Thursday, July 2, 2015
Understanding the Genesis of Human Behavior: Our Propensity
Rick Jones made several false police reports and raised more than $20,000 in donations before he was caught and returned the money. The locale expended resources investigating the crime, and searching for the perpetrator or perpetrators. People from around the country showed their support of him in their donations.
Should he be prosecuted for the various crimes he has committed, including fraud, and filing a false police report?
Is this the right thing to do for the sake of justice, as well as to discourage others who will do the same?
Or, is this, as his attorneys said, a "cry for help", for someone who is living in one standardized environment, while being different from that environment, and should be given help, instead?
How you answer this question can reveal to you your personal philosophy about human nature, itself.
There are two basic viewpoints on human nature (as well as a myriad of off-shoots) that each of us comes to where we embrace one or the other.
One is that mankind, that is, human nature is basically good, and bad comes from negative environment, while the other says that human nature is basically bent towards wrong doing, and needs no lessons on wrong doing, but instead needs lessons on doing right.
You very likely, even if unbeknown to you, believe one or the other.
This is a Statement Analysis view of Creationism, that we might consider what people believe about human nature.
These are the two basic beliefs:
One is that a child is born with a nature that is naturally bent to do wrong while the other says that the nature of the child has a natural bent to do right.
This is also called "unstable" in some older writings. It is an inherent selfishness in human nature, that must be countered by instruction.
Often people may say "I hold to neither view", but when they describe the view they do hold to, they confirm one or the other basic view point. This "neutral" viewpoint, falls to the wayside, generally, in the sentences following, "I don't think either..." as the initial objection. The "neutral" argument is difficult to maintain.
This, however, is for another day.
Neither holds that the child is guilty of having done anything wrong at birth, nor as an infant, yet one says his nature, human nature, that is, has a tendency to the wrong, while the other believes that the human nature the child carries into this life is naturally inclined to doing good.
This which is brought to the child, with either propensity embraced is nurture.
Nurturing is the development and culturing of the child's nature, based upon what one believes the child is born with.
Your viewpoint on which a child is born with impacts:
Analysis, specifically in "The Expected Versus The Unexpected", as well as in profiling.
The decision you make also impacts:
How you raise your children.
Whether you embrace traditional religion or statism.
How you treat your spouse.
How you view yourself.
How you cast your vote.
How you conduct yourself at a restaurant, mall, school, library, or anywhere else life carries you. In general, we all hold to one view or the other.
In other words, whether or not you have conscious awareness of your view or not, it impacts how you think, how you see the world, how you behave, and how you interpret the behavior of others.
At any given time, in any given location, there is an exception to all of us, but principle is not established on exception, no different than a culture is observed as to the majority.
Let us begin with the first: That human nature is basically "unstable" or "naturally inclined to do wrong" and that restraint and instruction are, therefore, necessary.
Then, we will look at the second: That human nature is basically "inclined to do good" and that people turn "bad" due to circumstances or poor choices, which is "nurturing."
The first, or "propensity to do wrong" nature is often associated with religious belief, the inherited sin of Adam, brining to humanity a nature that is inclined to do wrong.
The child is not "guilty" of having done anything wrong, but carries the nature of wrong doing. This will also show itself in non-religious language, including that a child is naturally narcissistic, and must be, therefore, taught human empathy.
The other believes that children are born inherently good, and only become narcissistic through negative exposure, or nurturing (including the lack thereof).
As you work through statements, you will begin to strengthen in your opinion of human nature, one way or another; including changing your view point.
Here, I begin with the view of the former, that a child is born prone to do wrong, and must be taught to tell the truth and have empathy for his fellow man. This is the view most people of faith hold and I will show you its genesis, or beginning, and let you decide if this is something that you believe, or are interested in, or if you think it is incorrect.
Since this view point is often associated with religion, specifically "western thought", that is Judeo-Christian, we need to learn why this view developed in mankind.
I am "reading" "Linguistic Archeology: Unearthing the Secrets of Genesis Using SCAN" by Avinoam Sapir. It is not something to read, per se, but to study. It is an amazing work that will make no sense unless you understand Statement Analysis. As a Jew, he writes by his faith. It is not my faith, but I am learning from it each time I "tackle" it. (it's the best word I can find to describe what it is like to learn from this 'manual'). I am enjoying the orthodox Jewish perspective in an entirely new manner, though I am not Jewish.
Let's look at the faith/creation account of human nature to see if this ancient story has relevancy upon life today, especially in analysis. This viewpoint, though no limited to religious view, has its root in ancient Scripture.
As a caution for readers unfamiliar with Statement Analysis, I encourage you to read through some of the "101" articles and look at some of the more famous cases for examples. As I refer to principle, it would become too lengthy to stop and explain each principle.
Also, I frequently use generalizations in my writing, just as it is used in analysis. This is because a generalization is established by majority, and not by exception. Cultures are evidenced also by majority, and not by departures from the standard.
"Men are stronger than women" is a good example. Yet, there will always be, somewhere, a woman who has more physical strength than a man.
The two view points:
I. Mankind is naturally inclined to do wrong.
II. Mankind is naturally inclined to do good.
I. Mankind is naturally inclined to do wrong, and must be taught not to lie, and to have empathy for his fellow man, otherwise, this nature will bring much destruction upon the human race.
Where did this come from?
This is what people of faith (Judaeo Christian) hold to and it is interesting to find out where this belief system came from.
They believe that the origin of mankind is explained in Genesis, and this is truth.
(Truth, by definition, cannot change.)
Truth is unchanging. This is both religious and non religious.
This means that if your dear grannie took 2 eggs and whisked them up, and put them on a frying pan, they are "scrambled eggs." This is truth. If her mother did the same thing, 40 years earlier, they were still scrambled eggs. If her great, great, great great great grammie did it 1,000 years ago, truth is not changed by the passage of time: they were "scrambled eggs."
Should your own grandchildren take the 2 eggs and whisk them onto a pan, they will be "scrambled eggs."
Should you be in a distant culture, past or future, the 2 eggs whisked will be scrambled eggs, as truth is unchanged by the passage of time, nor by the culture around it. Even if the name, "scrambled eggs" is changed, the reality remains the same.
The Judeo-Christian has two basic "presuppositions" that they hold to.
Genesis record tells them about how people (1) came into existence, and how (2) they should live.
Let's examine what they believe are the origins of human nature.
They refer to the Creation account of Adam and Eve.
Is this a silly child's story from thousands of years ago that is now called "truth"?
Or is it true?
"In the beginning...God created...." is how it begins. This process was over the course of six days, and on the 7th day, the text says "God rested."
A. How God made man according to Creation:
God took the earth (ground) and formed man from it, and breathed into the dirt a living soul and the dirt became man. When man dies, he returns to the dirt.
God took man from the ground, and then he took man to "the garden" (the ground) to work it.
For their belief:
Man has a sexual (or gender) affinity with work. His nature came from the earth, and it was to the earth that he was told to work. Part of his "man-ness" or "being" is to work. If he does not work, they teach, he does not fulfill his innate calling and lives empty. Therefore, man must be taught to work as a child, and to find it rewarding, not as a punishment or chore to be avoided.
They say that man was created to work, to build, to do things, to accomplish and when he does, he feels a "sexual or gender satisfaction", that is, a satisfaction deliberately linked to being a male. Later, this became known as "the Protestant work ethic in America", though it was not limited to Protestants but became known as a distinctly American theme, with "Yankee Ingenuity" and "American know how" and "American exceptionalism." It was shared by Roman Catholics, Protestants, Jews and non-religious people in America. (Its origin came in the Protestant Reformation which contrasted Roman Catholicism's "holy orders" with the notion that whatever ma did to provide for his family, if it was lawful, it was "holy", that is "consecrated" to God. The English tinker, for example, did work as holy as a Bishop, in this view.
So, if God took man from the ground, and had him work the ground, what about woman? Where did she come in to this according to the account?
It says that God made them "male and female" and that they were made in "the Image of God", that is, as "Image bearers." This is why they teach that sexual assault on a baby is particularly hideous: it is an assault on the Divine Image within a child. Even if the infant is not physically hurt, the suffering that may come later tells us that this child is not just a random blast of protoplasm but bears the scars of damage.
The text goes back and gives us a "parenthetical view", that is, out of sequence to move back and fill in specific details. Once understood, it is no longer "out of sequence" for us.
In working the ground, the text tells us that God gave various duties to the first man, "Adam" and it does not inform us how much time passed in this way but one duty in particular, is mentioned. We know that he did lots of things, but remember in analysis: no one can tell us everything that was done, so what is reported is always sensitive information, that is, important information.
Question: What was this "work" assigned to Adam?
Remember, he was brought to the garden to "dress and keep it" but without any work given in specific detail. The statement is alive to us, and it is the statement that guides us.
The account continues:
The creation in six days caused Author to pronounce, "it was good." The sun, stars, oceans, mountains, birds, animals, and so on, "and it was good." This is repeated for emphasis. The repetition has called our attention to things being "good" which naturally causes the reader/analyst to then ask, "Well, is there something that is not good?"
Statement Analysis: Repetition indicates sensitivity.
Statement Analysis: Order indicates priority.
After repetition of what is "good", we now ask, "What is not good, therefore?"
We are not made to wait long.
God said, "It is not good for man to be alone."
Thus we have the entrance of "not good" in Creation.
God does not, however, create woman here. This is critical in analysis. Time is going to pass over, and we must learn what the missing information from the text is.
Answer: Naming and classifying animals.
The text tells us next that God brought animals to Adam of which Adam then gave them scientific names. This was likely a most lengthy process even before cross breeding, and we are not told how much time passed but we do find some very interesting information in this temporal lacunae:
Adam saw that there was a horse, with a male organ, and then another horse, with a receptacle. It fit perfectly and the two went together.
He saw this same thing with the dogs, cats, cattle, and all the other animals in this lengthy scientific process.
Let's look at the order as it speaks to priority:
1. Man is created from dirt and brought to dirt to work it.
2. Man is told that it is not good to be alone. No help mate given.
3. Man is then given the scientific task of naming and classifying all the animals. Adam specifically notes that male animals are different than female animals, and compares them to himself but finds no "match" for himself.
In noting the order, man created and told it was not good to be alone, but then he is given the lengthy task of animals, with him concluding that there was no mate for him.
This appears out of order to us. Causing us to conclude in analysis: "Out of sequence statements are only out of sequence for us. Once understood, we can learn why it was placed there."
Why is this inserted in the statement?
By spending a great deal of time (months?) carefully noting the animals' characteristics in order to name and study them, (with the names having specific meanings) Judeo-Christian belief taught that:
God created a deep void within Adam that he saw that all of creation had the "right fit" mate, all, that is, except him. "Not good" was because it was "incomplete."
Deep within the nature of the male was a deliberately created void that the earth and all the labor could not fill.
This provoked a deep loneliness within Adam which confirmed the first "not good" declaration.
Adam did not express discontent prior to his study of animals. He was then given this awareness that he was incomplete.
This sets the stage for the creation of woman.
Would woman be also created from the ground, as was man?
The text tells us that God caused a sleep to come over Adam and took a rib and created Eve.
Adam named her, "woman", the scientific name showing how she came to be, that is, "taken from man."
Man was made from the ground. Woman was not made from the ground, but made from the man, who's nature was connected with the ground. This distinction is a dramatic change of language that must represent a change in reality in order for it to be true.
Let's look at the change.
Woman did not come from the ground, but man did. This gave man a "sexual or gender affinity", that is, his "masculinity" has a deep embedded connection with "the ground", which is, "work."
Woman did not come directly from the ground but from the man, who has "ground" within him. This is an "indirect connection" of her gender (femininity) to the earth, which represents work. To see this even more fully, we then read:
God did not take her to the earth to work, but to Adam, to help him in work.
Is this a psychological difference? Judeo-Christian thought says it is.
She not only received some of the affinity of work from him, but also an element of humanity from him.
Adam got humanity and dirt (work)
Eve got more humanity and indirect or lessened dirt (work)
In other words, she got a "double dose" of "humanity" as coming from Adam.
This is why people of faith (especially long ago) said that man was physically stronger due to the necessity of working the ground, but the female, with the greater gender or 'sexual' affinity with another human (the man) has superior emotions to the man. He may be physically stronger but she is emotionally stronger which is given because to give birth and nurture a child takes a greater affinity or bond with humanity.
Historically, this is why courts often awarded mothers custody over fathers unless she was unfit. A man, no matter how good a parent he was, was not a mother and does not posses the greater capability of emotion and affection for the child, who is in need of this very thing. This is why motherhood was considered "indispensable" to child raising and held in high esteem in such things as, "women and children first" philosophies.
If you were to generalize which parent would most likely abandon a child, most would conclude that a man would before a woman.
They of faith say that this is why men and women think and subsequently speak differently.
Remember the book "Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus"? I think most people did not read it but remember the title and laughed a bit. The premise was that we do, in fact, think, speak and hear differently from one another and growth comes from accepting the difference and celebrating it, rather than struggling for uniformity.
The idea that men and women "hear" things differently and speak things differently comes from the Genesis account.
One was not superior, in total, to the other, but were "one" when as a union, complementing each other. Where a man may lack in emotion, he gets from his wife, and where she lacks in strength, she gets from her husband. The creation account shows that "not good" is in incompletion. Neither was declared superior, in total, to the other, but different.
In the United States, statistics found that children that came from a home where both father and mother were present, were more likely to:
have better grades;
less crime, etc.
less incarceration...and so on.
This is why, historically, western civilization (with its Judea Christian roots) gave special benefits for married couples; they knew it was good for society. This was its basis for doing so.
This was the generalization in history. Remember, principle is not established on exceptions. Good citizens have arisen from single parent homes. We look at the larger picture.
This view of Creation is how religious organizations often conducted themselves and even in choosing roles for man and woman, the arguments are based upon creation, and not upon changing cultures. In ordination and assigning of roles in the New Testament, for example, the authority referred to is not culture, but creation. There are some places where culture is cited, but not in the roles of men and women, nor even in the places where clothing, hair length, and military duty is addressed.
Masculinity became defined as "the sacrifice of strength for right purposes." A man who was "masculine", therefore, put women and children first, and learned to corral his strength, rather than use it to exploit. This was, in this philosophy, something that needed to be taught, otherwise, nature would take over, and women would suffer because of it. This was the basis for childhood lessons such as "a real man never hits a woman, son." The appeal to be a "real man" was distinctly gender specific.
Man, Woman and their Natural Inclination
The account continues with "the fall", that is, the entrance of death.
The two were put to work, now as "one person", together, and were given everything in the garden to eat, but one thing which was prohibited to them. They were permitted all but one.
Guess which "one" they wanted more than anything else?
This reminds me of children choosing a toy, or two dogs choosing a bone.
Question: "Which one is better?"
Answer: "The other one."
Death at the doorstep?
In fact, Adam and Eve were warned that "in the day you eat of it (the only tree forbidden them) you will surely die."
We note that "die" is made sensitive by "surely", which is not necessary.
Since it is not necessary, it is to be deemed "doubly important." Let's remember that in the day they eat of the forbidden tree, they would not "die" but "surely die" to see why this is "doubly important" to analysis.
"Surely" is to "make certain."
What is it about death that one would have to make certain? It seems on the surface that a dead body is not going to debate whether or not he is dead. Why would "dead" be sensitive to the subject?
Evil, as personified by the serpent, who approached Eve.
Now remember, Eve as a "double dose" of humanity, or human emotions. Adam has a percentage, but Eve was created not directly from the ground, but from him, which increased the capacity of emotions, that is, superior emotions.
We say that those who love much risk much hurt. Some say, "better to love and lost than not to love at all" while others disagree.
The serpent approached Eve and sought to bring her into treason against her Creator.
Q. What technique did he use?
A. Deception via words.
This is the introduction of deception to people of faith, in history. From this, we learn such things as "reduced stress through parroting" and the sensitivity of answering a question with a question.
The serpent approached Eve and asked her about the tree, which was really good to look at, which provoked desire for its fruit.
She answered evil and said, "God said not to eat it or touch it."
That is not what God said. She has misquoted her Creator, changing words that, according to the definition of God, has altered perfection.
Evil then said, 'Did He really say this?
His reply was to question reality of what was said, that is, to create doubt upon, not the words, but the Character of He Who spoke the words. This is to bring doubt into the mind of the listener, not healthy scientific skepticism.
'Did He really say this?', and evil went on:
'It isn't so, but when you take it, you'll no longer be subordinate to Him, but will be His equal', which was of his own invention. This was to fabricate reality with a direct lie. This is the form of deception that less than 10% of liars use.
In essence, evil not only questioned what God said, first, but then declared it to be a lie, which is a false accusation.
Eve thought things over...it would be good to be the king, said Mel Brooks, and besides, this fruit looks delicious...
The appeal was both in status in life (15 minutes of fame) , and in the simple base element of human appetite, from the eyes to the stomach.
She ate it.
This was not mere disobedience, but something far deeper than a single act. The judgment that fell came because of the motivation behind the crime: it was more than a moment of weakness, it was to:
A. Call God a liar
B. Betray the King's commandment
C. It was high-handed treason.
This was done because the lie told by the evil entity, "in that day you shall be like gods, knowing good and evil", that is, no longer subordinate but to grab the spotlight and overthrow the rule of God, Who had created them, and given them a marvelous life, with but one prohibition; everything else, including dominion over all of creation, was there's.
It is like having all the food in the world, free of charge, yet still wanting the single candy bar that you were told not to have.
This reminds me of a funny story.
I was out to dinner one night with a large, extended family. The matriarch was talking about how, with the children all grown, she wanted to get rid of the old furniture. The children were not only all grown with families of their own, but were, in their own right, quiet wealthy. Sisters, Susie and Joanie were close in age.
One of the two sisters said, "Mom, what are you going do to with that old night table?"
This caused a chuckle from the family. It was an old worthless item, made of particle board or something as cheap.
"Susie, why in the world would you want that?
Before she had a chance to answer her mother, Joanie's husband said,
"Oh, Susie just wants it so Joanie can't have it!" and everyone roared with laughter.
Human nature, once again, in its marvelous display. This is why teaching to share is necessary: without it, selfishness would reign, according to this philosophy.
Back to Adam and Eve.
a. listened to the lie told her;
b. incorrectly quoted the Creator
c. reasoned within herself that she would like to be as in charge; all knowing, and powerful, and wanted to de-throne God;
d. that the fruit looked really good to eat.
So, upon consideration of all these things, in whatever human nature she had (recall the 'double dose'), she was deceived and she ate it.
The day continued.
She did not die.
Please recall, "In that day you shall surely die" was pronounced to them, with death being seen, in the language, as "sensitive."
She then went to Adam with her arguments about:
1. We can be like God and no longer subject to Him;
2. I ate it and I didn't die (God lied). There's been no punishment. That whole thing about dying just is not true.
3. It is really good to eat, too.
Adam's resistance did not hold up.
He ate of it, and the text says "immediately his eyes were open" and he saw his nakedness and went and tied some fig leaves together for a pair of boxers.
They did not die.
Recall, "in that day you eat thereof, you shall surely die."
To "die" has been made sensitive with "surely" and death did not come.
Or, so it appeared.
God then rebuked them, banished them and told them that they would suffer many things:
1. The earth (ground) was now cursed and fruit would come, but through toil and with lots of weeds. Adam's brow would now produce a great deal of sweat (hard work, anxiety) to produce food (presupposing how easily things used to be).
2. Eve would give birth to children, but the process would be painful.
"Death" now entered their lives and although the description of the natural environment was described like a green house, they would eventually return to the ground from which they came.
Death came into their souls that die, and would eventually wear down their bodies, but this rebellion was now part of their nature, and would come to every offspring from there on in.
The people of faith teach that the "Adamic nature has been passed to all generations", that is, a propensity towards treason (transgression, sin, lying, etc) as their 'spiritual father' was now the serpent (evil) as they chose his words over God's words.
Thus the need to teach children "thou shalt not" and human empathy because it is no longer natural. Although born without having committed any wrong doings, they teach, children are born with a propensity towards selfishness, naturally, and if not taught, will naturally lie, steal, and even kill his fellow man, all to obtain something that has come from the ground. (all things in life come from the ground, from food, to my house, to my guitar).
Thus, human nature is bent towards doing wrong and unless well taught, when tested, will choose self over good.
This is theory number one, and it impacts everything you do, believe, and think and especially, what you feel about people you analyze who may be lying to you.
It is the theory behind the words of "Amazing Grace", where the author, a slave trader, called himself a vulgar name (for that time) when he wrote, "saved a wretch like me."
It is fascinating to look at your children, and consider the difference between your sons and your daughters and may explain why, for example, my sons always said, "Mom! Dad! Watch me hit this ball!" (doing something) while my daughters held a different view and would say, "Mom! Dad! Watch me!", with the emphasis upon the attention to the person, rather than to what was accomplished.
It does not mean that they did not want to be seen accomplishing things; they did. It does not mean the boys did not want to be noticed for themselves, as they did, too. Yet, the priority was different.
This is very far from the philosophy that there is no difference in how men and women think, hear and speak.
This is why it is your belief on human nature will impact everything in life, from how you relate to your spouse, to who you vote for, and how you think, or expect someone to respond in analysis.
It is also why people of faith believe that since male and female are created differently, the role of the parent includes cultivating this "maleness" or "femaleness" in life, judging what child has been given to them, and raising them according to the assignment of organs, differing one from another. We may seek to compliment the "maleness or femaleness", or we can ignore it, or we can choose to go "cross grain" and deliberately raise our children to the opposite should we wish to do. We are free to do so, but this allows us to understand what a large group of people in history have done, for better or worse.
Anonymous Threatening Letters
When we write, we reveal our:
This means that when analyzing an anonymous threatening letter, we seek to learn the identity of the author, which is to say the gender, age, race, education, background and experiences of the writer, but also the priority.
Is this threat for real?
In a perfect world, all threats are taken with the upmost delegation of resources, but this is not the reality of limited budgets, and by reducing the exterior to a more measurable form, we can properly discern how to answer the threat.
Imagine having a very frightening threatening letter and saying, "we cannot know if this is written by a man, or by a woman, since there is no difference between the two!", but saying this due to fear of offending someone?
When we viewed the Baby Ayla case, we began with 300 million suspects. We can do a nationwide search for the missing toddler.
Yet, when the father spoke and said that someone might not like the way he parented Ayla, the number went from the entire population of the United States, all the way down to a handful of people who knew him. (His words and failed polygraph, along with the life insurance policy taken out by him, against her, limited the number down as well). This is why we heard his supporters wanting ads taken out across the country, broadening, rather than narrowing the scope of the search.
This philosophy of human nature believes that lying, for example, is natural to a child, and the child must be taught not to, and that he must resist, that is, build up a will against lying because lying is easier than telling the truth.
The other philosophy, which is up next, teaches that a child will only lie because he has seen an example of lying (negative nurture) and must now be taught that it is wrong.
Therefore, how you see the criminal justice system comes from how you view human nature.
When a man made a false police report and raised money from it, he was seen as deceptive.
Some call for justice saying he made a false report as a thief and returned the money because he got caught.
Others, his attorneys in particular, said, he is not a criminal but did this as a cry for help.
The two philosophies about human nature are displayed here, in this one example. The former says to prosecute so not only is justice realized, but others will be warned.
The other says not to prosecute, there is no need to dissuade others, but concentrate on helping him, instead.
It may seem like a small difference when we speak in philosophical terms, especially about babies, yet when it comes to its outworking, the gulf between the two philosophies is not reconcilable.
You may choose to disregard the story in Genesis as fable, or you may embrace as eternal truth, but in either case, it is fascinating to read of an account that has been repeated for more than 4,000 years of history, and has endured for some. People of faith hold to its Divine origin, making it immovable. For them, "good" is not subjective, nor is "evil" subjective. The subjectivity only comes when truth, itself, is attacked.
For example, to kill your neighbor for the motive of taking what is in his house, is considered "evil" or "wrong" and is addressed in the Ten Commandments. This is, according to those of faith, an absolute that does not change. Therefore, the elements of both greed and of violence must be addressed in early childhood, lest the refusal to share, for example, become a strengthened position, which then leads to theft, and possible violence, should the theft be opposed.
In objective truth, for another example, racism is condemned as "wrong" or "evil." For people of faith, this is "truth" that is not changed due to time or culture. The same believe that it must be taught to children, at a very young age, lest racism take root, and trouble society.
Should a young boy be uncorrected in hitting his sister, might he become involved in Domestic Violence later in life? If so, the parents must consider:
"Love thy neighbor as thyself" in thinking, "by not correcting little Johnny, who is so very cute, am I setting up his future wife for heartbreak and assault? If so, I am not "loving" my neighbor, my future daughter-in-law."
What do you believe?
Do you believe that human nature has this bent towards wrong doing and must be taught accordingly?
Or, do you believe that mankind is basically good, and that the natural bent is towards doing right, and only fails to do so when given improper example?
do you wish to wait until the next article to answer?
What you believe will impact your life, and specifically, how you discern truth from deception.
As I always seek to learn:
Are you open to changing your view point?