Although I believe that much of theory and research in psychology has been skewed, even distorted, by preoccupations with Freudianism and other theories, the field appears to me to be improving. Research is becoming more objective, speaking for itself. Current careful procedures will yield more conclusive results. This progression is as it ought to be, and deserves the attention of life students who are concerned about the human condition, and how to improve it. It is both sensible, and dutiful that we seek and adapt to the rules of nature in our earthly sojourn – under God. Tension with persons in many fields of knowledge is not only relating to the matter of the reality of a personal God, but also that there are factors in nature that can touch God to the benefit or loss to mankind. Psychology is one of those factors. Our minds have a capacity for God-like perceptions, and our thinking is called to be disciplined to find the truth relating to what we may call psychological directions and pressures – for good or ill, and for mystery about ourselves.
It is heartening that a Nobel Prize was awarded to two psychologists for their practical research – that there are two responses that persons have in many instances of communication. The first is the immediate response based on sudden, perhaps emotional reaction to a question or other interpersonal stimulus. Later the individual might wonder: Why did I ever say that? One often finds earlier and later responses, at odds with one another – common in marriage communication. On some occasions I have heard a person say this or that, and later, when the issue was revived, the individual did not remember that he or she had said that. Some sincerely deny that they did say that. Accused by the mate of being a liar, it comes time to break in and point out that we need to cut each other slack, so to find the real problem. I have counselled marrieds who say that presumed (unproven) differences have been so great that they have separated. Talking to an offended one, I usually advise waiting a few days or weeks and the other offended one will call. The stage is set for resolution for the good of the family if rightful attitude and words follow. Several did not cut the slack, and divorced, only to catch on to the pattern, resolve it, and remarry. Human folly instructed them.
Nationally we are going through a spate of public events in which persons have acted badly. The debates between political candidates of the several parties are scruffy and accusative. On several occasions the response has been, I never said that. Faced with a recording that they did say that, there may appear an apology, perhaps a joke and smile. They then press on with another issue. The world would be benefited if the students of human behavior, especially related to communications, could educate persons to think clearly before they communicate, and to accept a perception of imperfect human nature so as not to turn some statements into major proclamations. It is good to know that not all wrong statements are lies in the sense that the person is a liar. He or she may be accused of being a liar, but the emotional overtones of that accusation are not always true of the kind of context to which I am referring here. Communication is dependent upon the character of the communicator. So we must consider the context of our words. Get it right. Jesus was accused, the Apostles after him, and many advocates before and since, of sedition, of hatreds, of violations, of this and that which were simply not true. What was said was not meant to become what listeners took it to mean, a turn likely more sinister or beneficial than the initial emotionally driven communication. Jesus spoke carefully, adapting what he added to what his listeners knew, and appears to have maintained a serious and measured approach to all he did. Jesus, a great model of self-control, of perceptions of human margins, and of concern for his meaning to serve those before him, offers a magnificent model of communication needing no amendment. God solved a problem. What Jesus had to say would not have been clear without the Old Testament information and revealed faith. It was there that the people of that limited desert land understood the background for the statements of Jesus. John the Baptist summarized the accent, preparing the way for Jesus. The nature of God, sin, law, redemption, immortality were well understood, even to the belief in a Messiah who would wrap things up. Even so, orthodox Israel continues to look for the Messiah separate from Jesus Christ. The Testaments make clear that the redemptive plan of God is complete for Christian faith. We are rightly concerned that in the beginning of the elections of our lives we be clear about the meaning of Jesus to us. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020