|"Say, you can't do that to a lady!"|
If Greece were to be forgiven their debts, would they respond by choosing A or choosing B? What sayest you?
A. Being thankful, warned and immediately implement policy changes to stop the overspending; or
B. Would they continue to spend that which they do not have; or possibly even increase the over spending?
How you predict their reaction tells us a lot about what you think of human nature.
In the Free Fish versus Fishing Pole, how you feel mankind (in general) will react to Free Fish, reveals what you believe about human nature.
There are two basic opposing theories upon the nature of man:
Theory One says that man was created unstable, that is, prone to transgression, selfishness, deception and law breaking.
Theory Two says that man is born 'good', therefore, his nature is prone to doing that which is right, seeking the betterment of others over self, law keeping, and so on.
The former teaches the necessity of discipline, as his natural inclination will otherwise be trouble.
The other teaches that the inherent goodness within man needs only a good environment to see it through to fruition.
Theory One says that given the choice between right and wrong, it is more likely wrong will be chosen, unless specific early training is given, while Theory Two says that mankind has a "free will", that is, a will neutral from all external influence, and makes "good choices" unless his environment tells him otherwise.
In a recent study on weight loss, researchers found that "conservatives" did better at losing weight than those who identified themselves as "liberals" and upon further examination, they found that the successful held to a philosophy of "personal responsibility", more than those who struggled to lose weight.
What does this have to do with Statement Analysis?
The better your understanding of human nature, the greater your ability to experience success in Statement Analysis will be evidenced.
Human nature is quite complex; far more than anything I could cover in an article, or even in book, or ten volumes of books.
We all hold, generally, to one theory or the other, and I have covered "free will" in prior articles, but briefly hold that free will, that is, truly free will, is a myth.
For example, should you lay before me the choice between liver and lobster, my will is "free to choose" which I shall have for dinner.
I choose lobster.
Yet, I have never tasted liver.
The two lay before me, and although I may choose one or the other, my will not "free" but under influence.
Having never tasted liver, I have tasted and loved lobster. This is one element. Next, as a young boy, I grew up seeing television movies in which children, particularly, the Little Rascals, being told to "eat your liver" in which they made faces that distinctly communicated a vocabulary word best summed up by:
There are already two influences removing neutrality from my thinking, yet there is still more. Pictures of liver significantly increase my prejudice against it.
Also, there is the all natural diet C.K. Dexter-Haven enjoys in which he is given an entire chicken, over the course of several days, uncooked, bones and all, including the internal organs. Having learned this from police K-9 breeders, he and other dogs seem to live far longer and with far more health than their compatriots who have the chicken burned down to tiny little itty-bitty forms where one may wonder if there is any nutritional value left. "Old Roy" from Walmart specializes in things like chicken beaks and feet, but even this is second to its number one ingredient: corn.
Having cut up the whole chicken for daily meals, I have both seen and handled livers and I do not want to eat them. Even if you were to slip it into a soup, having me eat it and love it, I would not be happy.
The point being is that the will is not "truly free and independent", but has a 'bent' towards one way or another, and this is why neutrality or the 'clean slate' description is false.
One way or another, human nature has a 'bent' or 'leaning', and no matter how much we claim that "right and wrong" are indefinable, or 'fluid', as is popular today, parents teaching children have a general yet incomplete knowledge of right from wrong.
Theory One says the child's bent is to do wrong.
Theory Two says the child is bent to do right.
Neither claims the child has any judicial guilt, having done nothing wrong.
Various vocations highlights human nature, especially over many years. Defense attorneys can, after decades of defending people, can get an interesting insight into nature.
Nurses, also after decades of experiences, especially those who work in maternity, can get insight that is not readily available in statistics. Although this can be, like everything else in our country, insulting to some, delivery room nurses often predict whether or not a new born is likely to have child protective intervention based upon the name given the child. They said "a novelty name sometimes shows the baby to be a novelty to the parents."
Had I given my children a novelty name, and this statistic proved solid, I would not feel offended. The nurses gave examples but what I observed among them (over the discourse in years, not months) was that the older the nurse, the more likely she would side with the asserted belief.
There exists a myriad of complexities within these two but, for those of you who wish to know (I am one of them), it is fascinating to learn about human nature, even as we ask ourselves about what happens when we die.
In interviewing, the more one understand of human nature, the more consistent success will be realized.
I will cover Theory Two when I have addressed some specifics within Theory One that are directly applicable to the work of analysis and deception detection.
Today, I cover "labor" within human nature.
We looked at Genesis, and although I only covered a sketch, I hope you found it interesting. Whether or not you hold to it, it allows you to understand what much of the western world has held, particularly gaining popularity during the Protestant Reformation, and particularly losing popularity in the 20th Century, up to today.
Human nature does not change.
Our opinion of human nature changes, and my own has changed dramatically over the years. I confess that I use the comment section for my research, and while having conducted more than 6,000 interviews in the last several decades, I continue to learn and gather information. I took greatly detailed notes of many of these interviews and reviewed them carefully. This, itself, taught me much.
I specifically seek out an opinion from the audience of each seminar I conduct to see where they stand. I find that the responses change as geography changes.
I find it all interesting, but especially how it works itself out in practice.
*There are always those who do poorly in analysis due to cynicism regarding human nature. There are just those so suspicious that they will fail due to the belief that everyone is lying, even though they hear me say how few people tell outright lies.
*There are those who see things through rose colored glasses and "look for the good" in everyone. These "pollyanna" types actually do well in analysis because they can follow rules for deception, but are better equipped at "withdrawing content" from a statement or interview. In training the "pollyanna", I find that, over time, they even out. It seems, at least for me, easier to teach a gullible person than a cynical person. This may have something to do with trauma history.
In interviewing, I have tremendous confidence that I will get to the truth. It is extremely rare that I feel anything less than this powerful emotion. The only time I feel that I will not succeed is when someone is not only refusing to talk, but refuses to talk, as expressed in very few words.
The refusal to talk is very rare, and in many years, it has happened less than a handful.
If someone says, "I don't feel like talking..."
I got 'em.
He only "feels" like not talking, which means the right questions will get him talking.
"I don't have anything to say to you" is another one in which I will get information. This person has things to say, but just not to "me", so I strategize accordingly, knowing, he has something to say. I just need to change "me" into someone he will talk to.
The only closed door is "I will not talk."
If this is met with compliance, that is, if the person is "truthful" to his word, he will not say another word, including, "I already told you I will not talk."
With those who resist, I have sometimes said, "I will only have half a story and I think you should have your part told" and offer the presence of an attorney, including an 800 number and a card, with my phone, as no one's rights should be violated.
If he has the info, I will have the info.
The above usually works but if it doesn't, the knowledge of human nature, itself, serves me in ways you might struggle to imagine.
I hope that sharing just a few details (though I carefully guard my secrets) will assist you, especially if you are in investigations, investigative journalism (rumored to still exist), therapy, counseling, sales, communications, and wherever you may be that requires you to gain information, including...
My Scenario Was as Follows:
I. The Need for Information
II. The Use of Human Nature
III. The Result
Understanding human nature is critical to the most elementary and basic success in Statement Analysis, even if one does not recognize their own philosophy or name it as such. They just "do" and they do well. They can do better, should they apply themselves in this manner.
I. The Need for Information
I had a case where a company had a young woman who applied to work for a company but had been terminated by another company with a reputation for excellence. This did not bode well for her, however, yet the company considering hiring her felt that she would be an excellent candidate.
Her claim: "I don't know why I was terminated."
HR had tested her and she scored high on the emotional intelligence test. I reviewed it and agreed with the assessment. This was someone who was intelligent and possessed a good sense of self.
Her personal statement also was analyzed for truth and she was truthful, in all of her assertions. This means that someone may be incorrect about something, but is not attempting to deceive. (This is something that every company that wishes to reduce shrinkage, frivolous suits, fraudulent unemployment and so on, should put into practice.)
The initial interview was with an experienced HR professional who reported that she had done very well in the interview and struggled only with the "I don't know why I was terminated" portion. The young woman appeared to be telling the truth, even though it seemed odd.
My advice was to contact the company and "get" the details, knowing that this would mean, "We can only confirm that she worked from Jan 1 to March 1 and her employment ended there. "
In a country that has a high percentage of lawyers and one for whom theft has been decriminalized through the court system, I do not blame the company for not giving any details out.
II. The Use of Human Nature
Back to our initial study in Genesis.
We learned that the Creator took man from the ground (element of which he returns upon death) and then "took" the man to the Garden to "dress and keep it", that is, to work and protect it. This means that the man has a gender, or "sexual affinity" with work. This is part of his nature: to be productive, to do things, to accomplish things and when that is done, to protect and enjoy his labor. Woman, that is, the one taken from man, also partakes in this gender identity, though not in the exact same manner.
I continue to enjoy Avinoam Sapir's "Linguistic Archeology" where I learn at each reading. He does a marvelous analysis of the word "take", which is not only when the Creator "took" Adam to the Garden to work and protect it, but later when a man "takes" a wife. It is a word of authority and confidence. (more on this another day).
Mankind, that is, human nature, has a distinct connection with the earth. The earth is where everything in your home has come from. Everything you have, from your computer microchip, to your bar of soap has come from the ground.
I always find it interesting when someone in their 60's attends a training. I hone in on them to see if they are open to answering questions, as it is a fascinating generation of "hippies" and "free love" and "we were going to save the world" resignation of failure, and so on.
Most all of them talk about how their view of human nature changed 180 degrees from "back in the day" when they were going to change the world. Those in social work, in particular, speak (note the present tense; this is ongoing as I met one self identified hippie this weekend in social services who shared the same disillusion of life, while waiting on line for chocolate chip ice cream) in resigned terms of failure.
Inevitably, the conversation or interview goes to the subject of "work" or "labor" with them, and this is where they express the most disappointment.
They believed in Theory Two, and that if they were to change the environment of the person, life would be better, whereas Theory One says the change comes more from the person, rather than the environment. This is the:
Give a hungry man a fish, or...
Give a hungry man a fishing pole, instead, clash of ideals.
Over the years, I think I only met one "hippie" (I use this term fondly) that held to "fishing pole" theory in the 60's or 70's. All else where of the "free fish" view.
For younger audiences reading this, the scenario is on how to help someone in trouble. Do you give him a free fish, or do you give him a fishing pole, so that he can help himself?
Your answer reveals your political and moral view of today.
In Genesis, the man was given access to the garden's delight, but his commandment was to work.
Later, in the ancient Hebrew welfare system, a field was to be harvested in straight lines, by workers who were to go through it, up and down, one time only. What they did not harvest was then left for the poor to go, themselves, and harvest.
In the New Testament, the same theme continued with the prohibition against feeding those who refused to work with "if a man will not work, neither shall he eat", allowing for hunger pains to awaken his innate nature to be productive, according to the Genesis account. Note that "will not" is effort, which excludes those who "cannot" work.
The clash of two belief systems comes to a head here with the Theory One saying that if you give a man a free fish, he will look for another free fish, as is human nature, but if you inspire him with a pole and hunger pains, he will not only feed himself, but will have a "sexual satisfaction of his affinity", or a "masculine satisfaction" within himself and inspire him to:
a. catch enough fish to eat some, store some;
b. catch enough fish to eat some, store some and then trade some for money for a boat to;
c. catch even more, so as to employ others, who, themselves, will now need to purchase new poles;
d. which will have the pole makers busy with inventory, hiring more and...
well, you get the idea. Eventually, if he turns the fish into enough enterprise, envy will arise in someone else. If this envy becomes institutionalized, the productive one will be taxed, demonized, and eventually told, "See that business all built up? You didn't build that."
Envy and Jealousy are different. Being provoked to jealousy may cause someone to see how productive fishing can be, and imitate it. Envy is not satisfied to compete, but says, "if I can't have it, I will destroy his."
The opposite is where the man, deliberately created to work, by the design of the connection between his physiology and work, will feel a terrible dissatisfaction in life and will not "feel like a man."
Question: What does a man do when he does not feel like a man?
Answer; He goes out and tries to prove to himself that he is a man, outside of work. This can take on two distinctly testosterone driven activities:
Neither are, themselves, bad, with both "Genesis" related. Man was to "build" up the garden but he was also to "protect" it, and David, whom Mr. Sapir asserts wrote Genesis, described how a boy's play with bows, arrows, rocks, and things, that is, sports, was designed to teach him how to defend his home, his wife, his children, and so on. Violence is sometimes necessary in self protection.
Reproduction was, especially in the ancient world, necessary not only for a survival of mankind, but individual survival in an agricultural society.
When a baby was born, the parents took care of the children, but when the parents became old, the children took care of them. This was why the ancients had so many laws protecting the family and why reproduction was also important enough to safeguard the human heart with laws and even vows.
To reproduce a child meant to care for, and protect the child, two distinct outworking of testosterone. A man who thus produced a child fulfilled his manhood, and then provided for his child, which also fulfilled him, and went on to protect his child, including putting a warm roof above the child's head, all fulfilled that which he was created to do. He felt like a man.
When he does not work, he is "sexually" or "in gender", "off kilter" or off balance and most unfulfilled.
Hence, babies born to men who are idle during the day, rather than being productive, is not only seen, but seen in such a large number that it becomes a cultural distinctive. Cultural distinctive are not based upon exceptions.
The US statistics about children born into families where there is no father (indiscriminate reproduction, or abandonment) showed acute increases in crime, substance abuse, poverty and all that attends these things.
Do this for a generation or two and you will find that not only does no one get wealthy off of free fish, but become generationally enslaved to waiting upon the fish caught by others, with young sons growing up without fathers exampling what fishing looks like. Thus is the assertion of the Theory One person; human nature is bent towards laziness and needs "thou shalt nots" early and often in life, while Theory Two says, "No, give him more fish and you'll see. Its the environment, stupid, not the nature. "
This system has now messed with human nature and has reaped the results with multi-generational welfare.
What will Greece do?
Stay tuned, but do you really see them repealing their endless lists of bureaucratic regulations, resulting in far less government, on their own 'free will'?
How often do we elect law makers versus law repealers?
Each new election means new laws. Some might be good, and necessary as environment changes (laws to govern vehicles weren't a pressing need in 1776), but what of the myriad of laws that just keep on coming, and keep on making life more complicated, and keep on restricting freedoms and...
keep on lining the pockets of lawyers?
When a man does not feel like a man because he is not producing he is not 'dressing', that is, working, the garden, but neither is he 'keeping' it; that is, protecting it.
Question: Protecting it against what?
Answer: Decay. Erosion. Rot. Neglect. Theft.
Do you see where this theory is going?
In short, the lack of habitual productivity leads to, well, the lack of productivity. This is specifically seen in:
not taking care of one's home.
Not taking care of one's children.
Not protecting his family from others.
Not protecting his home from others.
and...in detail, not doing homework with the kids, to help them learn about what it takes to "dress and keep" the earth, which means poor grades, which means low paying jobs which means that it actually is better to stay home and get free fish than it is to work at just enough paycheck to lose the free fish.
Then if they have a child, they get a bit more fish, and if they have two, yet a bit more fish again...
The New Testament declaration: "If a man will not work, neither shall he eat", prohibiting the church from giving out food to those who refuse to work, is condemned as "immoral", as the free fish program gets to hire:
Fish record keepers;
Fish supervisors of record keepers;
Fish supervisors of fish distributors;
Fish supervisors of fish inspectors;
Fish managers of fish supervisors, and so on until you have one large but fiercely loyal:
Did you ever stop to think that you are nothing more than a voting block?
It is not a pleasant feeling for any of us.
In conversation, I seek to find women who are "for Hilary!" in 2016. I always ask "why?" with the shortest possible question.
I have yet to find anyone familiar with the political positions of Ms. Clinton. This may be due to ignorance, or it may be to just how often she changes, but what it comes down to is that they are voting for her because she shares the same sex organs that they do.
This is our "Pavlovian" response and tell us (all) that we are conditioned to respond in a certain way, by media domination and propaganda. There are certain words that, in public, make me uneasy. I have asked myself, "why?" recently, and sometimes, I did not even know why.
Thus the success of the 'voting block' mentality, and I consider myself somewhat informed, at least, compared to others. Ugh!
The Theory One, held by people of faith, says that if given a choice between productivity and laziness, unless specifically trained, we will choose the idle. We would buy a lottery ticket and cross our fingers.
In fact, our nature is such (here I go again) that deception is within all of us, and must be trained out of us, however, the nature of deception is such that:
the deception within us seeks to deceive us into not recognizing it.
Later, much later in life, I studied the "deceptiveness of human nature" in deeper terms and found that the nature within us, seems to love to convince us that we are the moral superior of others and this is how politicians play their voting blocks.
Recently in a town hall meeting in Minnesota, residents were angry that the US federal government had brought in 110,000 immigrants to their city in "resettlement" and did so without asking the residents. They worried about money and had not had a voice in this. The federal government did it.
"The chief point of contention was over the refugee resettlement program. When citizens asked for a moratorium on the program until after an economic impact statement had been done, Congressman Emmer asked why anyone would have a problem with people in the United States legally."
Their concerns about finance became a "moral low ground" position as having a "problem" with legal immigration. They may have worried about the strain on school and health care budgets, but they knew if they kept going, eventually they would be called "racist" for worrying about money. They also likely knew what is now becoming a 'norm' for us: main stream media will only report things "one way", and in this case, only in the positive.
Going back to the fishing pole, would immigration be the same if one could not apply for free fish until one has worked for a certain period of time, putting fish back into the pool?
How you feel about human nature will guide your answer.
Mankind, according to Theory One, needs incentive, as his nature turns the wrong way, and hunger pains can help drive him. Since he was created to work, when he is idle, he causes all sorts of problems. It is like looking forward to coming vacation and working really hard so that you feel you deserved your time off, instead of calling out sick the day before. As a boy, I enjoyed my dessert more if I ate my vegetables. There is something to be said about accomplishment, even if it is your own mother saying, "eat healthy!" or competing homework and chores, and then enjoying free time.
This is because, (if true), we have been created to work, or accomplish things, and in doing so, we fulfill something within us. The opposite leaves us empty and troubled, and could lead us to trouble others.
III. The Result
The company reported that the reference was the dull, "we can only confirm that she worked here for 3 months...", and was frustrated.
I said, "not a problem. I will find out why she was terminated."
I was confident because of one thing:
Human nature does not change.
Mankind was created to do things, therefore it is part of human nature to do stuff. It is in all of our nature to "do" or accomplish something that has do with with "stuff" and all "stuff" came from the same place we came from: the ground.
This is a technique that I use successfully and I teach others in interviewing because no one other than the "I will not speak" person can resist this line of questioning.
I called the reference and got the speech.
No surprise here.
I then told the supervisor that I understood and commented on that she sounded very busy. I was baiting my hook to ask her, "What do you do there?"
Everyone of us likes to talk.
We have been created to communicate and no other created being on earth communicates like we do. Yes, we have a few who grunt, but mostly, we have amazingly detailed speech and communication through words that is rich in diversity.
She sounded grateful for the empathetic comment and confirmed, yes, she really was busy.
I told her that I was familiar with her company, but not her department. That's all it took and she was off and talking about her busy day, but especially at the excellence of her department. She had emotional satisfaction, at the end of the day, of the work she and her employees accomplished, every day, Monday through Friday.
Now, once you have someone talking, the information is flowing and your trained skills from Statement Analysis are picking out the most important words to her (the subject) and you are asking very short questions, yet specific, based upon her words, which only inspires her even more so.
It took her only 15 minutes to establish this rapport and flow of information where it would now be "impolite" for her to withhold information from me even though, prior to her direct statement, she leaked out why the young woman was terminated.
She finally said, "Do you want to know why I fired her? I will tell you. She was a lovely girl, and a great worker. She was very friendly and outgoing but in this office, the workers are all quiet, keep to themselves, and resented her disrupting their silence with her friendliness and I had to let her go before her probation period ended but she was great..." and on and on she went.
The company that thought to hire her especially liked her friendly outgoing personality. For them, it was a perfect fit. For the quiet, mathematics only like atmosphere of book keeping, she was a terrible match.
This is just one small sample of how the knowledge of human nature serves me in my success rate and is a small secret of success that I share with you.
You might want to consider if the account in Genesis, comically mirrored in "Men are From Mars; Women are From Venus" (or wherever they are from) is truth, and if it is, what are its implications for you?
Will it impact how you view your spouse?
Will it help you understand why your son and daughter are quite different?
Will you vote for Hilary? I say this in jest, but I recognize that there are some who can articulate something along the lines of where Hilary stands, it is just that I have not, in my life time, seen someone so willing to change at any time, over any issue, and blur any possible distinction in opinion, while receiving standing ovations from the very people who should be silent: the press.
The kindly but remorseful "hippie" social workers have revealed a lot to me in my research. There were a few "hanging on to the dream" but those actively in the field, working with new parents, especially, are the most profoundly sorrowful. I was schooled by one of them, many years ago.
I was advocating for a "heroin mama", that is, a mother with a heroin addiction who has given birth to her child and wants custody. She had gotten clean, and saw the child go through withdrawals. This was a time when nurses made certain that mothers knew how the infant suffered. Of recent years, nurses are often told that they are not permitted to do so.
In this case, I did admit that the mother distanced herself, emotionally, through words, from the child's suffering, but the minimization was expected.
An "old salt", that is, a veteran and self described hippie from the 60's said, "Peter, she doesn't want the baby. She just wants to get high."
This was in the face of clean random tests and appropriate responses in the nurses' notes.
"How do you know?" I asked her.
"She won't keep her nursing appointment with the nurses, Peter. Watch."
Although I was put off by her harsh demeanor, I knew she had 30 + years in the field, at that time (long retired now), and wondered if I had been taken in by the emotions, rather than by the words, of the mother.
When the hospital called to report mother did a "no show", I went to the mother's apartment.
She had not worked a day in her life, but had an apartment paid for, along with cable TV (this was before the internet age), and plenty of extras. She existed, week to week, without labor.
When I arrived there, the apartment was a mess and she had her pet dog on her lap and said, "I want the baby but I could not find anyone to watch Snoopy."
I was filled with a profound disappointment.
I did not mind being "wrong" or even appearing as "gullible" to the professionals that the mother had signed releases for me to talk with, but because I had mis-read her, and to the older professionals, they "knew" the patterns of life.
You may successfully argue that this was just one case and does not represent the human race of which I will quickly agree with you.
Yet it is what caused me to study, take notes, and use in my interviews, that taught me my opinion of human nature; the mother's, as well as my own, and it was not a flattering view.
I recognize that many of you will disagree with some ancient story from antiquity about how we came into existence. I do wonder, however, and rely upon the comments, just how many of you are open minded, to learn, and grow.
It is no different than the early questions in seminars where I seek to learn who is overly cynical, overly gullible, and who possesses emotional intelligence, which includes the element of humility.
I admire those who hurt over someone in need of fish, and only differ from them in how to best help those in need. I do not know anyone, nor have I met anyone, who would not personally open their fridge and share their food with a fellow human being in need. Whenever a crisis hits, Americans give. This is why "fake hate" is so successful: we are a generous people. But should this generosity be enforced by government, which means the lengthy list of government employees?
What you feel about human nature dictates how you feel about big government versus small government.
The Apostle Paul, in writing to the churches, claimed to have the authority of Christ in his own declarations and said, "A man that does not provide for his own house hold, is worse than one who does not believe", for this one, claiming to be a follower of Christ, like a "hater", is "carrying the Name in vain", that is, declaring himself to be one thing by his words, but the opposite by his actions.
Question: This terrible condemnation of hypocrisy was based upon what?
Answer: Labor. Work. Provision. Protection.
This is where some of our child support laws initially came from, even though many that believe it do not recognize that it was part of the arguments from the man who used the Genesis account as the foundation of his arguments.
I also recognize that this view point, that is, "Creationism" is not only unpopular today, but may become, in some form or another, contrary to laws in the United States.
I am of this opinion, now, due to court rulings that had to do with religious freedom in practice, especially that of orthodox Jews seeking to practice their faith in the United States, only to be successfully sued for practicing their faith.
Creationism itself, is of faith, but it is also something, sans the portion of creation, itself, that many people today still hold to. They may not recognize where it came from, but they raise their children to a code that is inherited generationally, even if they know not its origin. They tell their children:
"do not hit your sister" but follow it with lessons on how hitting impacts the victim. The use the negative, first, and then the positive. This is the "thou shalt not" philosophy that is ancient.
When Paul argued, "does not nature itself teach you...?" as a rhetorical question, he was referring to that order in Genesis that appeared "out of sequence", but was only "out of sequence" to us, until we understood:
1. God made man
2. God said it was "not good" for man to be alone
3. God then brought to man all the animals in nature, rather than making woman
4. This caused man to become acutely and perhaps, painfully, aware of his status as "not good" because, unlike all the animals, he had no mate.
5. Then, woman was created.
Lastly, as a caution to those who celebrate the crushing of freedom, please note that even as you hold to an opinion where opposition has been crushed, either legally, or through law suits, or even through public shaming, loss of job, reputation, etc, the freedom surrendered, will, some day if history has its say, come back to ensnare you, as well.
We will get to Theory Two, the optimistic philosophy, eventually, as we work through various beliefs about human nature.
I hope that you have "food for thought" for yourself, and consider yourself fortunate to still be able to hear a view, publicly, that one day soon, you may not be able to hear, at least, legally, or without consequence, since various attempts or ideologies that will suppress freedom over the internet, specifically, are now public knowledge. If a "gun forum" can be shut down, even though I am not a gun owner, I know that other forums that do not discuss illegal activities can be shut down, too.
In our freedom of speech, we held that it was the conspiratorial and treasonous speech, against the king of England, specifically, that they had in mind. It was not necessary to guard the freedom of those who agreed with the colonialists, but those who opposed them. This is where the famous "Voltairian" quote arose, which has been said in many ways, sometimes comically, but basically is this:
I don't agree with you in what you are saying. Yet, I defend, even with my life, your right to say it.
I hope that this impacts your choices when you examine "the expected" in analysis.
I recognize, however, that language is possibly about to undergo the biggest change ever in human history of speech. It is something perhaps not even considered prior to our day.
We know that language shifts. I said to someone yesterday, "Say, when did you start rooting for the New York Mets?" deliberately using one of my favorite phrases from the 1930's.
Sadly, the person just answered the question without comment, "I've always rooted for them. I hate the Yankees."
Social experiment failure.
How marvelously odd it is that an ancient story, thousands of years old, has been carried down through so many generations, in so many countries, of so many different languages, and continues to influence us, whether we recognize it or not.
You may not agree with the New Testament command not to feed someone who refuses to work, but at least you know its origin and why some people hold to it, and why they warn against the consequences to entire generations that are given free fish.
It is the basis for tolerance: understanding, even when disagreeing.