Why We All Need to Develop Our Talents

 Learning and memory are the mechanisms by which we grow in personal competence. The issue for all of us is our willingness to invest in our personal development. To what extent are we willing to let others take care of us? In political terms, there is the option of depending on a socialist or commuist government to do for us what we could be doing for ourselves.

Some socialists or Communists today argue that Jesus Christ would have also been Communist if that political option were available in his time. Yet Jesus gave a most powerful endorsement of capitalism in his famous parable of the talents expressed in the book of Matthew (25:14-30). Modern readers have typically extended this passage to refer to personal abilities. However, in the time of Jesus, the word "talents" actually referred to a lot of money, with a single talent worth about 20 years of a laborer's work. It can be more useful for us to think of the word as meaning resources, property, or personal assets, which of course includes money.

The parable describes an apparently wealthy man about to take a trip who needed to leave his money in the care of his workers. He gave different amounts to each worker with instructions to conserve and make the most of the resource while he was away. While away, the worker who got five talents invested it in commercial trade and made five extra talents, as did the worker receiving two talents, who earned two more talents. The worker who got one talent buried feared losing it, so he buried his talent for safekeeping. Upon his return, the owner praised those who increased the wealth, but to the worker who did not put the money to work, he said: "You wicked and slothful servant! ... you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest." The owner took the slothful worker's one talent and gave it to the worker who had earned more talents. Note: ancient Jews learned and adopted banking and capitalism during their capture by the Babylonian inventors.

As in much of scripture, the reason for moral edicts is not always explained. Maybe Jesus never gave an original explanation, and if so, it likely was to make us think about the parable's implications. Some people object that Jesus is portrayed in the parable as a greedy capitalist. Yet the founder of Methodism, John Wesley, puts things in complete perspective when he urges us to "make all you can, save all you can, and give all you can."

The main obvious generalization of the talents parable is the admonition to make the most of what we have got, whether it be resources, property, money, or personal abilities. Here, I would like to focus on why we need to develop our personal capabilities, which of course are a basic resource that affects our capacity to make, save, and give all you can.

An increasing number of people in today's world, Worldwide, and even now in the U.S., dismiss the need for developing the non-monetary sense of the word "talent." Why work to develop yourself, it you can get somebody else, like the government, to meet your needs and those of others? If fact, you can take a perverse sense of moral superiority in spurning the striving and stress of self-improvement that lesser beings seem compelled to pursue. You can look down on such people as greedy "supremacists" who gain their resources at the expense of the innocent.

In education circles, teachers need to explain in depth why young people need to increase their talents. However, the emphasis is on passing tests that educators think will help youngsters compete in a capitalist society. But you can avoid all that if you form a socialist society, which we are engaged in doing by ensuring welfare without a work requirement, doling out all sorts of government "freebies," and working to produce a guaranteed annual income. No wonder that academia is a home of socialism. The emerging political zeitgeist is to encourage people to depend on the government. That, of course, means they will vote for the politicians who ensure government support.

Without the need to grow your talents, you are not likely to do it. I remember vividly a middle-school classroom visit, where the teacher was chastised a Black student for not doing his homework, whereupon he replied, "I don't need to learn this stuff. Somebody will always take care of me." Is this what we really want to teach our children? It apparently is what a lot of them are learning.

Five Compelling Reasons 

Gain Self-reliance and Independence

If you have developed your talents, they can be used to help you become more self-reliant and less dependent on the good will and resources of others. The ability to take care of yourself is no small thing. Ask any child.

Feel Better about Ourselves

Losers in life have a hard time trying to feel good. That is why they so often seek out drugs and other kinds of pleasures. What they seek most is to feel good about themselves and to have the status of others respecting them. They may be tempted to cheat and steal to gain the resources that can bring such status or throw riotous tantrums to protest their failures. However, if you develop your talents, you not only have acquired capabilities that will help you gain more resources, you have the positive reinforcement of knowing that you are an achiever, one who can take some pride in who have become.

Provide Goods and Services that Can Help Others

Obviously, if you have abilities and resources, you are more valuable to others. You are more able to help others in their earthly struggles. In turn, you position yourself to merit exchange of goods and services from them that will benefit you.

Get Ahead in This World

When you have many talents, you have many ways to offer goods and services that are valued by others. They benefit from what you have to offer, and are willing to pay you in assorted ways. Trade and exchange are the lifeblood of the capitalism that circulates prosperity amongst those who are equipped with appropriate talent and resources. People of high socio-economic standing will open doors for you that you could never open on your own. Even in a Communist country like China, leaders have discovered the benefits of moving peasants out of the rice fields and into a factory where they are trained to make such things as computers and electric cars. Hundreds of millions of Chinese have been lifted out of destitution, and China is poised to dominate the world. China is more fascist than socialist.

Set the Stage for Still More Personal Growth

If you don't develop your "talents," you stifle personal growth and stagnate. As the master in the parable said, "For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away." The master warns that personal sloth will cast one 'into the outer darkness," where there will be 'will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

 

The point is that without growth in personal resources, we can't keep up. The price can be a life of deprivation and despair. On the other hand, the more you develop personal and material resources, the more you can gain in the future. This kind of growth puts you on a higher platform to take the next step. I express this idea in my education efforts, where I always try to impress upon students, "The more you know, the more you CAN know." In blog posts on mental health, I try to make the point that the more you understand about how your brain works and how you think and behave will improve your ability for psychological peace and fulfillment.

The U.S. Army recruiting slogan is meant for us all:

BE ALL YOU CAN BE

Specious Reasoning: It Is Everywhere, Often UndetectedSpecious Reasoning: It Is Everywhere, Often Undetected

 

Specious reasoning is any argument or analysis which has the apparent ring of truth or plausibility but is actually incomplete, deceptive, or even altogether fallacious. Such arguments are attractive because they are seemingly well-reasoned or factual. They  can be deceptively persuasive. When an argumentation style is based on specious reasoning, it is called "Sophistry."

 

Below are some modern examples of sophistry:

 

"Impose gun control to reduce crime." The fact is that guns prevent more crimes than they cause.

 

"Give the mother automatic custody of children in divorce to reduce divorce." In fact, that leads to more divorce, as it reduces incentives to maintain a marriage.

 

"Raise taxes to increase revenues." In fact, creating disincentives to earn not only directly decreases revenues by decreasing the amount of taxable income but also stifles economic growth.

 

"Give children contraceptives to reduce teen pregnancy and disease." In fact, abstinence education does both better

 

"Support so-called 'civil rights' organizations and leaders to oppose racism." In factby constant harping and race-baiting, they are the primary promoters of racism today

 

"Listen to the experts." The experts don't always get things right. Besides, they often disagree.

 

Specious reasoning typically accompanies arguments aimed at advancing personal agendas.

 

The apparent increase of speciousness in today's agenda-driven social discourse provided a big part of my motivation to write my recent book about truthfulness: Realville. How to Get Real in an Unreal World. Specious reasoning typifies all of the seven forms of untruthfulness in that it:

·       Often relies on outright lies.

·       May cheat others out of benefits by giving advantage to others.

·       Encourage the specious person to deny their argumentation weakness and delude themselves and others.

·       Provide a way to deceive others.

·       Pretends to have unwarranted stature and valuable argument.

·       Withholds relevant ideas that would otherwise challenge assertions.

 

 

Different Specious Category Examples

 

Opinions Without Evidence

 

This category is probably the most common form of specious thinking. It does not involve flawed reasoning, because in the absence of factual evidence there is nothing available to structure an argument around. One just happens to have certain opinions. Facts be damned. Such opinions are typically formed from emotions that have been stirred by various forms of specious reasoning.

 

The disdain for evidence often arises as a natural consequence of anti-science or unappreciation of the nature of scientific thinking. Scientific thinking requires one to question even one’s own suppositions and opinions. Most assuredly, opinions need buttressing from objective evidence and verifiable truths. In a post-modern world in which everyone is allowed to have their own truth, such objective thinking is hard to find. Former Dean of Science at Texas A&M, Mack Prescott, once said to me, "Liberal arts courses are required in college, because people think you can't be educated without them. I think that science courses should be required in college for the same reason."

 

Straw man

 

This is a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted. Sometimes it is called a "red herring." This is a change-the-subject strategy aimed at distracting a rhetorical opponent onto another subject. For examples, check this web site.

 

Selective Argument

 

This is an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence. The argument that is presented is advanced in a way that precludes consideration of alternatives, especially ones that are more viable. Typically, the impression is given that there are no viable alternatives. Almost everyone advancing an agenda selectively omits facts and arguments that don't help their case. Always think about relevant things that people don't say.

 

Flawed Premise

 

The logic may be impeccable, but useless if the premise is flawed. This is a common rhetorical trap. Once you accept the premise of an argument, your positions have to be consistent with the premise, and you are thus constrained in what you can reasonably say about it.

 

Syllogisms are frequent sources of flawed premises. One example is the inference that "kindness is praiseworthy" from the premises "every virtue is praiseworthy" and "kindness is a virtue." This example is fine, because of the two premises, both are generally regarded as true. However, syllogisms have more than one premise, and the more there are the greater the chance that one or more of them is not valid.

 

Circular Logic

 

Basically, the problem here is that the argument one intends to defend is pre-supposed to be true. The conclusion is assumed as a premise, rather than justified. The argument is not proved, just re-stated as if it were true. This fallacy is sometimes called “begging the question.”

 

Virtue Signaling

 

Symbolic statements and gestures that convey virtue are frequently used to impart authoritativeness. Who can argue against virtue? Thus, those who signal virtue are attempting to gain stature, both for their own social worthiness and to advance their cause. This also makes the signalers feel good about themselves and self-righteously superior to others. Factual or logical deficiencies in their positions are masked by the signaled virtue. As we see on a continuing basis, this is a common strategy for advancing problematic agendas of politicians, celebrities, and media elites.

 

Gaslighting

 

This form of specious thinking comes from the 1944 film, Gaslight, in which a husband manipulates his wife into thinking she has a mental illness by dimming their gas-fueled lights and telling her she is hallucinating.

 

Gaslighting occurs when a person or group is conditioned by false suggestion to question their values, sanity, perception of reality, or memories. People experiencing gaslighting often feel confused, anxious, and unable to trust themselves. The point is to make the target trust the accuser.

 

In today’s world, the common form of gaslighting is to condition whites into thinking that they are racist. The technique is basically a form of conditioning in which repeated charge from supposedly more moral people generates a belief that it is true and thus creates a guilt that is exploited.

 

Logic Errors

 

Many cases of specious argument are based on common mistakes in logic. I have explained some thinking errors in a post several years ago. Such errors are typically inadvertent, but sometimes they are used deliberately in in discourse to buttress positions.

 

How can you protect yourself from the specious thinking of others? First, check to make certain you are not just responding emotionally, agreeing because this is what you want to hear. Next, check to see what actual evidence is presented and the likelihood that it is reliable. Look for conflicts of interest and hidden agendas. Finally, try to think of alternative perspectives that have not been presented.

 

Resources:

 

Cline, Austin. 2019, Begging the question. https://www.thoughtco.com/begging-the-question-petitio-principii-250337

 

Huizen, Jennifer (2020). Gaslighting. Medical News Today, https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/gaslighting

 

 

How Can a Country Learn from Its Erased Past?

I am reading a book about George Washington (Washington’s End) that is highly relevant today. Near the end of his first term, George decided he did not want to run for re-election. U.S. anarchists, inspired by the French revolution’s “reign of terror,” led Washington to conclude that Americans were unworthy of the government he and the other founders had created for them. Washington just wanted to get away from the rabble rousers and retire to his farm to enjoy his wealth. Then, as now, we were a country bitterly divided. Then, as now, large numbers of citizens wanted to cancel the culture of the American revolution. Jefferson convinced George that nobody else could hold our country together.

Today, Black Lives Matter and Antifa anarchists pose a similar test of citizen worthiness. Will we have the courage to stand up to those who threaten to “burn it all down” if we don’t give them what they want? Are we going to vote to sustain a government that gives us opportunity to care for ourselves or to exchange our freedom for a government that we hope will be our nanny?

Today’s voters are being tested for their worthiness. Their response seems to prefer a new “progressive” government to be our nanny. Our new government is spending money we don’t have to make life easier and better for everyone. The goal even includes providing public services to everyone outside our country if they will just come through our open borders. With that all that largess comes control, expressed in terms of cancel culture and political correctness.

Donald Trump, like Washington, could have just retired and enjoyed his wealth. But, like Washington, he sought an onerous second term in the hope he could save the country from destruction from within. Unlike Washington, Trump was rejected by the public. He faces great opposition from globalists who think it is wrong to put America first, that America is in fact a flawed and evil country.

We are supposed to learn from history, and this present generation has concluded that this history only shows all that was wrong with this country. By erasing this history, we eliminate the chance to appreciate how we have corrected so many of our past flaws. Canceled history prevents future generations from making the same mistakes. Canceled history prevents us from knowing what was good and right about our founding. We are told to begin anew. Will this fresh start prevent us from making new mistakes?

School systems throughout the U.S. have been negligent in teaching U.S. government philosophy and history. Students are being taught utopian Marxist ideas. Students are not being taught about the good things this country has done. I remember asking my grandson what he learned about WWII in his public high school. He said they only spent one class period on that. Most of the U.S. history instruction dealt with U.S. barbarism in the Vietnam war.

Decades ago, schools used to have civics courses that taught the philosophy and values of our founding and the God-given rights specified in the U.S. Constitution. Now, we have enemies of the Constitution. Freedom of speech is most obviously under attack. If you say things that are not politically correct, you may well be shunned and canceled. Book and magazine publishers are selectively rejecting manuscripts that express unpopular ideas. Conformism is the new standard not only for speech but general behavior as well. We are being herded like sheep into behaving the way our betters require. Communist China is becoming our new model for personal behavior.

The New York Times is sponsoring a new U.S. history curriculum called the 1619 project that asserts that the U.S. was founded as a systemically racist country. The evidence presented is that in 1619, a ship appeared near point comfort, a coastal port in the English colony of Virginia that carried more than 20 enslaved Africans, who were sold to the colonists. No aspect of the country that would be formed here has been untouched by the years of slavery that followed. On the 400th anniversary of this fateful moment, the Times says it is finally time to tell our story truthfully. Of course, the Times does not mention that this is not the whole truth of our history. The new curriculum aims to erase the whole truth of our history.

I just had a book published on truthfulness (Realville. How to Get Real in an Unreal World). We surely do live in an unreal world, dominated by lies, cheating, denial, delusion, deception, withholding, and pretense. All these forms of untruthfulness are being expressed by political activists who promote the agenda that all our history was bad and therefore needs to be erased. Worse yet, the cancellation has the hidden agenda of advancing control over us. It seems to be working as the activists intend.