enough to be recognized as an authentic representation, an interpretive aspect of the world, and also be a creative transformation of the original.

My point in contrasting the original and colloquial uses of the terms meme and memetic certainly is not to suggest what is absolutely right and what is absolutely wrong conversationally.    Instead, I’m intent in underscoring that people are sometimes more interested in signaling their identity or tribal affiliation than they are in communicating clearly.  I’m sure you are well aware of Matt Walsh’s documentary, What is a Woman? (2022) and of the sex and gender-oriented Congressional hearings that illustrated the language absurdity and confusion attendant to a simple discussion of male-female differences.

There is nothing wrong in judiciously, infrequently  using  memes given certain conditions.  First, your use of the meme must be similar to the use of the meme of your interlocular. Second and most important, you are using the meme mindfully, not merely in rote imitation. Don’t present a prefabricated, popular meme that may not really reflect nuances of your personal idea.  Speak with as much precision as possible.  Then even if you use a meme, it will not be purely imitative, but closer to mimetic. For instance, rather than saying “at the end of the day," perhaps your idea would be better expressed with a phrase like “in the final analysis” or something even more creative and personal. Communicate primarily to transmit clear meaning rather than status or group affiliation.

Marines and Identity Signals

January 4, 2025 is the 60^th anniversary of my arrival at Marine Corps Depot, Parris Island, South Carolina for the onset of a 4-year USMC active enlistment.  In thinking about that, I reflect upon the fact of my lingering Marine identity, and what it might suggest about identities in general.  Let’s start with my, admittedly bizarre, experience in Spain when vacationing there a few years ago. The incident occurred while I was waiting for a bus at a crowded stop.  A stranger with a heavy Scottish accent walked up to me and said, “You were a Marine.” In total shock, I asked, “How did you know?” to which he replied, “I worked as a civilian on a Marine base for 20 years. You all wear your hat the same way.”  I never had thought about hat-wearing as significant or even noteworthy.  At the time, mine was a plain baseball cap with no logo or words whatsoever.  My best guess is that the distinctive feature was do to the facts that I wore the hat tight to my head, pulled close to my eyebrows, and that I had squeezed the visor into a virtual semicircle. Only days later did I recall one and only one Marine-relevant fact—that my boot camp drill instructor did require us to measure two fingers above our eyes as the resting point for our “covers” [hats].  So, six decades later, I continue to unconsciously imitate behavior acquired in a long-gone context.    

We all share my Scotsman’s proclivity for interpreting identity based upon superficial appearances. Imagine walking into a bustling café, the hum of conversations filling the air, and taking a seat at a corner table. Without exchanging a single word with anyone, you begin to notice the people around you. A man in a tailored suit sips his espresso while glancing at his tablet. A young woman with brightly dyed blue hair and a collection of pins on her backpack sketches in a notebook. Across the room, a couple wearing matching workout gear share a smoothie after what looks like a rigorous morning run. Each person is silently telling a story about who they are, using the subtle language of nonverbal cues and personal presentation.

Clothing is often the first thing that catches your eye. It’s not just fabric and stitching—it’s a form of communication. The man in the suit might be signaling professionalism or the importance of his role at work, while the young woman’s vibrant style and unique accessories suggest creativity and an alignment with subcultures or causes she’s passionate about. Traditional garments, like a hijab or kente cloth, may express cultural heritage or a deep connection to personal identity. Each choice, whether intentional or subconscious, reveals something about the wearer’s world.

Next, you notice how people carry themselves. The man in the suit sits upright, exuding confidence, his movements deliberate and measured. The young woman leans over her sketchbook, her shoulders slightly hunched, perhaps signaling intense focus or introversion. Body language is a powerful communicator of emotions and personality. A relaxed stance with open gestures can suggest approachability, while crossed arms and a downward gaze may hint at discomfort or defensiveness.

The café patrons’ physical appearances also provide subtle clues. Age lines on a face might hint at life experience, while ethnic features or hair texture can reflect ancestral heritage. The couple in matching workout gear, with their toned physiques, likely share a commitment to health and fitness, which might even be a cornerstone of their relationship. 

Your attention might be drawn to the young woman’s arm, adorned with intricate tattoos. Each design seems deliberate, like pieces of a puzzle telling a deeply personal story. Tattoos and body modifications often reflect significant life events, cultural affiliations, or deeply held values. Whether it’s a small, minimalist design or a full sleeve of vivid imagery, these marks are windows into the wearer's personal journey.

If you observe further, even grooming habits become part of the narrative. The man’s neatly combed hair and polished shoes might reflect a lifestyle of precision and order, while the woman’s bold blue hair and artistic vibe could signify rebellion against convention or a creative spirit. Makeup choices—whether bold or understated—also serve as a canvas for self-expression.

As I often do, it’s time for me to emphasize the role of context in determining your observations. In a café like this, you might guess that the suited man is a busy professional taking a break from his workday. The sketching woman could be an art student or a freelancer finding inspiration. The couple in workout gear might have just come from a nearby gym, prioritizing health and shared routines. Where people are and what they’re doing often provides a frame for understanding their identity. 

Although silent cues are intriguing, it’s important to approach them with sensitivity and humility. While appearances offer clues, they don’t tell the whole story. People are complex, and their identities are multi-layered, often defying easy categorization. Behavior always is multi-determined. The man in the suit might be heading to a job interview rather than a board meeting. The young woman with the blue hair might be an introvert finding her voice through art. Identity assumptions, even well-intentioned ones, are always provisional hypotheses that need to be supported or refuted.

Influenced by Influencers ?

The power of influence largely derives from the ways that it appeals to our cognitions and emotions. Professional influencers have clear, specific goals that they hope to achieve. They first strive to seize your attention. Then they seek to prepare you cognitively and emotionally to receive their message before they begin to deliver it. Once that is attained, they want to ensure that your frame of mind continues to remain as fully consistent with their goals as possible. In the language of psychology, that means the influencer offers “advance organizers” intended to create in you an enduring “mental set” that renders you continually susceptible to them. Further, because the influencer knows that his likelihood of success depends on how you align with him, he wants to make you feel that he values you. To do so, he might appeal to any of your thoughts and/or emotions. In the present chapter, we look at your mental functions that can be manipulated by those who want to exert their control, and how they might do so.    

Attention  

Most of our mental functions are steered by attention—attention that can be deliberate or incidental. “Attention capture” is a marketer’s first objective. They understand our primitive orienting response by which we turn our attention to a sudden and/or distinctive environmental stimulus. For instance, in the recent past, we all noticed that television commercials typically had broadcasted louder than the shows that they accompanied. After a citizen revolt, the United States government passed the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act. However, on their website, (https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/loud-commercials-tv), the current Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rationalizes that “Some commercials with louder and quieter moments may still seem ‘too loud’ to some viewers, but are still in compliance because average volume is the rule. The FCC does not monitor programming for loud commercials. We rely on people like you to let us know if they think there's a problem. If you have experienced what you believe is a violation of the rules regarding the loudness of commercial TV ads, you may file a complaint with the FCC at no cost.” 

Whether watching television or strolling the avenue then, we ultimately are responsible for deciding how we direct our deliberate attention. That is a first step in maintaining control of our decision making. Individuals who deliberately attend to every new stimulus, fad, or circulating meme will find plenty of reasons to be influenced. Incidental attention, obviously, is less amenable to conscious control, but not totally intractable; we manage it by confining ourselves, as much as possible, to non-coercive places, people, and information. The more we position ourselves in open settings populated by open people, the more we can maintain and express our own opinions, and rationally evaluate the external influences exerted upon us. When we are in closed settings populated by chauvinistic people, we are less prepared and less inclined to resist their influences ...     The preceding is a brief excerpt from my book --  Justifiably Paranoid: Resisting Intrusive and Malicious Influences  https://www.amazon.com/Justifiably-Paranoid-Resisting-Intrusive-Influences/dp/1793449597?ref_=ast_author_dp

Misinformation, Disinformation, Voting, Etc.

Especially now, with the United States presidential election at hand, we are assailed by a never-ending barrage of comments about misinformation and disinformation. So, I wonder, what is the difference between the two and what are the implications?  One way to differentiate is to say that misinformation is merely something objectively wrong.  Whereas disinformation is objectively wrong and vigorously, manipulatively propagandized. Both definitions lead to further questions.  First, how can we be sure that we know what is objectively wrong?  Second, what does the propaganda promote?  An in-depth discussion of these questions is far beyond the scope of a modest blog post such as this.  However, the fact that I’m writing about it means that I think I have something useful to contribute. 

Let’s presume for the moment that you are confronted with information, and have access to the source (s) that will allow you to identify and determine relevant objective truth.  Equally important, you resolve to accept the relevant objective truth when you find it.  Persons who are mindfully reading will realize that nothing that I’ve said so far is easy. Some might say that much of what I have said so far is virtually impossible. For both groups, I hear you.

How do we proceed, then, to assess the proffered information?  An initial consideration is to decide whether it is “mal-information”—implying the possibility of bad or evil influence. Of course, what is bad and evil require value judgement.  For instance, murder is abhorrent, but it would neither be bad nor evil, I think, to murder someone who is about to slaughter an innocent family. 

Human beings naturally default to what Daniel Kahneman (2011) called “System One” thinking, by which he meant thinking that requires the least amount of effort. Accordingly, I’m asking you to resist the natural inclination to default to System One, but to put forth more deliberate mental action than usual.  I justify my request by returning to the mal-information concept. Since mal-information deals with values, you need not burden yourself by ruminating about each piece of new data that you encounter, only about what you truly value.  Complicating things, however, is the uncomfortable truth that I mentioned earlier—that deciding what you value is itself a value judgment.  Then gather as much objective, relevant data as possible, and mindfully process it to the extent that you’re able.  All this requires commitment and independence of thought that enables you to resist exogenous influences

When you’re in a reflective mood and have the time available, I suggest that you sit down and list your core values. You might do so in a kind of hierarchy. For instance, you could list the values that you have for yourself as an individual, the values that you have for your children—if you are a parent— and for your family—if you have one—the values you have for your friends and neighbors, and the values that you have for your town, state, and country.  After that exhausting exercise, you will appreciate the difficulty of determining your values, and—more important—of deciding what to do about the values that you truly embrace.  Ideally, going forward you will be less inclined to disparage others and slander them with ad hominem attacks whenever they make some non-valued comment at odds with your System One beliefs.  That stance will help combat the rampant contemporary interpersonal conflicts plaguing us and our nation.

Earlier, I asserted that your ability to assemble objective, relevant data and to mindfully process it requires you to value independent, autonomous thought that resists exogenous influences.  In other words, after adequate reflection, you must VALUE and TRUST yourself above all outside implicit and explicit pressure.  For many of us, that means that the values are solidly based on the best authentic data that we can find, and, importantly, that we do not mindlessly succumb to our “tribal” standards to earn social approval. Resist the "bandwagon effect" by which you simply jump aboard the latest and/or loudest group-promulgated ideas.  By default, assume that virtually your entire tribe is using System One—not having mindfully thought through whatever they are endorsing.  Your own value-guided research alone ultimately should determine what is and is not mal-information. If you do that and vote accordingly, you need not answer to anyone. 

Reference

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast And Slow.  New York: McMillan 

Be Quiet !

Since Socrates lived from about 470-399 B.C., one reasonably can assume that many deep thinkers have valued and practiced what we presently call the Socratic Method for at least the last 2500 years.  You no doubt know that the method employs a questioning and answering format, frequently called dialog-based inquiry.  The process can be slow and even tedious.  Is it worth the effort?  Hopefully, yes.

When conducted properly, the Socratic Method enables both questioner and answerer to learn. And that learning is not limited merely to acquiring objective information.  Both also learn about themselves, about each other, and about the way they think, as individuals and as a dyad.  Ideally, their ideas are critically examined, reflected upon, and refined.  It’s no secret that often the putative experts learn as much or more than the novices with whom they are dialoging.  So, those are some benefits to dialogic discourse. 

Non-dialogic discourse, then, produces one-sided communications or actions that inhibit both objective learning and mutual understanding. Before you can avoid `those problems, of course, you first must be mindful of the most common dialogue impediments.  Among these are:

Monologue: One person dominates the conversation without allowing others to contribute.

Authoritarianism: Imposing one's ideas or viewpoints without considering or engaging with others’ perspectives.
Interruptions or Dismissals: Cutting someone off before they can fully express themselves or dismissing their opinions outright.
Lack of Listening: When one party does not actively listen or show genuine interest in the other person's point of view.
Ignoring Feedback: Failing to respond to or acknowledge the other person’s input.

There is another very critical issue that I never have seen or heard anyone explicitly raise.  It is one that I introduced and discussed at length in my Questioning & Answering book.  In brief, I suggested that one can have discussions that pose as dialogic but clearly are not.  I have termed one of these as “incompatible message and/or relationship pseudo-dialogue” (IMRD). These occur when interlocutors’ talk masquerades as dialogue, but really is non-dialogic attack.   Often the topic is a proverbial hot-button issue, such as political, religious, or racial opinions.  The varieties of assault also are discussed in my Questioning & Answering book.  Two common ones are the “ad hominem” attack wherein a derogatory claim is lodged against an interlocutor rather than commenting on the objective topic being addressed.  Another is “guilting” in which the attacker tries to make the counterpart feel solely responsible for a problem. Both these IMRD attacks explicitly or implicitly weaponize message and relationship emotion to win a battle rather than rationality to argue an objective point.

 You know that you are in a IMRD relationship when any single or combination of he following obtains:

1. The talk is primarily parallel monologue instead of reciprocal dialogue.
2. There is lack of emotional or intellectual intimacy.
3. The focus is transactional, based only on practical or superficial needs.
4. You perceive lack of empathy and responsiveness.
5. One person employs significantly more power or authority during the encounter.

To facilitate dialogic discourse, be responsible and proactive.   Ensure that you are not weaponizing.  Do your best to promote authentic dialogue.  Refuse to participate in IMRD.  When it begins, label it immediately and explicitly. Invite a restart, but with the stipulation that honest, open, objective dialog scrupulously must be maintained.

Presidential Election Psychology

This blog post is written on September 11, 2024, a day after the first Trump-Harris televised debate.  Private and public speculation has been frenzied and frantic.  Some have suggested or implied that the fate of America, even of the planet, will be determined by the presidential election—“the most important election in our history.”  Democrat and Republican partisans are employing every influence trick to nudge, scare, or bludgeon you to vote their way.

I am not in that business.  Rather, I have a modest suggestion that is easier said than done: think, really think, for yourself.  Since neither you nor I have the time or expertise to parse every essential detail required to make the best voting decision, I limit myself to briefly discussing two related topics.

First, let’s consider an often mentioned but rarely practiced mental activity – mindfulness.  Our simple working definition is mindfulness as your being aware of what is happening to you internally and externally.  For instance, when you see a Harris or Trump advertisement do you reflexively nod or shake your head, smile or snarl?   If your response precedes any point that the advertisement proffers, you are not being mindful.  Of course, you can justify your affirming or negating reflex by indicating – correctly – that the ad is meant to get your vote independent of its truth value.  You can justify that instinctive, mindless agreement or disagreement with any bit of information about Trump or Harris, regardless of its source or validity.  As you may have experienced, many family or friend feuds have their origins in the affirming or negating reflex that makes any political discussion useless and/or contentious.

Why the absence of rationality?  Chang, J., Kuo, C., Huang, C. et al. (2018) approach the issue indirectly by considering both reactive and proactive cognitive control mechanisms.  The former refers to thought that is “top-down” in the sense that our preexisting thoughts overwhelm our interpretation of present information such that they stifle the incoming information.  The latter is the opposite – bottom-up - in the sense that incoming information is processed before preexisting thoughts significantly impact it.   The study in question found that high mindfulness individuals were able to evidence adaptive reactive and proactive cognitive control whereas low mindfulness ones relied excessively on proactive control. 

This finding leads us to a second often-mentioned concept – confirmation bias.  As you probably know, confirmation bias causes us preferentially to seek information that reinforces our current beliefs and to avoid information that contradicts them.  That is, confirmation bias is exclusively top-down/proactive.

Mindfulness, then, is most often an advantage in virtually all mentation.  Do you tend toward mindfulness?  Psychologists would like to be able to differentiate those who do from those who do not.  Toward that end, Altizer, Ferrell, and Natale (2020) investigated mindfulness and personality types.  They concluded that mindfulness was more prominent in “well-adjusted” persons, since they are inclined to cope adequately with stress.  Similarly, mindfulness tended to be higher in ambitious persons, but only those whose ambition included a high level of positive human relationships.  The Altizer group proposed that mindfulness was less present in overly cautious, defensive, and excitable persons.

What does all this say regarding the Harris-Trump election?  The obvious conclusions are that we would do well to be as mindfully open-minded as possible, and by refraining insofar as possible from confirmation bias.  You can facilitate those processes by:

1.             Taking a deep, stress-reducing breath when confronted with election ads and other influencers, animate or inanimate.

2.             Considering how your election attitudes are affecting your personal well-being, your interpersonal relationships, your descendants, and the welfare of our nation.

3.             Trying to reduce your defensiveness.

4.            Voting according to policies rather than personalities.

A final point about which I never have seen research, but that deserves it: selective mindfulness.  By that I mean being attentive and rational about one feature of reality and not about another closely related feature.  Applying the idea to the election, that would concern being mindful about a democrat or republican, but failing to be so about the opposite-party candidate.  Please think about whether selective mindfulness or MINDLESSNESS applies to you, and about how it could influence how you decide to vote.

References

Altizer, C. C., Ferrell, B. T., & Natale, A. N. (2020). Mindfulness and personality: More natural for some than others and how it matters. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. Advance online publication.   http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000189

 Chang, J., Kuo, C., Huang, C. et al.   The Flexible Effect of Mindfulness on Cognitive Control.  Mindfulness 9, 792–800 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0816-9