The noun “liar” describes someone who tells lies. But it’s also a label, one that has extreme emotion attached to it.

Notice that people most often argue about labels. “He’s a cotton headed ninny muggins” comes to mind. The attached emotion to a label keeps the facts out in the field and agreement without yield.

Calling someone on a lie vs. labeling them a liar is the difference that will make a difference.

Pejorative labels always lead to escalation. If all you want to do is pummel another, keep labeling them. But if you want a resolution, start peeling back your labels.

Pinocchio was a puppet who lied. If people continued to label him a liar, there would be no metamorphosis towards a happy ending. And that’s no lie!

All the best,

John

Wondering if someone has your back? Here’s one signpost that they do: Making time when they don’t have time.

Have you ever dropped everything to listen to another’s concerns even though you were knee-deep in something that was important to you? That’s making time.

Sometimes it’s just not possible to make time. If you’re a veterinarian in the middle of surgery on a wharf rat, it’s understandable.

But if all your activities take on the air of importance – too important to be interrupted – you tacitly communicate the lack of importance that person has to you.

Here’s a telltale sign of a person who can’t make time. You begin to communicate something deeply concerning to you and the other person launches into a personal experience they’ve had that’s much worse than yours.

Making time is a major indicator that someone values you. One caution: Don’t overuse the open door policy of another. If you do, all your problems take on the same hue – unimportant, not worthy of making time for.

If you demand abundant access to another’s ears – friends, Romans and countrymen, plus Mickey Mouse will not invite you to join them for a beer.

All the best,

John

The word “Spin” popped into my mind this morning. It arrived as an acronym: S.P.I.N.

“Spin” for me is presenting “what is” as “what isn’t.”

There is a positive side of spin. The NLP (neuro-linguistic programming) folks call it “reframing.” The reframe most are familiar with is the Helen Keller quote: “I cried because I had no shoes until I met a man who had no feet.”

The technique takes the whole painting and reduces it to a corner that acts a springboard to a change of attitude.

Others use spin differently. It seems to be a pattern that can be reduced to four steps.

S. Sidestep

N. Negate

The first step is the favored strategy of the politician. Don’t answer the question asked.

The next step is to lie. The bigger the lie the more convincing it seems to be. (I believe it appeals to the conspiracy theorist that’s in all of us).

Next, insist emphatically that people believe you because you are on the side of the angels.

The last step is to negate the counter argument by not acknowledging it. This involves continually moving the goal posts which takes us full circle back to step one: Sidestep.

On and on it goes, around and around with endless rebound.

I recently heard the following quote to stop the merry-go-round. It came from TV talk show host Don Lemon: “Don’t play me, play lotto. Your odds are better.”

I used to have the following strategy to decide who to vote for. I asked myself if I would follow that person up a hill. If the answer was “no,” they didn’t get my vote.

I now have added another criterion: The politician who spins the least gets my support to procure their seat.

All the best,

John

Here’s something we all have in common: We believe without evidence.

Whether the topic is social, religious, political, cultural or something else, we believe without backup.

Then we often get on a soapbox and believe “louder.” Here’s one of life’s little known secrets: The loudest one doesn’t win. They just temporarily drown out the facts. But eventually the verbal storm passes and the evidence has a way of sticking around.

Here are two personal examples of me believing without evidence. We all were exposed to the allegations of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford against Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and now we have the Lieutenant Governor of Virginia accused of sexual assault. I personally believe both of the women. But I don’t believe they “should be believed” without evidence.

The hue and cry is that the victims “should be believed.” No, their allegations should be taken seriously and then held up for inspection and serious investigation. Believing, by itself, is relying on your conditioning and prejudice, neither of which has a good track record when compared to the facts.

Sexual assault is a serious charge and should be taken seriously as should the person making the allegations. But to believe without looking at the evidence is about as prejudiced as we can be.

This is not a political or social stand. This is my observation on beliefs and how they are formed and how we, without evidence, conform.

All the best,

John