Understanding Anger

In order to better organize the material, I will begin with an overview of the general assumptions of the schools of psychology as they relate to the topic of anger. Beginning with the psychoanalytic approach, we learn that anger is a pre-determined act, or emotion devoid of free-will.

The cognitive approach asks us to believe that anger is a self-defeating negative outlook concerning a situation only to be overcome by re-framing how a person perceives the situation. Behaviorist would tell us that anger is a learned behavior, and it is developed through a person’s experiences and interactions with their environment. Finally, the humanist thought tells us that anger is a product of a person’s thwarted desire to become fully-functioning.

Likewise there are certain ideas about personality in relation to anger. Psychoanalytic ideas espouse anger, via personality, as a by-product of internal conflicts of the unconscious instinctual urges. Cognitive thought tells us that people are predisposed to see the world differently, and that certain people are wired to be “primed” to anger by being exposed to situations involving anger. The behavioral approach says that anger is part of who we are based on experiences that shape us as we progress through life. Humanist will state that anger is a road block on the way to becoming who we want to be. 

These theories also describe healthy behavior and abnormal behavior in light of anger. Again, psychoanalytic thought says that anger can be countered though defense mechanisms, and if those mechanisms fail, the person will exhibit abnormal behavior based on the unresolved conflicts that remain. 

Cognitive thought maintains that the healthy causes of anger stem from an understanding that what causes one to be angry comes from an unstable world, and there is a possibility that things can change. However, the abnormal cognitive idea can be stated as focusing on the external factors, and believing those factors cannot change. 

That means abnormal anger is somewhat fatalistic in nature. 

The behaviorist has the simplest view of healthy and abnormal anger. They posit that properly self-directed anger leads to self-efficacy. 

Conversely, abnormality is present in those who continue to have low self-efficacy. The humanistic view teaches that healthy anger can bring agreement between our real-self and our actualized-self, but abnormal instances of anger will lead to distortions of the way things really are.

My personal theory of anger is fairly simple, but not simplistic. 

I believe that anger is based on the desire for something to be different. Jesus gives us such a great picture of this,

And Jesus went into the temple (whole temple enclosure) and drove out all who bought and sold in the sacred place, and He turned over the four-footed tables of the money changers and the chairs of those who sold doves. He said to them, The Scripture says, My house shall be called a house of prayer; but you have made it a den of robbers (Matthew 21:12-13, AMP).

This is the picture of the role that anger should play in our lives. Jesus saw something that was, at best unethical, and made the decision to correct the situation. The amazing thing is that Jesus, in the preceding passage, was angry. This model forms the basis for my theory about anger. The desire for change can often swell up within us so strongly that it will manifest within our behavior as anger. It is a part of who we are as created beings. 

I believe that we are creatures created in the imago Dei, or the image of God. The Bible tells us that God has the capacity for anger (Numbers 32:10-15), and therefore, as His created beings that attribute is within us as well. However, the Bible also describes a healthy anger only in terms of being righteously exacted. Through the writers of the New Testament we can glean an even clearer picture of anger. In the epistle written by James we are told to be “slow to take offense and to get angry” (James 1:19b, AMP). In Matthew’s Gospel we learn that anger is something we should reconcile (Matthew 5:21-26). 

The Apostle Paul, in the letter to the Ephesians, tells us we should deal with anger immediately when it arises. The Bible also teaches that anger can be manifested in destructive ways (abnormal ways) when people refuse to see the reality of a situation (Luke 4:14-29). Although anger is built in, so to speak, to who we are, it is our job to engage it in a Christ-like manner. 

I believe that anger is not pre-determined. Although it is a part of who we are, we are slaves to the emotional response of anger. I believe that we, as created in the image of God, have the ability to control and focus our anger. Anger is not necessarily negative by nature. 

Anger, when focused righteously, can be a force for positive behavior. Anger as learned behavior is a troubling concept. Agreed, people can become conditioned to not like something, but their response to whatever it is, in my opinion, is not necessarily learned. However, there could be room to believe that conditioning can explain some situational behavior. Anger as a tool to help us become who we want to be is a suspect idea as posited by humanistic theories. 

Rightly focused, some anger can be beneficial to our lives. For example, standing in the gap and helping someone in a situation where they are not capable of defending themselves can teach us the value of human life and dignity. However, always looking for an opportunity to become righteously angry does seem to produce an abnormal pattern of behavior. 

There are probably more similarities in my theory and those of the schools of psychology mentioned in the paper, but I have noticed a few areas of agreement. Some agreement is tentative, but there none the less. Psychoanalytic determinism seems to hint at anger being a part of who we are as human beings. Psychoanalytic theory also suggests that not being able to resolve internal conflicts can lead to abnormal behavior. 

My personal theory, based on Biblical understanding (Numbers 20:10-12), states that when anger remains unresolved, the resulting behavior can be abnormal. Which means that a person’s behavior can drift outside the boundaries they know should exist. As with the cognitive theory, my theory is that anger can often cloud our reality, and can result in destructive behavior. One only has to read the Biblical account of Cain and his brother Abel. Cain’s anger clouded his perception of reality to the point of murdering his own brother. 

So close, but yet so far was Carl Rogers. Reaching self-actualization is an admirable goal, but not very Biblical. So how does my theory agree with this humanistic belief? My basic view of man is this: if we are not in a right relationship with God we will not be in a right relationship with our inner-self, and if this is the case we will not be in a right relation to those around us. Therefore, controlling anger brings us closer to (peace with) God, self, and others.

Of all of the areas of conflict between my theory and those of the different schools of psychology, most are not easily resolvable. They would entail volumes of writing to even flesh out the differences. However, one area continues to stand out as a glaring difference. 

The humanistic idea that anger leads to a distorted view of reality, like most falsehoods found in the realm of psychology, has an ounce of truth mixed with a pound of theoretical double-speak. I believe the Bible teaches a quite different view of the effects of anger. Jesus, in Mark’s Gospel account of driving the moneychangers from the temple, shows great clarity of mind and purpose although angry.

And they came to Jerusalem. And He went into the temple [area, the porches and courts] and began to drive out those who sold and bought in the temple area, and He overturned the [four-footed] tables of the money changers and the seats of those who dealt in doves; And He would not permit anyone to carry any household equipment through the temple enclosure [thus making the temple area a short-cut traffic lane]. And He taught and said to them, Is it not written, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations? But you have turned it into a den of robbers (Mark 11:15-17, AMP).

The schools of psychological thought also have ideas that are unique to each theory. Psychoanalytical thought says no free-will, but the others rely heavily on free-will. The cognitive approach focuses intently on the internal-vs.-external causes, but the others focus by-and-large on internal causes with some variance. Behavioral theory bases the entire idea on anger being a learned behavior. Finally, the humanistic approach states that one cannot be a fully functioning person and angry at the same time. Who is right?

How can we articulate a conclusion from all of the disparity? I will offer a humble evaluation summary. Both secular psychology and Christian based theories agree that anger needs to be dealt with. 

The psychological view sees anger as predominantly negative, but the Christian perspective sees anger as both positive and negative based on the motivation. Purely psychological views believe that anger needs to not only be dealt with, but it needs to be eliminated through various means. The Christian view tells that anger is a part of who we are as created beings. The Christian view also suggests that properly channeled, righteous anger can be helpful. It also tells us that if anger is not properly monitored it can lead to un-Christian behavior. 

Psychoanalytic, cognitive, behavioral, and humanistic theories, as pertaining to anger, all have some valid points as well as some not so valid points. They seem to address anger a stumbling block on the road of life. I believe it is much more than that. With the exception of being angry at sin, anger is one of the most dangerous emotions we can exhibit. 

God can exhibit anger because He is perfect, and the creator of all, so there is no chance of unrighteous anger coming forth from Him. On the other hand, we are very imperfect created beings with a propensity to sin as a result of being fallen people. 

This means we have to always be on guard to keep ourselves from being a pawn of unrighteous anger, and experiencing the detrimental effects anger can have in our lives.

Reference

Scripture quotations taken from the Amplified^® Bible, Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964,1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation Used by permission.

T

To Be, or Not To Be

To Be, or Not To Be 

To be a Christian means to be counter-cultural, to stand out from the crowd, to not conform to the world around us. To be outside the “norm” is often frowned upon. As a matter of fact, most people will do almost anything to fit in. Remember Milgram’s experiment? Sometimes it is easy to see when someone is trying to conform, and sometimes it is not.

There is a felt need to conform. It manifests itself in many forms, and is usually a result of a person’s desire to get along with others. People want to be accepted, and conformity is usually the quickest route. The Bible teaches that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve. 

It does not matter in the context of this paper whether we believe they were real people or representations in Hebrew poetry. Although I do believe in the more literal version, for this discussion they are an image that helps us to understand the origins of why people conform. If we are all inter-related as the Bible teaches, then the desire to go along in order to be accepted is an action based in our need to belong.

Belonging also fulfills our need for consistency of behavior by saying, in essence, we are following the same rules as everyone else, and we are not a threat to the group. When we conform we help others by being more predictable in our behavior. Usually the overall outcome of conformity is an increase in our self-esteem because by conforming we have been accepted, and therefore we feel better about ourselves. In church this can become a mind numbing experience. I have seen members who take conformity to a dangerous level. 

When members of the group (those who have conformed) obtain their identity from the group it becomes easy to overlook their own shortcomings. They find their self-worth from within the group, and with so much good going on with the group they will often relax their own standards and obtain a faulty self-image by live vicariously though others. The social impact theory tells us that people obtaining a faulty self-image, and making decisions they would not normally make is increased greatly with church size. The more people the more sheep-like they become. How important the group is to them only makes decision making worse, and a sense of belonging in a religious community is a strong motivator of behavior. However, there is a more insidious element to conforming to the extreme.

Group-think is probably the most dangerous trend we face as Christians, the church, and a nation. When conformity leads to a style of thinking where the maintenance of the group’s cohesion becomes the highest priority, dangerous thinking will usually result. Conformity that leads to unanimity as an overriding principle and motivation that acts as a filter through which everything the group does is passed thru can lead to disastrous outcomes. 

This is why we often see people from the church, and the political world, acting as if they are invincible, rationalizing what they do, believe they are correct in the face of facts to contrary, get upset when others point out their errors, and pressure others to conform to their beliefs. Over-conformists tend to be dogmatic (past convictions to insanity); they justify irrational behaviors, see themselves as morally superior to others, and will stereotype or vilify outsiders. 

Most of the time over conformity stems from pluralistic ignorance. That is when people adopt the norms of others even when they run in opposition to their own beliefs. For the sake of remaining within the allotted space, remember that to be a Christian does not mean we have to check our brains at the door. We are to love God with our heart, soul, and mind.

It is not death that a man should fear, he should fear never beginning to live.

Marcus Aurelius

Need to Belong

There is a basic/fundamental need to belong to social groups. People have discovered that to do more in life than merely scrape by, they need to work together with others in order to succeed in living. There are hurdles on the way to this preferred social setting. People need to have common ground upon which to agree before they can come together for the greater good of all involved. They need agreement on beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviors to reduce the chance of the group becoming chaotic and erratic. The commonality needed also lends to the good of all. This may be more important than the avoidance of disunity. 

People will learn to bend to rules of others as they move toward unity. This bending becomes contagious because as more people bend, others who see this conformity will likely feel obligated to bend and follow the crowd. People will often conform even when they are in a group of complete strangers. Going along with the flow is the, perceived, easiest way to avoid negatively standing out in the crowd. That being said, the strongest urge to conform and fulfill the need to belong comes when a person loves and cares about the others in the group. Within families and groups of close friends this is called normative social influence. People with self-esteem issues are more easily influenced in this way. 

Non-conformity within the group is often considered deviant behavior even if the behavior is well within the social norms of society at large. Behaving outside of the group’s norms may well get a person ejected from a group. Churches provide too many examples to even begin to discuss in this forum, but suffice it to say that one of the major failures of the local church is the way they treat people who are different, and do not yet have the proper understanding of why they need to conform. 

Our country is an individualist culture, but there is an irony in the fact that normative social influence is so pervasive. 

What is the social impact of the normative social influence? Fads and fashion are the first two areas that come to mind. The most powerful areas are racial and political. Look at the rhetoric in the news, within congress, and within groups of differing ethnicities where the differences in norms are most acute. 

Changing a person’s behavior on this level is easy or tough based on the context and personal preferences of the individual and the group. This is the plight of the local church today. Churches need to create environments with guard-rails wide enough to include as many as possible without compromising the standards. It is my goal in life to help churches do this very thing. It should be the goal of every church to help people with their need to belong.

TJ

Wade White RS Song 01 E2

Common Defense Mechanisms

Defense mechanisms are unconscious psychological strategies that help us to cope with reality whilst also preserving our self esteem. Normal, healthy people use them regularly. However, some unhealthy defenses include:

1. Acting out: This is directly expressing an unconscious impulse without realizing what is driving the behavior.

2. Fantasy: This is retreating to a fantasy world to escape, or resolve, conflicts we are battling with.

3. Idealization: This is unconsciously choosing to see another person as being more ideal or perfect than they really are.

4. Passive aggression: This is expressing our anger indirectly, for example, through being late or doing something that “inadvertently” destroys another’s plans.

5. Projection: This is attributing our own unacknowledged, and unacceptable, thoughts and emotions onto someone else.

6. Somatization: This is translating negative thoughts and feelings into physical symptoms. For example, suffering from migraines when you’re dealing with a difficult relationship.

7. Denial: This is refusing to accept reality because it is too painful or threatening.

8. Regression: This is temporarily reverting to an earlier stage of development to avoid handling problems and concerns in a more appropriate and adult way.

9. Distortion: This is totally reshaping your picture of reality so it’s now consistent with your internal needs.

10. Splitting: This is a primitive defense where the negative and positive aspects are split off – and there’s no integration of these parts at all. For example, the person may view others as being either completely good or completely evil, rather than a mixture of good and bad traits.

T

Truths about Rejection

1. Rejection is simply the reaction or opinion of another person.

2. Rejection is powerless without your co-operation.

3. Rejection shows you true colors of others, exposes all enemies, and closes every wrong door.

4. Rejection reveals those incapable of distinguishing your true worth.

5. Rejection is a guide, leading you away from deadened relationships while directing you towards healthy, positive relationships.

6. Rejection reveals who is intimidated by your potential.

7. Rejection reveals who or what doesn’t belong in your future.

8. Rejection is motivation to go in a new direction.

t

Link Between High Childhood IQ and Bipolar Disorder Discovered

Individuals who scored in the top 10% of manic features had a mean childhood IQ which was almost 10 points higher than those scoring in the lowest 10% of manic features. The association between IQ and manic features appeared to be strongest for verbal IQ (VIQ).

The research will appear in British Journal of Psychiatry.

The researchers examined data from ALSPAC to look for an association between measures of childhood IQ at age eight and lifetime manic features assessed at 22-23 years. 

Image is for illustrative purposes only.

T

Some Important Things to Remember …

1. It’s OK to be wrong.

2. It’s Ok to try again … and again … and again.

3. Don’t be afraid to speak up.

4. Don’t be afraid to enforce your boundaries.

5. Some people really aren’t worth the effort; in the end it’s better to let them go.

6. Not every door will open, but it’s still worth it to knock.

T

Jackson Insurance

Link to Agency Page

t

Humanistic Psychology

Humanism, putting “I” or “me” at the center of the universe, has been an insidious problem for humanity from the very beginning of man’s existence. We could begin with Adam and Eve, who, when the serpent spoke to Eve, revealed more about the human condition than we could ever hope to learn from all that the history of psychology might want to teach us. In the garden the following scene plays out,

 ¹Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"

 ²The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat;

 ³but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'"

 ⁴ The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!

 ⁵"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

 ⁶When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.  (Emphasis mine)

 ⁷Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

Genesis 3:1-7 (NASB)

As these events play out we get the first glimpse of person-centered behavior ever recorded, and what eventually proves to be the fall of mankind. The thought processes exhibited by Eve (and Adam) continue to be evidenced throughout history.

            In the ancient Greek world early humanistic beliefs were propagated by Anaxagoras who proposed the idea of “Free Thinking.” This idea allowed Epicurus to develop his human-centered approaches to achieving a state of “eudaimon,” or what we would know as happiness achieved through self-actualization. However, on the horizon, we see the mechanistic view marching forward.

Beginning with the 14^th and 15^th centuries the mechanistic view of humanity was taking shape. Also, the idea of self-determinism was on the rise. Thomas Hobbes recognized how society was wandering down the path of humanistic thought. One feature of Hobbes’s theory of why people behaved the way they did was that he considered human nature as being absolutely egoistic. He describes people as being, by nature, selfish and not in fact considering others. “In his psychological analysis he finds naught but self-regarding feelings impelling man’s activity.”  (Hobbes, 1898) Although Hobbes himself was a proponent of a Christian worldview, his reference in this writing is to reveal the prevailing zeitgeist of his day. His words show the pervasiveness of humanistic thought processes during the late 16^th and early 17^th centuries. The progression of humanistic thought continues to grow, and it finds a foothold in the center of Germany the home of the beginnings of modern psychology.

One of the more ardent proponents of humanistic psychology was Charlotte Buhler. She conveys that her clients often say they don't know what they want, and they do not know what they believe in. Buhler subsequently states, “…this is a call for humanistic psychology, a psychology that guides people in defining what they think is healthy and meaningful living. It is through this clarification of goals that people become fulfilled.”  (Buhler, 1972)  (Emphasis mine) Again we see the same type of thinking that caused Adam and Eve so much pain, and what Thomas Hobbes saw as he observed the behavior of his day. Humanistic thinking focuses on “I” and “me.” It focuses on the self-_________    (fill in the blank). The people mentioned thus far reveal to us the anthropocentric nature of humanism. All was not humanistic thought from the 15^th through 19^th centuries. Blaise Pascal, Francis Bacon, Sir Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James C. Maxwell, and J. Robert Oppenheimer represented the best that science had to offer. All based there science in the fact that there is a creator who is also a lawgiver, and none of them believed that man, starting from himself could understand anything. None of them had a humanistic outlook.

Non-Christian philosophers from the time of Plato to Sartre had some common ground. They were rationalists. They assumed man, starting with himself, can gather enough information to form logical conclusions (understanding) of who they were and why they behaved as they did. They believed all knowledge comes from inside them leaving out the possibility of God. They also took reasoned though very seriously. Their logical conclusion was they could achieve true knowledge through reason alone. These older views, albeit faulty, show an optimistic outlook on life and knowledge. But a shift occurred that moved men from an optimistic view to a view that all is lost. The humanistic expectation that autonomous man would be able to bring together a unified view of human nature stalled. The pessimistic view of man was ushered in by men like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Georg Hegel, and Soren Kierkegaard. The main idea for these men could be summed in this way, autonomous freedom, meaning freedom from any kind of restraint, and truth being sought in the synthesis of ideas instead of absolutes or antithesis. Some going as far to say meaning is found through a “leap of faith.” Without absolutes the door was left wide open for humanistic thought to inflict more damage. The age of psychology was beginning and the men of the 20^th century will take humanistic ideas to the edge of reasoned thought. Thus, Humanistic Psychology will be born. Abraham Maslow, born in 1908, believed that although psychoanalysis as posited by Freud was somewhat useful, but Maslow said it was on useful on the sick. He placed his emphasis on studying the non-sick. Maslow studied those who had achieved higher levels of satisfaction with life. He wanted to understand what motivated the thought processes of successful and well adjusted people. Thus marks the beginning of Humanistic Psychology which teaches that every person has a strong desire to realize his or her full potential, to reach a level of Self-actualization. Maslow used a visual aid to represent his idea of a Hierarchy of Needs which shows how people progress from the most basic needs to the pinnacle of self-actualization. The system emanates as follows,

“By satisfying basic needs such as food, water, sex, exercise, and recreation, and feeling safe, we can progress to higher order, psychological needs such as love, needs for belonging, and self-esteem. When these are met, it provides the confidence and focus to reach the pinnacle of psychological integration, or self-actualization.”  (Jacobs, 2002)

Basically Maslow states that once we satisfy our basic needs we, in humanistic fashion, continue to put ourselves first. With that understanding, human behavior is seen as based on a perception of reality that causes the individual to act accordingly and satisfy their needs in light of those perceptions. Maslow took this idea a step further by stating that the way the needs are filled are just as important as the needs themselves. He said that filling the needs and the way they are filled combine to make up the human experience. Maslow’s idea of meaning level of self-actualization is achieved when a person establishes meaningful connections to an external reality.  Establishing an external connection is the goal of Carl Roger’s client-centered therapy.

            The client-centered or person-centered psychology is probably the biggest perpetuator of humanistic psychology, and the dangerous ideas that flow from it that have come about in our lifetime. Carl Rogers was influenced by the views of John Dewey, Sigmund Freud, and Soren Kierkegaard. His brand of psychology is humanistic, but it is also existentialistic as well. Where Rogers ideas begin to break down are in the area of human nature. He believes that people are intrinsically good. He also believes they are rational, and trustworthy. From these basic beliefs he constructs his entire premise which states that people have an inherit tendency toward actualization, growth, health, independence, and autonomy. His theory is not without many shortcomings, “The person-centered counseling perspective in its “classic” form possesses nearly insurmountable obstacles for rehabilitation practitioners.”  (See, 1986) Rogers offers a statement in his book, A Way of Being, which is true to humanistic thinking, but causes problems for those trying to engage his theory, “individuals have within themselves vast resources for self-understanding and for altering their self-concepts, basic attitudes, and self-directed behavior.”  (Rogers, 1980) The theories of Maslow and Rogers seem, on the surface, to be reasonable, but are they really?

            The Christian view of humanity contradicts the Rogerian belief in man’s natural goodness. The Bible teaches that,

^“23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,”

                                                                                    Romans 3:23 (NASB)
Man is in not intrinsically good, but his nature was altered all the way back in the very beginning of human existence as stated in the verses of Genesis that began this writing. Except for God’s provision through His Son, Jesus Christ, and His finished work on the cross, man cannot overcome his fallen nature. The ultimate problem for mankind is not our childhood, our past, or the thwarting of our actualizing potential. Our problem is sin, and we cannot save ourselves. Taking the correspondent’s view of truth the Christian faith has the only real answers to our problems. That being the case, and it can be made with very strong evidence, then the humanistic view that we can find answers to our problems within ourselves and without God, is a bankrupt idea. So is there any hope for utilizing any of the ideas contained within humanistic psychology?

            Humanistic thought should have very little use within the Christian counseling setting. For counselors to be true to Biblical teaching, they must jettison humanistic practices such as no boundaries, permissive therapy atmosphere, and nondirective therapy. The logical outcome of using these practices is a counseling practice that will have little resemblance to anything Biblical.

Works Cited

Buhler, C. (1972). Introduction to Humanistic Psychology. Bellmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Hobbes, T. (1898). The Ethics of Thomas Hobbes as Contained in Selections from His Works. Boston, MA, U.S.A.: Ginn & Company.

Jacobs, D. (2002). Psychology (Brain, Behavior, and Popular Culture) (4th Edition ed.). Dubuque, Iowa, U.S.A.: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.

Rogers, C. (1980). A Way of Being. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

See, J. (1986). Applied Rehabilitation Counseling. (M. W. Riggar, Ed.) New York, NY, U.S.A.: Springer.

T

Beautiful Jesus_080915KJ

10 Lessons from Einstein

1. Follow your curiosity

2. Perseverance is priceless

3. Focus on the present

4. The imagination is powerful

5. Make mistakes

6. Live in the moment

7. Create value

8. Don’t expect different results unless you do things differently

9. Knowledge comes from experience

10. Learn the rules then play better

T

Never Once - Matt Redman

We Need Brain: Songify the G.O.P. Debate! FUNNY STUFF!!!!

New Voices: 10 Ways To Spot A Liberal Male

Toxic behaviors connected to lack of humility and disrespect

Tolerate drifters.

Allow power-members to drone on and on.


Share your feelings without regard for others.


Make decisions in private meetings, before team meetings begin.


Fight for everything you want.


Don’t adapt, as a matter of principle.


Start over when late-comers arrive.


Interrupt each other.


Use sarcasm to put people in their place.


Refuse to admit you’re wrong and pretend you know more than you know.



t
https://leadershipfreak.wordpress.com/2015/07/21/the-complete-list-of-toxic-behaviors-that-poison-teams/

All Because of Jesus

We are Different, but We are not so Different

Personality can be delineated from many different, and almost mind numbing views. It can be said to be the logical outcome of genetics, the environment, learned responses, parental influence, conscious and unconscious factors in the mind, and even as something that develops over time.

Personality Theory Overview

The total personality is the combination of many factors, all of which are developmentally connected, changing, but, for the most part, stable throughout the lifespan.

Genetically Speaking

We all have a universal, made in the image of God, genetic connection, but we also have a specific heredity that we receive from our parents. As much as we like to think our individuality is like that of a snowflake, it is truly amazing how similar we really are in view of our dispositions. Genetics actually tie us together more than distinguish us from one another. So close together are we that with all the theories available, the “experts” can only come up with five genetic variables at best. Some even have them narrowed to three. Although we can be grouped by our emotional, social, and active tendencies, these do not in and of themselves completely define our personality. They may describe our dispositions, but they do not describe who we can be. We are different, but we are not so different.

 

Learning

Learning is where the formation of a personality really begins. Operant Conditioning, Classical Conditioning, Observational Learning, or whatever name we use, the social forces acting upon us and our response to them shape our personality into a firm foundation. Not only what we learn, but how we learn it is vital to the process. Often how we learn leads to success or failure in life. If we learn in an environment that is positive or response is more than likely going to be positive. In a negative environment, the inverse would be true in many cases. There are exceptions to just about every rule we could come up with, but overall this is born out more often than not. Good reinforcement for good behavior lends itself to the repetition of the desired behavior. Negative reinforcement in response to bad behavior will usually curb the undesirable behavior. These factors are pivotal in the next area of influence on the development of the personality.

 

Parental Factors

How we relate to our parents, and how our parents relate to us is paramount in solidifying the genetic and learning factors that contribute to our overall personality. Parenting, when don well, will produce desirable results, but parenting, when done poorly, can have devastating effects. Children shown love, affection, guidance, and encouragement will generally retain those ideas as traits and pass them to the next generation. Homes without these essentials are, at best, just some place to live, but are devoid of life. Lyndon Johnson’s idea of taking care of those in our society who, would not take care of themselves, is probably one of the best and worst images we can use to see the value in parenting. Nothing external can replace responsible parenting. Government can give housing, food, and money (Maslow would be proud) but the parenting style will not change from external enticement. Where we come from, how and what we learn, and how we are raised by our parents provide the foundation, walls, and roof that we use to house our personality. The weather outside that house is what we will consider the final element of personality.

 

Environmental Factors

If the prior three areas compose our personality structure, the environmental factors are what we use to keep it up to date. Personality can change. With each new experience we have our personality grows. Sometimes it grows positively like overcoming a fear or phobia, and in not so positive ways like large scale social events that cause our lives to be disrupted.

With each new experience comes new insight. That insight accumulates over a lifetime and makes us who we are.

 

The Bible on Conditioned Behavior

The Bible teaches condition as part of our personality development. Our ultimate reward is Heaven. The book of Proverbs gives us the positive and negative consequences to our behavior.

 

External is Good, Internal is Bad

 

In the master plan there are really on two types of people. There are those who have put their faith in Jesus Christ, and those who have not. Everyone we meet will fit into one of those categories, and their personality will usually be a reflection of the category they inhabit.

Where we look for strength, guidance, and wisdom will determine the path to dysfunction or transcendence. Conventional wisdom tells us to look within ourselves for these things. God tells us to focus on Him, and to look to Him for answers. This is where I part company with many theories.

Conclusion

I will go back to the beginning where I stated; we are created in the image of God and now add that sin is the cause of the divisions we refer to as types, traits, and dysfunctions. Transcendence for us will only be found when we are at peace with God. That means we can only be at peace with ourselves when we are at peace with God. Nothing will be perfect this side of heaven, but gaining peace with God through Jesus Christ is the beginning of the healing therapy. Then we move to substantial healing in our relationship within ourselves, and then with those around us.

How different are we? We are all over the map. Like those lines that represent the roads all over the map we are part of the same page.

t