Thank you for large and small
Thanks for all taken for granted
including any board thats slanted
Sorry for any fault that I’ve done
But with your aid I become one
help me come closer to you
and love for my neighbor to brew
Guide our souls, just in case
We haven't realized your grace
and thank you for today
ask to forgive for my faults
and aid those to become halts
ask to guide me in all
before I stumble and fall
Help my family and friends
in every way that life bends
How can we ever be enough grateful
and avoid our nature of hateful
Help disregard some strife
and be thankful for life
Is effective communication important?
Regarding humans, communication is involved with virtually every interaction from 1 person to another. There's a spectrum of accuracy for which any person can communicate, from actions to detailed words.
Actions or a few simple words can sometimes be effective for fast communication, but are typically very inaccurate and imprecise. This leaves a lot of room for error from the person that is interpreting the communication. For example, if someone sees someone else from a distance on the street that they recognize, they might quickly wave, intending to communicate a greeting, but with inaccuracy of this communication, the other person could misinterpret the wave to insinuate for them to keep walking and move on. Or a friend could ask another if they want to join for a party, and the response might be a very simple “no”. With this low accuracy of detail, the response might have been just because they are tired and don't want to party, but the other friend might misinterpret it to assume they don't want to join because they don't like hanging out with that friend. If they make this misinterpretation, they might never again ask that friend to join anything, even though they might have wanted to join plenty of things in the future. A simple lack of detail (for reasons why) in the response, could change the rest of both of the friends lives.
Inaccurate and fast simple communication is often more effective after the people communicating know each other well enough, and have enough experience from each other, to interpret effectively what the other is intending (such as a couple that has lived together for 10 yrs). Or fast communication can be used after explaining ahead of time in detailed communication, what certain fast actions or words are intended to mean. For example, in a sport, such as ultimate frisbee, teammates could clarify before the game what certain fast words or gestures mean, to maximize speed during the game. They could specify and agree that the word “zone” means run to the zone for scoring a point, or that pointing at the ground is intended to mean come closer.
When it comes to initial, more personal communication between people that will be around each other a lot, detailed communication can be slow, but allow much more accurate understanding, and the ability to gain trust. In my last post; Trusting Trust, I distinguished that 1 of the best tools someone can have in order to trust another on a larger scale, is communication. This allows someone to understand why the other person makes decisions and takes actions, which builds an understanding of their overall values and tendencies.
Before much trust is built, extra detailed communication can often be the most effective method to avoid misinterpretation, as well as reveal reasons for any decisions, beliefs, and actions of the past, present and future. Besides misinterpretations, straight forward detail early on can also avoid lack of awareness of the other. Communicating preferences and opinions just once, can avoid a repeated dispreferred situation 1000 times in the future, and benefit both people. For eg, someone could be straight forward and tell their roommate that they find it hard to sleep when the other walks loudly late at night. Then rather than having the lack of awareness that they step too loudly, they can take lighter steps after a certain time of night. This could not only allow the other to gain 2 hrs of sleep every night for a year, but also they will then not feel anger and spite towards the roommate that would have continued walking loudly, and this could avoid them being kicked out of the house by the landlord.
As this can obviously apply to relationships or friendships, it can also apply to virtually any interaction in society with any meaning. From communication between an employee and their boss, to an online discussion about politics, to a customer and a business owner, excessive detail is usually better than lack of detail, to avoid the vast potential for misunderstandings and to avoid the need for someone to guess.
In all, basic inaccurate communication can be fast and effective in simple scenarios, but easily misinterpreted. Often, more accurate detail near the start can allow understanding, trust, and agreement for faster communication later on. Being straightforward can often save a lot of future discomfort for both people, and excessive detail is usually lower risk than lacking detail. If there is excessive detail in this post, that's to increase chances of accurate interpretation, as I’m Communicating Communication.
What is trust? What affects it? How can you trust your capability to trust?
At its basics, trust can be considered; reliability to perform an expected action. This can apply to people, as well as animals and objects. If you believe you can rely on something or someone to perform an action, you trust it or them.
Objects might be arguably the easiest thing to trust, since they don't have a brain or mind to make unexpected decisions or actions. Trusting an object just depends on your knowledge and experience of the object. You can trust a bridge to hold you up, based on knowledge that an engineer built it with safety standards, or based on your experience of testing it out and using it repeatedly. There could be fluke occurrences where the bridge eventually fails from decay, but that might be after 10K uses, making it trustable 99.999% of the time. Trust basically comes down to your estimate of a high probability that something will perform as expected.
Besides humans, animals also have the ability to trust or distrust objects, other animals, and humans. Since animals have a mind, they have a high variety of reactions through the complexity of their neural network, so their reactions toward something else can be trusting or expecting an action. An animal can trust a tree to not harm it, either because of the animals instinct to have no fear of the sensory input of a tree, or because of their subconscious having so many safe experiences with trees. An animal can distrust another animal, like a deer would distrust a wolf because of instinct, or it can trust another animal based on experience, such as the wolf trusting another wolf in its pack to help catch that deer. An animal can trust a human, such as my dog trusts me to feed it, or of course most animals distrust humans, since we typically kill them throughout history.
Humans have a different variation of trust towards other things, which typically includes the same psychological reasons an animal trusts or distrusts, but also has a more complex layer caused by conscious thought. We still have the instincts to trust certain things (such as a baby trusts its mother), and subconscious influence to trust what we’ve experienced and had positive reinforcement for, but then we also have the ability to comprehend cause and effect, which includes learning knowledge. This comprehension allows us to trust or distrust something the 1st time we experience it, based on knowledge.
For example, I trusted the bungee ropes and platform enough to jump from a platform 200 feet high, for the 1st time, because of knowledge of safety standards in my country, and knowledge that many people have done it before me. Virtually no animal would willingly make that jump. Or you might not trust going over to a cute baby bear, because you have the comprehension of cause and effect that the mother bear might be right nearby and will react to tear you apart.
A person trusting another person is likely the most complex and varying form of trust, since not only do you yourself have such a varying neurological potential for decisions and awareness of knowledge, but you are also aware that the other person has such a wide variety of potential decisions and actions based on psychology. Perhaps the most significant component to trust becoming difficult from person to person, is the awareness of mind of others, and that they can very easily lie and deceive. Animals may be able to deceive in some cases, but humans have a much higher capability to deceive and lie using our conscious thought. Trust may be easy and common as a child growing up, but once the child learns, experiences, and comprehends more about others ability (as well as their own) to deceive and selfishly betray, trust becomes much more difficult to have.
With trustability of another person to perform an expected action becoming far more difficult to assess, trusting still comes down to knowledge and experience of the other person, but usually takes more time and more evidence. Not only do you need enough experience with the person being reliable in a certain way, but also a significant advantage is to comprehend the other person's overall tendencies and typical decisions.
This trust can be on a small scale and not require much depth or variety of actions to be trusted, such as trusting an employee to work hard, or on a large scale, such as choosing a life partner, roommate, or long term friend. When it comes to large scale, estimating and evaluating the others’ typical decisions would often be relevant to their overall values and principles. Understanding why that person chooses to do certain things and how they treat others is a significant advantageous tool we can use as conscious beings. By far 1 of the best and underestimated methods for this is communication. Asking questions, and verifying details to understand why the other person has taken (and does take) actions and made (and makes) decisions. To verify overarching reliability of expectation, verify authenticity. And the simplest way to gain the overarching trust of another, is to be authentic.
Overall, objects can be easy to trust with knowledge, animals can be fairly trustable through knowledge and experience, and humans take more work to be able to trust their complex conscious minds to have consistent outcomes and tendencies. Perhaps once you understand trust to a more accurate degree, and learn effective methods to discern trust, you can trust yourself to be effective at Trusting Trust.
Does someone's will for another to live and be happy make it more likely God will help them?
I considered how God normally allows free will, but if an individual is willing for God’s will, it allows God to influence their thoughts and decisions, in a post from a few yrs ago; Willing Gods Will. But if the proposed function of this method is that God influences only the thoughts and actions of the person praying, then how can God help others as a result of an individual praying for those others?
It seems likely there are 2 potential aspects to this; God using the individual praying to help the other, or God being more likely to help the other based on desire of more people (who follow and request to God).
The 1st aspect would require the individual that is praying, to have some capable affect on the other whom they are praying for. This would include a lot of scenarios where someone is praying for family, a friend, a loved one, or anybody within their life that they can at least communicate or interact with. A simple example could be Bob prays for God to help his friend Jane, then later God influences Bob to mention to Jane a youtube video he watched about mental health, so Jane watches the video, and gains insight on how to improve her mental health. Or if Bob prayed for a random homeless person on the street he saw, 3 months later, he might be influenced by God to donate $50 to a charity helping homeless people, and that $50 might save that person's life by providing just enough warmth from a donated sleeping bag from the charity, that the same homeless person survives through a few nights of -20C. Bob wouldn't even know that he saved that person's life, but if it wasn't for that donation, the homeless person would have died of hypothermia. God can influence someone to save others that they pray for, even if the 1 that prayed doesn't even realize God used them to save that person.
The 2nd aspect would be, perhaps God makes changes in this world and causes influences, based on how much collective will there is from people that ask God to help another. This would require zero interaction from the individual praying, with the person that God is helping. It seems likely God would not interfere with the free will of the person being helped, unless that person also asks God for help, based on my theory from about 6 yrs ago; Control to Free, Allowance Degree.
God could also help someone that doesnt ask for Gods influence on their free will (such as an atheist), if it is making a change in their life not for the purpose of altering their will, but for another purpose, such as helping them have less struggles in life. The purpose of Gods alteration in this world is what's relevant in order to not alter free will, by disregarding his all knowing awareness that anything will influence someone, but still alter circumstances which simply has a side effect of influencing someone's perspective.
Now comes the question; why would God only help someone based on more quantity of collective will, rather than less? This may come down to Gods all knowing perspective, that even though we desire many things, it may not be that relevant. This may sound cold, but God may know that if someone dies, it may not be that significant. That person will either go to Heaven (whatever that may be), or cease to exist (which is what I believe Hell is in a simplified explanation). We may think that continuing to exist as long as possible for the most people possible is best, but we may very well be wrong. For a simple example, someone might live a decent life then become ill and pray to survive, but if their continuing to live is not relevant to others, God could still let them die and go to heaven or cease to exist. On the other hand, if many people will have negative mental health as a result of someone dying that they care about, that could be more significant. Perhaps God is more likely to help someone, if it will improve life for more people already existing.
So it seems, a simpler way for God to help another that an individual is praying for, is to influence the will of the one praying, to help the other. Whereas another method, could be for God to help that person being prayed for using other methods (without altering free will of that person), and could depend on the quantity of peoples Will for Prayer to Work.
How much control can an individual take over their emotions?
What are the mechanics involved in being a motorist of the mind?
There seems to be a wider variety of connections to emotion through consciousness, as I wrote in a post from a few months ago; Conscious emotional connection, even if the connection is often not as strong when there is more comprehension involved. But within that wider scope of potential scenarios for emotion, what is the function of neurons to potentially control the lasting neurochemical reaction?
Considering “emotion” to be basically the state of mind resulting from neurochemical triggers, the method to control would be to access certain memories (including factors and information, as well as experiences), based on relevant connection and the preferable outcome. This is a very similar concept to a post I wrote about a month prior to the last I mentioned, called; Conscious Coercion, where i proposed that conscious control of the mind and motivation is limited to instinctual drives which the individual was born with, but to a wide scope expanded through cognitive comprehension. The flexibility of the mind is expanded through conscious comprehension of factors’ interaction as well as cause and effect, whether it's for decisions in life, motivation, or directing emotion.
Perhaps the 1st step for emotion directional control, is comprehending this concept in itself. Once someone is aware of the capabilities and limits of their mind, they can take that concept and remember to apply it. Without realizing or really considering this concept, in most scenarios someone is likely to take little control over emotions, thereby allowing emotions to control them. Once this concept and idea is in memory, the person can think back to it at a time where more emotional control is preferable and rational. Just as virtually any concept in life, it takes practice through repetition which conditions the subconscious to apply the concept more effectively via cognitive ease of repeated neural pathways.
What is anxiety, and how does consciousness affect anxiety?
In general anxiety is basically a state of stress. The state of stress is an instinctual reaction triggering neurochemical reinforcement to avoid factors. This instinctual drive would generally evolve for species to avoid factors in their environment which are likely to cause harm.
Consciousness can cause more scenarios for anxiety to be triggered, and also more capability to reduce anxiety. As I mentioned in my last post; Conscious emotional connection, conscious thought allows a much wider variety of factors to be focused on, and make more accurate connections of cause and effect than basic subconscious reactions. This wider variety of factors accessed in memory can cause both more potential factors to trigger anxiety, and more accurate understanding to reduce anxiety.
There are plenty of examples of conscious awareness causing more anxiety. Such as awareness of an individual's difficult financial situation and the connecting cause and effect of factors that being in debt may cause them to lose the place they live or not be able to afford groceries next week. Without conscious comprehension, the individual would likely not have anxiety or be stressed if they are in a house with food in the fridge, since the perception of shelter and easy-access food would trigger contentedness. Only conscious thought would allow perception of the future situation which may result from lack of finances.
A larger scale example of a trigger of conscious anxiety could be awareness of climate change, or potential or ongoing war. Or even awareness of a lying, deceiving, narcissistic, sociopath running (and ruining) your country and slowly implementing more laws to gain more control while pretending the laws are for some mainstream shallow fake virtue, and suppressing the rights of citizens (if you can relate directly to that 1, you might live in Canada (or any other country in a similar situation). Without conscious comprehension of these complex scenarios, the mind would not trigger the stress reinforcement trigger to avoid such situations.
Conscious awareness can also trigger anxiety in situations where it is irrational, and there is no actual harm or risk of harm to the individual, or need to avoid the factors. Irrational anxiety is caused by the mistaken perception of harmful factors. These situations are often where conscious comprehension can reduce anxiety once an accurate perception of the factors is understood. But sometimes conscious awareness to some degree, of factors, causes the mistaken perception of factors of risk or harm, when there is a lack of complete accurate comprehension.
A simple example of conscious awareness reducing anxiety could be learning what thunder is and that it causes no harm, after being scared as a child. Or if you go to a pet store with snakes, you might have high anxiety from seeing the snakes, but the anxiety could be reduced once you learn that the snakes are not venomous and they are trained and have learned to be friendly.
On the other hand, an example where a higher degree of consciousness can cause more irrational anxiety could be self consciousness and social anxiety. With a lack of consciousness, such as typical animals, there is no self awareness or awareness of others perceiving them, and therefore no anxiety from that. Whereas humans, and some individuals to higher degrees than others, are self aware and aware of others perception of them. Of course this doesn't always trigger anxiety, but for many it does, and is often irrational, as a mistaken perception of risk of harm.
The subconscious reinforcement of avoidance in these concepts, is likely triggered by instinct to be fearful of, and to avoid others perceiving you do something wrong. This likely developed as an instinct because tribes or groups would likely kick out or abandon someone that does something wrong, so that individual would be left on their own, at much greater risk in most environments. So for a lot of people (including significantly myself while growing up), a higher degree of conscious awareness of oneself and of others perceivance of them, would cause many more scenarios to trigger anxiety, and a higher degree of anxiety. In most situations this anxiety is completely irrational since the individual is doing nothing wrong, so there's no need to avoid others’ perceivance, and most of the time others perceiving them do something incorrect, is not a bad thing, as then improvements can be made. Interestingly, further and more accurate conscious comprehension can then reduce the same anxiety (such as by comprehending this concept itself), and with conditioning, eventually rid the irrational anxiety.
So it seems, since consciousness allows perception of many more factors and concepts, it can cause more anxiety in both rational and irrational situations. In the scenarios where more conscious awareness causes more irrational anxiety, further and more accurate conscious comprehension of cause and effect of involved factors, can then reverse and reduce the anxiety. Without consciousness, there is anxiety, and with consciousness there is anxiety. But the most optimal scenario is accurate and effective conscious comprehension to be aware of actual risks of harm, yet not worry about mistaken perceptions of harm. The overall best method seems to be the use of Conscious Anxiety.
