All you need is love

Despite our light-hearted use of the phrase, the concept is ancient and apparently true.  Love is all you need.

A group of Harvard researchers, on a mission to uncover the true roots of life fulfillment, conducted a 75-year study that reached the same conclusion.

The Harvard Grant Study, led by psychiatrist George Vaillant, followed the life trajectories of 268 male students in order to answer life’s universal questions of growth, development, value and purpose. Vaillant considers the most meaningful finding of the study to be that a happy life revolves around loving relationships. 

Vaillant explains that there are two pillars of happiness: "One is love. The other is finding a way of coping with life that does not push love away."

It's worth noting, the study results describe mature love, genuine commitment, and the associated sacrifices of meaningful relationship between friends, family, and beyond.  

There are so many important things in life; success, income, shelter, security, health, food, education, a place in community, justice,  ....  But love leads them all, and if it's missing, they don't make up the difference.

Earlier work, see here.

Inequality by the Numbers

(Two societies compared)
Curious what differences you might see between the two?  

In 'A' vs 'B', we find:

• The cost of living is higher, crime rate is lower.  
• Taxes are higher, life expectancy is longer.  
• Student/teacher ratios are lower, health is better.  
• Utilities cost less, shoes cost more. 
• Health care system works, children are more likely to be in school when they should be.
• Percent of population in prison is one-tenth of ours.
• A house costs more, the poverty rate is 80% lower.
• Potatoes and apples cost less.

Would I want to live there?  No, but just for reasons of preference.  They're good folks, I'm sure, but their winters are cold, and all my roots are here anyway.

The point of it all is to note differences and improvements that might be made.  Problems can have good solutions, perhaps more than are currently on the table in our painfully partisan discussions.  Civilizations grow and change, hopefully for the better.

Life & Conflict

A large part in letting go of fear-based behavior and personal insecurity is accepting that conflict just happens; it's normal and inevitable when there's more than one perspective involved.

NON-SOLUTIONS:  Making everybody happy. Getting through meetings without tension. Negotiating a path with no hard questions and harder answers.  Appeasement and acquiescence without thoughtful consideration of broad issues.  And at the other end of the spectrum of non-solutions we find escalation, the power play, the tantrum, and the riot act.  All are common fear-based traits in business, in relationships, and in life. Each degrades the relational context leaving worsening unresolved problems.

Conflict at work (or anywhere) is not necessarily a bad thing if you move through it productively. Work on mutual understanding (not to be mistaken with mutual agreement) of each other’s positions and recognize that even if you don't agree with someone, it typically does not mean that the relationship is in jeopardy. Accept that in conflict, the way forward is achievable, even enhanced rather than derailed. Instead of shutting it all down by avoidance, accommodation, or pointless compromise, we can profitably disagree, question, and understand.

Here’s the thing - there’s no getting around the fact that life is a full-contact sport, and if you cannot get through conflict in a healthy, productive fashion then you're life is lessened, possibly crippled. Effectively dealing with conflict is perhaps the most valuable relational skill that anyone might possess.

Marriage has the potential to be more volatile than most relationships.  Those who choose to tackle issues together rather than attack each other are likely to discover shared goals, clear values, and a pathway they can walk together.

Interestingly, most relationships including business, community, and teenagers, they all work the same way.

It took a village

It is not easy to make our way through our children's early years, but we just have to hold on until they go to school, and then the worst is over; others will step up to raising our children for us.

Then we unthinkingly relinquish the shaping or our children's mind and character to others, and we presume they'll teach the same things we would if we had the time.

Reality is otherwise, and parents are the primary fortress against a broad range of formative influences (deliberate attacks) from those who don't share our values.

• A consumerist economy will teach that having more is better, that yet just a little more will make them happy.
• A fashion-based segment will teach them that they're not attractive unless they're up to date.
• A sexually bent media segment will teach them that moral choices need not be carefully considered.
• A class-based segment will teach them that some people are superior to others based on status and wealth.
• Middle-school and high-school will teach them a narrow version of relationship skills.  They'll have little awareness of relationship outside their age group and none for cross-generational relationships.

There are so many good things about modern culture; it is a disappointing downturn to note that it serves only a portion of the people somewhat well.  Like many good ideas, it's an 80% solution that unintentionally negates a healthy and balanced perspective.  And it disenfranchises a portion of the population as well.

A broadly expansive education was once our goal.  Science, sociology, philosophy, history, math, music, and the arts; all were part of a 'well-rounded' education.  Today's thinking is career focused, however, and the push is toward marketable skill development at the expense of a healthy worldview.

It takes a village to raise a child. Hillary Clinton wrote the book whose title is attributed to an African proverb. While debate and criticism swirled around the book and author, numerous proverbs from different cultures across Africa have been noted that convey similar sentiments in different ways. In Lunyoro there is a proverb whose literal translation is 'A child does not grow up only in a single home.' In Kihaya there is a saying which translates as 'A child belongs not to one parent or home.' In Kijita there is a proverb teaching that regardless of a child's biological parents its upbringing belongs to the community.

Such thinking serves well in a community where values are shared and goals are common among the members.  You could trust another parent to tell your child the same thing you would.  Such is not the venue in which we raise our children today. Homeschooling is an emerging choice of parents who see problems in the public school agenda. And children no longer run free; it's not a safe world for them like it was fifty years ago. Why is that?  My daughter used to disappear early Saturday mornings with a dozen of her friends.  She'd come home by sunset with stories of adventures and play.  But that was in Japan, not here.

After some decades of two working parents, families are faced with the choice of relegating the raising of their children to others, or scaling back financially, and thoughtfully doing what needs to be done.  Character formation is not accidental; it's done directly and pointedly by the agencies that have access to a child's thinking.

On a side note ....

My daughter and I share a background in sociology; we wondered who would raise healthier children - the families where she taught elementary school in the inner city, or my African friends in a safe but poor country. Some of her kids had lost family members to street violence, they knew the drug trade, street violence, and prostitution was the available employment for some of their mothers.  There was no safe place for children to roam unattended. Gangs were a survival mechanism. 

My African kids, by comparison, saw little or no violence, they were safe wherever they went, they were cross-generationally connected, and everyone watched out for them.  And they were poor. But the values and goals of their community were good, and so were the kids.  

On the whole, my third-world kids are more likely to grow up intellectually and emotionally well formed and comfortably adapted to society.  They are more likely to be nobly motivated, ethically clear, and capable contributors to the community.  Interesting.

Some of our African friends at their elementary school ...

1=1

Prove it.  Find an occasion in life where equality plays out fully and truthfully.

This young fellow in the photo, for example.  He's well educated, multilingual, well mannered, bright, and possessed of an impressive work ethic.  He earns around $180 per month to support his household, serving folks who make perhaps fifty or a hundred times as much.  With less effort.

The difference between him and the folks he serves is opportunity and oppression.  The world has relegated him and his country to a lesser role in industry, business, government, and equality.

If they're not

interchangeable,

they're not equal.

One equals one only if the two elements are interchangeable.  If they're not interchangeable, the two are not actually equal.

Globalization will make some inroads in such things; some helpful, perhaps.  We'll see.  Meanwhile, are there not things we might do individually to make a difference?

Did you know you can sponsor a young person's college education for less than the cost of a nice television?

"It's our pleasure to serve you," each attendant says to their clientele.  They mean it. 
A secure job that pays reliably is rare. The norm for household income is
$80 to $180 per month, but only if you can find work.
This is a resort in the Dominican Republic,
but it could be almost anywhere.

From an ancient historical view, when Jesus suggested we consider the poor, the disenfranchised, he wasn't suggesting we feel sorry for them; he perhaps was pointing to the injustice inherent in a stratified understanding of humanity.  It's just not right.  When he washed the disciple's feet, he wasn't demonstrating how to be gentle and nice.  It was a practical illustration of how the Father values each and every one, an equality as yet not clearly understood.

These pictured here are equal in potential for intellectual capacity, nobility, virtue, ethical clarity, and value in community.  True?  Can we prove it from our own life choices?  Jesus made a big deal about caring for the poor. He sees us all as pretty much the same, and he knows how screwed up we'll be if we just walk by on the other side of the road.

By the way, the young fellow pictured at the top of the page ... he's just short of the world's median income;
half of humanity lives in much more difficult circumstances than he.

Fractured Families - - Future Costs

A practical, non-religious look at children and families...

Parents deeply hope their children will have a good beginning so they can grow up, well equipped for life and unencumbered by malformed thinking and behavior.

A 'good beginning' of stable household, good schools and churches, health, food, safe streets ...  all such things contribute to a realm in which children can develop the character and skills with which to pursue a productive life.

Attempts to define a child's 'good beginning' have proven inadequate, particularly when it comes to family.  A child can have a good life when living with relatives other than his parents.  Or, a child living with his own parents may not get a good beginning.  A useful definition will have to be functional.

Unlike many creatures, children can't grow up unassisted; they need a social niche in which are addressed the two issues of (1) basic biological needs like food and shelter, and (2)  physical, intellectual, and emotional development and capabilities needed to succeed in years to come.  That niche has traditionally been the family, with variations from culture to culture.  Not, however, the modern family trends we see in the western world today.


Increases in family dissolution (divorce, separation, abandonment), absent fathers and single mothers, marriage avoidance, and non-traditional marriage all parallel increases in poverty, crime, and incarceration.  True?

Family originated in the distant past, parents and children plus aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins ... family was the first micro-community.  It provided stability, protection, affection, affirmation, instruction, and a share of what was available for all.  While the 'nuclear family' is considered by many to be the critical element, the extended family often rounds out the 'functional definition' we're looking for when it comes to a child's good beginning. Family fills in where the need is.

So, what happens when the extended family bails out or the nuclear family dissolves?
Marriage and family are, among many things, a small economy and community.  Viewed as such, their dissolution has significant economic consequences for the scattered members.

Numerous studies from groups leaning both left and right suggest that increasing numbers of children born out of wedlock, high divorce rates and looser family structures are contributing to rising poverty rates, especially among minorities and the under-educated. One result: an ever greater impact on society and resources.

The 2010 Census reported that for the first time in our history, married couples make up less than half of all households. The traditional family with a mom, dad, and children at home now constitute less than 20 percent of American households, down from 43 percent in 1950.

At the same time, the number of children born out of wedlock has exploded. In the mid-1960s, only 6 percent of children were born to unmarried parents. Some 40 percent of all children are born to unmarried parents today; in the African American community, the figure is above 70 percent and for Hispanics, the total is 50 percent.

According to the Heritage Institute, 2008 Census data indicates the poverty rate for single parents with children was 36.5 percent compared to 6.4 percent for married couples. They conclude, “Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 80 percent.”

According to a study released last fall by the Brookings Institute, the rise in children born out of wedlock is “assuring the persistence of poverty, wasting human potential, and raising government spending.”  In the study of single-parent households, the Brookings researchers wrote that “the most important conclusion … is that these families play a central role in boosting the nation’s poverty rate and that they and their children contribute disproportionately (to other social costs).”

A U.S. study shows that fractured families, divorce, and unwed childbearing cost taxpayers at the least $112 billion per year, some $70 billion is in direct federal outlays, the balance borne at the state and federal level. The study conclusions are based on evidence that single-parent households have a higher propensity towards poverty, increasing the need for food stamps and Medicaid. The study notes that young people raised by single parents are more likely to get into trouble, more likely to develop drug problems or end up in jail. 

A study in the U.K. reached similar conclusions.

Could the trend be reversed?  Is a healthy extended family really that centrally important?

Note:  My daughter and I share a background in sociology; we wondered who would raise healthier children - the families where she taught elementary school in the inner city, or my African friends in a safe but poor country. Some of her kids had lost family members to street violence, they knew the drug trade, street violence, and prostitution was the available employment for some of their mothers. Most were from single-parent households. There was no safe place for children to roam unattended. Gangs were a survival mechanism. 

My African kids, by comparison, saw little or no violence, they were safe wherever they went, they were cross-generationally connected, and everyone watched out for them.  And they were poor. But the values and goals of their community were good, and so were the kids.  

On the whole, my third-world kids are perhaps more likely to grow up intellectually and emotionally well formed and comfortably adapted to society.  They are more likely to be nobly motivated, ethically clear, and capable contributors to the community.  

From the U.S. National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine (NIH/NLM):