Trust Vs Understanding

Trust vs Understanding

For me, “Trust” is a 4 letter word. That’s because too many people have asked me to “Trust” them, only to find out that the “Trust” was misplaced because they were withholding information needed to properly evaluate a situation and make suitable decisions necessary to mitigate a larger problem.  

Instead, I work based on “Understanding”. The difference is that understanding a situation and everything it entails allows me to make a better decision, and help in resolving the problem we are facing. I don’t have to rely solely on others. 

1600 breaths continuous Breaths .. 100, 1600, 200 Speed .. 3.5, 6.0, 3.5 Bpm .. 86, 110, 165, 132 Miles .. .41, 4, .4, .5 ... 5.5 Time .. 7, 50, 9 Incline .. 2, -1.5, 0 Weight .. Bmi .. Muscle .. 35 Ive been eating more animal protean lately. Like 1 lb per meal. Im finding that my happiness comes more easily. This is probably due to less sugar diet.

Destroy!

Nu.

17 miles

Number 1 Sign of High Intelligence

Smart people are actually wrong a lot.

Scientists have "observed that the smartest people are constantly revising their understanding, reconsidering a problem they thought they'd already solved. They're open to new points of view, new information, new ideas, contradictions, and challenges to their own way of thinking."

The Conversation

Whats more important at a given moment, keeping the conversation going or stifling it?

If the constitution were to be interpreted as the framers intended, then you would know that they were all about keeping the conversation going. Not about stifling it. However, the constitution speaks about ling term social issues not immediate crisis. In those instances more direct action is required.

The framers knew all to well that they could never solve all the problems we have today, but what they could solve was whether or not we talked about them. Examining problems. Debating. Bringing new information to light.

Even scientists fell into the religious trap in that late 1800s early 1900s when they began to claim something was correct because it was common sense. When Einstein released his proof on General Relativity, Special Relativity, and it lead to the discover of Quarks, the doctrine of common sense was thrown out the window. The conversations had to start again about, "Gaud playing with dice!" And, "Fuzzy action at a distance."

Some say that leadership is situational, because there are times that the conversation must go forward, or during crisis decisions must be made and executed. Do not mis interpret one situation for another. Nor, disown the conversation because it doesnt affect you. You may see things from your status as an observer very differently.

An example is the caravan walking through Mexico. Whether you think they should or shouldnt be let into the country, have you considered whether these people should be given food, aid, and shelter? And, should the US apply diplomatic pressure to the countries that they are fleeing from? And / or ask the UN to send in troops to stabilize the region so that people can conduct their daily business in peace?

A leader knows how to drive a conversation, bring people to consensus through mutual goals and motivations, and execute a plan.

But, if the constitution were to be amended do you think you or I would ever have a say in the process? Maybe a obligatory vote to appease us, but framers would do what they wanted and sell it to use with lots of promises, and then go back to the courts to interpret it.